In my previous post, I mentioned the idea, long considered valid, that kids belong in the suburbs. Being car oriented, they are breeding grounds for accidents, more kids die from cars than anything else, and being in a car doesn't allow the kids to feel a connection to their area, which has a whole host of negative effects.
A loyal reader commented:
Hmmm, I don't think I quite agree with some of your "facts". You have tons more cars driving down the street in front of your house in the city than I do in the suburbs. Plus, I have a back yard for a child to play in. I'm not trying to convince you that the 'burbs are best, but the vast majority of people in this beautiful country prefer where I live to where you live.
I answered a bit, but there is a bit more I want to say. I responded with this:
I don't think I accurately relayed what I or the study is saying.
First, cars on the street are not the inherent problem. Street design can be. However, the big problem is kids being stuck in a car for everything. Every errand you run is with the car. Kids don't die from being hit by car nowhere near as often as being in the car.
As for the street, more cars can actually be safer. On conventional, modern suburbs, streets are wider. This design gives drivers a certain comfort level. That usually means faster speeds. Design considerations aside, more cars can actually be safer. Speeds on I-30 are slower at 5pm than at 9 pm, even though more cars use the 5pm time.
I think a common mistake is evidenced here in that the common thought is either low-density single family or high density towers. Single family neighborhoods can be quite urban. For local examples, see the Bishop Arts District, Lower Greenville or even leftover pieces of Uptown. The difference is design. Modern suburbia is car-only. Pre-WWII suburbia is quite dense and walkable. I think I have a topic for a new post.
I think I sufficiently answered the car vs. kid point. While the hit-by-a-car to death ratio is greater in the developing world, in our fair country, it is being inside the car that is the problem. Those that do survive a wreck can often have injuries that stay with them the rest of their lives. We all know someone who has been at least injured or worse in a wreck.
Allow me to move on then to the second point of the first comment. How do we know that the vast majority of people prefer auto-oriented suburbs? I am not convinced.
A few numbers to consider. The residential rents in walkable areas (rents in economic terms do not refer to lease payments, but land value) primarily located in city centers have eclipsed pre-recession levels. Meanwhile, residential properties in areas that rely solely on cars for transportation are still declining in value. Together, that tells me a bunch. It means that walkable areas are so scarce compared to demand, that even though the country itself hasn't achieved a full-scale recovery, urban area property managers use a little supply-and-demand theory and raise the prices to match the supply, forcing out the margins, which appear to be wide in this case.
Meanwhile, there was evidence before the housing crash that home builders had overbuilt the supply of single-family housing. After the banking crisis, it became severely evident. Single-family housing still hasn't recovered. Yet there needs to be an asterisk here.
Walkable single family housing has done remarkably better than their auto-oriented peers. Some of the neighborhoods I named above are examples, like Bishop Arts and Lower Greenville, but the M Streets, Winnetka Heights and parts of Lakewood are further examples. Most people don't realize, but even posh Highland Park is a highly walkable suburban enclave. All of these places have either declined slightly or gained in value. Even now, once outside Loop 12 and particularly LBJ freeway, price declines in double digits are quite common.
There is one final point I wish to make on this topic. One critique that planners receive in trying offer the fruitcart variety is that people don't want to live in anything other than single-family homes. I really struggle with that idea. Go to the grocery store and see how many types of bread sit on the shelves. Dozens of brands offer dozens of varieties. Go to a movie store and see how many types and genres of movies there are. Go to an electronics store and see the huge variety of TV's. Walk on to a car dealership and count the many types of different cars. Yet, all we want is one type of housing? It doesn't add up. A person will prefer different housing at different stages in their life. A similar person will prefer different types at those same stages. Cities that don't reflect that will suffer. Some already are.
Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
The Size of Homes: What is the Trend?
I am going to pontificate upon an idea that I have avoided for some time. The reason I am delving into this subject is at the request (though not directly) from my father-in-law, who sent me this from from Alternet, which discuss Americans newfound love for smaller homes than what as being built just a few years ago. I want to discuss the article a bit, one that is very similar to many I have read over the past two years, before I reveal why I have been avoiding the topic to this point.
