Planning Commissioners Journal

The End of the Strip?

Why the era of strip commercial development may be nearing an end. by Edward McMahon; from PCJ #82 (Spring 2011); 4 pages Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post. For more on dealing with commercial strips, see Ross Moldoff's Controlling Strip Development.

Read excerpt from start of article: Two Best Buy stores. The old paradigm: single use, only accessible by car. The new paradigm: mixed uses also accessible by transit or on foot. For more than 50 years retailers have favored the commercial strip: a linear pattern of retail businesses strung along major roadways, characterized by massive parking lots, a plethora of big signs, box-like buildings, and a total dependence on automobiles for access and circulation. For years urban planners and public officials have tried to contain, control, and improve the strip. Now they are getting some help from an unexpected quarter: consumers and the marketplace. Today the era of strip development is coming to an end. Evolving consumer behavior, changing demographics, high priced gasoline, internet shopping, the economy, and other factors are all combining to create a new paradigm for commercial development. Commercial strips are not going to disappear overnight, but it is becoming increasingly clear that strip retail is retail for the last century. The future belongs to town centers, main streets, and mixed-use development. Among the reasons for this transformation: 1. We're Overbuilt on the Strip From 1960 to 2000 there was an almost ten-fold increase in U.S. retail space, from 4 to 38 square feet per person. For many years retail space was growing 5 to 6 times faster than retail sales. Most of this space came in the form of discount superstores on the suburban strip. The recession made clear that we have too much retail. Strip centers are now littered with vacant stores. By some estimates, there is currently over one billion square feet of vacant retail space. Much of this space is going to have to re-purposed or demolished. In fact, one retail analyst estimates that we need to demolish 300 million square feet of retail space. On the other hand, the only places left with more spending power than stores to spend it in are our cities. 2. Retail is Rediscovering the City In 2010, Target announced plans to remodel the century-old Carson Pirie Scott department store in Chicago. This landmark building designed by architect Louis Sullivan will be just one of a number of new, so-called big box retailers planned for urban neighborhoods. Similarly, in late 2010, Wal-Mart announced plans to open its first ever stores in Washington, D.C. To make the four new stores fit an urban environment, the company has agreed to consider an array of layouts, designs, and parking arrangements, a reflection of the chain's willingness to adapt its prototype to enter lucrative urban markets. The D.C. store planned for New Jersey Avenue illustrates Wal-Mart's new approach to store design. The company plans a store of 75,000 to 80,000 square feet (much smaller than usual) on the ground floor of a five story mixed-use building featuring 315 apartments, underground parking, and space for smaller retail stores. Home Depot already has a new urban store in Toronto with 90 units of housing on top. At the same time that Wal-Mart, Target, and other big box stores are planning dozens of new urban stores in cities all over America, as many as 400 former Wal-Mart stores and other big boxes sit vacant on commercial strips across the country. Most analysts agree that cities and urban neighborhoods are the new land of opportunity for retail. ... McMahon's article then continues with sections on: 3. The Suburbs are Being Redesigned 4. Traffic Congestion, Fuel Prices, and Poor Design are Hurting the Strip 5. The Economy is Restructuring the Retail Landscape 6. Consumers Favor Walkability and Places With Character 7. E-Commerce and New Technologies Mean Fewer and Smaller Stores plus: Where Do We Go From Here? -- what can planning commissions do to help reshape the strip; some recommendations culled from leading experts. ... the full article is available to order & download immediately below.

order & download full article $4.00 (single copy license)
order & download full article $16.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

What Size Is Your Street?

Note from PCJ Editor Wayne Senville: We're pleased that over the coming year we'll be exchanging monthly blog postings with our partner, Project for Public Spaces.

---

Right-Sizing the Street: Not Just for the DOT Anymore
by Staff from Project for Public Spaces

It used to be that only transportation professionals decided how wide a street should be. Not anymore. Communities of all shapes and sizes are beginning to play a larger part in determining the design and network of their street system.

This new, active role helps ensure that transportation projects contribute to broad community outcomes, including local social, economic, and environmental well-being.

One primary way in which communities are playing an active role in the planning process is through grassroots efforts to “right-size” local streets. These right-sizing efforts take the form of low-cost experiments that are intended to demonstrate potential benefits of place-based transportation and informing long-term decision-making.

What is Right-Sizing?

Right-sizing is a technique to re-design streets to make them context sensitive. Through right-sizing, streets can be transformed so they are safer, sustainable, and more functional from a mobility and a community perspective.

For more detail on some examples of right-sizing techniques, read this recent post on Safer, More Livable Streets through Bike Lanes, featuring PPS Transportation Initiatives Director, Gary Toth.

Community-led and Action-Oriented Approaches to Right Sizing

When it comes to right-sizing a street, there are several approaches that range in cost, time commitment, and impact. Of all these approaches, community-led and action-oriented tactics are consistently lighter, quicker, and cheaper than traditional, capital-heavy alternatives.

Around the country, and with a little help from organizations such as PPS, The Street Plans Collaborative, and Go Oak Cliff, community members are realizing that the network of streets permeating their neighborhoods are not sacrosanct territory, but are public space that they can play an active role in planning and shaping.

A New Planning Forum to “Free People’s Minds"

---

Note from PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

We're pleased that over the coming year we'll be exchanging monthly blog postings with our partner, Project for Public Spaces. Many of PPS' posts on the PlannersWeb will supplement content from their short articles in the Planning Commissioners Journal. This post ties in to their “11 Principles for Creating Great Community Places,” included in our Winter issue.

 

---

Building a Vision for Buffalo’s Waterfront 
by Staff from Project for Public Spaces

“If you can create a process that’s democratic and inclusive, the product will be one that will be lasting- and that all people will buy into …” -- Mark Goldman.

We’re inspired by the work of this highly-motivated group of people in Buffalo, New York, who insist on moving away from big, “look-at-me” designs and toward lower-cost, creative interventions that will bring immediate improvements to their under-used waterfront.

Mark Goldman, one of Buffalo’s biggest “zealous nuts”, along with a creative team of unlikely partners, hosted a 2-day Forum in November 2010 called “Aspirations and Inspirations” to kick-off a visioning process to re-invent Buffalo’s former industrial waterfront as a multi-use public destination sustained by local artists and businesses.

“This is not your typical policy meeting. This is about inspiration”

Events like these signal a shift away from the traditional master planning process and towards a new, place-based agenda to transform cities. Instead of a standard design charrette, Buffalo kicked things off with a festival meant to send a message “to the decision makers that there are other ways to think about planning our waterfront.”

Billboards: The Case for Control

Why cities and towns benefit when they just say “no” to the continued proliferation of billboards. by Edward McMahon; from PCJ #81 (Winter 2011) Download this article (pdf format); no charge for download. See our interview with Ed McMahon about this article | see response from Outdoor Advertising Association of America | see perspectives from PCJ Editor We welcome you to weigh in. Join the discussion on the Planning Commissioners Journal Linkedin group page (you need to be a Linkedin user to view our group page; if you're not using Linkedin, I encourage you to try it out). For information on other articles by McMahon published in the Planning Commissioners Journal.

