The message that builders prefer to build large homes on large lots has been believed and delivered by a number of professional planners throughout New Jersey," writes Patrick Bunn, president of the Builders League of South Jersey and director of construction at J.S. Hovnanian & Sons, in the Philadelphia Inquirer. "It is not true, however. ...
"[Builders] are eager to work with municipalities and other governing entities to create smart, dynamic neighborhoods that can sustain themselves over time. Unfortunately, that opportunity rarely happens in New Jersey. In the end, builders build only what zoning and regulations allow them to."
According to Bunn, it's a lot riskier and more difficult to try "unconventional" smart-growth projects in the typical suburb, and THAT'S why so many builders stick to the classic subdivision. If you recall the lengthy process trying to get PUD district projects approved in Framingham, you might concede he has a point. If it's easier to build sprawl and more profitable to build McMansions, that's what businesses are going to build. But it's not necessarily true that all Americans want a McMansion; plenty of people still desire affordable housing in walkable communities.
August 11, 2005
Why Is One Community Left Out Of South Florida’s Redevelopment Boom?
"Redevelopment is sweeping South Florida's older cities, so why is Dania Beach, Broward County's first city, mostly left out?" asks the Miami Herald.
The answer, says the article, has to do with "a combination of antiquated building rules, an anti-growth reputation and a lack of organized efforts to help developers rebuild downtown."
Hmmm. A lack of organized efforts to redevelop downtown. Sound familiar?
While other Broward County coastal cities boom, downtown Dania's streets are lined with aging storefronts that see few pedestrians. Empty buildings stay empty.
The city seems to have the right ingredients: It's minutes from the beach, has easy access to two interstates and Florida's Turnpike, and is minutes from downtown Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale.
So why not Dania Beach?
The answer, says the article, has to do with "a combination of antiquated building rules, an anti-growth reputation and a lack of organized efforts to help developers rebuild downtown."
Hmmm. A lack of organized efforts to redevelop downtown. Sound familiar?
August 7, 2005
‘Pedestrian Promenade Breathes New Life Into Downtown Medford (Ore.)”
So says the Mail Tribune, reporting on plans for "Evergreen Way," a "wide street next to the rail line that bisects downtown — once a 'gravelly scar through Medford' — [that] moves into its new incarnation as a pedestrian- and bike-friendly promenade for shoppers and downtown residents.
"The stretch of Evergreen between Sixth and Main streets, now 99 percent complete, will serve the shops and apartments of the old Acme Hardware building, both of which likely will create entrances on the new street."
There's been a $30 million investment in Medford's downtown renewal so far, including creating "the new street, head-in parking, 12-foot wide sidewalks, streetlights, trees and benches, creating a pedestrian walkway that will not be a through street, but will provide an environment for events like the Grower’s Market."
The Medford Urban Renwal Agency is offering business owners matching grants to spruce up their facades and otherwise orient their businesses toward the new greenway. For example, one restaurant owner has plans move one of its doors to front the new greenway, push out a back patio to the new street, set up sidewalk cafe tables and offer quick lunch service for pedestrians.
In Framingham, Mass., meanwhile, from what I hear, if a business even wants to have outdoor seating, it's an enormous hassle to try to get approval. Unfortunately, my guess is, if this was brought on the frambors e-mail discussion list, where many town activists discuss issues of the day, I'd get the same answer I seem to always read when someone dares mention that town rules may not be encouraging good development: Such-and-such committee did a lot of hard work coming up with bylaw [name]!! We were very thorough!! If you think there's a problem, change the rule!!
AAAAAAAAAARGH.
1) Thanks for all your efforts, truly I appreciate the many hours volunteers devote to town government. But I'm getting tired of hearing how hard everyone is working as the response whenever someone complains about something. That's what you sign up for when you choose to run for office (which I did for three years as a Framingham Town Meeting member and member of the TM Standing Committee on Planning & Zoning), it's a given. But you know something? It's possible to work very hard, and be very thorough, and still end up with a crappy result. "We worked very hard" is not an appropriate response to "something may be wrong here."
2) We have representative government so our representatives will represent us. That means they listen to our feedback, see the results of their actions, and adjust things accordingly, instead of telling us to do their work for them. That's how representative democracy is supposed to work. If every citizen is supposed to have to do the legislating, then Framingham shouldn't have representative Town Meeting, but should have open town meeting. But of course Framingham is too large to have open Town Meeting. (In my opinion, it's too large to have representatve Town Meeting as well, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)
Sigh.
