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)

Building Invisible Walls: Growth Center Strategies

How urban growth boundaries work, and why a growing number of metropolitan areas are using them. by Beth Humstone; from PCJ #81 (Winter 2011); 3 pages -- read our interview with Beth about this article Read first section of article below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post. For information on other articles by Beth Humstone published in the Planning Comm'rs Journal

Just as walls once created clear distinctions between town and countryside, today's urban containment strategies aim to keep urban places urban and rural places rural. Urban containment -- the constraint of growth to limited geographic areas -- is of great interest to planners for its potential benefits of preserving open space, saving money on public services, reinvesting in cities, and providing a more predictable permitting process. In fact, the American Planning Association estimates that over 100 metropolitan areas now have some form of urban containment strategy. Of the three principal kinds of urban containment strategies -- urban service areas, greenbelts, and urban growth boundaries -- in this article, we'll be focusing on urban growth boundaries. What is An Urban Growth Boundary? An urban growth boundary encompasses an area defined on a map where: development is permitted at a higher density or intensity than surrounding areas, mixed uses are typically encouraged, and a full complement of public services is provided. The size of the area within the boundary typically is configured to provide sufficient land to meet population and land use needs for a 20-year period. Over time, the boundaries may be adjusted -- either by expansion or contraction -- to meet changing conditions. In the United States, urban growth boundaries have been established through local initiatives, regional strategies, and state mandates and/or incentives. Why Plan for Urban Growth Boundaries? Communities and regions plan for urban growth boundaries in order to meet the goals of their comprehensive plans, because they are mandated or encouraged to do so by state government, or because they have a particular need such as revitalization of a downtown or protection of important farmland. Within a comprehensive plan, places are delineated both where growth will be encouraged and development limited. The plan typically contains projections for population, employment, and housing so the community knows how much land is needed for different uses. The plan also identifies existing development, the location and capacity of services, and important environmental and natural resource features. By designating a growth boundary, a community or region can provide for infill and contiguous growth that reinforces and reinvests in existing settled areas, limits urban services to avoid costly extensions to rural areas, and protects environmental or natural resources outside the center. A few examples: Lexington, Kentucky uses an urban growth boundary to meet its planning goals. The Lexington urban growth boundary, which includes Fayette County, was first adopted in 1958 -- the oldest growth boundary in the United States. Its primary purpose was to protect the bluegrass and horse farms for which the region is famous by requiring most development to take place within the boundary and severely limiting development outside the boundary. Over the years, the boundary has been adjusted, and planning and zoning for the area has been altered to meet changing needs and political pressures. The urban growth area was initially 67 square miles (comprising 22 percent of the county's total land area); it is now 75 square miles (30 percent). In New Jersey, the State (in conjunction with the National Park Service) established the Pinelands National Reserve in 1979. Within the 1.1 million acre Reserve, a comprehensive management plan guides the management and protection of environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands threatened by sprawling land development. A joint county-state-federal Pinelands Commission reviews local ordinances for consistency with the management plan. The plan also delineates regional growth boundaries. The Commission uses a transfer of development rights (TDR) program to protect important open space and natural areas, as well as encourage more development in Pinelands' town and village centers. To date, over 58,000 acres have been protected and nearly 4,500 development rights have been transferred to projects proposed within "Regional Growth Areas." ... article continues with discussion of six key planning issues that need to be addressed when considering urban growth boundaries.

order & download full article $3.75 (single copy license)
order & download full article $15.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

Interview with Beth Humstone about her article "Building Invisible Walls: Urban Growth Boundaries"

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

In our Winter issue you'll find an interesting article about a much discussed approach to managing growth: the use of urban growth boundaries (or "UGBs" as they're often called). PCJ contributing writer Beth Humstone, who has long experience as a planner -- and also served for several years as Director of what's now Smart Growth Vermont -- explains the basics of "UGBs" in her latest article.

I asked Beth to take a few minutes to respond to some questions I had about some of the points she makes in her article:

Wayne Senville:

One of the concerns I've heard about growth boundaries is that they increase housing costs within areas inside the boundary because the supply of developable land is constrained. Is this true? -- and what ways are there to prevent this from happening, or to minimize the impacts?

Beth Humstone:

Housing prices need not rise with urban growth boundaries, particularly where there has been adequate planning for growth. While land values may increase by constraining the supply of land available for development, higher densities may keep housing prices stable or even lower them. That's what Arthur C. Nelson and Casey J. Dawkins found in their 2004 report for the American Planning Association (Urban Containment in the United States, Planning Advisory Service Report 520).

To avoid raising housing prices, it is very important that the area within the growth boundary is sufficient to meet population growth for a reasonable time period, usually 20 years. The amount of land needed will be determined primarily by zoning densities and the supply of undeveloped or underdeveloped land that is appropriate for housing. In addition, some factor should be applied that takes into account that not all land needed for development will be available for this purpose within the twenty year time frame.

Because market demand and the availability of land for development are difficult to precisely project, it is important to monitor growth rates, housing and land prices, and densities of development within the growth boundaries over time. If prices rise to unacceptable levels, there are several options: increase the boundary to increase the land supply; increase densities and/or institute minimum densities; or adopt inclusionary zoning.

Wayne Senville:

In your article you point to municipal public service cost savings from having urban growth boundaries. Can you explain why that's the case?

What's "Sustainable"?

Sustainability may be hard to define, but it’s increasingly being discussed by developers and local planning commissions. by Dave Stauffer; from PCJ #80 (Fall 2010) -- see also our April conversation with Dave Stauffer, one of our contributing writers. We're making available the full text of Stauffer's article below; you can also download a complimentary pdf of the article.

