"Place-making" Arizona Style

Tempe officials hope to make downtown a "place" - a vibrant hub of pedestrian activity engulfing Papago Park, the Mill Avenue District and Tempe Town Lake.

To do that, Tempe needs a seamless connection of pedestrian-friendly roads and walkways throughout the region. It needs to cluster landmarks, destinations and icons close together, then build attractive passageways between them, Phil Myrick, vice president of Project for Public Spaces, said at a meeting Monday.

"When you push them together, it makes more energy," Myrick said. "There should be so many things to do that everybody in the community has the opportunity to go there and spend hours."
Tempe hired the New York-based nonprofit consulting organization to help bring people to downtown Tempe landmarks.

Through town hall meetings and volunteer data collectors, including more than 100 ASU students, the consultants are identifying the key destinations that can become "places."
Myrick calls his project "placemaking" - turning a neighborhood, city or destination from somewhere people can't wait to get out of to somewhere they never want to leave."
[Tempe has] all the elements, but they're not organized in a way that makes sense," Myrick told a joint meeting that included the Tempe City Council and the boards of directors from the Tempe Chamber of Commerce, Tempe Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Downtown Tempe Community.

He then presented a preliminary plan to link Tempe's landmarks and destinations in a way that would entice pedestrians to stop and spend time instead of passing through.
"We can't leave it to the private sector to come up with a vision for this lake," Myrick said. "It's just not going to happen."

City staff, volunteers and ASU planning students combed Mill Avenue and other locations, asking questions and gathering data to pinpoint the most popular destinations, their strengths and their shortcomings, said Eric Hansen, a Tempe planner who has been working on the project

Crime Prevention Through Design

By Diane Zahm

Our urban neighborhoods are suffering from years of suburban development, which has destroyed their physical, economic and social fabric, and left it torn and frayed. In some neighborhoods this process has created an urban wasteland of vacant lots, buildings, streets and sidewalks that have become havens for crime. It is these vacancies—or voids—that are now the most problematic. Abandoned buildings serve as residences for drug users and prostitutes. Vacant lots full of trash and weeds attract homeless persons or become the local hangout for gang members. Vacated or unused alleys function as a street network for drug dealers.

In many ways, land-use policies exacerbate the problem. Long ago, in an effort to promote economic development, downtown neighborhoods were rezoned for commercial or industrial uses, eliminating any opportunity for ongoing investment in residential or mixed-use development. Instead, property ownership became highly speculative. Nonresident investors accumulated parcels for profit, all the while renting to tenants who themselves lacked any emotional investment in the neighborhood. Real property tax revenues dried up; so did neighborhood support services. Grocery stores, pharmacies, department stores, banks, doctors and dentists—all moved to the suburbs. But this was not just a loss of residents or taxes or services; the process destroyed the dynamic mix of uses and activities that made urban neighborhoods vibrant and contributed to community safety and security.

Studies show that crime occurs most frequently in those places without observers or guardians; in other words, in the voids. Many years ago Jane Jacobs, in her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, offered observations regarding those elements that contribute to a safe and healthy urban neighborhood. Among them are a mix of uses, clearly defined public and private spaces, 24-hour activity, eyes on the street, adequate lighting, uniform setbacks, architectural variety and short blocks. Many planners and designers took Jacobs' insights as a wake-up call, but were undeterred by her disdain for the "doctrine of salvation by bricks." Their new plans called for mixed uses, uniform setbacks and other important physical elements without considering the extent to which residents, property owners, business managers, visitors and others must be engaged in order for a neighborhood to be truly safe. For what good is a mix of uses if the activity they generate never attracts people who care about the neighborhood around them, who pick up litter and scrub off graffiti and report drug dealing? Without them the neighborhood is also without the observers or guardians who are so critical to safety and security, a need that cannot be filled by police or private security.

