Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

"One of the special things about community design is that not all of us are equally susceptible to the risks that we are looking to control and not all of us will benefit equally from the advantages that flow from community design."

Episode One: Sprawlanta 

Dr. Howard Frumkin is Special Assistant to the Director for Climate Change and Health at the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia. The following interview is an excerpt from our conversation with Dr. Frumkin during production for Episode #1 of American Makeover.

AM: How does community design impact different age groups - the young, the elderly, etc.?

FRUMKIN: One of the special things about community design is that not all of us are equally susceptible to the risks that we are looking to control and not all of us will benefit equally from the advantages that flow from community design; but across the lifespan almost all of us can benefit from good community design.  Let’s look at the different groups and how they might respond to healthy community design.  Children need the opportunity to be active and independent and safe. Good pedestrian infrastructure, good sidewalks and bicycle trails that are separated from traffic and that are easily navigated are an important asset for children.  At the other end of the lifespan, are the elderly. Many elderly people can't drive or shouldn't drive and that means that they will benefit from destinations that are close to where they live and from good pedestrian infrastructure that will help them get from home to the doctor's office or to the library or to the church.  People with disabilities may not be able to drive and certainly benefit from good well-markedl, safe pedestrian infrastructure.  People who are poor and can't afford to buy cars need to rely on transit and need to rely on pedestrian infrastructure. Putting those attributes in place is an act of social justice because it helps people who are poor to be able to get where they need to go, find economic opportunities, seek healthcare and do the other things they need to do. So for all of these subpopulations in our society and more health community design offers very important benefits.

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. 

The folly of funding the Drexel Interchange: Part 2 - Subsidizing an off-ramp economy rather than creating a community-strengthening, sustainable DEEP economy

Continuing my discussion of a proposed Interchange on Drexel Avenue (see Part 1).

First, an updated report from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

The [Oak Creek] Common Council on Thursday scheduled a special meeting for 6 p.m. Monday to discuss the city's financial commitment to a possible I-94 interchange at Drexel Ave.

The council has already adopted a resolution pledging $3.75 million in city money. At time [sic], that was equal to 25% of the $15 million that the state Department of Transportation estimated the interchange would cost.

The DOT, however, requires 50% in local money to build an interchange.

Recently, however, the DOT reduced its cost estimate to $12.9 million and Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, which has a large office complex in Franklin, has pledged $1.6 million toward the interchange cost.

The City of Franklin has not pledged any money to the proposed interchange, although it has said it would cover $500,000 in lighting on the Franklin side of S. 27th St. That would normally be the responsibility of the DOT.

A new resolution to be considered at Monday's special meeting would commit Oak Creek to the same $3.75 million it previously pledged for the interchange, plus $650,000 in lighting for Drexel Ave. and S. 27th St. and related utility costs.

The resolution was to have been considered at the council's regular meeting Tuesday, but the discussion was postponed.

The Franklin Common Council said this week it is open to further negotiations on a Drexel interchange.

So, Oak Creek -- a beneficiary of the superfluous-to-Franklin interchange by virtue of its location relative to Howell Ave. and the vacant Delphi plant; why wouldn't they be all for it? -- waits for Franklin to flinch. They are good poker players.

But if Franklin is smart, the city will stand pat and keep its half-million out of this blatant subsidy.

I'm pessimistic about the city's ability to play their cards right, though. Unfortunately, past and present Franklin members of the 27th Street Steering Committee suffer from cognitive dissonance when it comes to economic development in that area. This group, composed of self-professed "true conservatives," has gotten used to tossing around numbers like $265,823 for marketing materials related to 27th Street. Once you've committed to a writing checks like that, a half-mil is not so hard to part with when it might actually result in an actual work product (and, obviously, Boomgaard does not count as a positive outcome).

Meanwhile, putting sidewalk facilities in front of Franklin's high school (finally!) during the impending reconstruction of 51st street -- a vital, common sense piece of the rehabilitation this city sorely needs -- is bemoaned by 27th Street chair and Franklin alderman Steve Olson because, true conservative that he is, he believes the city should not spend money that, in his view, it does not have. (On the positive side, it should be noted that Alderman Olson is no Scrooge; he donated $50 to the Franklin Trails Committee's Walking Workshop, held last weekend.).