Intriguingly: professionals in the building industry are saying that this move may be a long-term shift that's reflecting a deep sea-change in American values and attitudes about what makes a place a home.
In a 2009 article in USA Today interior designer Christine Brun sums up the emerging ethic: "You're almost unpatriotic to live so large." She points out that baby boomers are downsizing their now-empty nests; and younger adults "don't care if they live in 500 square feet. They just want cool stuff." Add in growing awareness of our environmental footprint and a crashing economy, and you've got a perfect storm that's moving Americans back toward the kind of smaller digs we lived in in the days of Ward and June Cleaver.
As it stands right now, I can see the combination of a tough economy and environmentally conscience ideas as two of the main reasons for a decline in the size of new houses. However, only one of those is permanent. When gas prices rose very high in 2008, SUV's were the cheapest they had ever been when adjusted for inflation and buyers were scarce. SUV sales recently have grown since that low point, indicating a short-term memory for consumers. While housing construction and auto manufacturing are very different, houses tend to take longer and a bit more time from conception to product, they are still very major buys. If house hunters believe that good times are ahead, what is to say they won't move back towards the larger homes?
To answer that question:
Some experts think this long-term trend toward smaller houses is likely to hold steady even if the economy improves. "I don't expect [home size] to come back up," says Gopal Ahluwalia, a VP at NAHB. He notes that nine out of 10 NAHB members surveyed said they were planning to build smaller, lower-priced homes in the future. "We don't need big homes; family size has been declining for the past 35 years." That fact may not have stopped us from going big in the past, but it may matter more in these frugal and eco-conscious times.
This is the only indication I have seen since this "trend" started that it will sustain itself. Because it takes time for land to be acquired, plans to be made and submitted, permits to be obtained, contractors to hire, constructon to begin and finish, what the industry officials are saying now will likely play out in the next few years. It is after that that has me curious.
At all price levels, what people are looking for most of all in a small house is location, location, location. A tiny place can make you feel pretty cooped up unless there's plenty to walk to nearby in the neighborhood. Giving up our private lawns, kitchens, dining rooms, and garages means that we'll need to rely more and more on public places to take over the recreation and entertainment functions of our lives. For this reason, small houses are far more liveable when they're close to shops, parks, evening entertainment like restaurants and theaters, and transit that can quickly whisk you around town.
And this is what has been missed most by both the home building industry and home buyers. The desire for space has consequences. The bigger things are, the more spaced out they become and by proxy the less walkable everything as a whole is. I believe, as someone with both with an environmental-first thought-process and a planners mentality, this size-downgrade is what needs to happen to get back to a healthy urban environment. If nothing else was built in the next ten years but prototypical urban, walkable neighborhoods, there still wouldn't be a proper balance between that and contemporary suburban development already in existence.
And if small is beautiful and density is desirable, then cities are going to be needing to invest far more in the kind of public infrastructure that makes these tiny homes liveable -- those parks and transit centers and retail hubs, for example. As we turn toward smaller homes, voter demand for these kinds of amenities will increase. And, at some point, our attitude toward paying higher taxes to make these investments will have to shift as well.
I might even take this a step further and say that these walkable neighborhoods will be more likely to come about if transit is already in place. Places like Southlake Town Square or Home Town in North Richland Hills are small and poorly connected at the borders to the surrounding areas and people still drive there to get there, since they can't walk there unless they already are there. It takes density and mass over a large area to significantly effect transportation habits. Areas without transit will blunt the density bonus of increased walkability.
Mockingbird Station or the area around Downtown Plano Station will see a greater effect in encouraging alternative transportation because they connect to other walkable and connected places along their transit route. Each introduction of a walkable neighborhood to the transit network not only benefits the new place, but reinfores the existing places as well, both for the built environment and the network. It is this reason why urban ridership is higher than commuter ridership.