Traditional neighborhood development represents an important step toward safer, more secure urban neighborhoods. It begins by mending the physical and economic fabric of the neighborhood, by filling the voids left by vacant lots, buildings and alleyways. Open spaces, then, are no longer merely voids, but carefully located and designed streets, walks, yards and parks that knit together the uses and activities that surround them. Traditional neighborhood development has the potential to re-establish the social network of the neighborhood as well. Of course, traditional neighborhood development cannot guarantee "community," but it can provide a dynamic and attractive mix of uses, with lot sizes, building scales and floor plans that reflect contemporary lifestyles. If traditional neighborhood development is successful, no space or place in the neighborhood will be without a guardian or owner, someone who participates in its management and upkeep—and who, therefore, helps to prevent crime.

Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Decrease Risk of Obesity

Confirming last year's study by University of Maryland's National Center for Smart Growth researcher Reid Ewing, who found higher obesity rates in counties with sprawling rather than compact development, a new Georgia Institute of Technology in-depth study of links between weight and the built environment in metro Atlanta, led by University of British Columbia Associate Professor Lawrence D. Frank, shows the relative risk of obesity increases 35 percent from the most to the least mixed-use areas.

TOD...Why Now?

From Reconnecting America

Housing Preferences Are Changing:

Demand is changing dramatically because of profound demographic shifts, including the aging of baby boomers, the number of new immigrants, and the fact that younger adults prefer urban, mixed-use environments. While two-thirds of demand is still for large single-family dwellings, a third is for smaller housing choices, including apartments, townhomes, live-work spaces, and bungalows. The market isn’t meeting this demand, and the increasing competition for units in denser, mixed-use neighborhoods has caused a cycle of price increases, displacement and gentrification. There is an urgent need to increase this housing stock in order to meet market demand and protect and grow the affordable housing inventory.

Workers and Firms Prefer "24-Hour Neighborhoods":

In the past companies have preferred suburban campus environments near freeways, and regions have lured employers without regard to bigger picture development goals. But other issues are coming into play, including the rise of the "creative class," and the increasing importance of talent, technology and tolerance in a region’s economic development strategy. Because firms are chasing talent, which is choosing to locate in diverse, lively urban regions, firms now prefer these locations. A recent Jones Lang LaSalle survey found access to mass transit is very important to 70 percent of New Economy companies. And, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers' respected Emerging Trends publication, 24-Hour places are the best real estate investment locations.

Rail and Bus Systems Are In A Building Boom:

More regions are developing mass transit and more consumers are choosing mass transit over driving on congested roadways. Whereas public transit had existed primarily in older Northeastern cities, new systems have begun service in cities like Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Charlotte, San Diego, Portland and San Jose. In fact, new rail or rapid bus systems are planned or under construction in all but three of the top 30 metropolitan areas.
At the convergence of these three trends is an opportunity to create the armature for a new growth and development strategy that meets the demand for location-efficient mixed-use places, supports regional economic growth strategies, and increases housing affordability — by increasing supply in neighborhoods with lower transportation costs. TOD occurs within a half mile radius of rail or rapid bus stations, encourages walking and cycling, has a mix of retail, commercial and residential uses, and a diversity of housing types suited to a mix of generations and incomes. It is the one strategy that promises to simultaneously meet these seemingly disparate goals.

Indeed, transit-oriented development has been touted as the palliative to traffic congestion and air quality problems, the high cost of housing, and Americans’ need for physical activity. But analysts have looked at projects on the ground nationwide and found few that deliver on this promise, and they’ve concluded TOD offers few advantages. In fact, the truth lies somewhere in between. Most so-called transit-oriented projects are simply conventional development located adjacent to transit, and cannot live up to the potential of truly effective transit-oriented development.

New Urbanism & ‘low-impact’ infrastructure

by Philip Langdon
Courtesy New Urban News

Natural drainage systems and other ecologically advanced technologies are coming to walkable communities.