Here are some truths that need to be understood:

1. The interchange will be built, whether or not Franklin subsidizes it with its half million dollar "enhanced lighting" Trojan horse payment. The powerful road-building lobby has this in hand, and will deploy their bought-and-paid-for advocates;
2. Does an interchange near city limits create jobs? Yes - site location consultants count access to a freeway as a plus for any community they are considering;
3. When site location consultants evaluate Franklin for freeway access as a potential asset, they put a big gold star next to the city's name: The Rawson and Ryan interchanges bracket the city perfectly. (New interchange? No thanks - we're good);
4. Does a third(!) interchange near city limits create jobs? Yes, but 99% of them require a hair net and pay minimum wage;
5. Why is Northwestern Mutual kicking in? Northwestern Mutual owns a large parcel of land across 27th Street from their Franklin corporate campus. $1.6 million is a small price to pay to create the possibility of a lucrative off-ramp development (they are surely not looking to cut 95 seconds from their employees' commutes);
6. Franklin is facing infrastructure and municipal service challenges to the extent that $500,000 can and should be utilized within city limits, or on regional efforts that are more likely to strengthen the city's sustainability;
7. The Rawson and Ryan interchanges create a natural traffic flow onto 27th Street, which is supposed to be our commercial jewel, the marketing of which is evidently worth our spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Frankly, a Drexel interchange breaks that advantageous flow;
8. The newly-created ramp-blight vs. potential opportunity equation weighs distinctly against Franklin. Off-ramp fast food jobs do not offset increased road damage, heightened "drive-thru community" image problems, and diversion of traffic away from already-expensive 27th Street.

Franklin faces a clear choice: Spend a half-million dollars to subsidize off-ramp fast food franchises and shoot more and faster traffic through town, or use that money to bolster a sustainable, deep economy that will attract quality businesses and jobs.

So, if site location consultants feel that Franklin is already well situated with regard to freeway access, what other factors do they look at that Franklin ought to work on improving? We'll look at that in Part 3 (and, hopefully, at the Economic Development Commission meeting on Monday night).

Obama Bicycle Policy Wins Love From Cyclists, Scorn From Trucking Industry

The beginning of the end for mindless road widening?

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a weekend bicyclist, might consider keeping his head down and his helmet on. A backlash is brewing over his new bicycling policy.

LaHood says the government is going to give bicycling – and walking, too – the same importance as automobiles in transportation planning and the selection of projects for federal money. The former Republican congressman quietly announced the "sea change" in transportation policy last month.

"This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized," he wrote in his government blog.

Read the rest at: Obama Bicycle Policy Wins Love From Cyclists, Scorn From Trucking Industry.

The ROI for smart growth and placemaking: "Love Ain’t Enough: Put Up or Shut Up"

Fortunately, creating communities that feature great places and human-scaled development is paying off in terms of higher property values and their attraction of non-polluting industries. This link features other returns-on-investment in digest form:

Like any next, big something, placemaking is growing up. And in its role as gawky adolescent, it’s beginning to realize something most of us have long since come to accept: You can’t skirt by on youthful good looks forever.

Today, efforts to create more endearing and enduring surroundings are being subjected to decidedly grown up demands. And with them, smart growthers—from enviros to designers to code reform advocates—are learning one of life’s hardest lessons: Love will only take you so far.

Son, you’ve got to demonstrate sufficient returns.

Recently, a city asked me for some help in their argument for funding transit oriented developments with TIFF dollars. The top arguments that immediately came to mind are the same reasons that cities are investing in planning and zoning reform, even during these tight times. City planning is able to speak to a variety of the significant challenges that currently face us. Here’s the soundbite version of the top 4 drivers.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

How do walkable neighbourhoods contribute to the local economy? They increase long term asset value for many reasons, including increased housing value, less crime, higher walkscore, lower vehicle miles traveled, less carbon emissions, fewer auto costs, greater personal fitness, decreased infrastructure cost, more hours available, real community, and the list goes on.

PUBLIC HEALTH

What does obesity cost, and how is it effected by where I live? The average white male living in a compact community weighs 10 pounds less than his counterpart in a low density subdivision, according to the British Columbia School of Planning. Every 1% rise in the urban sprawl index increases the risk of obesity by 0.5%, according to Boston University School of Public Health. The medical costs to treat obesity in the US for 2008 is estimated at $147 billion.

Read the rest at PlaceShakers and NewsMakers

Can Roads Control Your Driving? The answer is YES

 
Where I live, we like our roads WIDE and FAST. Take, for example, the road pictured above -- posted at 25 mph and four lanes. Perhaps 30 cars per day travel on this road. Do you think they see the speed limit sign or the myriad factors that make this road feel ripe for 50-60 mph?

That's design speed - a concept, I was surprised to learn, that a 17-year Plan Commission member in my city was unaware existed.

Yes, POSTED SPEED and DESIGN SPEED are indeed two completely different things. If you live in a suburb, try driving the POSTED SPEED for a while and see how long it takes for cars to stack up behind you. And start using their horns.