If your commission is like the one in my town, more developers and applicants are loading their project designs with features intended to impress you because they're "sustainable." But ask them what they mean by sustainable and you're likely to get responses ranging from a blank look to a treatise on every person's obligation to help save the planet. So, what's "sustainable"? The most common definition seems to be that offered by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development's 1987 Brundtland Report, stating that sustainable development "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The International Institute for Sustainable Development quotes the U.N. definition and adds, "The concept of sustainable development ... helps us understand ourselves and our world. The problems we face are complex and serious -- and we can't address them in the same way we created them. But we can address them." According to the contributors to Wikipedia, "Sustainable development is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for future generations." Others reach back in history to cite, for example, the "Great Law of the Iroquois" American Indian tribe, which supposedly commanded sustainability by declaring, "In every deliberation we must consider the impact on the seventh generation." For the past few years, as chairman of a regional business group [the Yellowstone Business Partnership] whose below-the-logo tagline is "Advancing Sustainable Enterprise," I've read and heard a lot about sustainability and sustainable development. Among my conclusions: We're a long way, in consensus and time, from universal agreement on a definition of sustainability. It's nice, but not crucial, that we agree on a definition. What is crucial is that we who are asked to weigh claims of sustainability come up with a practical definition that we can use day-to-day to make the decisions that come before us. That's no simple task. Opinions on a project's sustainability will often range widely among commissioners. Moreover, assessing a project's attributes will seldom be a matter of black or white, but rather a frustrating grey. But grey terms are nothing new for us; we toil in a realm of squishy definitions. What's the pay range, for example, of a "well-paying job"? What project attributes constitute "responsible" development? We shouldn't -- and in my opinion can't -- shy away from our own determination of whether project features really are sustainable. How might we do that? Make developers or applicants do the heavy lifting. When they tout their project's sustainability, ask how they define that term. Then ask them to explain how their sustainable features meet that definition. Don't settle for generalities: get names of processes, materials, and methods. Also be sure to ask what additional up-front amount they're spending, beyond regulatory requirements, to achieve long-run sustainability. Give an "A" for effort. Sustainability means different things to different people, has no widely accepted metrics, and -- truth to tell -- few projects that come before us can be called sustainable. So (without ignoring any stated requirements for project approval) cut some slack for applicants who show you they've made a commendable effort to fashion a project that conserves resources, respects its surroundings, and is built to last. Devise and think through your own list of sustainable project features. My current list (always subject to change) includes attributes of: Scale -- a good fit with neighbors, neither ramshackle nor grandiose. Access and mobility -- it's easy to get into, out of, and around in. Consumption & waste -- efforts to minimize are evident and effective. Re-use -- makes use of recycled building materials when feasible. Location & siting -- makes the most of orientation to sun, topography, wind, natural and manmade infrastructure. Absence -- preserves open space and is no larger than necessary for its functions. Stay flexible in defining sustainability. There's nothing wrong with a changing concept of what sustainability is or how a project achieves it; sustainability as its own field of study is far from mature. As you review more applications that claim sustainability, stay open to refining your own criteria. Given the state of our world today, especially our accelerating depletion of natural resources and rising costs of manmade resources, sustainability is certain to gain ever-increasing attention. It may be hard to define, but it's vitally important to our communities. Dave Stauffer is a freelance writer and chairman of the Yellowstone Business Partnership. He is a former city planner, planning commission chair, and city council member in Red Lodge, Montana. Stauffer regularly writes for the PCJ. For excerpts from his previous articles.

Interview with Hannah Twaddell & Gary Toth about their article "Transportation Planning for Livable Communities"

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

Our recently published Fall issue includes a fascinating and timely article by Hannah Twaddell and Gary Toth, “Transportation Planning for Livable Communities: Measuring What Matters.” Hannah and Gary cover some very important, but often confusing, subjects that citizen planners (and professional planners, too!) need to be familiar with -- in particular, the role of “level of service” standards (commonly referred to as “LOS”) and the relationship between mobility and accessibility.

We thought it would be helpful to further explore these topics with Hannah and Gary -- and we hope that the discussion below provides a good supplement to what you’ll be reading in their article in the Planning Commissioners Journal.

By way of background, Hannah Twaddell is a Principal Planner in the Charlottesville, Virginia, office of Renaissance Planning Group. Her articles on transportation planning topics appear regularly in the Planning Commissioners Journal; many are included in our two reprint collections: Transportation: Getting Started and Transportation: New Directions.

Gary Toth is the Senior Director of Transportation Initiatives at the Project for Public Spaces. Gary worked for more than 30 years with the New Jersey Department of Transportation, where he spearheaded many innovative projects and programs to promote techniques such as context sensitive solutions, complete streets, transit-oriented development, and smart growth. Gary has authored A Citizen’s Guide for Better Streets: How to Engage Your Transportation Agency (available as a pdf download); created a Healthy Living by Design training module for the Centers for Disease Control; and developed a Streets as Places training module for the Main Street program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Wayne Senville:

First off, I want to thank both of you for taking the time to further explore what you covered in your article “Transportation Planning for Livable Communities,” now out in our Fall issue.

You start the article by focusing on what you say is our over-reliance on “level of service” standards in designing roadways. But aren’t LOS standards easy to use and understand, and don’t they focus on accomplishing something almost everyone wants: reducing congestion?

Gary Toth:

LOS standards are easy to understand, which is what makes them so dangerous. They take a very subjective experience like how we react to congestion and boil it down to the pretense of an objective measurement, creating the illusion of science and objectively. What’s more sinister, it uses a scale of A to F that resonates subconsciously and totally with every American.

Hannah Twaddell:

The simple nature of LOS letter grades may be easy to grasp intuitively, but few people other than transportation professionals have any notion of the rationale that goes into creating them (and, sadly, many transportation planners and engineers don’t understand the inner workings of LOS either). It’s remarkable to me that so many educated, smart people just accept being told that LOS is the best and only indicator of roadway performance, and they don’t question how it’s derived.

We don’t do this in other areas of life. For example, most of the parents in my daughter’s school system don’t just meekly accept poor grades on their kids’ report cards without trying to find out what’s going on and what can be done about it. Because of this community-driven pressure, coupled with local, state and federal mandates, my daughter’s teachers send me simple but comprehensive reports that document clearly each of the factors that contribute to her overall grade.

Gary Toth:

The reality is that asking someone the simple question: “do you want congestion reduced at a particular location” is a question out of context. It is like asking someone whether they want to never be stung by a bee again. Of course, the answer will be yes.

