Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

New Report: “Bright Flight” means younger, more affluent cities. And suburbs sit on their collective hands.

ABOVE: Cities, like Washington, D.C., are attracting a younger, more affluent, white population. Photo by Poldavo (Alex).

From “Bright Flight” Means Younger, More Affluent Cities | TheCityFix.com:

A new study from the Brookings Institution, “The State of Metropolitan America,” shows that, for the first time, America’s suburbs are more likely to be home to minorities, the poor and a rapidly growing older population, while younger, educated whites move to cities for better jobs and shorter commutes. The report analyzes census data from 2000-2008 in the United States’ 100 largest metropolitan areas, revealing a reversal of historical demographic trends. (See an interactive map here.)

So, the question is: What will suburbs like mine do to meet this challenge?

I can tell you what Franklin, Wisconsin is currently doing: Nothing.

No initiatives, projects, forums, or incentive programs. In fact, we just pledged a half million dollars to a neighboring community for a superfluous highway interchange, a move that tells the world that Franklin is still about a decade behind the curve.

And, unfortunately, the collegial environment depicted in the photo above is virtually nonexistent in my suburb, and it's something savvy first-time home-buyers are much more aware of now than they were, say, ten years ago (I, for one, was not a savvy home-buyer when it came to judging the community surrounding my house.)

Last year I proposed, via my position on the Economic Development Commission, an city-sponsored effort to work with a developer to encourage creation of a coffee shop/co-working space next to the Franklin library. A member of the Commission argued for "green space" instead - next to a park. Another wanted to add a "friendly amendment" to the Commission's recommendation stating that no money whatsoever be spent on the effort.

So much for that.

Many trade city living for the traditionally strong school districts found in suburbs; "Sure, I'm isolated and can't get anywhere without a car, but my kids are in a good school." However, strangled as they are by ill-fated TIF deals and taxpayer revolts ("My property tax is too high!"), suburban school districts are facing imminent decline. Franklin's school district is cutting an alarming number of positions, and the high school is an old relic.

Suburban public amenities? "Community columnists" decry funding community libraries!

Why bother anymore?

We may be looking at a whole new attitude toward the idea of home ownership. From The Atlantic website:

Houses make sense when you're rooted, financially and geographically. The future of the America is itinerant, flexible, and wary of burying money in an immobile "economic trap." Throw in the 100 million Americans we're expected to add in the next four decades, and you've got a congestion problem that suggests we should replace front lawns and sedans with apartments and trains. 

The blog's author, Derek Thompson, is referring to opinions set forth in Richard Florida's new book, THE GREAT RESET (which is the very first e-book I purchased for my iPad).

Thompson quotes the following from Florida's book:

We've reached the limits of what George W. Bush used to call the "ownership society." Owning your own home made sense when people could hope to hold a job for most or all of their lives. But in an economy that revolves around mobility and flexibility, a house that can't be sold becomes an economic trap, preventing people from moving freely to economic opportunity. Not only has that piece of the American Dream grown dark, but it's also clear that financial excess in the housing sector was one of the central causes of the economic crisis. The rate of home ownership has been on the decline for some time now. Many of those who still choose to buy homes will choose smaller ones, while many more will opt for rental housing.

Our new way of life is likely to depend a whole lot less on the car. In October 2009, The New York Times reported "...After more than a century in which an automobile represented the American dream, car enthusiasm may no longer be a part of Americans' DNA." Car culture no longer exerts the powerful pull it once did. More and more families are deciding to share cars, and young people are putting off buying them and using public transit, bikes, their feet or Zipcars (membership-based, easy-access short-term car rentals) instead. It's not just that oil and gas have become expensive, it's that traffic and gridlock have become a deadweight time cost on us and our economy.

Compared with the end of 2008, the average household is now spending an extra $135 a month for fuel. But, to repeat: My suburb just pledged $500,000 to build a highway interchange that we don't need in a neighboring community. And it's not just money that will be going to the edge of town and over the border, it will be development as well. Why build a neighborhood-based coffee shop when you can toss up an offramp-serving drive-thru java shed right next to the freeway?

