The city of Ventura, Calif. has declared a one-year moratorium on development along Ventura Boulevard, where Wal-Mart was eyeing a former K-mart site for a new store.
"The moratorium, imposed to give city planners time to draft guidelines for development along the six-lane strip, effectively shelves an application from the retail giant to build one of its prototypical big-box stores," according to the Los Angeles Times. "City Manager Rick Cole said the action wasn't necessarily aimed at discouraging Wal-Mart, but at meeting a mandate in the city's new General Plan to transform Victoria Avenue from a traffic-choked corridor to a pedestrian-friendly thoroughfare peppered with shops and houses."
It's a lesson I sorely wish planners here would take to heart as more retailers come to the Rte. 9/Rte. 30 Framingham-Natick "Golden Triangle": Just because the current environment is an ugly, pedestrian-hostile mess doesn't mean it has to stay that way together.
Time after time, local officials have lost the opportunity to begin remaking the area, by not requiring new development to conform to better standards than existing strip malls. You don't have to "grandfather" all future development! The old Lechmere mall could have been required to front the sidewalk with most parking in the rear, allowing Panera's outdoor seating to add to the pedestrian streetscape. Lowe's could have been required to build at the sidewalk; but after some talk at a Planning Board meeting, officials went back to the same old streetscape-killing, aesthetically awful strip mall.
January 29, 2006
“French Women Don’t Get Fat”
There are some interesting tidbits in the book French Women Don't Get Fat, which I recently took out of the library. I'm not sure I buy into everything author Mireille Guiliano put forth; but along with her tips for slow, mindful eating of high-quality foods (which makes a great deal of sense), she also points out some differences between typical American and European lifestyles. For example, the Swiss eat an average of 20 lbs of chocolate per person per year, yet they're not a particularly obese nation. Why?
"Half of their run-of-the-mill getting around is done on foot or bicycle," Guiliano notes. "Americans on average travel on their own steam less than 10 percent of the time. . . . Walking is an essential part of the French way of life, and the average French woman walks three times as much as the average American."
In fact, a fair number of American tourists are surprised when they visit Paris, sample the incredible food (including pastries) and come home the same weight or lighter. That happened to me during my lone visit to the French capital; and I'm sure that one reason was the hours of daily walking while sightseeing.
More time on foot isn't the only explanation for a French obesity rate of 11% vs. America's 24.5%. Many believe that French traditions she outlines -- notably a lack of convenience food, snacking and eating "on the run" -- play a large role. It's all part of an overall lifestyle package. And when you live in a community where it's not only unappealing but impossible to walk anywhere, and you spend almost all your time either sitting at a desk or in a car, it's not surprising that the pounds pile on. Especially when we're eating while watching TV, reading or getting ready to zip out the door, so our minds are less likely to register satiety with what we're putting in our mouths. Empty sugar-laden calories don't help.
"Obesity is linked to 112,000 deaths a year in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention," New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof writes in today's opinion pages (Times Select subscription required). "[R]emember that fat kills far more Americans than terrorists. . . . Imagine if Al Qaeda had resolved to attack us not with conventional chemical weapons but by slipping large amounts of high-fructose corn syrup into our food supply. That would finally rouse us to action — but in fact it's pretty much what we're doing to ourselves."
"Half of their run-of-the-mill getting around is done on foot or bicycle," Guiliano notes. "Americans on average travel on their own steam less than 10 percent of the time. . . . Walking is an essential part of the French way of life, and the average French woman walks three times as much as the average American."
In fact, a fair number of American tourists are surprised when they visit Paris, sample the incredible food (including pastries) and come home the same weight or lighter. That happened to me during my lone visit to the French capital; and I'm sure that one reason was the hours of daily walking while sightseeing.
More time on foot isn't the only explanation for a French obesity rate of 11% vs. America's 24.5%. Many believe that French traditions she outlines -- notably a lack of convenience food, snacking and eating "on the run" -- play a large role. It's all part of an overall lifestyle package. And when you live in a community where it's not only unappealing but impossible to walk anywhere, and you spend almost all your time either sitting at a desk or in a car, it's not surprising that the pounds pile on. Especially when we're eating while watching TV, reading or getting ready to zip out the door, so our minds are less likely to register satiety with what we're putting in our mouths. Empty sugar-laden calories don't help.
"Obesity is linked to 112,000 deaths a year in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention," New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof writes in today's opinion pages (Times Select subscription required). "[R]emember that fat kills far more Americans than terrorists. . . . Imagine if Al Qaeda had resolved to attack us not with conventional chemical weapons but by slipping large amounts of high-fructose corn syrup into our food supply. That would finally rouse us to action — but in fact it's pretty much what we're doing to ourselves."
January 26, 2006
Overhauling New York’s Javits Convention Center
If you've ever attended an event at the Javits Center (I've gone to numerous), you know what a poorly planned site it is. Besides the silly interior design, which involves going endlessly up and down stairs trying to get to where you're going, it's badly positioned in the surrounding neighborhood. Now granted, the surrounding area isn't the most appealing of Manhattan's neighborhoods. But the convention center could have helped revitalize nearby blocks, bringing a steady stream of foot traffic to stores and restaurants within walking distance. Instead, the project created no visual appeal or continuous streetscape to draw people into the surrounding community. Even without acres of on-site parking, Manhattan's Javits Center has a suburban sprawl feel.
