"Many people have the misconception that smart growth means no growth and is anti-suburban, North Myrtle Beach planner Greg Lipscomb told a group of engineers and architects last week. But smart growth is really about well-planned growth that creates walkable neighborhoods, offers housing choices for everyone and preserves open space, he said," begins an article in the Sun News (S.C.), Planners Crave Smart Growth.
"Negative government attitudes toward density and regulations such as parking and firetruck sizes restrict builders trying to build traditional neighborhood developments, said Sam Burns, president of Dock Street Communities, which builds only traditional neighborhoods on the Grand Strand. 'Codes and regulations make it far easier to build shelter than to build neighborhoods,' he said."
Creating walkable neighborhoods (where it's actually appealing to walk to a destination besides your neighbor's house) often requires special permits, while sprawl is not only allowed by right but encouraged in local zoning codes. So, homebuyers looking for pedestrian-friendly environments are severely underserved by new construction outside of core urban ares.
Likewise, commercial development ends up as a pedestrian-hostile series of stand-alone strip malls set back from the road and surrounded by a sea of asphalt, where sidewalks may exist but no one wants to use them; and trying to cross the road feels uncomfortably like a death-defying dash (think Rte. 9 anywhere in Framingham).
Interestingly, Myrtle Beach planners "are starting to study how Kings Highway could be redeveloped to be more pedestrian friendly, with wider sidewalks, street trees and on-street parking, [planning director Jack] Walker said." I haven't seen Kings Highway in Myrtle Beach, but imagine it looks something like the commercial areas of Rte. 30 or Rte. 9 in Framingham. Ah, if only local planners had the same vision for Rte. 30 in Framingham, how much better the area around Target and Kohl's could have been.
I still can't stop imagining what it could have looked like to have the Target mall up at the sidewalk, with great landscaping between pedestrians and moving traffic, allowing the outdoor seating at Panera to create a boulevard feel. Similarly moving Shoppers World up on the other side would have given us the outdoor seating at John Harvard's, and created a place where hundreds of nearby office workers could have wanted to stroll around during lunchtime. Sigh. What an opportunity lost.
March 19, 2006
March 18, 2006
Gas/Road Hogs on the Wane: Monster SUVs ‘Decidedly Less Cool’
"Luxury sport utilities are becoming decidedly less cool than just three years ago, when they were the hottest things on wheels and dealers had long waiting lists for the most popular models," the New York Times reports today in an article titled Trading the Hummer for Honda.
"On top of the sales drop that has hurt all sport utilities, fewer than half the people who bought luxury S.U.V.'s are going back for another one. Incentives for the vehicles are at record levels and for the first time, luxury automakers are paying out more for rebates and lease deals to entice consumers to buy luxury S.U.V.'s than to buy cars.
"The higher cost of gasoline plays a big role, as it has for the last year of high oil prices. But wealthy buyers, who used to shrug off the expense, are shifting gears, as excessive energy consumption is becoming socially embarrassing."
It's about time. There is simply nothing positive for the community at large when private citizens are roaring through our streets in tank-sized humvees. Obviously, gas guzzling is an issue -- besides the unneeded excess pollution that all of us have to breathe, there's that capitalist supply-and-demand problem, especially for a commodity like oil, where increased demand means supplies have to come from increasing less efficient, more expensive sources.
But massively oversized vehicles cause other issues in the community:
* They are dangerous for the rest of us -- likely to cause more harm to others in an accident, and block the view of other drivers on the road and pulling out of parking lots
*They take up more room for parking and within travel lanes than conventional autos
* They cause more wear and tear on roads.
The message they send, intentional or not, is: I don't give a damn whether I'm hogging an unfair share of road and energy resources, whether I'm more likely to kill or maim you in an accident or if you can't see the road in front of you or oncoming cars when you're pulling out of a parking space. I don't care about the common, public space around me; I'm doing all I can to wall myself off from it. It's all about me me me and flaunting the fact that I have enough money to ride around in a civilian tank.
I'm far from alone in my distaste for such vehicles. Says the Times: "For Janna Jensen, it was the dirty looks and nasty gestures from other drivers that finally persuaded her to give up the family's $55,000 Hummer H2."