While these are all hopeful signs for an increase in urbanism throughout the country, I haven't touched this topic previously because I don't know how long this will actually last. Signs are good, but this is not a trend. If in five years both the built units that were be thought out now and the planned units show a continued move into the downsizing of American homes, then I will proclaim this as a positive trend for planning and urbanism in this country. Until then, I will continue to watch this and hope for continued improvement.
In some ways, I expected this if for no other reason than to bring that variety to the fruitcart. Empty nesters have no need for 2,300 square feet of house, and to many that space is depressing (My views as a parent is that my wife and two kids don't need that space, but to those who do, to each their own). I and my circle certainly didn't need that space in college and immediately after as we began our adult lives. If empty nesters and pre-children adults alone started this smaller trend, housing size would go done, regardless of any other factor.
However, bigger houses were all that homebuilders were focused on, citing the market as the reasons they were doing it. However, in hindsight we know that is not true, since they can't build walkable neighborhoods, including both rent- and owner-occupied residential units, fast enough while simultaneously they can't find enough buyers for these huge homes since they glutted the market. The market is correcting itself, and in the case of our economy, doing it very painfully.
Intriguingly: professionals in the building industry are saying that this move may be a long-term shift that's reflecting a deep sea-change in American values and attitudes about what makes a place a home.
In a 2009 article in USA Today interior designer Christine Brun sums up the emerging ethic: "You're almost unpatriotic to live so large." She points out that baby boomers are downsizing their now-empty nests; and younger adults "don't care if they live in 500 square feet. They just want cool stuff." Add in growing awareness of our environmental footprint and a crashing economy, and you've got a perfect storm that's moving Americans back toward the kind of smaller digs we lived in in the days of Ward and June Cleaver.
As it stands right now, I can see the combination of a tough economy and environmentally conscience ideas as two of the main reasons for a decline in the size of new houses. However, only one of those is permanent. When gas prices rose very high in 2008, SUV's were the cheapest they had ever been when adjusted for inflation and buyers were scarce. SUV sales recently have grown since that low point, indicating a short-term memory for consumers. While housing construction and auto manufacturing are very different, houses tend to take longer and a bit more time from conception to product, they are still very major buys. If house hunters believe that good times are ahead, what is to say they won't move back towards the larger homes?
To answer that question:
Some experts think this long-term trend toward smaller houses is likely to hold steady even if the economy improves. "I don't expect [home size] to come back up," says Gopal Ahluwalia, a VP at NAHB. He notes that nine out of 10 NAHB members surveyed said they were planning to build smaller, lower-priced homes in the future. "We don't need big homes; family size has been declining for the past 35 years." That fact may not have stopped us from going big in the past, but it may matter more in these frugal and eco-conscious times.
This is the only indication I have seen since this "trend" started that it will sustain itself. Because it takes time for land to be acquired, plans to be made and submitted, permits to be obtained, contractors to hire, constructon to begin and finish, what the industry officials are saying now will likely play out in the next few years. It is after that that has me curious.
At all price levels, what people are looking for most of all in a small house is location, location, location. A tiny place can make you feel pretty cooped up unless there's plenty to walk to nearby in the neighborhood. Giving up our private lawns, kitchens, dining rooms, and garages means that we'll need to rely more and more on public places to take over the recreation and entertainment functions of our lives. For this reason, small houses are far more liveable when they're close to shops, parks, evening entertainment like restaurants and theaters, and transit that can quickly whisk you around town.
And this is what has been missed most by both the home building industry and home buyers. The desire for space has consequences. The bigger things are, the more spaced out they become and by proxy the less walkable everything as a whole is. I believe, as someone with both with an environmental-first thought-process and a planners mentality, this size-downgrade is what needs to happen to get back to a healthy urban environment. If nothing else was built in the next ten years but prototypical urban, walkable neighborhoods, there still wouldn't be a proper balance between that and contemporary suburban development already in existence.
And if small is beautiful and density is desirable, then cities are going to be needing to invest far more in the kind of public infrastructure that makes these tiny homes liveable -- those parks and transit centers and retail hubs, for example. As we turn toward smaller homes, voter demand for these kinds of amenities will increase. And, at some point, our attitude toward paying higher taxes to make these investments will have to shift as well.