Come see America the beautiful, if you can. Amber waves of grain? It is more like a ride through the yellow pages: a windshield vista of 50-foot beer cans and towering casino signs. Many thought billboards were an endangered species in 1965 when Congress passed the Highway Beautification Act. But the law was so riddled with loopholes and enforcement so lax that in recent years, billboard companies have put up thousands of new, bigger, more obtrusive billboards. In a relatively short time, outdoor advertising has gone from Burma Shave to Blade Runner: from small and folksy to huge and intrusive. We've now entered the era of digital billboards -- giant outdoor TV screens wasting energy while degrading the landscape and distracting drivers. Billboards are the definition of a roadside distraction. Their entire purpose is to take your eyes off the road and put them on giant outdoor advertisements. Safety is just one of the reasons why many communities have been trying to regulate billboards for decades. Curbing billboards is not easy, but it can be done. This article lays out the case for billboard control. It discusses the reasons beyond safety for why we need to halt construction of new billboards and strictly regulate those that remain. 1. Billboards are a form of pollution -- visual pollution Over the years, billboards have been described as the "junk mail of the highway," "litter on a stick," "visual kudzu," "urban blight," and more, but in their simplest form billboards are a form of visual pollution. Regulating billboards is no different from regulating noxious fumes, sewage discharges, or excessive noise. The U.S. Supreme Court has said: "Pollution is not limited to the air we breathe and the water we drink; it can equally offend the eye and ear." While the messages on a billboard can be ugly or ordinary when they are enlarged to the size of a house, placed on poles 50-100 feet high, randomly strewn along every street, even covering entire buildings, they become a visual and environmental hazard. Like overly loud noise -- strictly regulated in many communities -- billboards thrust a discordant commercial note into our environment. They deprive us of visual access to scenic vistas and create a strident, hectic atmosphere in cities. 2. Billboards are out of place in most locations Our landscape is one of America's greatest resources. Its value is economic as well as aesthetic, psychological as well as recreational, spiritual as well as physical. Every landscape, rural or urban, has its own kind of beauty and uniqueness. In every kind of landscape billboards are a disturbing alien intrusion. Like empty beer cans in a mountain stream, they simply don't belong because they commercialize, homogenize, and degrade our natural landscape. Visual clutter may be appropriate in a few limited locations, such as a city's entertainment district (e.g., Times Square or the Las Vegas Strip). In most cases, however, billboards obliterate architectural character and ruin natural beauty. They also undermine community livability and sustainability. Doug Kelbaugh, of the University of Michigan, School of Architecture put it this way: "If a building, a landscape, or a city is not beautiful, it will not be loved, if it is not loved, it will not be maintained. In short it won't be sustained." 3. Billboards destroy distinctiveness Billboards look the same whether they are in Mississippi, Montana, or Malaysia. As a result, billboards homogenize our communities. They help turn unique places into "Anyplace." In fact, almost nothing will destroy the distinctive character of a place faster than uncontrolled signs and billboards. This has negative economic consequences. "Community differentiation" is a key concept in economic development today. If you can't differentiate your community from any other community you have no competitive advantage. Put another way, the "image of a community is fundamentally important to its economic well being." Every day, people make decisions about where to live, invest, or vacation based on what communities look like. Attractive, well-ordered communities have an advantage over ugly, chaotic ones. Take tourism: the more one community comes to look like every other community, the less reason there is to visit. On the other hand, the more a community does to protect and enhance its distinctive character, whether natural or architectural, the more reason there is to visit. Billboards destroy distinctiveness and undermine our sense of place while they commercialize our neighborhoods. ... article continues with: 4. Billboards are the only form of advertising that you can't turn off or avoid 5. Billboard companies sell something they don't own -- our field of vision 6. Billboards are ineffective and unnecessary 7. Billboard companies exercise almost no restraint in the placement of outdoor ads 8. Billboards are both a cause and a symptom of urban blight 9. Billboards are bad for business 10. Digital billboards, use huge amounts of energy contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

Interview with Ed McMahon about his article "Billboards: The Case for Control"

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

Our Winter issue includes an article by Ed McMahon, “Billboards: The Case for Control.” McMahon is a nationally renowned authority and speaker on sustainable development, land conservation, and urban design. He’s a Senior Resident Fellow at the Urban Land Institute.

In his Planning Commissioners Journal article, McMahon argues that billboards are not only unsightly, but damage community character. He also responds to arguments commonly heard in favor of allowing billboards.

I asked Ed McMahon to take a few minutes to discuss some of the points he makes in his PCJ article:

Wayne Senville: Billboards have been a long-standing form of advertising. In fact, many older readers may have fond memories of Burma Shave signs along our roadways. Why have billboards become such a problem today that you're advocating that communities shut the door on all billboards?

Ed McMahon: In a relatively short time, outdoor advertising has gone from Burma Shave to Blade Runner; from small and folksy to huge and intrusive. We have now entered the era of digital billboards -- huge outdoor TV screens wasting energy while degrading the landscape and distracting drivers.

Today commercialism -- particularly in the form of outdoor advertising -- pervades our world to an extent unimaginable, even several decades ago.

Wayne Senville: One of the arguments in favor of having billboards is that they provide motorists with useful information. Isn't that often true?

Ed McMahon: No one needs billboards. The vast majority of billboards advertise products or services that have nothing to do with motorist information: beer, cell phones, strip clubs, you name it.

What’s more there are alternatives to billboards that provide motorist information at far less cost without degrading our landscape. For example, we have all seen  highway “logo signs” that advertise roadside services such as gas stations, restaurants, hotels, and tourist attractions. What’s more, information on roadside services is now readily available on smart phones, Blackberries, and vehicle information systems, like Onstar.

Wayne Senville: Is it really appropriate for government to be telling businesses how they can or cannot advertise their products? Why should advertising on billboards be treated any differently than advertising on TV, in magazines, or on web pages? Isn't this just a question of government imposing its aesthetic tastes?

Ed McMahon: Billboards are the only form of advertising you cannot turn off or ignore.  There is a vast difference between seeing an ad -- even the same ad -- in a magazine, newspaper, on television, or on the internet. The difference is freedom of choice. When you buy a magazine or turn on the television, you exercise freedom of choice. You can easily turn the page or change the channel if you don’t want to see an ad. 

In contrast, you have no power to turn off or throw away a billboard. Billboards force advertising on individuals and communities whether they want it or not. What’s more, billboards are on enormous structures that litter the landscape, cover entire buildings, block access to scenic vistas, and create a strident, hectic atmosphere in our cities and countryside.

Wayne Senville: Isn't it an unlawful taking of property rights for local governments to prohibit billboards? What about billboard that are already up?

Ed McMahon: Courts have long held that billboards do not derive their value from the private land they stand on, but from the public roads they stand next to. Courts call this the “parasite principle” -- because billboards feed like a parasite off roads they pay almost nothing to build, use, or maintain.

Carefully drafted billboard ordinances have met legal scrutiny for more than 50 years. Billboard regulation is not a legal problem, but a political problem. Curbing billboards is not easy, but it can and is being done.

Wayne Senville: In your article you mention several states, such as Vermont and Hawaii, that ban billboards. Doesn't this hurt local businesses who are trying to attract customers?