At the same time, Franklin is pouring money into a streetscape design for a commercial strip that all but ignores transit options like dedicated bus lanes and Zipcar facilities. Instead, our big-ticket item on 27th Street is "enhanced lighting"  - the seventh most popular item mentioned on preference surveys, as Franklin Alderman (and 27th Street Steering Committee Chairman) Steve Olson is fond of reminding us.

If success and sustainability are a destination, perhaps it's time suburbs - mine in particular - realize that the road that brought them here won't get them there.

My remarks to the Common Council regarding funding the Drexel Interchange

My remarks before the Franklin Common Council (made up of material posted here previously) made prior to their special meeting on funding the Drexel Interchange. More on the meeting -- and a fairly startling position taken by Northwestern Mutual -- later in the day:

This interchange will happen with or without our subsidy. 

But I couldn’t just watch as a city with countless infrastructure and service deficiencies votes to commit half a million dollars of Franklin taxpayer money -- cleverly camouflaged -- to an interchange project that is unneeded by Franklin, a community well-served by two interchanges. [NOTE: Actually THREE, counting College Avenue]

And spending money on a superfluous interchange even as the Federal government launches initiative after initiative and grant after grant designed to bolster communities that pursue Smart Growth principles and alternative transportation options is poor strategy, to say the least. 

The smart community looks FORWARD, not BACKWARD; off-ramp development strategies are yesterday’s mistakes that we don’t need to repeat today.

I attempted to bring this topic up at Monday’s Economic Development Commission meeting -- the mayor reminded me recently that the EDC is ostensibly in charge of the Franklin half of the 27th Street Steering Committee -- but I was told we could not discuss $500,000 in “enhanced lighting” funds for 27th street and the possible diversion of those funds to an interchange as per the failed motion of last Tuesday’s meeting.

Also: I had heard that, at the last council meeting, former EDC member and 27th Street Steering Committee chairman Ted Grinjes claimed that the EDC had advocated for the interchange. I asked at the last EDC meeting, and was told that that is not the case.

Do WE need an interchange? When site location consultants evaluate Franklin, we get an “A” by virtue of two interchanges perfectly bracketing the city. 

Northwestern Mutual, it should be noted, owns an enormous parcel of land on the Oak Creek side of 27th Street, across from their campus. Their $1.6 million contribution has nothing to do with cutting 95 seconds off of their employees’ commutes. Also, they are quoted in the paper this morning as saying that the funds were pledged way back when they were building the campus, and are not reflective of the current economic or transit situation.

As a practical matter, the Rawson and Ryan interchanges create a natural traffic flow onto 27th Street, which is supposed to be our commercial jewel, the marketing alone of which is evidently worth our spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Frankly, a Drexel interchange breaks that advantageous flow. 

Perhaps the deal we make with Oak Creek is this: We will suffer the interchange’s diversion of traffic as well as Northwestern Mutual’s $1.6 million leaving our community -- a community that didn’t get Northwestern Mutual here for free, by the way -- in return for freeing our $500,000 “enhanced lighting” pledge so we can actively promote and incentivise economic development in and around our neighborhoods and commercial areas, creating higher property values and a deep, sustainable local economy.

On the other hand, Franklin can continue to postpone maintenance and needed upgrades. "Fiscal conservative" aldermen can continue to attempt to derail pedestrian facilities such as the one planned for in front of our high school as "too expensive," while tripping over themselves to send $500,000 to Oak Creek -- and get their hands on a Golden Shovel at the groundbreaking.

These same “fiscal conservatives” are fond of reminding us that “the market will determine” whether this or that development will occur. They are not fond of the idea of even small incentives created by the city to help shape development that is more economically and socially valuable to the community in the long term -- rather than simply a good turn of the dollar for a developer in the short term. 