"On top of the sales drop that has hurt all sport utilities, fewer than half the people who bought luxury S.U.V.'s are going back for another one. Incentives for the vehicles are at record levels and for the first time, luxury automakers are paying out more for rebates and lease deals to entice consumers to buy luxury S.U.V.'s than to buy cars.
"The higher cost of gasoline plays a big role, as it has for the last year of high oil prices. But wealthy buyers, who used to shrug off the expense, are shifting gears, as excessive energy consumption is becoming socially embarrassing."
It's about time. There is simply nothing positive for the community at large when private citizens are roaring through our streets in tank-sized humvees. Obviously, gas guzzling is an issue -- besides the unneeded excess pollution that all of us have to breathe, there's that capitalist supply-and-demand problem, especially for a commodity like oil, where increased demand means supplies have to come from increasing less efficient, more expensive sources.
But massively oversized vehicles cause other issues in the community:
* They are dangerous for the rest of us -- likely to cause more harm to others in an accident, and block the view of other drivers on the road and pulling out of parking lots
*They take up more room for parking and within travel lanes than conventional autos
* They cause more wear and tear on roads.
The message they send, intentional or not, is: I don't give a damn whether I'm hogging an unfair share of road and energy resources, whether I'm more likely to kill or maim you in an accident or if you can't see the road in front of you or oncoming cars when you're pulling out of a parking space. I don't care about the common, public space around me; I'm doing all I can to wall myself off from it. It's all about me me me and flaunting the fact that I have enough money to ride around in a civilian tank.
I'm far from alone in my distaste for such vehicles. Says the Times: "For Janna Jensen, it was the dirty looks and nasty gestures from other drivers that finally persuaded her to give up the family's $55,000 Hummer H2."
March 16, 2006
‘The Banning of People’
"One fallacy that growing communities need to get over, said [walkable neighborhoods advocate Dan] Burden, is that wider roads mean fewer traffic problems. In some cases, the opposite is true. For instance, wider roads encourage motorists to drive faster," the Desert Sun reports from a smart growth forum in Palm Desert. "Narrower roads, by contrast, encourage slower driving, while also encouraging pedestrians to visit neighborhoods more. . . .
"Burden showed a slide of one busy valley intersection, which he did not name, that illustrates one of the biggest problems facing neighborhoods: ' the banning of people.' "
People aren't really prohibited, of course. What he means is design that is so off-putting to pedestrians that no one actually wants to walk, even if sidewalks are present. How many people do you see walking along the Speen Street interchange in Natick, despite the presence of sidewalks? Zero thought was put into making a streetscape that feels safe, let alone pleasant, for walkers, which is why people at the Marriott hotel on one side of the street have to get into their cars to get to the stores and restaurants on the other side, even though those destinations are clearly "within walking distance." My office is less than a mile from there, but my colleagues from out of town who stay there when visiting the home office need to drive or take the hotel shuttle because the environment is so hostile for walking.
Why does traffic seem to be growing everywhere? "Even without current and future population growth factored in, vehicle trips for a typical household have increased 19.3 percent over the past decade, said John Wohlmuth, executive director of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments," according to the Desert Sun.
" 'It’s not just the growth. We’re using our cars nearly 20 percent more,' said Wohlmuth."
"Burden showed a slide of one busy valley intersection, which he did not name, that illustrates one of the biggest problems facing neighborhoods: ' the banning of people.' "
People aren't really prohibited, of course. What he means is design that is so off-putting to pedestrians that no one actually wants to walk, even if sidewalks are present. How many people do you see walking along the Speen Street interchange in Natick, despite the presence of sidewalks? Zero thought was put into making a streetscape that feels safe, let alone pleasant, for walkers, which is why people at the Marriott hotel on one side of the street have to get into their cars to get to the stores and restaurants on the other side, even though those destinations are clearly "within walking distance." My office is less than a mile from there, but my colleagues from out of town who stay there when visiting the home office need to drive or take the hotel shuttle because the environment is so hostile for walking.
Why does traffic seem to be growing everywhere? "Even without current and future population growth factored in, vehicle trips for a typical household have increased 19.3 percent over the past decade, said John Wohlmuth, executive director of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments," according to the Desert Sun.