I might even take this a step further and say that these walkable neighborhoods will be more likely to come about if transit is already in place. Places like Southlake Town Square or Home Town in North Richland Hills are small and poorly connected at the borders to the surrounding areas and people still drive there to get there, since they can't walk there unless they already are there. It takes density and mass over a large area to significantly effect transportation habits. Areas without transit will blunt the density bonus of increased walkability.
Mockingbird Station or the area around Downtown Plano Station will see a greater effect in encouraging alternative transportation because they connect to other walkable and connected places along their transit route. Each introduction of a walkable neighborhood to the transit network not only benefits the new place, but reinfores the existing places as well, both for the built environment and the network. It is this reason why urban ridership is higher than commuter ridership.
While these are all hopeful signs for an increase in urbanism throughout the country, I haven't touched this topic previously because I don't know how long this will actually last. Signs are good, but this is not a trend. If in five years both the built units that were be thought out now and the planned units show a continued move into the downsizing of American homes, then I will proclaim this as a positive trend for planning and urbanism in this country. Until then, I will continue to watch this and hope for continued improvement.
In some ways, I expected this if for no other reason than to bring that variety to the fruitcart. Empty nesters have no need for 2,300 square feet of house, and to many that space is depressing (My views as a parent is that my wife and two kids don't need that space, but to those who do, to each their own). I and my circle certainly didn't need that space in college and immediately after as we began our adult lives. If empty nesters and pre-children adults alone started this smaller trend, housing size would go done, regardless of any other factor.
However, bigger houses were all that homebuilders were focused on, citing the market as the reasons they were doing it. However, in hindsight we know that is not true, since they can't build walkable neighborhoods, including both rent- and owner-occupied residential units, fast enough while simultaneously they can't find enough buyers for these huge homes since they glutted the market. The market is correcting itself, and in the case of our economy, doing it very painfully.
Monday, May 2, 2011
360 The Third Installment
A Downtown of Districts. This section opens up by defining the districts, both within and adjacent to downtown. The core districts within downtown are the obvious, like Main Street or the Arts, and some that I hadn't heard before, like Thanksgiving Commercial Center. This is a good example that some districts are nothing more than arbitrary lines. True districts, like Main or the West End exist within a common fabric. The rest of downtown is a motley collection of fortress office buildings, parking lots and leftover pre-WWII structures, lacking any true identity. I think this was a more political decision than a planning one.
Each district is identified, described and recommendations given for future development. I'm worried that just going through them will be monotonous, so I'll try to give my take on the district recommendations.
First up, for the Arts District (on the northern part of downtown), MIG foresees a streetcar along Ross with streetscape improvements, adding art and exhibits along Flora, reconstructing Harwood in the same manner as Flora and a redesign of Pearl to be more pedestrian-friendly.
This is the district I am the most ambivalent about. I just don't see anything making this area vibrant. I like the Pearl Street idea, but more out of principle of making the street less auto-centric, rather than adding life to the Arts District. It won't add life, the design of the area is just wrong. It will be a benefit to downtown, but it will make little difference to the Arts District. People will still go to the shows and people will still not go when there are no shows. Until there is more inclusivity in the design, that will never change.
Thanksgiving Commercial Center is next, the area roughly between the Main Street District and the Arts. The area is generally composed of fortress office buildings. To improve this district, streetscape improvements along Ervay, Harwood and Pearl, ensuring a stop along the McKinney Avenue Streetcar extension near the St. Paul light rail station, encourage conversion of the ground floor of the office buildings to retail and reduce the size of the park planned on the block by St. Paul and Live Oak to accommodate development are advocated.
These are all solid, if obvious. I don't think any transit planner would run a streetcar by a rail station and not have a stop. I don't think any non-transit planner would do that either. Streetscape improvements are a good idea. Ervay and Harwood, aside from the one-way, are quite pedestrian-friendly. I like the idea of reducing the park down. In fact, I think that park is redundant with Main Street Gardens two bocks away and Aston Park directly adjacent.