Yet, here we are, willing to dump $500,000 into an interchange that the market does not seem to be begging for.

SO, after the meeting, get back in your car; if you want to enjoy a coffee and conversation it will have to be in another community, because Franklin has not been "creative" enough up to this point to inspire a single coffee shop, deli, ice cream store, or other public gathering place within walking distance of its library, city hall and central city park.

And, as soon as this superfluous Interchange goes in, any chance Franklin had at developing the sorts of neighborhood-based, human-scale amenities that spur growth of a deep, sustainable local economy will be dashed like a bug on a windshield. It'll be Starbucks, Perkins, Sbarro, Dairy Queen, Burger King, Pizza Hut, etc. -- the royal court of fast food --  all swarmed up close to interchange, suckling on the sea of cars exiting for a bite before they get right back on and back up to speed.

Because, you see, we're on the road to becoming a drive-thru town, and tonight will seal the deal.

My drive-thru city gets ready to subsidize a superfluous interchange: "Politicians get reelected by building (and funding) new shiny roads and bridges that offer plenty of photo-ops and nice padding for their resumes come election time."

 

Tonight there will be a special Common Council meeting in Franklin regarding the superfluous Drexel Interchange. 

[NOTE: See update at bottom of post]

Come and bear witness to the overwhelming power of the road building lobby. Watch as a city with countless infrastructure and service deficiencies will almost certainly vote to commit half a million dollars of Franklin taxpayer money -- cleverly camouflaged -- to an interchange project that is A) unneeded by Franklin, well-served by two interchanges, and B) bound to occur whether or not Franklin throws city funds at Oak Creek -- even as the Federal government launches initiative after initiative designed to bolster communities that pursue alternative transportation options.

There are politicians already penciling in the anticipated date of groundbreaking so they can get there for their photo opp. You would be very naive to think Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's March leash-snapping in Florida (Florida?) by Wisconsin road builders did not include pointed, back-room reminders as to the fact they effectively own him. (I picture elegant table centerpieces at a gala "build we must" banquet, each festooned with the name of a promised project. Right next to the relish on Table 16: The Drexel Interchange.) 

It's a done deal.

Any politician betting on a Walker gubernatorial victory very likely got on the phone. Greendale Republican legislator Jeff Stone, who "brokered" the potential Oak Creek-Franklin pay-to-play deal, will expect his reward, and a Golden Shovel at the gala groundbreaking.

Meanwhile, Franklin will continue to postpone maintenance and needed upgrades. "Fiscal conservative" aldermen will attempt to derail pedestrian facilities in front of our high school as "too expensive," while tripping over themselves to send $500,000 to Oak Creek -- and get their hands on a Golden Shovel. 

Franklin Mayor Tom Taylor -- who could have broken the deadlock at the last common council meeting, and, to his credit, did not fall sway to siren call of the Golden Shovel -- has said he does not want Franklin taxpayer funds going across 27th Street to Oak Creek. He wants the council to "get creative" in tonight's meeting. He is likely barking up the wrong tree.

So, come and watch - 6pm at Franklin City Hall. And, after the meeting, get back in your car; if you want to enjoy a coffee and conversation it will have to be in another community, because Franklin has not been "creative" enough up to this point to inspire a single coffee shop, deli, ice cream store, or other public gathering place within walking distance of its library, city hall and central city park. 

And, as soon as this superfluous Interchange goes in, any chance Franklin had at developing the sorts of neighborhood-based, human-scale amenities that spur growth of a deep, sustainable local economy will be dashed like a bug on a windshield. It'll be Starbucks, Perkins, Sbarro, Dairy Queen, etc., all swarmed up close to interchange, suckling on the sea of cars exiting the interchange for a bite before they get back on and barrel onward.

Because, you see, we're a drive-thru town, and tonight will seal the deal. 