Forward-looking communities understand and control DESIGN SPEED, defined by the AASHTO Green Book as "the maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a specified section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the design features of the highway govern." In other words, it's the speed at which you feel safe driving on a given road due to it's width, sight-lines, lack of turns, etc.

Unfortunately, the winding, wide roads in residential subdivisions encourage high-speed driving. And an enormously hazardous environment for kids and non-vehicular traffic (walkers and bikers).

The new goal is to create roads that enforce a lower design speed. Toward that end, it's time to make sure local Plan Commissioners -- even multi-decade veterans who can quote the UDO from memory -- are made aware of the concept and begin to make recommendations to developers (like insisting on buildings close to the street when possible) that are consistent with the goal.

The Infrastructuralist has a great piece on new research that shows safety-enhancing road design works:

New research from the University of Connecticut suggests that minor reductions in vehicle speed are possible through changes in the street environment. Through the use of roadside parking, tighter building setbacks, and more commercial land uses, road designers can make drivers  subconsciously drive more slowly, according to a study of hundreds of roads in Connecticut. It’s a revelatory demonstration of the power of design to change the way people interact with transportation.

For years, the Dutch have been telling us about “self-explaining” roads. According to experiments conducted in the Netherlands, drivers are more likely to follow cues like narrow lanes and street trees than they are to respond to decreases in speed limits. The implementation of these self-explaining streets across that Northern European country has resulted in a significant reduction in automobile collisions, to a point where Dutch drivers are less than half as likely as their American counterparts to die in a road accident. (For a closer look at auto accidents around the world, click here.)

Nevertheless, U.S. transportation engineers have generally ignored this European experience, focusing instead on “forgiving highways” that overcompensate for drivers’ mistakes through generous curve radii and wide lanes.

Unfortunately, while these efforts have been successful in reducing fatalities on the high-speed Interstate system, they’re far less effective for urban situations, where they generally encourage drivers to go faster, putting more drivers, as well as bikers and pedestrians, in danger. Lowering the speed limit has rarely worked to reduce drivers’ speeds, especially for chronic speeders.

And the suburbs do indeed spawn faster drivers:

The study also demonstrated conclusively that, compared to urban and other commercial environments, suburban neighborhoods had higher driving speeds — likely because of fewer distractions for drivers. Similar data showed that the further buildings were set back from the roadways, the faster drivers moved. In other words, the more built-up the environs of a road, the slower drivers went.

So the conclusion is this: People can be induced to reduce their driving speeds when cars are parked along the roadways, when buildings are close to the street, and when those buildings include commercial rather than residential activity.

via www.infrastructurist.com

Some GOOD news: Secretary LaHood's Policy statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations & Recommendations | Congress for the New Urbanism

Change is good:

“Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized. We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”

via www.cnu.org

The American Conservative(!) educates ideology-for-hire "reporter" John Stossel

 
ABOVE: John Stossel's "market-driven" heaven on earth (From the book Retrofitting Suburbia, 2009).

News Flash: To conservatives whose paychecks and livelihood are not intrinsically tied to protecting the interests of industries who grow fat on the sprawl-based policies, the concepts of Smart Growth and sustainable development are entirely consistent with their core values.

"Journalist" John Stossel -- a demagogue for whom "facts" are very malleable, to say the least --  proclaimed sprawl a "myth" (see "Myth #2"; he has since moved to FOX, which is entirely fitting).

GEOGRAPHY OF NOWHERE author J. H. Kunstler has nothing nice to say about Stossel and his slippery ethics. But you expect that from a lefty, right?

However, it is refreshing and worth noting when a conservative writer at a conservative web site points out the truth:

For the 101st time: sprawl — an umbrella term for the pattern of development seen virtually everywhere in the United States — is not caused by the free market. It is, rather, mandated by a vast and seemingly intractable network of government regulations, from zoning laws and building codes to street design regulations. If Stossel wants to expand Americans’ lifestyle choices, he should attack the very thing he was defending, namely, suburban sprawl.

Read the rest at The American Conservative » Sprawling Misconceptions.

Perhaps the best distillation of the reality of the situation comes from E.D. Kain at True/Slant:

Sprawl is a result of massive statist interventions into our culture and society, and its symptoms are equally enormous.  Everything that conservatism has historically stood for is undermined by sprawl.  It is not only the physical manifestation of our decline, it is a poison which continues to contribute to that decline.  Its repercussions can be felt in our discourse, in our speech, in our way of thinking.  This is not merely a matter of aesthetically pleasing communities, but of communities which allow individuals to be a part of the whole.  I doubt this is sustainable, this suburban maze – in any way: fiscally, socially, spiritually.  It is, as James Howard Kunstler called it, “a peculiar blip in human experience.”

See also the Atlantic Wire, and Andrew Sullivan.

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