My only beef with these are the conversion of the office buildings first floor to retail. That sounds nice, but it overlooks the land-use equation. This is a solidly 9-5 area. There is already ground-floor retail in some areas. It is possible and in some cases probable that adding more would reinforce the existing retail, but what is there is sparsely used outside of business hours. Adding more uses aside from office would make the ground-floor conversion palpable. As it is, most non-business hour uses are well outside this area, making ground-floor retail a want rather than a possibility. The skywalks and tunnels pose a problem for this as well, since there is retail on these levels.
In Dallas' most urban and dynamic area, the Main Street District, more retail is wanted, as well as a streetcar connection Deep Ellum and the Trinity River, adding a branding campaign, streamlining parking, recruiting and retaining retail, converting the Grand Hotel from vacant to used and creating a Gateway at Lamar Street.
Retail will come when retail is warranted. This is something that occasionally bugs me about planners. Work on the stuff that needs changing. 20 years ago, retail was wanted, but there was no market. The area was also dead. There were abandoned office buildings, holes in the landscape with surface parking and an auto-oriented street. Incentives were offered to convert the buildings to residential, a surface lot was converted to a plaza, another was built into a residential tower over a garage, a lane was taken away and given to make the sidewalks wider, vehicle choke points were added at certain locations. Retail has come in some areas as the district has changed. Planners added residential and made a pedestrian-friendly street. Retail followed. You don't have to plan for retail. You have to leave space for it and in that regard, you have to plan for it. Otherwise, it will come when there is demand for it. As it stands now, there is not a lack of retail space.
I like the streetcar, but I think they made a slight mistake in that they just want to connect districts. That is fine, but transit doesn't work quite that way. I just don't see a demand for rides to the Trinity River. Deep Ellum, yes. Connection to Uptown and Oak Cliff, were existing or planned streetcar connections are make sense, as there are destinations and origins there now and will be in the future. A river, even with its planned recreation elements, won't likely create the demand for ridership.
The Grand is 1) already in the works and 2) contingent upon the private market. I advocate the developers and the Improvement District working together, but nothing is enforceable. That is one common criticism of the planning profession.
This set of recommendations seem to be nothing more than window dressing. Main Street District, of all areas in downtown, is the least in need of help and it shows.
In the Farmers Market, the planners envision a park along Pearl, calming of traffic and improving the pedestrian realm along Ceasar Chavez, developing an image or brand for the area, working with the Bridge, Dallas's homeless shelter, for safety issues and integrating a light rail stop on the next rail line in downtown.
A key part that seems to have been excluded is the West Village-type development just north of the market. I know it will be discussed in the small area plan, but that would seem to be a key recommendation for this area. I wonder if that is where they envision the park. As for the rail line, that is out of their hands. DART is working on it, but as par for the course, this plan seems to be lacking in the transportation department.
The Civic Center, on the south end, is where most government buildings are. The recommendations are to increase the connection to the Main Street District from City Hall Plaza, pursue the reuse of the Butler Brothers Building, redesign City Hall Plaza to be more vibrant, create a new residential development at Wood and Ervay and enhance Ervay with streetscape improvements.
Once again, hard to argue with these, though I do feel some are out of the planners control. Aside from incentives, there isn't much to make the Butler Brothers or a new residential building happen. The plaza remake has already been acted upon. Streetscape improvements are great, but the underlying land uses are what makes an area vibrant, and sadly, like the Arts District, this areas has poor uses and design for an urban area.
Speaking of poor areas, the Union/Reunion area is next. A land swap near Reunion for development, a deck park between the Houston and Jefferson Street viaducts, TOD near Union and a pedestrian promenade and streetcar stop on the Houston Viaduct are what the planners see as making this district vibrant.
While this all sounds fine, this area is detailed in later sections. I'll discuss it there as well. Just remember that I am not high on the plans or this area.
The final district is the West End, the second best urban district in downtown. For this area, the planners want a mixed-use development on a surface lot at Lamar and Ross, the reuse the West End Marketplace, a park at Market and Corbin, streetcars and enhance paving at Lamar and Ross, special events and an update and rebranding of the image.
