Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

Smart Growth in 30 seconds

 

Why They Hate Us: A New Urbanist dissects the movement’s critics

Libertarians, Mods, and Saint, oh my ....

To drive to Kentlands from historic Georgetown is a disappointment, but to drive there from sprawling Tyson’s Corner is a revelation. That experience, and the hard slog that led to it, is what keeps us in the fight.

Read the rest at: The Evolving Debate Over Smart Growth - Urban Development, Planning, Design - Architect Magazine

The Search for Community One Sleepover at a Time? | Planetizen

From a review for the book IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD: THE SEARCH FOR COMMUNITY ONE SLEEPOVER AT A TIME:

What was most interesting to me was that almost all of the neighbors on Lovenheim’s street had an intense need to be part of a community and a social network, but they didn’t have the facilities to achieve it. One neighbor observed that public spaces have largely been privatized into commercial spaces. Think about the coffee shop, king Starbucks, bookstores. These are little self-contained units with a small entry fee.  Another neighbor contrasted American neighborhoods to African tribal villages whose homes are traditionally organized around acentral space out of a primal need for survival. She observed that American neighborhoods are designed for privacy to fuel the prevailing ideology that we can survive alone. And then she suggests the antidote to this landscape of isolation…parks! Brilliant.

Read the rest at: The Search for Community One Sleepover at a Time? | Planetizen

Smart Growth at 10 seems a success in Wisconsin

From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

On the 10th anniversary of the state's Smart Growth law, leaders of the Wisconsin Builders Association and the Wisconsin Realtors Association gave the innovative comprehensive planning initiative a qualified endorsement.

At a conclave sponsored by 1000 Friends of Wisconsin called Smart [email protected], Jerry Deschane, Builders Association executive vice president, said his organization went into the legislative process "kicking and screaming" a decade ago, but participated in the drafting of the law, which he now regards as "a good planning statute."

The new planning approach helped by making local plans "more data driven" and therefore more effective, he said.

Although implementation of the law is just beginning, Tom Larson, director of regulatory and legislative affairs for the Realtors group, said his organization is "cautiously optimistic" it will yield good results.

The drafting of the comprehensive plans at the local level over the past 10 years benefited greatly from the improved level of public participation and from making planning "more proactive instead of reactive," he said.

Nearly 90% of the counties, cities, villages and towns met the Jan. 1 deadline for completing their comprehensive Smart Growth plans. That's a big advance from 2000, when only one-quarter of local units had any kind of plan and only a small percentage had a comprehensive plan.

Many of those who were there at the creation of the Smart Growth Law convened at the Alliant Energy Center in Madison to evaluate what they had wrought. In general, they were happy with the progress, but each had an agenda for improvements.

Read the rest at   Smart Growth at 10 seems a success - JSOnline.

Franklin's fledgling SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL program is on Facebook

 
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL is a federally funded program designed to encourage kindergarten through eighth grade students to walk or bike to school; encouraging healthy and active lifestyles. 

Visit and hit the "LIKE" button to track our community's progress.

"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.

Just like Fight Club: The first rule of 27th Street/Drexel Interchange finances is you don't talk about 27th Street/Drexel Interchange finances

 
ABOVE: That actually looks pretty nifty -- big plans for Northwestern Mutual-owned land on the Oak Creek side of 27th Street (From the document "South 27th Street Sub-Area Vision Plan," prepared for Oak Creek by Eppstein Uhen Architects).

UPDATE: SURPRISE - "With a deadline days away, Oak Creek has pledged money toward the cost of a new I-94 interchange at Drexel Ave. and Franklin is pondering a contribution as well."

UPDATE 2: In Minutes from 27th Street Steering Committee meetings from January 15, 2007 to August 24, 2009, DREXEL INTERCHANGE is mentioned 21 times.

•••

Ostensibly, the Economic Development Commission is charged with overseeing the Franklin half of the Franklin-Oak Creek 27th Street Steering Committee.

In the news recently: Attempts to divert a half million dollars that had been earmarked for "enhanced lighting" for the 27th Street corridor to funding the superfluous Drexel Interchange in Oak Creek.