A new urbanist-led charrette in November 2006 recommended that New Orleans be redeveloped with “natural drainage systems” — techniques allowing stormwater to soak into the ground rather than be piped, sometimes full of pollutants, to bodies of water like Lake Pontchartrain.The recommendation, intended for the Gentilly section of the flood-ravaged city, is a sign of new urbanists’ emerging interest in engineering and landscape systems based on processes found in nature.

In recent years, environmental activists have argued that rain should be handled in a more natural fashion — through “rain gardens,” bioswales, and other ecological features — instead of relying heavily on underground pipes and other conventional engineering mechanisms. A growing number of new urbanists are moving toward this ecological approach.Inquiries by New Urban News found nature-based environmental techniques being incorporated into projects and plans ranging from Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs) in North Carolina and Pennsylvania to urban neighborhoods and HOPE VI public housing redevelopments in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle. (An article on using stormwater management to enhance civic spaces is on page 5 of the December 2006 issue.)

The approach is known by many names, including high-performance infrastructure, natural drainage systems, bioretention, low-impact development, and sustainable stormwater management. “’Laying lightly on the land’ is perhaps the best term we have,” says Tom Low, the Charlotte, North Carolina-based director of town planning for Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ). “It basically means using less pipe. The water sheets across the surface. The amount of surface pavement per dwelling unit is reduced.”

Low led a group that last month completed a study of a TND called Griffin Park, to be built in Greenville County, South Carolina. The study looks at building Griffin Park as a TND with conventional engineering versus building it as a TND with a more nature-based system. The natural approach envisions less pavement, fewer curbs and gutters, less storm sewer pipe, and fewer storm sewer inlets, thereby reducing some of the development’s costs. The study is expected to be used to promote natural drainage options among new urbanists.

THE NATURAL APPROACH

For Woodsong, a 22-acre TND in Shallotte, North Carolina, developer Buddy Milliken insisted on natural methods of handling rainwater. In front of a series of cottages on narrow lots is a concrete street 300 feet long and 10 feet (one lane) wide. The center of the street consists of a three-foot-wide strip of pervious concrete. Rain seeps through the porous pavement and a rock subbase and enters the ground, rather than being concentrated in storm drains and pipes. The narrow, curbless street, passing within about seven feet of the houses, helps replenish an aquifer. At the same time, it helps create a more relaxed and intimate setting, making the properties more valuable.

A ditch that cut across the mostly wooded property prior to development has been modified by installing “small check dams or gabions to slow the water down,” Milliken says. Advocates of natural drainage often sum up the basic principles in these words: “Slow the water down, spread it around, and get it into the ground.” Rain from roofs may be captured in cisterns or directed into rain gardens — mild depressions filled with natural material that absorbs the water and gives it time to percolate into the soil. “These are very, very simple things,” says Milliken.

Low devised Woodsong’s neighborhood plan, which includes a man-made wetland in one area and a pond in another. Milliken says that in a conventional development the pond might have been dug in an out-of-the-way spot and then ringed by a chain-link fence. The detention and retention ponds that have proliferated in recent decades are often unsightly and hard to maintain — a waste of valuable real estate. Milliken chose instead to place the pond in a prominent location, in front of a group of houses, forming a neighborhood centerpiece which helps to control rainwater and let it soak into the ground.

At the edges of the pond are four small constructed wetland bays that slow and filter the water before it enters the pond. Mary Vogel, principal in PlanGreen in Washington DC advises against ponds because, among other things, their water may heat up, harming fish life. However, Peg Staeheli, principal in SvR Design Company in Seattle, says a detention pond is needed in some situations to control the water flow. Woodsong’s pond is apparently an aesthetic plus, which has translated into stronger real estate values.“Everything we’ve done has been with the intent to get a financial return —not necessarily the next day,” Milliken says of Woodsong, which he has been building since 1999. “New Urbanism and the environment are mutually reinforcing.”The Oct. 29-Nov. 3 Gentilly charrette, led by Andres Duany and covering 17 New Orleans neighborhoods, recommended using natural drainage systems to absorb water, decrease flooding, and lessen pollution in the runoff, much of which goes into Lake Pontchartrain untreated. Vogel says one instrument is “roadside bioswales — concave gardens planted with native perennial plants and trees — [which] increase absorption and add beauty and resiliency to the environment.” These can be placed between streets and sidewalks.