"The stretch of Evergreen between Sixth and Main streets, now 99 percent complete, will serve the shops and apartments of the old Acme Hardware building, both of which likely will create entrances on the new street."
There's been a $30 million investment in Medford's downtown renewal so far, including creating "the new street, head-in parking, 12-foot wide sidewalks, streetlights, trees and benches, creating a pedestrian walkway that will not be a through street, but will provide an environment for events like the Grower’s Market."
The Medford Urban Renwal Agency is offering business owners matching grants to spruce up their facades and otherwise orient their businesses toward the new greenway. For example, one restaurant owner has plans move one of its doors to front the new greenway, push out a back patio to the new street, set up sidewalk cafe tables and offer quick lunch service for pedestrians.
In Framingham, Mass., meanwhile, from what I hear, if a business even wants to have outdoor seating, it's an enormous hassle to try to get approval. Unfortunately, my guess is, if this was brought on the frambors e-mail discussion list, where many town activists discuss issues of the day, I'd get the same answer I seem to always read when someone dares mention that town rules may not be encouraging good development: Such-and-such committee did a lot of hard work coming up with bylaw [name]!! We were very thorough!! If you think there's a problem, change the rule!!
AAAAAAAAAARGH.
1) Thanks for all your efforts, truly I appreciate the many hours volunteers devote to town government. But I'm getting tired of hearing how hard everyone is working as the response whenever someone complains about something. That's what you sign up for when you choose to run for office (which I did for three years as a Framingham Town Meeting member and member of the TM Standing Committee on Planning & Zoning), it's a given. But you know something? It's possible to work very hard, and be very thorough, and still end up with a crappy result. "We worked very hard" is not an appropriate response to "something may be wrong here."
2) We have representative government so our representatives will represent us. That means they listen to our feedback, see the results of their actions, and adjust things accordingly, instead of telling us to do their work for them. That's how representative democracy is supposed to work. If every citizen is supposed to have to do the legislating, then Framingham shouldn't have representative Town Meeting, but should have open town meeting. But of course Framingham is too large to have open Town Meeting. (In my opinion, it's too large to have representatve Town Meeting as well, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)
Sigh.
Tilting Too Far To The Automobile
When places are designed solely for the automobile, they become unpleasant and unappealing at best for pedestrians - but usually, they also become unsafe. That makes it even less likely people will walk, making it less likely drivers even think to watch out for pedestrians, making walking even more unsafe ... and the spiral continues, until you rarely see people out on foot at all.
My walking buddy at work and I have numerous examples of narrowly avoiding being hit by drivers who are simply not looking for pedestrians, even in clearly marked, brightly painted crosswalks. The average driver in Framingham waiting to make a right turn, will only look to his/her left to check for oncoming cars - even if it's an intersection with a crosswalk. Many do not also look right to see if a pedestrian has appeared -- one with the right of way -- because it doesn't occur to them that they have to share the roads with walkers.
The Globe has an editorial today about someone waiting for an oil change, seeing a Dunkin Donuts kiosk within walking distance, but being turned away from the "drive-up window" because they weren't in a vehicle. How sad is that? A business in a neighborhood where you can't even buy something unless you drive there.
As the Globe notes: "Today, walking is regarded as an exercise that one does in a designated space -- the gym treadmill, the park, the sidewalk -- rather than as a natural movement that is far more healthy than gripping a steering wheel."
Luckily, we can still drive to a few places still designed for walking - Concord's town center, much of downtown Boston (Newbury Street/Back Bay, Beacon Hill, North End), Waltham's Moody Street and so on. But unless you live in a city center, chances are you aren't walking to get anywhere, because your neighborhood, including neighborhood stores if there are any - aren't designed for it. Who but the most dedicated of walkers wants to cross a sea of asphalt with traffic zooming every which way?
I grew up in a suburb of New York, and spent my childhood walking to friends' houses, and having my mom send me out for milk, bread, lunch meat and other groceries. Yet it was a pefectly drivable neighborhood with plenty of free, easily accessible parking. Cars and pedestrians could share space in relative harmony. Even the "strip malls" were designed differently, giving equal weight to walker-friendly entrances as well as available parking. It IS possible. If planners bother thinking at all about pedestrians anymore.