Now comes word of major plans to overhaul the aging center. "On Monday, Empire State Development Corp. Chairman Charles Gargano unveiled plans drawn up by another British architect, Sir Richard Rogers, teamed up with New York's FxFowle and Chicago's A. Epstein, for an expansion of the convention center that would virtually double its convention exhibiition space, to 1.1 million square feet, and reorient its truck marshalling and security area," according to the Slatin Report. "The plan also calls for a new convention hotel on state-owned land and the sale of a full-block parcel south of the convention center to a private developer. while adding a convention hotel on state-owned land immediately across the street from the center."
One key part of the plan is to create a "more appealing public spaces outside the Convention Center." A worthy goal indeed. It's nuts that a convention center in the heart of one of America's most walkable cities was designed in such a pedestrian-hostile manner.
You can see some images of the proposed revamped Javits here. The blog Bungie Sitings has a photo of the existing center here.
Thanks to Planetizen for the initial link.
Now comes word of major plans to overhaul the aging center. "On Monday, Empire State Development Corp. Chairman Charles Gargano unveiled plans drawn up by another British architect, Sir Richard Rogers, teamed up with New York's FxFowle and Chicago's A. Epstein, for an expansion of the convention center that would virtually double its convention exhibiition space, to 1.1 million square feet, and reorient its truck marshalling and security area," according to the Slatin Report. "The plan also calls for a new convention hotel on state-owned land and the sale of a full-block parcel south of the convention center to a private developer. while adding a convention hotel on state-owned land immediately across the street from the center."
One key part of the plan is to create a "more appealing public spaces outside the Convention Center." A worthy goal indeed. It's nuts that a convention center in the heart of one of America's most walkable cities was designed in such a pedestrian-hostile manner.
You can see some images of the proposed revamped Javits here. The blog Bungie Sitings has a photo of the existing center here.
Thanks to Planetizen for the initial link.
January 22, 2006
Parking Foolishness
Does it strike anyone else as ridiculous that strip malls adjacent to each other often have parking so separate that big signs warn of imminent towing if you dare leave your car there EVEN WHEN THEIR STORES ARE CLOSED? Such "planning" ensures that a community ends up with more blacktop parking than it needs, taking away space from landscaping, buffers and additional retail.
For example, Imperial China's parking lot can't always accommodate peak Saturday night dinner demand. Right next door is a strip mall where pretty much every store is closed on Saturday night -- but signs warn not to park there if you're not a customer of one of those stores. Now, I understand why those stores want to preserve parking for their own customers first. But shouldn't the town encourage ways to have adjacent businesses share parking if their peak demands are at different times? In fact, that should be allowed in parking calculations for new development.
For example, Imperial China's parking lot can't always accommodate peak Saturday night dinner demand. Right next door is a strip mall where pretty much every store is closed on Saturday night -- but signs warn not to park there if you're not a customer of one of those stores. Now, I understand why those stores want to preserve parking for their own customers first. But shouldn't the town encourage ways to have adjacent businesses share parking if their peak demands are at different times? In fact, that should be allowed in parking calculations for new development.
Grass, Trees & Gardens, Not Garages & Driveways
It's sometimes hard to get through to suburban planning officials, who obsess mostly about "setback" and occasionally "screening," how critical it is to create a pleasing sense of place and pedestrian-appealing streetscape by NOT having parking lots, driveways and garage doors as the chief features of your streetscape.
It's why I'm so disappointed with the two two-family townhouses built on Nicholas Road in Framingham. They could have enhanced the pedestrian experience, providing an attractive walking link between the Pinefield development of single-family homes on one side, and the apartments, condos and neighborhood retail on the other. Instead, the buildings have huge garage doors as the main feature you notice from the street, blacktop parking adjacent to the street and no sidewalk at all. Sigh.
This came to mind as I was reading about a townhouse development north of the border: "When homeowners at Garden Park Village in Whitby [Ontario] step out of their front doors, they will see grass, trees and gardens thriving with flowers instead of garages and driveways," the Globe & Mail reports. "Rockport Group's freehold townhouse development will be pedestrian-friendly, offering gardens, pathways and a central courtyard with benches. Each of the 163 units will include a built-in double-car garage, but it will be located at the rear."
Do you see garages and driveways when you walk along Newbury Street or Commonwealth Avenue in Boston's Back Bay? No. Does this enhance the pedestrian experience, quality of life and neighborhood sense of place? Yes. Has it hurt property values? Um, no, considering that's some of the most expensive real estate in New England.
It's why I'm so disappointed with the two two-family townhouses built on Nicholas Road in Framingham. They could have enhanced the pedestrian experience, providing an attractive walking link between the Pinefield development of single-family homes on one side, and the apartments, condos and neighborhood retail on the other. Instead, the buildings have huge garage doors as the main feature you notice from the street, blacktop parking adjacent to the street and no sidewalk at all. Sigh.
This came to mind as I was reading about a townhouse development north of the border: "When homeowners at Garden Park Village in Whitby [Ontario] step out of their front doors, they will see grass, trees and gardens thriving with flowers instead of garages and driveways," the Globe & Mail reports. "Rockport Group's freehold townhouse development will be pedestrian-friendly, offering gardens, pathways and a central courtyard with benches. Each of the 163 units will include a built-in double-car garage, but it will be located at the rear."
Do you see garages and driveways when you walk along Newbury Street or Commonwealth Avenue in Boston's Back Bay? No. Does this enhance the pedestrian experience, quality of life and neighborhood sense of place? Yes. Has it hurt property values? Um, no, considering that's some of the most expensive real estate in New England.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)