Great Urban Streets Design Principles

Principle 1:
Manage CongestionCongestion is a fact of life in successful urban places. By definition, a place that supports a great concentration of economic and social activities within a pedestrian-scaled environment is going to be congested.

Principle 2:
Balanced/Active StreetsDowntown streets must balance the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, transit and the automobile in creating an attractive and viable urban core. Downtown streets are for people first, commercial second, parking third and through traffic fourth.

Principle 3:
Streets as PlacesThe Great Streets Program envisions downtown as a vital focus of city life, and as a primary destination. Our downtown streets are our most important and pervasive public space and common ground.

Principle 4:
Interactive Streets Urban Streets are the stages on which the public life of the community is acted out.

Principle 5:
Pride of PlaceVisible, caring and upkeep are critical to the vitality of urban street life.

Principle 6:
Public ArtArt in the public environment can help to establish a stronger sense of place and a continuity between the past, present and future.

In Praise of Smaller Developments

by Trisha Riggs E-mail: priggs@uli.org

ULI’s Place Making Conference Explores Fundamentals of Designing and Building for Change

Conference panelists discussed the benefits of building smaller developments. The smaller the town center development, the more necessary it is to link with the surrounding neighborhoods, resulting in ample points of connection. Conversely, while larger developments have more capability to be self-sustaining, this can lead to isolation, participants noted. “Going small forces you to connect to what is around you, because you are not big enough to do things on your own,” said Richard E. Heapes, principal of Street-Works in White Plains, N.Y.

According to John E. Felton, principal and director of community design at Cline Design Associates in Raleigh, N.C., there are several steps that can be taken upfront to help smoothen the process of developing small, mixed-use projects, including conducting a full analysis of the entire site’s potential and the timing of the development of each use; developing a clear strategy for integrating each use; using a simple, efficient design; understanding that parking for each use is critical; and planning for the creation of an engaging place that draws people back for repeat visits.

Felton advised conference attendees to “go to where the people are” to find promising sites for smaller projects—including downtown infill locations, sites near transit, places close to universities or cultural centers, and old shopping centers. Many of these sites represent lucrative opportunities for adaptive reuse, he said.

Katherine Kelley, president of Green Street Properties in Atlanta, shared four key lessons learned in developing small-scale projects: 1) Be externally focused—build to the perimeter of the project so it connects to the external infrastructure. “This is beneficial to the surrounding community as well—each can enjoy the benefits of the other.” 2) Anchor the project with great restaurants. “They (restaurants) are a primary channel for the public, and they draw people to the adjacent retail.” 3) To the extent possible, arrange the project’s components horizontally. “If you have to layer vertically, make each building easily walkable to the next.” 4) Realize that something has to give to make the numbers work. “If you don’t have high density (which is sometimes a challenge to achieve in smaller projects) you have to look elsewhere for a sufficient revenue stream.”

The place making trend, said Terry Shook, president of Shook Kelley in Charlotte, N.C., has resulted in a “new breed” of community developers who are catering to rising consumer demand for convenient living environments that save time by offering a variety of development uses close together. Town center development provides an opportunity to reclaim areas with no sense of community—particularly in suburban settings—by “turning the ordinary into the special, until we reach a point at which the special becomes the ordinary,” he said.

Transit Oriented Development: Defined

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) refers to residential and Commercial Centers designed to maximize access by Transit and Nonmotorized transportation, and with other features to Encourage Transit Ridership. A TOD neighborhood has a center with a rail or bus station, surrounded by relatively high-density development, with progressively lower-density spreading outwards. For example, the neighborhood center may have a transit station and a few multi-story commercial and residential buildings surrounded by several blocks of townhouses and small-lot single-family residential, and larger-lot single-family housing farther away. TOD neighborhoods typically have a diameter of one-quarter to one-half mile (stations spaced half to 1 mile apart), which represents pedestrian scale distances. It includes these design features (Morris, 1996):

• The neighborhood is designed for Cycling and Walking, with adequate facilities and attractive street conditions.


• Streets have good Connectivity and Traffic Calming features to control vehicle traffic speeds.


• Mixed-use development that includes shops, schools and other public services, and a variety of housing types and prices, within each neighborhood.


• Parking Management to reduce the amount of land devoted to parking compared with conventional development, and to take advantage of the parking cost savings associated with reduced automobile use.