" 'It’s not just the growth. We’re using our cars nearly 20 percent more,' said Wohlmuth."
March 14, 2006
First Impressions: Planning Board Forum
The two Planning Board incumbents who haven't yet responded to my e-mail questions spoke at a local candidates forum last night. It's hard to draw conclusions from half an hour, but my first impressions are that all three running for two spots on the board appear knowledgeable and qualified - a happy state of affairs for such important positions in town.
So then we come to the issues. I was puzzled by the tone of questions from some of the panel, particularly former selectman and state rep John Stefanini, implying that Framingham is a difficult and sometimes hostile place to do business for developers. Sorry, but looking around this community compared to surrounding towns, I find it hard to conclude that Framingham is under-developed and under-invested. Perhaps it is if you look at Worcester (his comparison); but he might also want to look at other communities in MetroWest. Is it perhaps easier to build a major project in Sudbury? Wayland? Southborough? I doubt it.
So then we come to the issues. I was puzzled by the tone of questions from some of the panel, particularly former selectman and state rep John Stefanini, implying that Framingham is a difficult and sometimes hostile place to do business for developers. Sorry, but looking around this community compared to surrounding towns, I find it hard to conclude that Framingham is under-developed and under-invested. Perhaps it is if you look at Worcester (his comparison); but he might also want to look at other communities in MetroWest. Is it perhaps easier to build a major project in Sudbury? Wayland? Southborough? I doubt it.
March 13, 2006
Framingham Planning Board Candidate Stephen Meltzer’s Vision
Challenger Stephen Meltzer is the first Planning Board candidate to respond to my series of questions on his vision for the community:
Because I perceive the solutions to many of the issues raised by your questions as interdependent, I will outline my vision as a whole, in hopes that the questions are addressed. I apologize that I cannot intelligently comment on the grant money question.
The Town of Framingham needs to look forward with realistic expectations. Growth is inevitable. Framingham needs to be cautiously at the cutting edge of zoning and planning. Downtown, Nobscot, Saxonville and other village areas need to be injected with significant planning initiatives.
The solutions should probably be modeled on mixed-use zoning concepts. An example of a well-executed but poorly conceived plan of growth can be seen in places like Downtown Worcester. During the 1970's and 1980's, commercial growth was rampant and exciting in Worcester. As the corner turned and the Downtown area was becoming built out with commercial development, it became clear that something was missing. With dusk each evening and the closing-of-shop of the commercial enterprises came the desertion of Downtown - a virtual ghost-town. Since the mid-1990's, Worcester has been working, with some success, to bring residences back to Downtown.
Another example is our own Golden Triangle. There is much to proud of in the growth of this retail Mecca but it has, like Worcester, become one-dimensional. The only way to maintain the area and its ongoing viability is to carefully control the aesthetics, as the Planning Board has strived to do, and carefully monitor traffic flow and safety issues.
Because I perceive the solutions to many of the issues raised by your questions as interdependent, I will outline my vision as a whole, in hopes that the questions are addressed. I apologize that I cannot intelligently comment on the grant money question.
The Town of Framingham needs to look forward with realistic expectations. Growth is inevitable. Framingham needs to be cautiously at the cutting edge of zoning and planning. Downtown, Nobscot, Saxonville and other village areas need to be injected with significant planning initiatives.
The solutions should probably be modeled on mixed-use zoning concepts. An example of a well-executed but poorly conceived plan of growth can be seen in places like Downtown Worcester. During the 1970's and 1980's, commercial growth was rampant and exciting in Worcester. As the corner turned and the Downtown area was becoming built out with commercial development, it became clear that something was missing. With dusk each evening and the closing-of-shop of the commercial enterprises came the desertion of Downtown - a virtual ghost-town. Since the mid-1990's, Worcester has been working, with some success, to bring residences back to Downtown.
Another example is our own Golden Triangle. There is much to proud of in the growth of this retail Mecca but it has, like Worcester, become one-dimensional. The only way to maintain the area and its ongoing viability is to carefully control the aesthetics, as the Planning Board has strived to do, and carefully monitor traffic flow and safety issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)