Once again, it is hard to argue with these recommendations. The good news, aside from the mixed-use development, this is all within planners and decision makers control.
I do take a bit of exception with the adaptive reuse of the West End Marketplace, a former tourist-oriented structure that was a bit of a mall in function. The planners want to:
Re-tenant the West End Marketplace with complementary uses such a (typo in the original document, should be as) museum, hotel, or as a business incubator with strong ties to El Centro Community College, Bank of America, and the nearby Environmental Protection Agency office in Fountain Place to encourage innovative, creative/green economy business start-ups and partnerships.
I like the idea of not making this an indoor mall. I could see a hotel, but this too big for most any museum (and this isn't in the Arts District, where Dallas likes their museums :p). As for the incubator, it seems like they just named area tenants. For the EPA to have any use or connection with this building, they would need to cross the six-lane-and-median Griffin Street, otherwise known as the most car-oriented street in downtown. I think residential or hotel would be the better bet.
From here, the surrounding districts are analyzed in the same manner, though their descriptions are shorter. I'll try to be as brief.
For Victory, they want TOD's at DART stations and streetcar stops, to convert Houston street to the "front door" rather than the alley it is now and infill next to the new Museum near downtown.
In Uptown, the planners want walkable, transit oriented neighborhoods, improved walkability on select streets, workforce housing and links to the various bike trails.
On the northeast, in the Baylor District, the recommendations are to strengthen connections to the Arts District, new housing for working class (specifically between Deep Ellum Station and Central Expressway), enhance pedestrian connection to Baylor from Baylor Station, enhance links to the bike trails and reconfigure the Ross/San Jacinto intersection.
In Deep Ellum, cultivating artistic base, improve the pedestrian experience on Elm, Main, Commerce and Malcolm X, maintain a small property development style, bringing mixed-income residential, extend the freeway lighting and artwork and connect to bike trails are the planners recommendations.
At the Cedars, on the south side of downtown, the area needs to improve Ervay and add a streetcar, better use and market Heritage Village, higher intensity housing near Interstate-30, provide a fruit cart mix of housing, become an incubator for small business and enhance the connections along Belleview.
In the Southside, long considered the Cedars until this plan, planners advise a streetscape improvement along Lamar, decked development over I-30, streetcar along Lamar and enhanced connectivity along Belleview and Corinth.
On the west side, there's Riverfront and Design Districts, these are really the same area with no real distinction, so I will cover it as one too. MIG proposes native landscaping on industrial sites, access to the Jefferson/Houston deck park, redesigning Riverfront as a multi-modal street, a streetcar connecting the area to Victory Station and encourage cottage industry with live-work sites.
Nothing really jumped out at me in these districts, neither good nor bad. Some seem solid, streetscape improvements, adding active fronts toward the street and increasing housing options and ranges. Others, like the deck park and streetcar lines everywhere might be out of reach.
I am so glad this section is over. It seemed the most tedious and likely boring, though there was a lot of good information in there. I am looking forward to the next section, which will contain the teeth of the plan.
Each district is identified, described and recommendations given for future development. I'm worried that just going through them will be monotonous, so I'll try to give my take on the district recommendations.
First up, for the Arts District (on the northern part of downtown), MIG foresees a streetcar along Ross with streetscape improvements, adding art and exhibits along Flora, reconstructing Harwood in the same manner as Flora and a redesign of Pearl to be more pedestrian-friendly.
This is the district I am the most ambivalent about. I just don't see anything making this area vibrant. I like the Pearl Street idea, but more out of principle of making the street less auto-centric, rather than adding life to the Arts District. It won't add life, the design of the area is just wrong. It will be a benefit to downtown, but it will make little difference to the Arts District. People will still go to the shows and people will still not go when there are no shows. Until there is more inclusivity in the design, that will never change.
Thanksgiving Commercial Center is next, the area roughly between the Main Street District and the Arts. The area is generally composed of fortress office buildings. To improve this district, streetscape improvements along Ervay, Harwood and Pearl, ensuring a stop along the McKinney Avenue Streetcar extension near the St. Paul light rail station, encourage conversion of the ground floor of the office buildings to retail and reduce the size of the park planned on the block by St. Paul and Live Oak to accommodate development are advocated.