Ed McMahon: Vermont, Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii all ban billboards, so do thousands of cities, towns and counties. These communities have found that beauty and placemaking are good for business; ugliness and excessive commercialism are not. 

The former head of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce summed up this point of view, when he said “One of our greatest resources is our scenic beauty. Although there was some initial sensitivity that removing billboards might hurt tourism, it has had the opposite effect. Tourism is up for all  businesses, large and small.”

Wayne Senville: Do you find that the newer digital billboards represent a major change in the nature of outdoor advertising? If so, is it for the better or for the worse?

Ed McMahon: In addition to being intrusive and a major expansion of commercialism, digital billboards are huge energy hogs. Digital billboards make a mockery of efforts to go green. A chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council recently found that one digital billboard use 49 times the energy of a conventional billboard. Even the spokesman for a major outdoor advertising company acknowledged that a digital billboard use roughly five times as much energy as a single family house.

A community littered with ugly energy guzzling digital signs is the antithesis of a sustainable community.

---

We welcome you to weigh in. Join the discussion on the Planning Commissioners Journal Linkedin group page (you need to be a Linkedin user to view our group page; if you're not using Linkedin, I encourage you to try it out).

 

Planning Comm'rs Journal to Partner with Project for Public Spaces

We're pleased to announce that the Planning Commissioners Journal will be partnering with Project for Public Spaces. This partnership is an important step toward increasing "Placemaking" capacity and knowledge among PCJ readers who include members of local planning commissions and zoning boards, elected officials, and others involved in decision-making about the built environment.

Planning Commissioners Journal readers share many of the same interests and values as PPS members: a desire to strengthen downtowns; a deep interest in promoting civic values; and an understanding of the critical importance of involving local residents and businesses in decision-making.

As part of this partnership, PPS will share articles about the core concepts of Placemaking as well as our many resources and stories on strengthening public markets and local economies, creating public multi-use destinations, and many other topics. PPS’ resources will be featured in a “centerfold” in the Planning Commissioners Journal (starting with our Winter issue) and will also appear here on the PlannersWeb.

In return, PPS.org will feature PCJ articles on topics like transportation, livability, and helpful how-to’s for overcoming challenges citizen planners frequently encounter including tips on how to deal with the media, put together a comprehensive plan, run an effective meeting, and develop good staff-commissioner relations.

More About PPS

Project for Public Spaces is a nonprofit planning, design, and educational organization dedicated to helping people create and sustain public spaces that build stronger communities. Their pioneering Placemaking approach helps citizens transform their public spaces into vital places that highlight local assets, spur rejuvenation and serve common needs.

PPS was founded in 1975 to expand on the work of William (Holly) Whyte, the author of The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Since then, PPS has completed projects in over 2,500 communities in 40 countries and all 50 U.S. states. Partnering with public and private organizations; federal, state and municipal agencies; business improvement districts; and neighborhood associations and other civic groups, PPS works to improve communities by fostering successful public spaces.

PPS has become an internationally recognized center for resources, tools, and inspiration about Placemaking.

Additional Note from PCJ Editor Wayne Senville

While I've followed the work of PPS for many years, I got to know their staff this past Spring while attending a PPS "Streets as Places" workshop. I was impressed by their skills, knowledge, and commitment to values I believe most planning commissioners and citizen planners share. Foremost among these is a belief in the critical importance of citizen involvement in planning for the future of our cities and towns.

You can read my reports from the Streets as Places workshop:

-- Can a Street Be a Place? 

-- Circling the Square  

-- Breaking Our Addiction to Highway Level of Service Standards  

-- The Other Half of the "Deadly Duo"

-- Please Be Seated

-- There's a Good Story Here!

The Place Making Dividend

Why fostering a sense of place is key to having a strong, economically vibrant city or town. by Edward McMahon; from PCJ #80 (Fall 2010) We're making available the full text of the article below; you can also download a complimentary pdf of the article. For information on other articles by McMahon published in the Planning Commissioners Journal.

In June, the technology giant Apple finally opened its first store in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. The grand opening is the culmination of a saga stretching back two and one half years to when Apple bought a building that formerly housed a women's clothing store. It took Apple eight months to build its new store, but it took them more than twice as long to get design approval (19 months) for the new building which replaced the former clothing store. The protracted design review process began when Apple proposed their standard (off-the shelf), modern façade (they are, after all, a high-tech company) that they use in suburban stores all over the country. The Georgetown Design Review Board balked at this and reaped a heap of criticism for letting historic preservation stand in the way of retail progress. The new building, which is now complete, looks pretty much like dozens of other historic commercial structures that line Georgetown main commercial thoroughfares. Some may think the façade is bland. Others will say it fits right in. Whatever you think, one of the things the new design proves is that when a chain store developer comes to town it generally has at least three designs (A, B, or C) ranging from Anywhere USA to Unique (i.e., sensitive to local character). According to retail consultant, Bob Gibbs, "which one gets built depends heavily upon how much push back the company gets from local residents and officials about design and its importance."

V is for Vision

Automobile | Budget | Comp Plan | Design | Ecology | Farmland | Growth Management | Historic Preservation | Inclusionary | Justice | Knowledge | Land Subdivision | Maps | Neighborhood | Open Space | Public Health & Safety | Quiet | Regional Planning | Sustainable | Takings | Urban Sprawl | Vision | Water | X-rated Uses | Zoning

order & download the complete Planning ABC's

---

Many of America's early planners were people of vision whose creative imaginations continue to make our cities livable and memorable. 

In 1791, Pierre Charles L'Enfant envisioned an immense, world-class national capital on the Potomac. 

L'Enfant's plan included broad diagonal avenues cutting through a grid of streets. Key intersections of avenues and streets provided settings for monuments and fountains.

In 1901, a team of planners led by Daniel Hudson Burnham undertook a vast extension of the original plan, continuing L'Enfant's central axis to the west, and reorienting it to pass through the Washington Monument. This created sites for the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials at the end of grand axes.

Without vision in carrying the L'Enfant Plan forward, the Washington Mall would have continued to be cluttered with private interest activities, and the Washington Monument would be overlooking a vast Potomac River mud flat (referred to by turn-of-the-century politicians as "that Godforsaken swamp!").  Instead, the Mall today provides a wonderful heart to our capital city, while the mud flat is parkland providing the sites for the Lincoln Memorial and Reflecting Pools, and more recently, the Vietnam and Korean Veterans Memorials. Planners of vision see potential; those without vision see only the swamp.

In the 1850's, Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. and Calvert Vaux built on the creative vision of New York City's civic leaders who had purchased (for $5,000,000!) a site for an immense "central park." Olmsted and Vaux planned for the recreation and public health needs of a future city of millions, designing a park that quickly became a national model. Central Park provided for separation of traffic types, huge "natural" greens, and the careful placement of perimeter walls, interior depressions, and tree plantings to assure the isolation of visitors within this "Greensward" from the city immediately beyond. See also "O is for Open Space."