But what if the question is “Would you like me to apply chemicals that completely eliminate bees from the planet, thereby reducing your risk but of course also meaning that we will never be able to have plants, fruits and vegetables again?” OK, perhaps an extreme analogy, but the point is that we need to be asking our citizens bigger questions. For instance, “do you want us to widen your Main Street if it means unintended consequences of erosion of your CBD, increasing reliance on use of your car, and ultimately more congestion”

So what we need are broader community performance measures, with LOS not eliminated but considered within the broader context. Elimination of congestion could be good, but only if it contributes to broader quality of life goals in a community or region.

Hannah Twaddell:

If we made a point of breaking down the components of LOS clearly -- showing what is and, perhaps more importantly, is not considered a contributing factor -- planners, local officials, community members, and highway engineers might be able to communicate more effectively about what’s really going on and how we could address it.

Congestion is obviously an important performance measure. But it’s important to remember that a roadway with minimal congestion problems may be performing poorly in other ways. And the root causes of congestion along any given corridor could be traced to larger network or land use issues that might not be fixed -- and could even be exacerbated -- by widening the “problem” corridor until its LOS grades improve.

Wayne Senville:

In your article, you urge community leaders to “engage with transportation agencies to customize level of service expectations for different contexts along corridors.” Do you see evidence that state transportation agencies are growing more responsive to this?

Measuring What Matters

There’s a growing recognition that transportation systems need to foster livable, sustainable communities -- and focus on more than just mobility. Hannah Twaddell & Gary Toth explore the relationship in transportation planning between: mobility, accessibility, livability, and sustainability. Plus: Gary Toth takes a closer look at the use of “level of service” standards and traffic projections -- as reported by PCJ Editor Wayne Senville in "Getting Good Grades Isn't Always the Answer." See also our discussion with Hannah & Gary about their article. Two articles: Transportation Planning for Livable Communities, by Hannah Twaddell & Gary Toth; and Getting Good Grades Isn't Always the Answer, by Wayne Senville -- from PCJ #80 (Fall 2010). Read excerpt from Transportation Planning for Livable Communities below; to order & download both articles use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post. See other articles by Hannah Twaddell.

Let's pay a visit to the imaginary planet HemoGlobe. The people of this world have bodies just like ours, but they measure their physical health by only one indicator: the speed at which their blood moves. If blood is traveling too slowly through a certain area, a surgeon widens the problematic vein. Or if a patient is starting to gain weight, the surgeon expands more veins to make room for anticipated fat deposits. This practice has gone on so long that few doctors ever "think outside the vein." No one questions the assumption that faster blood flow is always better, or considers the adverse impacts of widening the veins on other bodily functions. Alternative treatments, such as losing weight, are considered by only a few "radical fringe" practitioners. Most of us on Earth would probably agree that the single-minded, HemoGlobian approach to managing health makes little sense. Yet in our world, to draw an analogy, transportation planners tend to rely on a similar method to manage the "health" of our transportation systems. We put a great deal of emphasis on a single indicator of travel speed -- roadway Level of Service (LOS) -- and our strategies to deal with congestion usually involve widening highways. This narrowly focused approach doesn't help us address the really important question: Is our collective life-blood (people and goods) flowing properly in ways that nourish our vital organs: the places where we live, work, learn, and play? In order to get a more complete picture of how well our transportation systems are really serving us, we need to assess their impacts and performance from several perspectives. In this article, I'll explore ways to measure four aspects of community life that depend upon well-functioning transportation systems: (1) mobility -- our need to drive; (2) accessibility -- our need to arrive; (3) livability -- our need to thrive; and (4) sustainability -- our need to survive. Mobility -- Our Need To Drive Can people and goods move quickly and safely along our corridors, in any type of vehicle -- cars, buses, bikes, wheelchairs -- and on foot? Mobility is, quite simply, the ability to move. We measure it by calculating the speed at which people can travel along a given route. Level of Service (LOS) indicators for highway mobility are the most commonly used measures in transportation planning. If drivers can travel as fast as they desire along a given corridor during the most congested time of day (the "peak hour"), the LOS score is an "A." The slower the traffic moves, the lower the grade. An "F" means gridlock. The thresholds for acceptable LOS are, in most communities, based upon long-held transportation agency rules of thumb -- such as maintaining a minimum LOS level of C for all suburban arterials and D for all city streets, regardless of urban context or local land use policies. Agency traffic forecasts for future LOS usually assume the highest possible level of potential development over a 20- or 30-year period. Relying heavily on highway LOS as the dominant indicator for transportation planning tends to encourage ham-fisted solutions to complex problems. As the old saying goes, "to a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Roadways with poor LOS show up on traffic model maps as red lines. The easiest way to deal with them in the model is to keep adding roadway links and lanes until you "get the red out." But LOS models don't help us consider the adverse impacts that can result from roadway expansion, such as destroying natural areas, bisecting neighborhoods, or affecting pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit riders. In many communities, major arterials have been widened extensively in order to maintain the highest possible LOS at rush hour. But they may sit unused much of the time. Those wide, empty lanes tempt drivers to zoom well above posted speeds most of the day and night. The resulting conditions are dangerous for motorists and downright hostile to bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders. Congestion problems can often be solved by simpler, less expensive, and more environmentally sound methods than highway expansion. For example, instead of widening a single congested artery, a community can make the existing system more efficient. Operational improvements such as coordinated signal timing and turning lanes can often go a long way towards clearing up rush hour bottlenecks. Networks of local connector streets can enable travelers to avoid using major arterials, and thus provide more opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit options. Local community leaders can -- and should -- engage with transportation agencies to customize LOS expectations for different contexts along a given corridor. More importantly, communities need to expand the types of indicators and tools they use for transportation planning. ... article continues with discussion of Accessibility, Livability, and Sustainability -- to order & download the complete article, select Shopping Cart button below.

order & download both articles -- "Transportation Planning For Livable Communities" & "Getting Goods Grades Isn't Always the Answer" $5.00 (single copy license)
order & download both articles $20.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of articles)

Y is for Youth

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

---

Concerns for the health and safety of children were central components of ideal urban structure theories of the early twentieth century. Ebenezer Howard's Garden City, promoted in his book To morrow, a Peaceful Path to Real Reform (1898), consisted of six "neighborhood units" bounded by through-traffic streets, each with a central elementary school located just a few blocks from the furthest residence. Forest Hills Gardens, Long Island, New York (1910+), was the first American test of this schoolchild-focused neighborhood idea. See N is for Neighborhood.