These are all solid, if obvious. I don't think any transit planner would run a streetcar by a rail station and not have a stop. I don't think any non-transit planner would do that either. Streetscape improvements are a good idea. Ervay and Harwood, aside from the one-way, are quite pedestrian-friendly. I like the idea of reducing the park down. In fact, I think that park is redundant with Main Street Gardens two bocks away and Aston Park directly adjacent.
My only beef with these are the conversion of the office buildings first floor to retail. That sounds nice, but it overlooks the land-use equation. This is a solidly 9-5 area. There is already ground-floor retail in some areas. It is possible and in some cases probable that adding more would reinforce the existing retail, but what is there is sparsely used outside of business hours. Adding more uses aside from office would make the ground-floor conversion palpable. As it is, most non-business hour uses are well outside this area, making ground-floor retail a want rather than a possibility. The skywalks and tunnels pose a problem for this as well, since there is retail on these levels.
In Dallas' most urban and dynamic area, the Main Street District, more retail is wanted, as well as a streetcar connection Deep Ellum and the Trinity River, adding a branding campaign, streamlining parking, recruiting and retaining retail, converting the Grand Hotel from vacant to used and creating a Gateway at Lamar Street.
Retail will come when retail is warranted. This is something that occasionally bugs me about planners. Work on the stuff that needs changing. 20 years ago, retail was wanted, but there was no market. The area was also dead. There were abandoned office buildings, holes in the landscape with surface parking and an auto-oriented street. Incentives were offered to convert the buildings to residential, a surface lot was converted to a plaza, another was built into a residential tower over a garage, a lane was taken away and given to make the sidewalks wider, vehicle choke points were added at certain locations. Retail has come in some areas as the district has changed. Planners added residential and made a pedestrian-friendly street. Retail followed. You don't have to plan for retail. You have to leave space for it and in that regard, you have to plan for it. Otherwise, it will come when there is demand for it. As it stands now, there is not a lack of retail space.
I like the streetcar, but I think they made a slight mistake in that they just want to connect districts. That is fine, but transit doesn't work quite that way. I just don't see a demand for rides to the Trinity River. Deep Ellum, yes. Connection to Uptown and Oak Cliff, were existing or planned streetcar connections are make sense, as there are destinations and origins there now and will be in the future. A river, even with its planned recreation elements, won't likely create the demand for ridership.
The Grand is 1) already in the works and 2) contingent upon the private market. I advocate the developers and the Improvement District working together, but nothing is enforceable. That is one common criticism of the planning profession.
This set of recommendations seem to be nothing more than window dressing. Main Street District, of all areas in downtown, is the least in need of help and it shows.
In the Farmers Market, the planners envision a park along Pearl, calming of traffic and improving the pedestrian realm along Ceasar Chavez, developing an image or brand for the area, working with the Bridge, Dallas's homeless shelter, for safety issues and integrating a light rail stop on the next rail line in downtown.
A key part that seems to have been excluded is the West Village-type development just north of the market. I know it will be discussed in the small area plan, but that would seem to be a key recommendation for this area. I wonder if that is where they envision the park. As for the rail line, that is out of their hands. DART is working on it, but as par for the course, this plan seems to be lacking in the transportation department.
The Civic Center, on the south end, is where most government buildings are. The recommendations are to increase the connection to the Main Street District from City Hall Plaza, pursue the reuse of the Butler Brothers Building, redesign City Hall Plaza to be more vibrant, create a new residential development at Wood and Ervay and enhance Ervay with streetscape improvements.
Once again, hard to argue with these, though I do feel some are out of the planners control. Aside from incentives, there isn't much to make the Butler Brothers or a new residential building happen. The plaza remake has already been acted upon. Streetscape improvements are great, but the underlying land uses are what makes an area vibrant, and sadly, like the Arts District, this areas has poor uses and design for an urban area.