The Plan of Columbus, Ohio is an excellent example of the value of vision in planning (as well as how unforeseen events often permit visions initially deemed "impractical" to be capable of implementation in unexpected ways). This 1908 plan envisioned a new urban open space lined with public buildings, leading downhill from the State Capitol, terminating at a new armory located at the opposite side of the Scioto River. The plan was immediately denounced as too grandiose and impossible to realize. But the principal visions of the plan were shortly made realizable by fire and flood: the old Columbus City Hall burned and the Scioto River flooded, destroying derelict riverside industrial buildings.

The result: A new city hall was built on cleared ground next to the Scioto River. The river was widened and gradually lined with public buildings. This new river-focused open space ended at the restored Civil War Era Ohio State Armory. In this manner, the grand vision of the 1908 Plan was realized by turning the original concept 90 degrees, substituting city hall for the state capitol, a historic armory for a new one, and water for grassed esplanade. Indeed, the Columbus Civic Center was ultimately realized at a scale more than nine times as large as proposed in 1908!

In more modern times, visionary planning can be seen in the 1962 town plan for Reston, Virginia, a brilliantly conceived vision of "urbanism in the countryside;" in the 1979 Capital Center Plan for Providence, Rhode Island, which set the framework for the revitalization of that city and for such amenities as the recently completed Waterplace Park; and in comparable planning efforts across the country. Vision is imagination capable of inspiring planners and builders to respect the works of today, while moving forward with greater visions of the community of tomorrow.

---

Text by Laurence C. Gerckens, FAICP. Illustration by Paul Hoffman.
Text & illustration copyright Champlain Planning Press, Inc. | contact: pcjoffice@gmail.com

There's a Good Story Here!

[all photos in this post can be viewed at larger size; just click on the image] 

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

What would Horace Greeley, America's most famous newspaper publisher and editor, think about the changes to the square bearing his name -- looking down from his bronze chair? Probably, "there's a good story here!"

He'd be right. The transformation of Greeley Square from a rundown, orphaned park to a lively, busy place is indeed a good story. It also could serve as Exhibit A in demonstrating the principles highlighted at the recent Project for Public Spaces workshop I attended. 

Some basics first. Greeley Square (like Petrosino Square; see my earlier post) is not square, but rectangular. It's wedged between Broadway and Sixth Avenue, and 32nd and 33rd Streets, close to Macy's, The Empire State Building, and Penn Sation. 

New Yorkers call Greeley Square a "bow tie" park since it is twined with the reverse triangle of Herald Square. Together they take on the shape of a bow tie.

In a posting last week I wrote about the importance of seating and, in particular, the emphasis PPS places on movable chairs. As with many principles of urban space design, this harkens back to observations first made by William H. Whyte: "Chairs enlarge choice: to move into the sun, out of it: to move closer to someone, further away from another. The possibility of choice is as important as the exercise of it." From Whyte's City: Rediscovering the Center.

Even on a short visit to Greeley Square, you can see the benefits of movable chairs, as people arrange the chairs where they like -- alone, in pairs, or in small groups.

The single most important sign of a successful park according to PPS staff is not how pretty it looks from the air, but how active it is on the ground. While there are many important ingredients in helping ensure active use, the one that I kept hearing over and over during the PPS workshop was "good management." As PPS Vice-President Kathy Madden said, "Eighty percent of the success of any space has to do with how it is managed."

This single factor has, in large part, been responsible for the transformation of a growing number of New York City parks. Urban designer Norman Mintz noted that: "Greeley Square used to be a place you did not want to go to. Today, you can be hard pressed to find a place to sit during lunch hour."

Take a one minute walk through Greeley Park (posted on Google videos in 2006):

In Greeley Square, as in a growing number of other New York City parks, a private nonprofit manages the park and programs activities. In Greeley Square's case, it's done by the 34th Street Partnership. 

So what does this mean, on the ground? For one thing: getting many small details right -- details that add up.

How about restrooms you can actually feel comfortable going into? Yes, those flowers were actually in the Greeley Square public restroom when I visited (and, yes, it felt strange taking a photo inside a restroom!).

How about a vending stand where you can not just get a bite to eat, but a delicious sandwich? Great care went into selecting the food vendor, 'wichcraft.

How about a park that's kept nice and clean all the time, not just once a day?

How about all sorts of details, from the design of the trash receptacles to the availability of information for visitors? (Incidentally, the information stand has a big benefit beyond providing maps and fliers, it also provides another pair of eyes on what's happening in the park).

Fred Kent, President of PPS, said that one question that often comes up is how to deal with vagrants or homeless people using the park. His answer: that unless they're causing a disturbance, let them be. As long as the park is well-managed and maintained, it will attract other users. With enough activity, people will see the park as a place welcoming to all.

Who pays for all this? In New York City, as I noted, there's a definite move towards park management being handled by nonprofits. But it's not just in New York, I also reported on this last Summer during a visit to Detroit, and it's a trend nationwide.

Funding sources for park management vary. For the 34th Street Partnership (which manages both Greeley Square and Herald Square under an agreed-upon plan with the City) the primary source of revenue is from special assessments on property within its business improvement district. This is supplemented by income from the food vendors -- another reason why ensuring quality food is important -- and sponsors of events taking place in the park. Revenue from these "supplemental" sources is a much bigger factor in larger spaces like Bryant Park.

As you can see from the 34th Street business improvement district map above (click on it to view it at larger size), the BID is quite large, stretching from Park Avenue to 10th Avenue, and ranging between 30th and 36th Streets. It has a staff of 154, including 63 in sanitation and 36 in security. In 2009, it received $9.3 million in revenue from special assessments on properties within the district. For more details about the 34th Street Partnership BID.

Note: the upcoming Summer issue of the Planning Commissioners Journal features an article on how BIDs work, along with an article providing a closer look at the enormously successful Bryant Park BID. 

For cities, the benefits of strong urban parks are considerable. Not only do they provide pleasant, enjoyable places for residents, shoppers, office workers, and tourists to use, but they are financial catalysts for cities. Indeed, with New York City seeing so many benefits from its resurgent urban parks, it's no surprise that the city officials are among their biggest advocates.

So, as Horace Greeley no doubt would have told you, "there's a good story here!"

 

Please Be Seated

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

We do it dozens of times a day. During nice weather, we often do it in the park. And we're careful where we do it, often scouting out a location that seems just right for us to .... sit. But how much do planners and urban designers know about our backsides?

Noted open space researcher, the late William H. Whyte, found this an overlooked, but quite important, matter. "A dimension that is truly important," he wrote, "is the human backside ... It is a dimension that architects ignore."

Why is knowing about our backsides so important? Because, as Whyte observed through his field observations: 

"Rarely will you find a ledge or bench that is deep enough to be sittable on both sides. ... Our recommended depth was arrived at quite pragmatically. The minimum-depth ledge we came across that was consistently used on both sides was thirty inches deep. ... For a few additional inches of depth, then, a developer can double the amount of his ledge-sitting space." While Whyte noted that this wouldn't necessarily double the number of people sitting: "The benefit of the additional space is social comfort. There will be more room for groups and individuals to sort themselves out, more choice, and more perception of choice." From City: Rediscovering the Center, p. 115.

One of the many fascinating things talked about at the Project for Public Space's "Streets as Places" workshop was the importance of seating in parks and along sidewalks. Frankly, it wasn't something I had spent much time reflecting on before -- but the message PPS staff conveyed over and over was: it's the details of how people actually use parks and open space that can make a world of difference. And that takes careful observation to learn.