The culture shock of World War I brought on not only the wild excesses of the Jazz Age of the 1920s, but also a heightened perception of youth as the promise and salvation of the future. In the planned neighborhood developments of the 1920s, elementary schools were centrally located within easy walking distance of their student population.

The 1920s was also the first decade to feel the severe negative impact of the automobile, with thousands of school-age children being killed by motorists. In response, there was a movement to reduce or eliminate all through-traffic in new suburban developments. At Radburn (in the Borough of Fair Lawn, New Jersey) this emphasis on child safety resulted in the total separation of vehicular and pedestrian pathways. Here elementary-school-age children could walk from home to school through center-block parks without walking along or across a street.

The educational and recreational needs of older children were provided for in the 1920s in the siting of large, architecturally impressive, central high schools and their organized sports fields. These schools became integral components of town and city centers. High-school-age children thus had after-school access (either by foot or by electric trolley car or rubber-tired bus systems) to downtown or "Main Street," where the retail shops, theaters, and other places of amusement were located.

With the explosive unplanned suburban sprawl of the 1950s and the decades that followed, concern for the life patterns of elementary-school and high-school age children became less evident. Safe local walk-in elementary schools, no longer viable with the lower densities resulting from the advent of large-lot residential zoning (as well as reduced family size), were abandoned in favor of more far-flung locations. New high-school facilities were often located on large tracts of open space at the perimeter of the community, often accessible only by school bus or automobile.

There are signs of a reversal in this decades long trend, as proponents of "New Urbanism" and "Smart Growth" advocate for higher density residential areas, permitting reclamation of the walk-in local elementary school, and increased provision of transit service, enabling older students to access central areas of the community without need for their own car.

The growing number of "safe routes to school" programs also highlight a renewed interest in enabling young people to walk or bike to school. These programs are not only designed to provide health and safety benefits, but to better connect children with their communities and with the natural environment.

---

For more on schools, young people, and planning, see the following articles from the Planning Commissioners Journal:

Safe Routes to School

School Sprawl

Back to School for Planners

Breach the Wall of Separation

Fresh Eyes

Young Visionaries Make Good Planners

---

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

U is for Urban Sprawl

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

---

The term "urban sprawl" commonly denotes a condition of unplanned, uncoordinated, and generally low density development spreading outward from the city center.

Sprawl is not just a modern phenomenon. In a sense, American sprawl began with the horse drawn omnibus of the 1830s, which permitted the more well-to-do to escape the center city for more country-like surroundings, where they could reside in detached homes bounded by small grass plots and gardens. 

This outward dispersion accelerated with the widespread arrival of the steam railroad in the 1850s. Suburban villages sprang up along the rail lines. The introduction of the electric trolley car in the 1880s permitted an even larger segment of the population to leave the center city behind, as trolley car lines followed major streets to the edges of the city.

The suburban expansions of the late 19th century, however, did not totally encircle the city. Being rail-based, the overall pattern was one of a few routes radiating out from the city center (where commerce and industry was still located), with residential development focused within a few blocks of either side of the transit line. This left huge swaths of open space between the rail lines.

The nature of American sprawl changed radically with coming of the inexpensive automobile in the 1920s. No longer limited to close proximity to major streets and trolley lines, low density development expanded to previously inaccessible areas, often "leapfrogging" over undeveloped areas to more distant locations. Independent suburban villages, with their own land subdivision, planning, and zoning authorities, grew rapidly. See also "A is for Automobile."

Land speculation drove the engine of regional development. Lacking regional government planning and controls, each of the plethora of small units of local government legislated as it saw fit to meet its own interests. Often this included policies designed to exclude the less well-to-do.

The Great Depression and World War II dampened the pace of residential sprawl. However, the construction in outlying locations of large-scale, single-story war industry plants in the early 1940s led to the suburban dispersion of what had been central-city-focused production industry.

Of particular importance, the need for the rapid construction of war worker housing led Edgar Kaiser, on the West Coast, and William Levitt, on the East Coast, to develop the mass production of homes (before, home construction had been in the hands of individual craftsmen, and often produced one house at a time). By the late 1940s and early 1950s, this production technology allowed for the large-scale construction of hundreds of single-family homes at a time, with "cookie-cutter" tracts extending over thousands of acres.

Federal and state programs, especially highway construction and FHA mortgage-insured loans, fueled this growth. Suburban development spread with little overall coordination and scant attention to long-term consequences. Primarily dependent on the private automobile, it quickly generated both traffic congestion requiring immense sums for its temporary amelioration and perimeter regional shopping centers accessible only by car.

By the end of the 20th century, sprawl had reshaped metropolitan areas across America. While central cities still remained a focal point for government, financial, and large corporation day-time office workers (and night-time theater goers), they had been drained of newer production industries, and of middle- and upper-income residents. As development continued to disperse, a new demarcation even emerged: inner suburbs versus outer suburbs, with inner suburbs starting to face a loss of economic vitality as commerce and population relocated to even more peripheral locations. Ominously, America's entire sprawling, auto-centric development pattern remained precariously dependent on foreign oil.

---

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

Two Perspectives on Sprawl

Stopping Sprawl by Growing Smarter

The Three Myths of Growth

School Sprawl

---

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

S is for Sustainable

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

---

Colonial Americans were well versed in what we would today call sustainability. As noted in R is for Regional Planning, sustainable development was at the heart of James Oglethorpe's 1733 plan for Savannah. At Savannah, gardens and farms encircled the city's core, permitting the community to provide for the full range of its needs to maintain both its existence and unique character. Thomas Jefferson also advocated a nation grounded in agriculture and local self-sufficiency. As he put it in 1785 in his Notes on the State of Virginia, "Dependance begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."

The benefits of sustainability would re-echo during the nation's history. Oftentimes, however, sustainability has been overshadowed by countervailing forces, including large-scale manufacturing and mass production of goods, and a heavy and growing dependence on non-renewable resources.