My walking buddy at work and I have numerous examples of narrowly avoiding being hit by drivers who are simply not looking for pedestrians, even in clearly marked, brightly painted crosswalks. The average driver in Framingham waiting to make a right turn, will only look to his/her left to check for oncoming cars - even if it's an intersection with a crosswalk. Many do not also look right to see if a pedestrian has appeared -- one with the right of way -- because it doesn't occur to them that they have to share the roads with walkers.
The Globe has an editorial today about someone waiting for an oil change, seeing a Dunkin Donuts kiosk within walking distance, but being turned away from the "drive-up window" because they weren't in a vehicle. How sad is that? A business in a neighborhood where you can't even buy something unless you drive there.
As the Globe notes: "Today, walking is regarded as an exercise that one does in a designated space -- the gym treadmill, the park, the sidewalk -- rather than as a natural movement that is far more healthy than gripping a steering wheel."
Luckily, we can still drive to a few places still designed for walking - Concord's town center, much of downtown Boston (Newbury Street/Back Bay, Beacon Hill, North End), Waltham's Moody Street and so on. But unless you live in a city center, chances are you aren't walking to get anywhere, because your neighborhood, including neighborhood stores if there are any - aren't designed for it. Who but the most dedicated of walkers wants to cross a sea of asphalt with traffic zooming every which way?
I grew up in a suburb of New York, and spent my childhood walking to friends' houses, and having my mom send me out for milk, bread, lunch meat and other groceries. Yet it was a pefectly drivable neighborhood with plenty of free, easily accessible parking. Cars and pedestrians could share space in relative harmony. Even the "strip malls" were designed differently, giving equal weight to walker-friendly entrances as well as available parking. It IS possible. If planners bother thinking at all about pedestrians anymore.
August 4, 2005
Malls, Alfresco
GlobeWest has apparently discovered the latest trend in shopping centers: trying to mimic traditional town centers, noting "the roof is coming off the shopping mall.
The story notes that such malls are planned for Wayland, with a "mix of stores, offices, homes, a public building and public space" as well as Westborough and Berlin, but amazingly neglects to mention that the major Natick Mall expansion is quite contrary to this trend, instead sticking to the formula popular from half a century ago.
In other mall news, the paper reports that the soon-to-be-closing Filene's anchor store at the mall could be subdivided, and possibly leased to "a hotel, a movie theater or a restaurant." A mall official said that Natick has "a shortage" of a good upscale restaurants such as McCormick and Schmick's or P.F. Chang's.
In fact, there's Maxwell's 148 in downtown Natick, which a great local upscale restaurant. I think the official meant on Rte. 9 in Natick. Or perhaps meant a shortage of high-end chain restaurants.
Actually, what Rte. 9 in Natick has a shortage of is somewhere you can enjoy a sense of place and civilized experience both before and after dining, not simply at the restaurant itself. You know, such as strolling in an appealing streetscape instead of the endless-strip-mall-on-steroids look of the Golden Triangle.
In the mall's latest incarnation, trees line the walkways. The buildings are one or two stories high, and are designed to look quaint. Shoppers sit down for meals, their tables shaded by umbrellas. Some can even stroll across the grass to their nearby homes.
The story notes that such malls are planned for Wayland, with a "mix of stores, offices, homes, a public building and public space" as well as Westborough and Berlin, but amazingly neglects to mention that the major Natick Mall expansion is quite contrary to this trend, instead sticking to the formula popular from half a century ago.
In other mall news, the paper reports that the soon-to-be-closing Filene's anchor store at the mall could be subdivided, and possibly leased to "a hotel, a movie theater or a restaurant." A mall official said that Natick has "a shortage" of a good upscale restaurants such as McCormick and Schmick's or P.F. Chang's.
In fact, there's Maxwell's 148 in downtown Natick, which a great local upscale restaurant. I think the official meant on Rte. 9 in Natick. Or perhaps meant a shortage of high-end chain restaurants.
Actually, what Rte. 9 in Natick has a shortage of is somewhere you can enjoy a sense of place and civilized experience both before and after dining, not simply at the restaurant itself. You know, such as strolling in an appealing streetscape instead of the endless-strip-mall-on-steroids look of the Golden Triangle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)