Alderman Steve Olson is an EDC commissioner and also chair of the 27th Street Steering Committee. At last week's Franklin Common Council meeting he made the following motion, which, fortunately, did not pass. See if you can parse it:

Alderman Olson to approve a State/Municipal Agreement for a Highway Improvement Project: 27th Street (STH 241) with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, providing for lighting improvements within the City of Franklin, with the understanding that the lighting costs of $500,000 to be paid thereunder would otherwise be the responsibility of the Department of Transportation under standard cost sharing requirements, subject to the qualification of the lighting costs as project costs and the approval by the Joint Review Board for the applicable Tax Incremental District(s) of the $500,000 to be paid thereunder as a project cost to be paid by tax increment, and subject to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation agreeing that this extraordinary one-time lump sum payment shall not be increased and shall not be due until the commencement of the 27th Street project no earlier than 2013 and the Department of Transportation obtaining the current intended timely construction of the Drexel Avenue Interchange without municipal cost share funding from the City of Franklin; all of the foregoing being subject to Oak Creek agreeing that it is in full satisfaction of any City of Franklin obligation under Article IV. of that certain June, 2009 Memorandum of Understanding with Oak Creek.  Seconded by Alderman Taylor.

Again -- fortunately -- it did not pass.

I'd asked for the following item to be placed on last night's EDC agenda:

Re-engagement with/re-assessment of the 27th Street project: I'm told by Mayor Taylor that the Economic Development Commission is essentially responsible for the 27th Street Steering Committee, yet it is my opinion/observation that the EDC membership is woefully under-informed as to the issues facing the project as well as the monies being spent. (I note, for instance, that the 4/20/10 Common Council agenda item G.5 concerns the Drexel Avenue Interchange in relationship to 27th Street, and the EDC has not offered the Common Council a recommendation on the issue.) 

That did not, alas and surprise, get on the agenda. But we did have this much more sparsely worded item:

27th Street Update - Alderman Olson

Good enough. After Alderman Olson's short update, I had the floor and began to ask questions.

First: Are we or our contractor, HNTB, still on the hook to "Boomgaard" agency Zizzo Group for marketing work? (Brace yourself: Their bid total was $265,823; HNTB takes an additional "middleman" fee of $63,840. Potential total bill for marketing: $329,663).

Answer: No.

How much have we paid them thus far? Answer: Will get the figures.

Then: Did the EDC indeed endorse the Drexel Interchange project as former EDC commissioner (and 27th Street Chairman) Ted Grinjes claimed during Citizen Comment Period at last Tuesday's Common Council Meeting.

Answer: No.

Then I asked Alderman Olson about the the specifics of Franklin's $500,000 that he had attempted to shift from 27th Street to the interchange via the motion quoted above. He described to me the intricacies of lighting pole technology, and the fact that "enhanced lighting" placed 7th on the list of amenities people would like to see on 27th Street (which brought to mind the Henry Ford quote: "If I'd asked people what they wanted me to invent, they would have said 'faster horses.'")

But -- how and why does Franklin 27th Street corridor money get shifted to an interchange in Oak Creek?

Assistant City Attorney Brian Sajdak: "If we want to talk about the cost of the lights or the look of the lights on 27th Street, that's within the purview of the Commission. The subsequent agreement between the municipalities and the state that applies those funds differently? That's not within the 27th Street Steering Committee's purview. They are there only to look at, 'This is what we think the strip should look like,' and make recommendations to the two bodies, both councils, as to what it should look like and the subsequent costs that are associated with it. The issue of funding Drexel Interchange, however it's done -- applying fund from 27th Street, applying other funds; whatever it is -- that's not the 27th Street purview, that is above and beyond the agenda item as it's noticed."

He's probably right; not getting my item as I composed it on the agenda made discussion of the Drexel Interchange a gray area. But "the subsequent costs that are associated with" 27th Street -- hey, where's our half-million-dollar "enhanced lighting"? --  are certainly within our purview, so I asked that the 27th Street Steering Committee provide for us an updated accounting of all monies spent to date for next month's meeting of Fight Club the EDC.

And, in the meantime, I'm reading a book about Robert's Rules of Order, and Alderman Olson and I have to schedule a coffee date.

In a later post: The EDC takes up the question of small "process and fee" incentives to encourage creative and economy-strengthening development.

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