••••••

More from Infrastructurist:

We’ve discussed how democracy has played a major part in our failure to have a modern rail system. And like it or not, our electoral system has had a bigger role than most people would like to admit in contributing to the dire state of our existing infrastructure. A report released this week by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, titled “Road Work Ahead: Holding Government Accountable for Fixing America’s Crumbling Roads and Bridges,” supports this idea:

The deterioration of our roads and bridges is no accident. Rather, it is the direct result of countless policy decisions that put other considerations ahead of the pressing need to preserve our investment in the highway system. Political forces often undermine a strong commitment to maintenance: Members of Congress, state legislators and local politicians thrive on ribbon-cuttings. Powerful special interests push for new and bigger highways. Meanwhile, federal and state policies – which should provide strong guidance in the wise use of taxpayer dollars – often fail to achieve the proper balance between building new infrastructure and taking care of what we already have built.

In other words, politicians get reelected by building (and funding) new shiny roads and bridges that offer plenty of photo-ops and nice padding for their resumes come election time. What’s far less sexy and soundbite-worthy is “I fixed every crumbling bridge and pothole-ridden road in this state.” For an unskilled politician, these massive new projects can lead to disaster (the Bridge to Nowhere, anyone?). But for most always-election-ready officials in D.C., new highways and bridges are easy makeshift symbols of progress and “getting things done.”

via www.infrastructurist.com

••••••

I learned via Greg Kowalski that turnout for the special meeting will likely be sparse due to other activities planned for tonight:

FRANKLIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: All meeting rooms are BOOKED tonight

FOREST PARK MIDDLE SCHOOL: Franklin Citizens for Community Development at 6:30pm. 

FRANKLIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS is having their reorganization meeting tonight

GREENDALE HIGH SCHOOL has a nationally-known speaker on teen/parent relationships tonight starting at 6pm. 

Alderman Outraged At Drexel Interchange Project -- WISN Milwaukee

He has a point:

MILWAUKEE -- A Milwaukee alderman is exchanging jabs with one of the area's biggest employers and another city's mayor.

At issue is a proposed interchange at the intersection of Interstate 94 and Drexel Avenue.

The Oak Creek City Council committed to the project Monday night in a special vote which Milwaukee Alderman Bob Bauman said could end up hurting Milwaukee.

"So here you have a Milwaukee-based company, Northwestern Mutual Life, investing in an interchange in the suburbs which will harm their home city," Alderman Robert Bauman.

Bauman said a Department of Transportation study showed a new interchange could take business away from downtown Milwaukee where Northwestern Mutual is headquartered.

The new interchange would be near Northwestern Mutual's offices in Franklin.

"I feel very badly that this alderman feels that way in regards to the suburbs," Oak Creek Mayor Dick Bolender said.

Bolender said Northwestern Mutual committed $1.6 million to the proposed Drexel Interchange's $13 million price tag.

"I feel bad Milwaukee's not getting things we are. But I also feel that interchange will not only benefit Oak Creek but also South Milwaukee because they use Drexel Avenue to come to the west. It'll also benefit Franklin," Bolender said.

Northwestern Mutual would not talk on camera but sent a statement saying, "Northwestern Mutual provided funds to support the Drexel Interchange project through an agreement made with the DOT when it initially built a campus in Franklin several years ago. This initiative should not be connected to any other current transit projects under consideration."

"So if they have an extra $1.6 million laying around that they can use to fund an interchange on I-94 at Drexel Avenue, we have projects in downtown Milwaukee which could use a similar investment of $1.6 million and we'd be very, very happy to have it," Bauman said.

The DOT has set a May 1 deadline for cities to commit to funding. Franklin has yet to commit.

Franklin's mayor said he could call a special vote this week.

via www.wisn.com

The "Enhanced Lighting" Trojan Horse and the folly of funding the Drexel Interchange: Part 1

 

 

TOP PHOTO: Abandoned restaurant on 27th street directly across the street from the Northwestern Mutual corporate campus, 2006. ABOVE: Same abandoned restaurant, 30 minutes ago.