It's clear we care about where we sit. Just think about what factors flash through your mind when you enter, say, your city's downtown park at lunch time looking for a place to eat a sandwich or relax for a few minutes?

Again, here's what William Whyte found: "All things being equal, you can calculate that where pedestrian flows bisect a sittable place, that is where people will most likely sit. And it is not perverse of them. It is by choice that they do." People tend to sit where they can view the action going on, and not in remote corners.

As a planner, you also need to consider what kinds of seating to provide. I was surprised to hear that PPS often advocates the use of movable seating, instead of fixed benches. Why's that? First, because chairs are usually more comfortable than benches. Second, they're less expensive (you can typically buy ten chairs for the cost of one bench). But most importantly, "people can arrange chairs how they like, to sit nearer or farther apart, and move them around to sun or shade." Giving people choices is a big plus.

PPS staff acknowledged that the biggest downside is the possibility of theft of the chairs -- though they note that "this can be reduced when the area is supervised by an attendant or an activity where staff is present." That's something that should be possible in busier downtown parks -- especially those that are well-managed (and I'll return to the importance of park management in my next post). 

Take a look at the photo above of Greeley Square (is it just coincidence that Horace Greeley looks like he's comfortably seated in, at least what used to be, a movable chair?) and of Broadway on the right. Movable chairs are now common in New York City's downtown parks and open spaces. [Click on the photos to view them at larger size.]

As an aside, urban designer Norman Mintz noted that one of the hurdles New York's small urban parks, like Greeley Square, have had to overcome is that maintenance staff like to arrange seating in nice, neat rows; part of their training is to tell them that's not necessary, as people are more comfortable finding (and perhaps moving) a chair that is not so "formally" lined up. 

Benches can also work. A bench in the right location along a sidewalk can be a boon to shoppers and others. Again, PPS staff have learned much through observation, leading to a number of tips and guidelines they provided:

• One mistake is to place benches at regular intervals along a street. Instead, consider locating them where they'll most likely be used: ""places where people wait for rides, taxis, or buses; near food shops; and anywhere that people can watch other people."
• Conversely, don't put seating in ""places where there is little activity, such as in front of banks that close early, buildings without windows, places that are hidden from view or located too far from activity."
• Also very important: keeping benches in good repair. Otherwise "when people see the neglect [they] then make generalizations that influence their perceptions or feelings about the entire downtown."

PPS has also put together guidelines for things like depth of seating, height of bench backs, and the design of bench legs and armrests. Again, guidelines based on years of observation.

If all this sounds too challenging, take heart. As William Whyte wryly noted: "it takes real work to create a lousy place." 

Yet, it can be done! Witness Mercantile Plaza in the heart of downtown St. Louis, which I visited with blogger Steve Patterson on a sunny afternoon a few years ago. As Patterson has noted ""it's more of a vacant hole than a quality urban space ... no seating is provided and sitting on the grass would probably upset the guards."

Of course, seating along sidewalks is also important outside of parks. When combined with food, you have a real winning combination. 

So be sure there are plenty of places in your community where you -- and neighbors, office workers, shoppers, and visitors -- can be seated.

In my next post, we'll stroll over to Greeley Square for a closer look at how one small urban park in New York has been transformed.

[Note: this post was based on notes I took during the April PPS "Streets as Places" workshop, as well as on material from "A Primer on Seating," prepared by PPS staff.]

Circling the Square

 From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

Twenty-five local officials, planners, and urban designers from across the U.S. and Canada (and even Brazil), in groups of six or seven, headed downstairs and out the front door of our meeting room in the SoHo section of lower Manhattan. 

Guided by staff from the Project for Public Spaces (PPS), we would be circling the square -- Petrosino Square, that is -- two blocks away.

With walking audit sheets in our hands, our job was to spend an hour carefully observing activities in the square and noting what we saw. Each group had a different sector to focus on. The goal of walking audits like this is to get a feel for what works and what doesn’t, and to come up with ideas for strengthening the place.

While Petrosino Square was the focal point, much of the audit hones in on how the public open space relates to traffic circulation patterns and to surrounding businesses and land uses.

Take a look at a portion of the audit sheet. Click on the image to view it at larger, readable size.

One important point PPS staff mentioned to our group as we headed out: the first five or six minutes of observing are especially important. That’s the time when we get our initial feel for the space we’re viewing.

I used the word “feel” deliberately, because we were advised during this initial period to simply absorb the sights, sounds, and even smells, of the area. This advice reminded me of what I had once heard about listening to music -- just to allow your first hearing of a piece of music to flow through you, without over analyzing it.

Also important to a walking audit (even to our somewhat condensed audit) is taking some time to ask questions of people using the public space or walking nearby, to gain insights from them.

My group was assigned to observe Spring Street, a narrow, but busy street that intersects the northern end of Petrosino Square [See number 5 in the map above]. We found Spring Street lined with retail stores, restaurants, and an assortment of other businesses.

Its' sidewalks hosted a hodge-podge of “street furnishings” such as trash cans and mail boxes, as well as a diverse assortment of signs plastered on light poles.

Also on this one short block: a subway entrance, some unexpected places to sit (as on a fire hydrant), and plenty of graffiti.

Plus a row of parked delivery trucks, two street vendors, and lots and lots of people coursing (yes, “coursing,” not “cursing”) their way down the block.

In a moment of inspiration (perhaps), I decided to ask several people if there was a park nearby where I could find a place to sit. I thought that might be too obvious a question, as Petrosino Square was just a block away, but of the six people I asked (including both street vendors) no one had any idea. One of the vendors was helpful, however, pulling out his street map and trying to locate a nearby park -- without any luck!

Petrosino Square itself has a long, triangular shape, with the narrow end being closest to Spring Street, where my group walked. During our early afternoon, weekday visit Petrosino Square was quite busy, with many of the bench spots taken.

Restaurants bordering the square along Lafayette and Kenmare Streets were also doing well.

Back upstairs in the meeting room we reconvened. Each group sat down to go over audit sheet notes and compare observations.

It was interesting, to see what things different people picked up on. Lots of pieces of information and details were shared. Most significantly, we spent time discussing how Petrosino Square seemed to work for those using the park, and for surrounding businesses.

 

We also try to view the square through the eyes of pedestrians (which we were for a short time). For example, several argued that it might make sense to close or narrow one of the streets bordering the square. This could allow for a much wider sidewalk, and also provide an attractive space for restaurants to place outdoor seating and better connect to the square.

During our discussions, most everyone also felt that Petrosino Square -- despite the work that has gone into improving it over the past few years (which included adding new pavement, benches, and trees) -- still lacked a strong sense of identity. Perhaps this explains, at least in part, why none of the six people I questioned while walking a block away had been aware of the park.

Petrosino Park, as it is now officially called (it used to be Kenmare Square), is named after a true New York City hero, Lieutenant Joseph Petrosino, the city’s first Italian-American sergeant of detectives -- of the Homicide Division.