New Orleans contains many road medians (New Orleanians call them “neutral ground”) that were damaged by last year’s flooding. The intention is to dig into some of these medians and install a mix of soil conditioners, organic mulches, and rock, capable of holding and gradually dispersing a large quantity of water. The economics are favorable, says Vogel. “Whereas conventional street and storm drain maintenance costs increase over time as the result of aging materials, pipes, and drains, natural drainage systems actually become more effective over time, as plants and trees mature.”

One city that is a leader in combining natural drainage with walkable streets and neighborhoods is Seattle, where sustainable stormwater management has been advocated by the Puget Sound Action Team and has been put into practice by firms such as SvR Design. SvR designed High Point, a mixed-income, 34-block, 1,600-unit Hope VI project that features vegetated and grassy swales, porous concrete sidewalks, and front-yard rain gardens. South Lake Union, a large mixed-use development to be built north of downtown Seattle, may also employ natural drainage. (For techniques at High Point, see www.thehighpoint.com or www.svrdesign.com.)

Monroe center... emerging BOHO Center?

One of the most desirable locations for BOHO centers is at or near transit hubs such as light rail stations. The new Monroe Center in New Jersey is a perfect example of this new trend.

"A culturally friendly transit village"
An example of the opportunities provide by transit-oriented development is the 123-unit Monroe Center in New Jersy, described by the Hudson Reporter (24 January 2006) as a "high-rise condominium tower" which "will ultimately be part of a 435-unit development on a 5.5-acre site just steps from the Ninth Street stop of the Hudson Bergen Light Rail....[it] will include four high-rise residential buildings of between 10 and 13 stories, with ground floor retail, commercial arts space, and mezzanine space." It's intended to be "a culturally friendly transit village", according to the paper.

This ideal location has been attracting an eclectic mix of artists, entrepreneurs, and small businesses. The paper goes on to note:

"Already underway is the renovation of the interior of the existing Monroe Center for the Arts at 720 Monroe St. Since opening in 1990, the converted Levelor Blinds Factory has maintained an eclectic mixture of businesses that now include ad agencies, interior designers, cake bakers, architects, toy makers, dance instructors, and yoga studios. "

Accesible Urban Transit Hub

Another selling point, said the developer, is the project's location. He said that because of the property's proximity to the light rail, this project will be a good example of the "smart growth" principle of a "transit friendly community."

A transit village is a state-promoted planning initiative to redevelop and revitalize communities around transit facilities, making them appealing choices for people to live in, while lessening their reliance on cars.

More than required parking
In Hoboken, parking is always an issue, and this is one of the few projects that will provide more parking spaces than the zoning requires. When fully built out, the project will have 1,120 garage parking spaces to complement the surrounding off-street parking.

Outdoor Plaza
According to the developers, outdoor areas at Monroe Center will include one large plaza with stylistic fountains, seating decks and a "hammock park." Each new building at the community will also feature rooftop gardens. "Monroe Center's appeal as a destination will be enhanced by its substantial outdoor public areas," points out Gerard Saddel, a partner of Monroe Center Development, LLC. "A series of public parks and a plaza will be scattered throughout the entire development."

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.

Creating Walkable Neighborhoods

by smartgrowth.org

Walkable communities are desirable places to live, work, learn, worship and play, and therefore a key component of smart growth. Their desirability comes from two factors. First, walkable communities locate within an easy and safe walk goods (such as housing, offices, and retail) and services (such as transportation, schools, libraries) that a community resident or employee needs on a regular basis. Second, by definition, walkable communities make pedestrian activity possible, thus expanding transportation options, and creating a streetscape that better serves a range of users -- pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and automobiles. To foster walkability, communities must mix land uses and build compactly, and ensure safe and inviting pedestrian corridors.