In the 19th century, the benefits of self-sufficiency and a sustainable way of living were most dramatically underscored by Ralph Waldo Emerson and the "transcendentalists," including Henry David Thoreau, whose account of his two years at Walden Pond still strongly resonates today.

Toward the end of the 19th century, leading planners in England and the United States were seeking ways of balancing explosive urban growth with a sustainable pattern of living. This was especially evident in the Garden City movement pioneered by Ebenezer Howard, which sought to limit the size of cities to about 32,000 people; surround the cities with broad belts of agricultural land; and assure the continued existence of neighborhood-scale commercial, educational, and employment centers. This laid the groundwork for an interest in managing growth, and structuring the community based on stable neighborhood-scale units.

Sustainability on an even broader-scale was championed by the American regional planning movement of the 1920s, led by Benton MacKaye, Lewis Mumford, and others. Regional planners envisioned growth being channeled within metropolitan areas so that small villages and farmland would be preserved against, as MacKaye put it, the "deluge" of metropolitan growth.

While regional planning never truly implemented the vision of its founders (focusing instead on developing highway systems and recreational areas to accommodate growth), the ideal of having city and countryside harmoniously relate to each other and to the natural environment, continued to manifest itself in American planning.

One example was in the continued interest in developing new towns and communities which could meet residents' needs, not just for housing, but for work, shopping, food, and recreation. This was seen in the greenbelt towns built during the 1930s (Greenhills, Ohio; Greendale, Wisconsin; and Greenbelt, Maryland), and in more recent examples such as The Woodlands, north of Houston. It is also reflected in the growing number of "new urbanist" communities being developed today.

Most sustainable development programs seek to promote compact development, conserve farmlands and woodlands, preserve close-in habitat for wildlife, reduce runoff erosion, promote local shopping areas, encourage energy efficiency, and facilitate walking, bicycling, and efficient transit services. See also E is for Ecology.

Planning for sustainability has also increasingly been linked to concerns about social equity (see J is for Justice). This reflects the view that planners should promote a pattern of development that provides for all segments of American society, not just the uppermost income strata. This includes the opportunity to find an affordable place to live, within reach of job opportunities. The American Planning Association has adopted these goals in its policy guides on housing and on smart growth.

---

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

Community Food Needs & Opportunities

Moving Towards Sustainability in Planning and Zoning

Growing Greener: Conservation Subdivision Design

---

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

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

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.

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.

The Future Belongs to Walkable Communities

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

"The future belongs to walkable communities," claimed planning scholar Reid Ewing at a forum in Burlington, Vermont, sponsored by the University of Vermont Transportation Research Center and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and Metropolitan Planning Organization. 

Ewing, who recently joined the faculty at the University of Utah's City and Metropolitan Planning program, has long focused his research and writing on land use and transportation issues. His career's included stints as Director of the Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University and as a research professor at the National Center for Smart Growth. Interestingly, he's also squeezed in two terms in the Arizona state legislature. 

In his Burlington remarks, Ewing highlighted the benefits of "transit-oriented development" (TOD). But Ewing also argued that "pedestrian-oriented development has more potential nationwide than transit-oriented development." As he explained, outside of larger cities there's just not enough population to support rail-based transit, an essential component to TOD. That's certainly the case in places like Vermont. But pedestrian-oriented development (POD) will work in small and mid-sized communities.

Ewing noted that walking is the second most used mode of transportation after the automobile. In the U.S. today, he said, 86% of all trips are by car, followed by 9% on foot, and only 2% by transit. What's more, when people are surveyed they invariably indicate they would like to be able to walk more. Yet land development patterns and current housing choices, Ewing argued, often put roadblocks in the way of increased walking.

One factor necessary for POD, said Ewing, is density two to three times higher than the roughly 4 dwelling units per acre that is currently the norm in many suburbs. Also critically important is having a diversity of land uses close by. This allows, he noted, a higher proportion of people to walk from their homes to grocery stores, coffee shops, and sometimes, their place of employment. 

Another key factor in PODs or TODs is good design. Among the design principles Ewing pointed to is shorter blocks. "Block size is really important, and the shorter the block, the more walkable a community will be." As density increases it is also essential, he said, to provide ample public spaces, such as parks and plazas, "as a relief so it doesn't feel as crowded."

 Why care whether we have PODs and TODs? To Ewing, the single biggest benefit is that increased walking (or use of transit) reduces car use. This matters because cars run on fossil fuels which emit carbon dioxide which increases global warming (Ewing is co-author of Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, published by the Urban Land Institute). But walking, Ewing added, also yields health benefits.

Ewing acknowledged that there's no hard data on the percentage of new development that would be considered pedestrian-oriented, though he said a ballpark figure would be between 3 and 5 percent. For Ewing, part of the problem is that "the development industry is still building for an outdated market, one that existed twenty years ago." Ewing does, however, see signs of change, especially in the increased consumer demand "for smaller lot single-family homes."

Two other obstacles cited by Ewing: older land development codes which prohibit the higher densities and smaller lot sizes needed to support PODs or TODs, and "subsidies for automobile use" -- especially through what he said is the over generous supply of parking. On this last point Ewing noted that "the less parking provided the more likely people will walk or use transit."

G is for Growth Management

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

---

 Through the 1960s, community and regional planning efforts were generally directed to the accommodation of growth as dictated by market forces. Planning focused on the provision of infrastructure needed to facilitate the continued expansion of urban centers as the market dictated. But a series of closely grouped actions in the early 1970s laid the foundation for the now widely accepted concept of "growth management."

Ramapo, New York, a township about thirty miles north of New York City, established a point system, based on its comprehensive plan policies and linked to its capital improvements program, for determining whether proposed developments could be approved. In upholding this then-novel approach to regulating development, New York's highest court noted that: "The Town ... has utilized its comprehensive plan to implement its timing controls and has coupled with restrictions provisions for low and moderate income housing on a large scale. Considered as a whole it represents both in its inception and implementation a reasonable attempt to provide for the sequential, orderly development of land." Golden v. Planning Bd. of Ramapo (1972) (pdf file). See Whatever Happened to Ramapo?

Petaluma, California, an agricultural community north of San Francisco, limited the total number of building permits to be issued in any one year for large-scale developments. The permit caps were based on the town's establishment of a target population for itself well below that which building trends would otherwise have resulted in.