An interesting debate is occurring in neighboring Oak Creek and Franklin regarding a proposed Interchange on Drexel Avenue.

Let's get this out of the way right now: This interchange will be built. Promises have been made, money has changed hands. The question is whether Franklin will be suckered into paying for an interchange we don't need.

The proposed interchange is in Oak Creek, directly adjacent to their growing Howell Avenue commercial corridor, a strip-mall-clogged, drive-thru abomination that nonetheless provides some level of sales tax and property tax revenue to the city, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

The citizens of Oak Creek -- which is an otherwise beautiful suburban community, don't get me wrong -- probably don’t point to this particular strip with civic pride (but, hey, there’s a Sonic Drive-In there!). On the other hand, a huge plot of land containing an abandoned manufacturing plant is ripe for just the kind of development that direct proximity to an interchange can bring; a new interchange would almost certainly put that parcel into play. Oak Creek has much to gain from what is to Franklin a superfluous interchange.

The length of Drexel Avenue between the proposed interchange and 27th Street, which is supposed to be marketed and developed as an Oak Creek/Franklin partnership, is laughably under-engineered. Though the road is ostensibly part of the Oak Leaf Bike Trail, it has no shoulder to speak of and is a virtual death-trap for any biker brave enough to traverse it.

The State Department of Transportation, which requires a 50% local-money commitment to new interchanges, has set a May 1st deadline for Franklin and Oak Creek to collaborate on funding their "shares."

Northwestern Mutual, whose campus in on the Franklin side of 27th Street, has offered to contributes $1.6 million to the interchange project. So their employees can get to work 90 seconds quicker from the south? No -- they own the empty land on the Oak Creek side of 27th Street, where an urban village has been envisioned.

Now it gets complicated, and I’ll paraphrase at this point. As part of the Oak Creek/Franklin 27th Street partnership, both cities committed to a half million dollars each for “enhanced lighting” on 27th Street.

“Enhanced lighting?”

Anyway, long story short: The State DOT said, in effect, we’ll pay for the “enhanced lighting” (“enhanced lighting”?), if Oak Creek and Franklin toss their funds originally earmarked for “enhanced lighting” (“enhanced lighting”?!?!) into the “build an Interchange” pot.

So, instead of paying for what could be considered an improvement for the potential 27th Street Corridor -- of benefit to Franklin AND Oak Creek -- Franklin taxpayers will be tricked into paying a half million dollars for an Oak Creek interchange of no real benefit to Franklin, a city which is bracketed nicely by the Rawson and Ryan Interchanges.

Last night, according to The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The Franklin Common Council deadlocked on a proposal made by Ald. Steve Olson. Olson proposed that Franklin pay for $500,000 in lighting improvements on S. 27th St. that normally would be the obligation of the DOT if the DOT built the Drexel interchange and required no money from Franklin for the interchange.

You don't even have to read between the lines to see the folly of such a move! The Trojan Horse was stopped at the door. For now.

Funny thing is: Oak Creek also took no action regarding the Drexel Interchange.

They are turning out to be much better poker players than the Franklin side of the road.

Part 2 to come, in which we discuss bad poker, new priorities and opportunities, and the effects of cognitive dissonance on 27th Street Steering Committee members  ...

The Predictable Outcome of Raising Fares and Cutting Services: Lower Ridership for Milwaukee County Transit

The Milwaukee journal Sentinel reports that county transit ridership has fallen 9%. This is a surprise?

From "Left on the Lake":

While the usual suburban suspects on right wing talk radio will no doubt giggle with glee over the numbers, the fact is that a strong mass transit system is critical to any metropolitan area just as it has been for the last 100 years.

So what makes Milwaukee unique in this area when other mass transit systems are seeing increased usage because of the recession? It’s simple, we’re cutting routes and raising fares. That’s a damaging combination to any service provider.