Walkable communities are nothing new. Outside of the last half-century communities worldwide have created neighborhoods, communities, towns and cities premised on pedestrian access. Within the last fifty years public and private actions often present created obstacles to walkable communities. Conventional land use regulation often prohibits the mixing of land uses, thus lengthening trips and making walking a less viable alternative to other forms of travel. This regulatory bias against mixed-use development is reinforced by private financing policies that view mixed-use development as riskier than single-use development. Many communities -- particularly those that are dispersed and largely auto-dependent -- employ street and development design practices that reduce pedestrian activity.



As the personal and societal benefits of pedestrian friendly communities are realized – benefits which include lower transportation costs, greater social interaction, improved personal and environmental health, and expanded consumer choice -- many are calling upon the public and private sector to facilitate the development of walkable places. Land use and community design plays a pivotal role in encouraging pedestrian environments. By building places with multiple destinations within close proximity, where the streets and sidewalks balance all forms of transportation, communities have the basic framework for encouraging walkability.

New Urbanism (one view)

by VirtualCity

New urbanism occasionally encompasses other city planning systems such as smart growth, and is occasionally recognized as a separate entity. The idea claims to originate in the early twentieth century with the development of the neighborhoods it uses as models, though as a movement, it is responding to the perceived weaknesses in suburban development.

Whether or not smart growth is an offshoot of new urbanism, the two share a number of concepts. Both emphasize the important of a compact, walkable community center, and the assimilation of different types of housing and commercial buildings. An emphasis on environmentally-conscious building, the renovation of brown- or greyfield land, and historic preservation are other similarities.

However, because new urbanism was created as a specific theory for urban design rather than simply being based on a looser set of ideals, its definition is more concrete than that of smart growth. Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk founded the Congress for the New Urbanism, inspired by the time the husband-and-wife team spent at Yale. Their guidelines for a ‘new urban’ neighborhood suggest the inclusion of most of these elements:

• A recognizable center for the town/city/community, such as a green square or distinctive intersection, in which the transit stop is also situated.
• Buildings in the neighborhood center placed close to the street, to form a well-defined space.
• A walk of not much more than 5 minutes from any home to the community center, or approximately 2,000 feet.
• Mixed housing types, including apartments, rowhouses and detached homes, to provide a suitable dwelling for people of all ages and all economic means.
• An auxiliary building for workspace or a garage apartment is allowed in the backyard of each home.
• Parking lots or garages in the back of homes and businesses, rather than fronting the streets.
• Shops and offices to sufficiently serve the weekly needs of residents on the edge of the community.
• An elementary school close enough for most children to walk from home.
• Small parks or playgrounds near every home, not more than a tenth of a mile away.
• Streets that create a linked network to disperse traffic.
• Relatively narrow streets, suitable for pedestrians and bicycles, preferably lined with trees.
• Some major spots in the neighborhood center reserved for buildings to facilitate community meetings and activities, or for religious, cultural, or educational purposes.
• A self-governing community, guided by a council that makes decisions on maintenance and change.

There are a number of complaints lodged against new urbanism—the first, a semantics issue, that the scheme is not actually ‘new,’ as it derives its inspiration from American towns of the pre-automobile era. Some argue, conversely, that this halcyon design is based upon a system that exists only in nostalgia. Either way, it has drawn criticism chiefly for emphasizing aesthetic values over practical design, especially as a new urban community might relate to the surrounding region. The delineation of design elements irks those who feel the plan undermines American property rights and civil liberties, while on the opposite side of the spectrum, some accuse it of being a gentrification plan that would force lower-income families from their neighborhoods. Though the transportation habits of new urban residents may improve, the communities tend to remain socially homogenous ones.