Livermore, California, imposed a moratorium on new residential construction until after the city completed improvements to its schools, and to its sewer and water systems.

The State of Oregon established a state land use system requiring each communities and counties to create "urban growth boundaries" so that the state's natural environment -- from its rich river bottom soils to its rugged coastline and wooded hillsides -- would be preserved.

The above actions shared a recognition (manifested even earlier in Lexington, Kentucky, see F is for Farmland) that the direction and extent of urban expansion is heavily influenced by public investment in the provision of roads, transit, schools, and water and sewer services. Through control over the timing and availability of these services, growth could be curtailed in certain areas and redirected to other portions of the community.

Growth management policies, when broadly viewed, deal with not just new facilities and their location, but with the continued vitality of older facilities. Indeed, reinvesting in older facilities often reduces the need for major state and local expenditures to provide new infrastructure (whether in the form of new schools or new sewer lines).

Perhaps the most noteworthy recent example of this broader view of growth management can be seen in Maryland. The State acted to stop construction of new major access roads and to focus state funding for public facilities on extensions of existing community centers and transit served districts. State lawmakers recognized that existing growth patterns were having disastrous impacts on the state, both environmentally and fiscally. 

Poorly planned growth was threatening the water quality of the state's "crown jewel," the Chesapeake Bay -- critical to the livelihood of thousands of Marylanders, from oystermen to individuals providing tourist-related services -- and forcing the state to absorb the steep cost of freeways, schools, and other infrastructure to accommodate increasingly scattered, low-density development. Growth management meant fiscal and environmental responsibility.

---

For more on growth management, see the following articles from the Planning Commissioners Journal:

Stopping Sprawl by Growing Smarter

Center-ing Our Suburbs

Two Perspectives on Sprawl

---

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

EPA Smart Growth Assistance Available

 We received the following announcement from Deloris Wingo-Huntley of the U.S. EPA which we thought might be of interest to some of you:

Request for Letters of Interest: Smart Growth Implementation Assistance

Free technical assistance available!

The Development, Community, and Environment Division in EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation is seeking applications for technical assistance from communities that want to incorporate smart growth in their future development to meet environmental and other community goals. This request is being coordinated under the interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities. Staff from HUD and DOT will assist in the provision of this technical assistance.

Eligible entities are tribal, local, regional, and state governments, and nonprofit organizations that have a demonstrated partnership with a governmental entity. Letters of interest are due at 3:00 pm EST, April 9, 2010.

EPA has identified some key topics in which communities are likely to benefit from technical assistance:

• climate change
• equitable development
• financing and planning infrastructure investments
• hazard mitigation plans
• removing local barriers to implementing LEED-ND
• suburban retrofit
• transportation solutions for rural communities and places without rail
• cities in transition (significant population loss, poverty, or economic deterioration)

Proposals are not limited to requests for technical assistance in only these thematic areas; other topics for assistance are welcome and encouraged, provided they demonstrate cutting-edge challenges and the possibility of replicable solutions. The type of work may incorporate policy analysis and review, planning and visioning processes, scorecard/ranking criteria development and assessment, and/or other elements pertinent to the role of the applicant.

Selected communities or states will receive assistance in the form of a multi-day visit from a team of experts organized by EPA, HUD and DOT and other national partners to work with local leaders. EPA plans to assist three to four communities over a period of twelve months. The Agency anticipates announcing the selected communities in fall of 2010.

For more information and application materials, visit

http://epa.gov/smartgrowth/2010_0128_rfli.html

E is for Ecology

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

---

 The word "ecology" literally means the study of homes ("eco"= homes; "ology" = the study of). In common use, however, ecology denotes the environment that surrounds our human existence and how people interact with it.

Ecology was powerfully brought to public attention with the publication of Rachel Carson's The Silent Spring in 1963, exposing the devastating effects of agricultural insecticides on wildlife and on the food chain. 

Six year later, landscape architect and planner Ian McHarg focused on how ecology can be taken into account in planning and design in his landmark book, Design With Nature.

With the establishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, and the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (which required "environmental impact statements" for federally funded projects having significant impacts on the environment), ecological considerations became part of the everyday planning vocabulary.

It is logical that ecology should be integral to planning. The natural environment is the community's birthplace. Terrain, soils and tree cover, underground water, surface streams, vegetation, and wildlife all form an interdependent unity of impact and adaptation. The goal of ecological studies, as applied to community and regional development, is to make the human impact on the elements of the environment mutually supportive and integrative with the whole, becoming one with the order of the natural world.

The protection of the quantity and quality of water in underground aquifers and wetland areas is a key concern when planning with ecological considerations in mind. Care is given to avoid building on and polluting natural aquifer recharge areas. Yet, with careful planning, even a site that includes large areas of flood plain or swamp land, may be developable -- while preserving its wetland functions. This was demonstrated in The Woodlands, a Texas new town built in the 1970s with the guidance of Ian McHarg and following his ecological principles.

Similarly, Village Homes, built in Davis, California in 1975, became a model for ecological application to a suburban neighborhood. It utilized natural drainage channels and grassed "soft" channel recharge areas in lieu of pipes and hard-sided channels to handle the increased rainwater runoff resulting from conversion of the site to a residential neighborhood. 

At Village Homes, the width of the street paving was narrowed to reduce the impervious area, minimizing runoff. Grape arbors were located between buildings and adjacent to drainage swales to absorb ground water, as well as to interject agriculture as an immediate, visible, and continuing presence in the residential environment.

When ecology is considered as part of a the comprehensive planning process, the community's natural systems (its soils slopes and land forms; underground water and surface drainage patterns; tree cover; grassland areas; ponds and wetlands; and wildlife) are all carefully mapped and studied in an effort to understand their role and to protect them from adverse human impacts. Ecological design calls for interacting with these natural systems to meet human needs in a manner that results in minimum disruption and maximum retention of the natural environment.