Read more at Left on the Lake.

UPDATE: The Party of NO: Thanks to Republican Senator Jim Bunning, We Have NO More Federal Transportation Law, and That’s Bad

 

3/3/10 Update: Sanity prevails - Senate extends Highway Trust Fund; DOT employees back on the job Wednesday

From INFRASTRUCTURIST.

Here’s a rundown of what happened: Late last week, Republican Sen. Jim Bunning filibustered a bill to extend federal unemployment benefits, arguing that the government needed to add a provision stipulating how it would pay the $10 billion tab. As a result, the Transportation Department has announced it’s going to furlough 2,000 employees (though it could be double that) without pay — including people like federal inspectors that keep state construction projects going. The job cuts will come from the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration.

What else does this all mean? We’ll likely see a total shutdown of federal funding for road, bridge, bike-ped, and transit projects, since a short-term extension of the Highway Trust Fund was attached to the dead bill. The government will also halt the processing of funds for stimulus construction work, which means the remainder of the ARRA money will sit gathering dust. And to top it all off, the federal spigot will be dry for state-based road safety groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

Economic Development: With a budget stretched thin, how about PROCESS incentives?

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison

The Franklin Economic Development Commission spent a total of 30 minutes on Monday evening discussing possible incentives to commercial/business development the city. Unfortunately, no one present beside myself had attended the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Development Process Review Committee (the EDC representative to the ad hoc committee, Jim Kerr, was absent), so redundant specific process issues -- already addressed in a detailed plan staff proposal distributed at the Development Process Review Committee meeting -- dominated the early discussion. 

Given a city budget with no room for offering financial subsidies (and the fact that these subsidies tend to bite you back), I proposed taking advantage of the soon-to-be unveiled streamlined development process by offering PROCESS incentives to developers willing to meet certain yet-to-be-defined "Development Targets."

The snarled knot of fishing line that represents our current development process makes it nearly impossible to offer any sort of process relief. In other words -- using yet another metaphor --  if you're facing a giant tangle of logs, removing any one of them arbitrarily can bring the whole mess down. However, once we have an orderly structure, choosing which fees, waiting periods, approvals, etc. to waive or minimize can be done effectively and to the advantage of the developer.

As I noted when Franklin Automotive came to the EDC inquiring about possible incentives (see link for detailed explanation and graphics), there are opportunities early in the development process to improve poor site designs, unimaginative building plans, and to add other proven, market-friendly elements that spur further positive growth in the community. It's becoming clear, after all, that communities which can offer a diverse selection of neighborhoods, stores, businesses and public spaces are best weathering these tough economic times.

I noted in this space how the city's leading developer, Mark Carstensen, remarked that as far as he was concerned, building a Traditional Neighborhood Development-type (TND) subdivision -- the kind that has seen big success in communities across the country -- is impossible in Franklin. In Mequon, however, his company encountered actual incentives to build a TND development, and he reports that everyone was pleased with the end product.

So, I passed out the material below, explaining: We don't talk about process items; there's a committee doing that already (they meet again Thursday night at 5pm; in my chart I "greeked" sample process steps rather than try to attempt to illustrate the actual process). Instead, we leverage the impending improved system by finding a way to assess proposals early so the EDC can act as advocate for certain projects in its advisory capacity to the Common Council.

No one agreed with me. Or disagreed with me - - - My materials (posted below) were not discussed. We adjourned after a total of 59 minutes.

Somewhere, Thomas Edison shook his head in disbelief.

  

 

Download "EDC Development Incentive"

The developer as thwarted hero: Are suburban Unified Development Ordinances preventing sustainable, smart growth development?

"We don't have that opportunity here." What a difference a little city support can make; two streets that are the same age but have totally different characters. ABOVE: A Franklin residential street. BELOW: A Traditional Neighborhood Development-type street in Middleton Hills, WI.

Way back in June of 2007, I wrote a post that featured the pictures above, entitled Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) in Franklin: Who Will Step Up?