Petrosino gained fame for warning the Secret Service in 1901 about an assassination plot to take the life of President William McKinley, a warning that unfortunately went unheeded. Ironically, Petrosino himself was assassinated in 1909 in Italy while on an undercover assignment investigating the background of organized crime leaders. Some 250,000 New Yorkers lined the streets of Manhattan for his funeral procession. For more about Lt. Petrosino.

PPS staff prodded us to think about how we might initiate changes to Petrosino Square, and what groups we might try to involve. For PPS, building constituencies to support more actively used public spaces is critically important. 

One big selling point -- especially to retail businesses bordering the public open space -- is how attracting more people will increase their business and, for owners, the value of their property. This is something I’ll come back to in the coming week in postings about Greeley Square and Bryant Park.

Moving cars quickly down the streets bordering the square doesn’t help much in generating business. In fact, it likely has the opposite effect. On the other hand, attracting more pedestrians and bicyclists to the square and its' surroundings would be a boon.

Words often repeated by PPS staff during the workshop -- and I jotted them down -- were “active,” “pedestrian-oriented,” “street life,” “sidewalks,” “outdoor eating,”  and “fun.” Don’t dismiss “fun” -- people like to be in a place they can enjoy being in. It sounds so obvious. Yet how can you enjoy being in a place where autos and trucks constantly stream by?

To Fred Kent, President of PPS, it’s also important to think outside the box, or in our case, outside the square. As he stressed, a small square like Petrosino can be much more than just a row of park benches with a couple of trees. It can be the heart of a neighborhood, the generator of activity, a place where people enjoy spending their time, socializing, eating, relaxing, and watching other people also enjoying themselves.

Petrosino Square’s already heading in that direction. It just needs a little more of a push. In the meantime, there’s much to enjoy in circling the square on a sunny afternoon.

Can a Street Be a Place?

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville: 

This post's title is the question that was at the heart of a fascinating two-day workshop I attended in April. Sponsored by the Project for Public Spaces, the workshop's description as covering "Streets as Places" intrigued me. But PPS Executive Vice President Kathy Madden told me to only come if I was also willing to be an active participant. Sounded like fun, and it was. Indeed, the PPS workshop centered around active interaction between the thirty or so attendees. (Next week I'll talk about our group "walking audit" exercise).

But why think about streets as places? First, streets constitute a surprisingly large amount of the land area within cities, often 30 percent or more. That's a lot of valuable real estate given over the cars and trucks. Second, what happens on streets directly affects what happens on sidewalks. Third, streets affect quality of life; something most all of us care about.

Here's some of what PPS has to say about streets: "While streets were once a place where we stopped for conversation and children played, they are now the exclusive domain of cars. Even where sidewalks are present along highways and high-speed streets, they feel inhospitable and out of place."

For planners and transportation engineers, dealing with streets has long focused on how to move traffic as efficiently and quickly as possible. Other concerns, if considered at all, were secondary. The not too surprising result of this philosophy, as those at PPS succinctly put it, is that "if you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places."

So how do you plan for streets that work as places where people are comfortable? Among the key things PPS recommends is:

1. using traffic calming strategies, including curb extensions and better intersection design, "to slow down cars, provide more space for walking, and make streets safer to cross;" 
2. simplify circulation patterns for both motorists and pedestrians; 
3. give more emphasis to sidewalks and how they function; and
4. strengthen the relationship of buildings and surrounding land uses to streets.

But there's one even more overriding concept that PPS President Fred Kent pointed out right at the start of the workshop: "It's not just the road and sidewalks, it's the community. Streets are public spaces."

Kent has focused much of his professional life on this theme. A student of William Holly Whyte -- who pioneered in researching how people use and interact in public spaces -- Kent recounted how one of his first research assignments involved filming a day in the life of a wastebasket on one corner of a midtown Manhattan street. Yes, you read that right. There's much that can be learned, he noted, through careful observation of how people actually use streets and sidewalks (and even how they interact with trash receptacles). 

[As a side note, take a look at the short William Whyte video, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, that we posted on the PlannersWeb last winter].

Kent went on to found the Project for Public Spaces in 1975. Over the years PPS has grown, and now works with cities not just in the U.S. and Canada, but around the globe.

Kent also spoke about the late Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman, who developed the idea of "shared streets" (aka "shared spaces") -- that is, streets without traffic lights, stop signs, or lane markings, but where people can walk freely wherever on the street they want to. According to Kent, one of Monderman's favorite sayings was: "If you want vehicles to behave like they are in a village, build a village." 

Monderman's research on shared streets found that they do slow down car speeds, as motorists take their time to weave their way down the block. Earlier in his career, Monderman originated the "Woonerf" street which some of you may have heard of (see slides of a Woonerf street in Delft), a precursor of the shared street. 

Interestingly, scenes from early 20th century America show that our main streets back then worked, at least in some ways, as shared streets. Take a look at this short video filmed in 1906 of Market Street, San Francisco's main downtown corridor.

While we may not be ready for shared streets in 21st century America (and the concept is still relatively untested and controversial), the underlying point -- that streets should be designed not just for cars, but for people -- is highly relevant to our cities and towns today.

In my next post, I'll tell you how workshop participants spent part of the afternoon circling a square.

American Makeover's SPRAWLANTA

You may recall that in March we reported on American Makeover, a film project contrasting sprawl to new urbanism. As the producers said "Our project is to visit six cities across America to create six short 'webisodes' about new urbanism. Each episode will profile an actual town or neighborhood, giving viewers a first-hand look at new urbanism and what its like to live there."

I need to note that the Planning Commissioners Journal is a backer of the American Makeover project. Having said that, I think the first episode -- SPRAWLANTA -- is very effective. But judge for yourself:

The first half of the video uses experts to set the context, calling the Atlanta metro area "the poster child of suburban sprawl," "the fastest growing settlement in the history of the planet," "the most toxic city in the country," where the average worker "drives 66 miles a day," and where in 2008 "over 60 pedestrians were killed and over 1,000 injured." 

Interestingly, the issue most strongly hammered home is the adverse health impacts from sprawl. This should resonate with many viewers.

The second half of the video then looks at one new urbanist project, Glenwood Park. Through this example, key new urbanist principles are described: walkability; mixed uses; garages in the back; and so on. 

The wrap up explains how compact, traditional development can address the problems cited at the start of the video. Again, the primary focus is on health.

To me, American Makeover is advocacy video at its best. Yes, the video has a point of view. No, it doesn't delve into the complexities and shadings of various issues. That's simply not possible in nine minutes. 

The aim of the video is to grab the attention and reach those Americans who may have a vague sense that something is wrong with the way many of our cities have developed. That's the target audience, not planners or urban designers who are already convinced that sprawling development is a problem and new urbanism one important solution. But it's up to planners, architects, and others to support efforts like this that will get the message out to the broader public.

Take a minute now to learn more about American Makeover and how you can support the project.

"Caracas is Everywhere"

So says architect Hubert Klumpner in explaining why it's important to understand places like Caracas and how they work. About half the world's population lives in "informal cities" like the barrios sprawling over Caracas' hillsides.

Last week we highlighted Jaime Lerner and Curitiba, Brazil. This week you'll see a different picture. Your guides will be architects Klempner and his colleague at the Urban Think Tank, Alfredo Brillembourg, also an architect. It's not a highly polished video like those produced by NBC or CNN. But in many ways it offers more revealing insights.