Transit Oriented Development generally requires at least 6 residential units per acre in residential areas and 25 employees per acre in Commercial Centers, and about twice that for premium quality transit, such as rail service (Pushkarev and Zupan, 1977; Ewing, 1999; Robert Cervero, et al, 2004). These densities create adequate transit ridership to justify frequent service, and help create active street life and commercial activities, such as grocery stores and coffee shops, within convenient walking distance of homes and worksites. However, other factors are also important beside simple density. Transit ridership is also affected by factors such as employment density and Clustering, demographic mix (students, seniors and lower-income people tend to be heavy transit users), transit pricing and rider subsidies, Parking Pricing and Road Tolls, the quality of transit service, the effectiveness of transit Marketing, walkability, and street design. A particular density may be inadequate to support transit service by itself, but becomes adequate if implemented with a variety of Transit Encouragement and Smart Growth strategies. The assumption that transit cannot be effective except in large cities with high population densities can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it results in transport and land use decisions that favor automobile travel over transit.

Reclaiming Suburbia

Excerpts from "Breaking the Density Deadlock" by ALAN EHRENHALT

Tysons Corner isn’t much to look at. I don’t mean simply that it’s unattractive — although it is — but that when you pass through it, along the main commercial strip of Route 7, in Northern Virginia’s Fairfax County, you don’t even get the feeling that anything substantial is there. You see a long, loose string of office buildings built in the 1970s and ’80s, scattered over a stretch of two or three miles, few of them close together or in any way congruent with each other. You pass two huge regional shopping malls, both tucked behind vast parking lots and barely visible from the highway. You don’t know for sure when you’ve reached the place, and there’s no way to tell when you’ve left.

If you work in local government anywhere, the odds are you have heard the joke that there are two things Americans can’t stand: sprawl and density. I refer to it as a joke, but in fact it comes close to being a literal truth. Millions of Americans who live in places like Fairfax County visit places such as Boston and San Francisco and wish they could recreate some of that urbanity and elegance for themselves. But faced with the reality of what true urban sophistication requires — height, big crowds, and strangers from the city flocking in on trains, they back off. That’s the deadlock of density.

The developer of this project, the Macerich Co. of California, is pressing all the right New Urbanist buttons. Its computerized graphics envision spacious plazas, sculpture gardens, skating rinks and performance space. Macerich talks about making the Intersection of Routes 7 and 123 into a new “Central Park,” a “100 percent downtown corner.”

Most intriguing of all, Macerich is promising to take the blank acres of asphalt that dominate Tysons now and superimpose a grid that would provide 54 additional pedestrian-friendly streets for traffic to move in, generate a huge increase in sidewalk capacity, provide up to 14,000 curbside parking spaces, and in the end create something that doesn’t just possess the density of a city but actually looks like a city.

My guess is that when all of this development is completed, 10 or 15 years from now, I do not expect that Tysons Corner will much resemble the green pedestrian oasis pictured in the computerized Macerich sketches. But I think it will be quite a bit better than what is there now. I also think it will be a commercial success.

I’m convinced of that because I see all around me a generation of young, mainstream, middle-class adults — label them any way you want to — who are looking for some form of mid-level urban experience, not bohemian inner-city adventure but definitely not cul-de-sacs and long commutes. There are more of them coming into the residential market every year. They like the idea of having some space, but they aren’t fleeing in terror at the mention of density. They aren’t willing to sell their cars, but they appreciate the advantage of having another way to get around. If Tysons Corner is rebuilt on a reasonable human scale and with a modicum of physical appeal, they will go for it, imperfect as it may be.

And then we will begin to see experiments of this sort in suburbs all over the country, launched by developers and local governments that may still be a little nervous about density but will know one thing for sure: If Tysons Corner can be reborn, nothing in the suburbs is beyond hope.If the effort to rebuild Tysons Corner somehow succeeds, it will become a national model for reclaiming suburbia.

Form-Based Codes

by Planning & Design Institute

Regulations known as "form–based codes" offer an approach that favors walkable neighborhoods, a variety of housing choices, and mixed use developments. Unlike conventional zoning, form–based codes make it easier to find a balance between maintaining a community's local character and, at the same time facilitating high–quality development projects.

The codes can be applied to new growth ares, existing neighborhoods, special districts, as well as entire communities.

The regulations focus on the size, form, and placement of buildings and parking locations. With form–based codes, there is flexibility in combining residential commercial uses on property, and less emphasis on specific densities. A land owner or developer will have more options in offering single–family homes, apartments, offices, or retail as long as the building form conforms to the community's vision reflected in the form–based codes. Overall, form–based codes give a community the opportunity to respond to market demands in a manner that follows the principles of smart growth planning.

Key elements in form–based code may include:

• A Regulating Plan which may include a map of the study area that specify where specific building forms apply
• Standards for building forms
• Standards for street and sidewalks
• Design Guidelines which address architecture and landscaping
• Clearly defined processes for application and review
• Definitions of technical terms

In addition, form–based codes are typically written to be user–friendly, and often supplement regulatory text with graphics to help illustrate specific regulations, such as minimum and maximum heights of buildings.