I said:

Franklin has room, opportunity and need for a TND development, yet we see bleak subdivision after bleak subdivision go up, accompanied by malformed commercial developments that serve vehicles and shun people.

You can imagine, then, how my ears perked up at the first Mayoral Ad-Hoc Development Process Review Committee meeting this past Thursday, when I heard Franklin developer Mark Carstensen address some of the frustrations he faces in dealing with the city of Franklin's development process.

He began by reminding the assembled that, when asked, Franklin residents regularly cite "rural character" as one of the elements of our city that they find important.

But what do people mean by "rural character" or "rural feel"?

Carstensen: 

Do people really understand what that term means? Versus the suburbs of Milwaukee County; what does it mean? Has it really been defined? Because it can mean a lot of different things; you throw out words that mean a lot of things to different people.

For instance, if I were to take -- and I don’t want to get too long winded here -- but the way things are set up right now...

For instance, we did a development up in Mequon a few years back that entertained the idea of clustered development. So they were rewarding developers to, let’s say that you were out in the areas that were not served by sewer yet, and the zoning would require that you could only have one unit per five acres. What the city did was they provided an avenue for the developers to come in and say, look, let’s say you have a tract of land 40 acres, 80 acres, what have you; the real goal here is to preserve green space, the real goal here is to preserve sensitive areas and so forth. If you show us you can condense the footprints of your lots, what we’ll do then is there’ll be a ratio we’ll give you for density.

Therefor we were conserving more green space -- and everybody wins.

So we did that. I think we had a 40-acre parcel property; by the time it was done, the lots themselves, there were seven lots on that development. I think the lots averaged an acre and a half. And the rest was left green space. Very easy.

That's Mequon. Now the bad news for Franklin. Carstensen continues:

We don’t have that opportunity here. When you go through Franklin and you start adding all the disciplines where you can put retention basins, setback requirements from sensitive areas, landscaping ratios; and if you were to create a map to overlay all of these things, you would see that you’re burning up more land and getting less out of that land because we do have to also take a look at the tax base and revenues of the city. And as Randy [Plan Commissioner Randy Ritter, who has been on the commission for 17 years] is pushing for the "70/30" [the city's stated goal of balancing the tax burden at 70 percent residential, 30 percent commercial]; well, if the UDO [Unified Development Ordinance] is forcing you to use up more land to build less, I think it’s pretty easy to understand that you are going to leave what we would call a lot on the table, and not use your land that you can’t replace in the best possible manner and get the most out of it.

So, if nothing else comes of this effort, you have in the statement above some very clear proclamations from the leading developer in Franklin:

A) The current system simply does not allow him to propose and execute the sorts of forward-looking developments that will prove sustainable and create economic growth in Franklin;

B) Nearby communities (in this case, Mequon) are capable of encouraging (and thereby benefiting from) high quality, high demand, smart-growth, tax-base expanding development;

C) A proven hometown developer sees, through personal experience, the economic upside to these sorts of high quality, smart growth developments -- which yield results consistent with the wishes of current residents and the desires of potential residents and businesses-- but plainly feels there is no effective mechanism in place in Franklin by which he can execute them.

Franklin City Attorney Jesse Wesolowski immediately recognized that Carstensen was talking about Traditional Neighborhood Development -- a community design that has seen success across the country -- and pointed out that the concept has been included the Franklin UDO since 2003.

True enough. However, here is the sum total of the Franklin UDO's language regarding Traditional Neighborhood Development:

Page 3-61
“Part 3: Zoning Districts: District Establishment, Dimensional, and Use Regulations”

Planned Development District: Traditional Neighborhood Development Intent. Proposed developments contemplated by an applicant to include design features described as “Traditional Neighborhood Development” in Wisconsin Statutes 66.1027 (1)(c), as amended, may be considered for approval as a “PDD Planned Development District” under the applicable procedures and standards described under Section 15-90208 of this Ordinance and at locations and with conditions determined appropriate by the Common Council with recommendation from the Plan Commission. The document identified as “A Model Ordinance for Traditional Neighborhood Development” dated April 2001 as published by the University of Wisconsin Extension pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes 66.1027(2), serves as the nonexclusive guidebook to assist in further defining the various aspects and elements of the for of URBAN design, along with such other sources of guidance the Plan Commission and Common Council may choose to consult.