Caracas has witnessed explosive growth. As you'll hear, due to immigration the metro area grew from about 1 million in the 1950s to 6 million today. The informal city, which houses some 4 million people, sprawls over huge hillside areas. The scope is dramatically shown in the opening few minutes of the video. Almost all of the housing is built by the people who live in it -- and you'll see some of the building materials they use. 

Posted above is Part 1 of Caracas, the Informal City, directed by Rob Schroder. Parts 2 and 3 are also available via YouTube; you can use the links below. (Unfortunately, Parts 4-6 of the documentary have not been posted). 

I found this engrossing viewing, as it shows a picture so different from what most of us in North America are familiar with. Major challenges facing the millions living in the informal city include lack of infrastructure and crime. Some of you may find especially interesting former Caracas Mayor Leopoldo Lopez's comments in Part 2 about how sports facilities can reduce reduce crime and a look at one solution, the "vertical sports hall."

More videos by Urban Think Tank on other cities are also available on YouTube.

Note: we first came across Caracas: The Informal City through a posting on the Urban Genetics web blog. Our thanks.

• Part 2: Caracas, The Informal City
• Part 3: Caracas, The Informal City
• Urban Think Tank videos on YouTube

For a good short commentary on informal cities from a global perspective, see Anthony Flint, "Improving slums, one step at a time" (Mar. 31, 2010) ("Instead of mass evictions and bulldozing, local governments are working with vast, illegally occupied settlements where they are trying to make life a little better with basic services such as electricity, water, sewer and sanitation systems, as well as what some are calling “socio-ecologic” infrastructure.").

N is for Neighborhood

Automobile | Budget | Comp Plan | Design | Ecology | Farmland | Growth Management | Historic Preservation | Inclusionary | Justice | Knowledge | Land Subdivision | Maps | Neighborhood | Open Space | Public Health & Safety | Quiet | Regional Planning | Sustainable | Takings | Urban Sprawl | Vision | Water | X-rated Uses | Zoning

order & download the complete Planning ABC's

---

To community planners, the term "neighborhood" draws on ideas propounded in England by Ebenezer Howard at the end of the 19th century. Howard postulated a community of six interlinked neighborhoods (or "wards") of about 5,000 people each, focused on an elementary school, bounded by major streets, and containing a variety of residential accommodations. Industry was located at the perimeter of the community. Commerce was focused on the community center, a few block walk from each neighborhood.

In Howard's Garden City concept, communities were not permitted to grow beyond these limits. Each Garden City was to be bounded by a publicly owned greenbelt of agricultural land that could not be built upon. When population growth required additional accommodations, a new Garden City would be built.

 Idea became reality in 1903 with construction of the first Garden City, Letchworth, England. Four years later, the first planned "neighborhood unit" to be added to an existing city was initiated at Hampstead Garden Suburb, on the outskirts of London. Hampstead's architect/planners, Raymond Unwin and Barry Parker, followed Howard's neighborhood principles in bringing order, functional efficiency, and environmental beauty to a residence-focused organization of buildings, streets, public institutions, and open spaces. Construction of America's first Garden Suburb, heavily influenced by Hampstead's example, was begun in 1910 at Forest Hills Gardens, New York.

The major American adaptation of the British neighborhood idea, however, was rooted in the one-mile square land "section" system of the Midwest. Neighborhoods were based on quarter-sections (160 acres), with major streets bounding neighborhoods one-half mile apart, and no through traffic. 

Residential densities generated by apartment and row house units resulted in a sufficient school-child-age population to support an elementary school within a quarter-mile walking distance from home. However, as early as the 1920s, emphasis on lower density single-family detached housing began to require an increase in the size of the neighborhood to assure sufficient population to support the walk-in school. 

By the late 1940s, advocates of the "neighborhood unit" were promoting neighborhoods one mile square (equal to 640 acres, a full section), with a half-mile walk to school, and major streets one mile apart on section lines.

Neighborhoods took on a new role in the 1950s and the 1960s in many cities, as neighborhood based groups led the opposition to the large-scale demolitions and dislocations resulting from redevelopment, housing projects, and in-city highway construction. Organized neighborhood associations gave residents a voice in the political process. 

Many cities officially delineated neighborhood districts, giving them a more official and on-going role in the community development process. With this often came assistance from city planners and other staff.

The coming of the birth control pill in 1960 and declining family size, in combination with continuing increases in the lot size of single-family dwellings, led to significantly lower "school-age-population-per-acre." By the 1980s, this had made the walk-in elementary school unfeasible in most neighborhoods. As a result, little was left of the neighborhood unit idea except the definition of residential districts by bounding major streets. Yet at the very point at which the neighborhood concept seemed at its nadir, two related movements, "The New Urbanism" and "Smart Growth," breathed new life into it by advocating denser, more diverse residential areas, with a mix of local retail shops and services, and a halt to low-density perimeter sprawl.

---

For more on related topics, see the following articles from the Planning Commissioners Journal:

Bowling Together: The Role of Neighborhood Associations

School Sprawl

New Development, Traditional Patterns

Commissioners as Neighborhood Advocates

---

Text by Laurence C. Gerckens, FAICP. Illustration by Paul Hoffman.
Text & illustration copyright Champlain Planning Press, Inc. | contact: pcjoffice@gmail.com

Jaime Lerner, Alcalde de Curitiba, Brazil

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville: 

In this week's Friday video -- and next week's as well -- we're going to take those of us living in the U.S. and Canada south. That is, to South America. Usually when we look outside of North America, we focus on planning-related developments in places like Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But there's much we can learn from South American planners -- and there's been one person in the forefront of innovative city planning ideas, the former three-term Mayor of Curitiba, Brazil (population, 1.8 million), Jaime Lerner. Perhaps not surprisingly, Lerner also happens to be an architect and urban planner.

While we usually try to limit the videos we post to 10 minutes, I think you'll find the extra 5 minutes worth it. And if this catches your interest, take a look also at the second video below which provides a 2 minute introduction to how public transit is handled in Curitiba. The video immediately below is from the TED lecture series (an outstanding series of talks covering an extraordinary range of innovative ideas); the second is a short documentary made for CNBC. For even more on Curitiba and Jaime Lerner, see a 2007 video, City of Dreams, by SBS/Dateline.

p.s., I've never been to Curitaba -- so if any of you viewing this post have, I'd especially welcome your posting a brief comment.

Take a Density Quiz

Dan Zack, the Downtown Coordinator for Redwood City, California, has put together a quite interesting photo quiz on the density of various residential buildings -- primarily in Redwood City and Palo Alto. It's the type of quiz you might want to try in your own city or region. See if there are lessons you can draw from Zack's 11-minute long presentation. At the very least, you'll get a tour of parts of these two communities (with a few stops elsewhere).

I emailed Dan Zack and asked him what reaction he's received to the density quiz. Here's his reply:

I'm really happy to say that the presentation has changed the conversation among the people who have seen it. One of my main goals was to reset people's density "scale." I've seen people protest a project that was only 4 units per acre as being too dense. Sorry, but that's not dense. I'll show you dense! Also, it has given the people who have seen it a clear understanding that ugly might be low in density, and really attractive stuff might be unbelievably dense. Likewise, they understand that tall doesn't necessarily equal dense.