---

For more on ecological considerations in planning, see the following articles from the Planning Commissioners Journal:

Moving Towards Sustainability

Managing Stormwater Runoff: A Green Infrastructure Approach

---

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

Stormwater Runoff & Low Impact Development

The practice of stormwater management is evolving beyond engineered approaches applied at the site level to an approach that looks at managing stormwater in more natural ways. Green infrastructure and low impact development techniques can be better for the environment and cost-effective. But before they can be implemented, changes to local land development policies and regulations may be needed. Managing Stormwater Runoff, by Lynn Richards | Taking Low Impact Development from Research to Regulations, by John S. Rozum & David Dickson | from PCJ #73 (Winter 2009); 8 pages total

A bioswale is one of several "low impact" features designed to manage stormwater in a North Charleston, S.C., development. Read first few paragraphs of Lynn Richards article: Increasingly, communities are looking for ways to maximize the opportunities and benefits associated with growth while minimizing and managing its negative environmental impacts, especially in terms of stormwater runoff. In many places, however, stormwater management is still primarily dealt with only at the site development level using "end-of-pipe" practices, such as detention ponds or conveyance systems, such as sewer systems or culverts. These practices, however, fail to address cumulative water quality impacts from the excessive amounts of impervious cover associated with land development. While conventional stormwater approaches work to drain each site, the continued spread of development in many areas has resulted in too much water, carrying too much pollution, running into drains and receiving water bodies. This can reduce water quality, especially at drain outlets, and lead to a dramatic drop in the refill rate of aquifers and streams. Today, the practice of stormwater management is evolving beyond engineered approaches applied at the site level to an approach that looks at managing stormwater through more natural approaches. These "green infrastructure" approaches can be better for the environment and cost-effective. Green infrastructure strategies reduce and locally manage stormwater through infiltration (water soaking into the ground), capture and reuse (water being stored in a rain barrel or cistern for later use in watering plants or flushing toilets), and evapotranspiration (water being used by trees and plants). A comprehensive green infrastructure approach to stormwater management seeks to: Preserve and enhance natural features, such as undisturbed forests, meadows, wetlands, regional and neighborhood greenways, trails, and other natural areas. Recycle land by directing new development to already degraded land, such as parking lots, vacant buildings, and abandoned malls. Reduce land consumption and development footprint by using land more efficiently. Reuse stormwater by directing it back into the ground through infiltration, evapotranspiration, or through capture and reuse techniques. While traditional approaches to stormwater management have focused at site-level techniques, green infrastructure takes into account the wide range of development-related issues at the regional, neighborhood, and site-level that affect impervious cover and stormwater runoff. ... Read first few paragraphs of John Rozum & David Dickson article: As anyone involved in land use knows, a new subdivision rarely garners much emotion, particularly of the positive variety. So it was surprising when while on a tour of the new Glenbrook Green subdivision in 2006 Connecticut's chief environmental official exclaimed, "this subdivision is wicked cool!" The 29-lot Waterford, Connecticut subdivision, also known as the Jordan Cove project, is one of the country's premier applied research sites for a variety of stormwater management and site design approaches often referred to as Low Impact Development (LID). However, making "wicked cool" subdivisions like Jordan Cove commonplace will require a multi-pronged, yet doable, revision of local land use regulations. A "New" Approach to Stormwater We know from countless studies that current stormwater management practices are not doing a great job of protecting water quality. Increasingly, communities are recognizing the need to manage stormwater through an integrative, comprehensive approach to land use planning and site design. LID refers to a variety of land use practices, including rain gardens, vegetated swales, pervious pavements, green roofs, and others, that seek to maintain or even improve the pre-development hydrology (i.e., quality and quantity of runoff) of a particular development site. LID practices have been highly touted throughout the country in recent years as one large piece of this puzzle. Research findings suggest it is worth the hype. The Jordan Cove project (see next page), funded by the EPA through the state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), represented a ten-year research effort to gauge the effectiveness of many of these onsite stormwater management techniques in "real world" conditions. The project found that when used in combination these practices can indeed replicate or improve the pre-development hydrology of an area. Yet, implementing these practices will require communities to make changes to the way that land development is done from top to bottom and changes of this magnitude are rarely taken quickly. ...

order & download both articles $6.50 (single copy license)
order & download both articles $23.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

Moving Towards Sustainability

Trends in human activity, both at global and local levels, are still headed in directions that are largely unsustainable. Yet a growing number of cities and towns are incorporating sustainable development principles in their planning and zoning efforts. Sarah James, co-author of the American Planning Association's Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability, takes a look at ways in which some communities are starting to implement sustainable development principles. by Sarah James; from PCJ #47 (Summer 2002); 8 pages

Read excerpts from start of article: Planning and zoning officials have powerful influence over the future shape and land use of our communities. Making sure we leave our children and grandchildren livable communities and a livable environment is reason to consider planning and zoning a approaches that move toward sustainability. A sustainable society is one where human needs -– ours and those of future generations -– can be met within the capacity of the earth to support those needs. At present, trends of human activity -– including development, consumption, population growth, and degradation of natural resources –- both at global and local levels, are heading increasingly in directions that are unsustainable. At the same time, more and more communities are redirecting planning and zoning to help shape development and land in more sustainable directions. We can learn from their examples. A Look at the Big Picture To better understand what sustainability means, it helps to step back and take a look at the big picture. Two broad trends can be seen. First, the natural systems around us are being depleted at a rate faster than they can be renewed. Second, population growth and consumption are continuing to rise. It should come as little surprise that Americans lead the world in resource consumption and waste generation. ... These two trends are like the sides of a funnel, converging upon one another. The time we have to stabilize these trends is diminishing. And we don't know at what point irreparable damage will occur. What we see happening around us in our communities are local manifestations of these global trends: diminishing open land and forests; threatened wildlife habitat; increased traffic congestion; poor air quality; contaminated water and earth; and many people without an affordable place to live. However, a growing number of communities have taken actions that hold promise for slowing, if not reversing, these trends -– actions often grounded on one of the following perspectives: Dealing with Upstream Causes Taking a Systems Approach Thinking in Terms of Cycles 1. Dealing With Upstream Causes Two paired phrases often used in discussing sustainable development are: "upstream causes" and "downstream effects." Planning and zoning strategies that address the root causes of land use and environmental issues are said to deal with "upstream causes." In contrast, strategies that focus on remedying (or managing) existing problems deal with "downstream effects." The connection is that by taking preventive measures -– that is, by dealing with what creates environmental and land use problems in the first place (i.e., "upstream causes"), one can often avoid the more costly and intractable steps needed to remedy land use problems after they occur (i.e., "downstream effects"). Traditionally, most land use and environmental regulations have focused on managing downstream effects. For example, regulating hazardous, toxic substances usually takes the form of controlling their on-site storage and disposal. In contrast, an upstream approach might encourage alternatives to the use of toxic chemicals, thereby avoiding the need to deal with storage and disposal concerns. Likewise, efforts to deal with traffic congestion usually take the form of widening streets, adding lanes, lights, or other mitigation measures. An upstream approach might instead focus on developing strategies that work to reduce the volume of traffic, eliminating the need for dealing with congestion. ...