No incentives. No guidance. Frankly, no real interest. (You can download the above-referenced Wisconsin "Model Ordinance for Traditional Neighborhood Development" pdf here.)

If a developer who has been building in Franklin for 30 years (and clearly has the ear of persons at every level of municipal government) is unaware of the very possibility of executing much-needed Traditional Neighborhood Development projects here, does that possibility even exist?

At the November 23rd meeting of the Economic Development Commission, developers representing an expansion proposal by Franklin Automotive appeared before the Commission asking if there might be incentives or subsidies we could provide for their project. I suggested -- since I am largely against financial subsidies -- that their development be given priority and other process/application incentives in return for their re-visioning of their proposed mundane "multi-tenant buildings" as an amenity capable of adding value to the surrounding neighborhood. Unfortunately, all of the "new" EDC members were absent that evening; my proposal aroused no enthusiasm among the long-timers who were present.

I'll try again at tomorrow night's EDC meeting ("Incentives" are again on the agenda) -- after all, I now have the words of Franklin's leading hometown developer to cite. 

More later ...

Download *Dev. Process Review Comm. 2-18-10 Material

"The developers’ favorite role models, the laissez faire free-for-alls, are the most troubled, the suburban slums."

 

Tomorrow night is the first meeting of the Franklin Mayoral Ad Hoc Development Process Review Committee. It's mission, in short, is to streamline our development and approval process so developers can be more effective. I will attend, record, and post all pertinent documents.

Download Dev proc ad hoc agenda 2-18

Download Dev proc ad hoc resolution

The agenda has no "public comment" item included; I will be curious to see whether this will be a process that genuinely makes possible better development or if it'll simply be a forum for the two developers on the committee to vent their frustration and demand that standards be lowered further; "Get out of my way, I'm trying to turn a quick profit here!"

In a best case scenario where the development process is made more user-friendly, can we begin to expect developments with site plans that are more like the "after" example above, complete with more long term gains for developer and city alike?

Or, how about some "suburban rehab" to correct some of our existing, unsustainable mistakes and spur economic growth, as illustrated below? (Urban Sprawl Repair Kit via Inhabitat):

 

Unfortunately, there is no one on the new Committee who has demonstrated any particular affinity for Smart Growth, sustainable development practices, or any effort to significantly raise the standards to which developers must rise.

For those who think we can afford to just continue sprawling out wherever the developer's dart lands, here's potent food for thought via the New York Times online opinion section:

In the meantime, during these low, ragged years, a few lessons about urban planning can be picked from the stucco pile.

One is that, at least here in California, the outlying cities themselves encouraged the boom, spurred by the state’s broken tax system. Hemmed in by property tax limitations, cities were compelled to increase revenue by the easiest route: expanding urban boundaries. They let developers plow up walnut groves and vineyards and places that were supposed to be strawberry fields forever to pay for services demanded by new school parents and park users.

Second, look at the cities with stable and recovering home markets. On this coast, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and San Diego come to mind. All of these cities have fairly strict development codes, trying to hem in their excess sprawl. Developers, many of them, hate these restrictions. They said the coastal cities would eventually price the middle class out, and start to empty.

It hasn’t happened. Just the opposite. The developers’ favorite role models, the laissez faire free-for-alls — Las Vegas, the Phoenix metro area, South Florida, this valley — are the most troubled, the suburban slums.

Come see: this is what happens when money and market, alone, guide the way we live.

Read the rest here: Slumburbia (New York Times)