Zack also went on to provide four very useful tips if you're interested in putting together a similar density quiz for your community:

1. Try to use as many local examples as possible. This diffuses the "sure it works in (insert any city other than your own here), but we are sooooo different and it won't work for us" argument.

2. Don't be afraid to show REALLY dense projects in the quiz. Give people a sense of the actual spectrum of density that exists out there. If you limit the high end of your spectrum to 30 du/ac because you're afraid of freaking people out, then later when a nice townhouse project just off of the Main Street comes in at 40 du/ac, it will look psychotically dense to them. In reality, 40 du/ac is pretty moderate, when you look at the range of things on the ground in our country. So if your quiz includes a few nice projects that are over 100 or 200 (or 300) du/ac, then 40 can be seen for what it really is: not too radical, and possibly just right depending on the situation.

3. Stick with net du/ac figures. That is how projects are measured for zoning/development application purposes, and that is what is on public hearing notices that people will receive, so that is what they need to understand. Don't muddy the waters by mixing gross du/ac or persons per square mile figures into our quiz.

4. Don't try to be slick and come up with a fancy new word for density. That dang word is in every zoning ordinance in the country, and we can't get away from it. We need to redefine it and take it back, rather than hiding from it and calling it something like "compactness." People figure it out pretty quickly when you're hiding something, and then they won't trust you. Deal with it head on, and clear away the myths and misconceptions.

Take a look also at Dan Zack's complete 50 minute video presentation, "Delightful Density: the case for housing density."

For those of you taking the time to read this, we also invite you to download a complimentary pdf of an article we recently published in the Planning Commissioners Journal,  "Getting the Density You Want," by Beth Humstone (who will also be joining us as a regular contributing writer).

Finally, take a look at the "Density Resources" page posted here on the PlannersWeb.

Top 10 Cities You'll Never Visit

One of the delights of the Web is that you almost always seem to come across strange but interesting things. 

Do you know what Dongtan, Triton City (see photo), Broadacre City, Welthauptstadt, and BoozeTown have in common? If you're good at Jeopardy, I'm sure you know the answer: What are cities that were never built. 

So take a few minutes to browse through the Top 10 Amazing Cities You Will Never Visit.

American Makeover

Last Fall we highlighted a dynamic short video called "Built to Last." Take another look:

The video got a remarkable response. It won a prize from the Congress for New Urbanism; had over 90,000 viewings on YouTube; and got plenty of national press. 

The producers of the video -- John Paget, Chris Elisara, and Drew Ward -- are using the Web to fund raise for a larger video project. Here's how they describe it: "Our project is to visit six cities across America to create six short 'webisodes' about new urbanism. Each episode will profile an actual town or neighborhood, giving viewers a first-hand look at new urbanism and what its like to live there. The six episodes (approximately 5-8 minutes each) will be released online at our official website and YouTube channel." 

The new videos will also be compiled into a DVD which, as they explain: "Will be an invaluable tool for community leaders, urban planners, architects and mayors. It will allow for public screenings and group discussions at community meetings where urban planning and civic design choices are being made."

View the short promotional video they've put together explaining their American Makeover project.

The producers are using an innovative Web site called Kickstarter to raise the funds they need for the project. We've pledged $100 from the Planning Commissioners Journal to help make this happen. The target amount is $15,000. If this goal is not reached, the pledged money will not be drawn on. But we certainly hope that won't happen, as we think this kind of short video series could have a huge impact. Here's how you can pledge $5, $35, or more.

H is for Historic Preservation

Automobile | Budget | Comp Plan | Design | Ecology | Farmland | Growth Management | Historic Preservation | Inclusionary | Justice | Knowledge | Land Subdivision | Maps | Neighborhood | Open Space | Public Health & Safety | Quiet | Regional Planning | Sustainable | Takings | Urban Sprawl | Vision | Water | X-rated Uses | Zoning

order & download the complete Planning ABC's

---

America is a relatively young civilization, measuring its history in hundreds, rather than thousands, of years. With a seemingly inexhaustible supply of new and largely undeveloped land to the west (excluding from consideration, as unfortunately most did, the preexisting Native population) many Americans were uncommitted to long-term occupation of a particular place. Neighborhoods, communities, and even entire regions were used for their immediate benefits and then permitted to deteriorate in the name of "progress."

Until the late 1920s, little was done to protect the urban artifacts of the nation's cultural history -– other than the preservation and restoration of isolated structures associated with historic personages, such as George Washington's Mount Vernon residence. But in 1929 this began to change with John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s decision to restore the city of Williamsburg, Virginia, to its colonial-era glory.

In short order, other cities embarked on major historic preservation programs. In 1931, Charleston, South Carolina, placed its eighty-acre Battery District in a specially zoned historic preservation district. The following year New Orleans' Vieux Carré became the first urban district in America to receive local landmark preservation status. These actions expanded historic preservation beyond individual structures to the preservation of entire urban districts of distinctive character.

Urban Renewal, founded in the U.S. Housing Act of 1954, is most commonly remembered for large-scale central city demolitions. But among the distinguishing features of the Act was its emphasis on the rehabilitation of older central city homes. Section 701 of the Act made federal funds available to local governments for the preparation of historic district legislation and the development of historic preservation programs.

The most influential effort in historic preservation initiated with the support of Urban Renewal was the 1956 College Hill Study undertaken by the Providence (Rhode Island) City Planning Commission and the Providence Preservation Society. Beginning with an extensive inventory of the 380-acre "College Hill" district, the project resulted in a historic area zoning ordinance; a system for rating historic architecture; and a technique for integrating historic architecture into a proposed central area redevelopment plan. Providence's work served as a model for other communities to follow.

The demolition of New York City's Pennsylvania Station in 1965, one of the nation's most magnificent railroad stations, shocked many New Yorkers, as well as citizens across the country. 

Outraged by the fact that there was no legal recourse to stop the demolition (the building was privately owned by the nearly bankrupt Pennsylvania Railroad), New Yorkers responded by enacting later that year a comprehensive landmarks preservation law. New York City now boasts the largest collection of designated landmarks of any municipality: nearly 1,000 individual landmark buildings, more than 100 interior spaces, and 70 historic districts comprising more than 20,000 buildings.

At the federal level, Congress enacted the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 which created the National Register of Historic Places; provided funding for the National Trust for Historic Preservation; and offered tax credits for housing rehabilitation in National Register Districts. Within twenty-five years of its passage there were over 8,000 historic districts listed in the National Register.

The scope of historic preservation broadened in the 1980s to include a focus on the link between economic development and historic preservation. 

The National Trust established a "National Main Street Center" to support local efforts to rehabilitate older commercial areas. In the last two decades of the twentieth century, Main Street programs generated more than $8 billion in physical reinvestment in the historic downtowns of over 1,300 communities.

---

For more on this topic, see our special issue: Planning for Historic Preservation

---

Text by Laurence C. Gerckens, FAICP. Illustration by Paul Hoffman.
Text & illustration copyright Champlain Planning Press, Inc. | contact: pcjoffice@gmail.com