order & download full article $5.75 (single copy license)
order & download full article $23.25 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

Federal Agencies to Coordinate Smart Growth Planning

 Excellent post by Bill Fulton on his blog (via the California Planning & Development Report web site) about some very promising news coming out of this month's New Partners for Smart Growth Conference in Seattle. 

To read his full post: Are Federal Agencies Finally on the Same Page 
Here are some excerpts:

"There's an old joke that what the locals fear more than a federal government in disarray is a federal government that has its act together. Well, now the joke's being put to the test. At the plenary session of the New Partners for Smart Growth conference in Seattle the other night, President's Obama's so-called Green Cabinet -- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, and EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus, filling in for his boss Lisa Jackson -- presented the most cohesive vision of federal involvement in planning and development since the Johnson Administration 40 years ago.

'When it comes to housing, transportation, and environmental policy, it's time the federal government spoke with one voice,' HUD Secretary Donovan said at the plenary.

 The coordinated federal effort would have vast reach and billions of dollars in resources if it is successful. It takes at least three forms -- the creation of special offices on sustainable communities inside each of the three agencies; the addition or continuation of funding programs inside each agency; and an unusual level of coordination among the agencies on the sustainable communities effort. ...

The major brainpower for the coordinated effort would appear to be located in HUD -- an unlikely place for policy innovation in recent administrations. Donovan, the former New York City housing commissioner, is viewed as one of the Obama Administration's brightest starts. ... In addition, Donovan selected Rafael Bostic from the University of Southern California's School of Planning Policy & Development as his Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research."

Fulton goes on to highlight three of the key components of this coordinated approach to planning:

• HUD's creation of an Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities
• U.S. DOT's establishment of an Office of Livable Communities (which has proposed a $527 million budget for livable communities programs in the next federal budget)
• The expansion of EPA's current Office of Smart Growth into the Office of Sustainable Communities

---

See joint Press Release from HUD, DOT, and EPA (June 16, 2009)

Twitter users: you can follow some of the key agencies:

• DOT Secretary Ray LaHood
• EPA Office of Smart Growth
• HUD News

Mayor: Citizens are Developing a Green Grand Rapids

This January and February we'll periodically be including excerpts from "State of the City" addresses given by mayors from across the U.S. These addresses can offer insights into both innovative programs and challenges facing cities.

Previously posted:

Shoreview, Minnesota, Mayor Sandy Martin

Salt Lake City, Utah, Mayor Ralph Becker

Ashland, Oregon, Mayor John Stromberg

Topeka, Kansas, Mayor Bill Bunten

Albany, New York, Mayor Gerald Jennings

---

Grand Rapids, Michigan, Mayor George K. Hartwell
To read his complete State of the City address (pdf)

A vision must reflect the past, incorporate learning from our failures and build on our successes. 2009 will forever be known as the year of Green Grand Rapids … and the Green Grand Rapids Plan will forever shape the face of our city ... 

Our community drew together over 100 times in public meetings; more than 1800 people participated in the design of the plan. The results are stunning … but are not exactly what we had anticipated. You see, we knew we’d have a great plan when the day was done, and that then we would take its component parts out and sell them to the public. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Teams working on the plan got so enthusiastic about the emerging results that they forged new coalitions and created new organizations, and began to implement the plan before it was even completed. 

Friends of Grand Rapids Parks formed to raise money for improved parks and green spaces in our city. This non-profit foundation has hosted park clean-up events in all four quadrants of the city. 

The Greater Grand Rapids Bicycle Coalition formed to implement complete-street design initiatives and seek funding for bike lanes and trails. Under the Coalition’s leadership this year Grand Rapids was designated as a bronze-level Bicycle Friendly City and we have our eyes on the gold! ... and the Grand Rapids Whitewater non-profit organization formed to advance the plans for a Grand River whitewater kayak course. These citizens – every one of whom captured the vision and made it their own – have raised the first money for engineering and hydrological studies.

Also, before the ink was set on the pages of Green Grand Rapids the Planning Department applied for $1.9 million in federal stimulus funds as part of a larger Kent County grant. If approved ... we will be able to implement 100 miles of on-street bicycle improvements, we will make safety and access improvements to 20 neighborhood parks, we will install bike parking at four transit stops, we will engineer four miles of sidewalks along 28th St., and we will assist in funding consulting services for the Downtown Urban Market.

There are many bold and exciting recommendations in Green Grand Rapids. A few of them are: 

• Provide an accessible park within 1/4 mile of all residents 
• Extend the Riverwalk system from Riverside Park to Millennium Park 
• Achieve 40% tree canopy coverage in the city 
• Manage stormwater where it falls 
• Adopt a Complete Streets ordinance Design all streets to be safe, walkable and bikeable, and pleasing to the eye 
• Return the Rapids to the river 
• Develop ordinances to support community gardening, and 
• Support a 4-season downtown farmers' market

As citizen groups coalesce around these audacious goals you will see a new Grand Rapids emerging; a green Grand Rapids; a Grand Rapids that will provide national leadership in the sustainable communities movement.

... Governmental leaders, elected and staff, must maintain the tools, sharpened and polished and easily accessible to assist citizens in doing important initiatives be they neighborhood-based or city-wide. Then those government leaders, elected and staff, must get out of the way and let the citizens do what needs to be done. We can harness the energy, we can provide the structure, we can promote the ideas, but we must let our citizens accomplish the great things they have in mind.