Speaking of poor areas, the Union/Reunion area is next. A land swap near Reunion for development, a deck park between the Houston and Jefferson Street viaducts, TOD near Union and a pedestrian promenade and streetcar stop on the Houston Viaduct are what the planners see as making this district vibrant.
While this all sounds fine, this area is detailed in later sections. I'll discuss it there as well. Just remember that I am not high on the plans or this area.
The final district is the West End, the second best urban district in downtown. For this area, the planners want a mixed-use development on a surface lot at Lamar and Ross, the reuse the West End Marketplace, a park at Market and Corbin, streetcars and enhance paving at Lamar and Ross, special events and an update and rebranding of the image.
Once again, it is hard to argue with these recommendations. The good news, aside from the mixed-use development, this is all within planners and decision makers control.
I do take a bit of exception with the adaptive reuse of the West End Marketplace, a former tourist-oriented structure that was a bit of a mall in function. The planners want to:
Re-tenant the West End Marketplace with complementary uses such a (typo in the original document, should be as) museum, hotel, or as a business incubator with strong ties to El Centro Community College, Bank of America, and the nearby Environmental Protection Agency office in Fountain Place to encourage innovative, creative/green economy business start-ups and partnerships.
I like the idea of not making this an indoor mall. I could see a hotel, but this too big for most any museum (and this isn't in the Arts District, where Dallas likes their museums :p). As for the incubator, it seems like they just named area tenants. For the EPA to have any use or connection with this building, they would need to cross the six-lane-and-median Griffin Street, otherwise known as the most car-oriented street in downtown. I think residential or hotel would be the better bet.
From here, the surrounding districts are analyzed in the same manner, though their descriptions are shorter. I'll try to be as brief.
For Victory, they want TOD's at DART stations and streetcar stops, to convert Houston street to the "front door" rather than the alley it is now and infill next to the new Museum near downtown.
In Uptown, the planners want walkable, transit oriented neighborhoods, improved walkability on select streets, workforce housing and links to the various bike trails.
On the northeast, in the Baylor District, the recommendations are to strengthen connections to the Arts District, new housing for working class (specifically between Deep Ellum Station and Central Expressway), enhance pedestrian connection to Baylor from Baylor Station, enhance links to the bike trails and reconfigure the Ross/San Jacinto intersection.
In Deep Ellum, cultivating artistic base, improve the pedestrian experience on Elm, Main, Commerce and Malcolm X, maintain a small property development style, bringing mixed-income residential, extend the freeway lighting and artwork and connect to bike trails are the planners recommendations.
At the Cedars, on the south side of downtown, the area needs to improve Ervay and add a streetcar, better use and market Heritage Village, higher intensity housing near Interstate-30, provide a fruit cart mix of housing, become an incubator for small business and enhance the connections along Belleview.
In the Southside, long considered the Cedars until this plan, planners advise a streetscape improvement along Lamar, decked development over I-30, streetcar along Lamar and enhanced connectivity along Belleview and Corinth.
On the west side, there's Riverfront and Design Districts, these are really the same area with no real distinction, so I will cover it as one too. MIG proposes native landscaping on industrial sites, access to the Jefferson/Houston deck park, redesigning Riverfront as a multi-modal street, a streetcar connecting the area to Victory Station and encourage cottage industry with live-work sites.
Nothing really jumped out at me in these districts, neither good nor bad. Some seem solid, streetscape improvements, adding active fronts toward the street and increasing housing options and ranges. Others, like the deck park and streetcar lines everywhere might be out of reach.
I am so glad this section is over. It seemed the most tedious and likely boring, though there was a lot of good information in there. I am looking forward to the next section, which will contain the teeth of the plan.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Why a Fruit Cart Needs a Variety
Taking a break from a 360 review, I direct your attention to the St. Louis area where the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch had an interesting story with big planning implications.
Essentially, young people are moving out and older people are staying put in the western suburbs. The areas that are experiencing decline are the equivalent of DFW's Plano or Lewisville. There's a lot of relevant points here that will effect planners in a profound way.
The size of the American household has been on a constant decrease. The Census numbers are not complete yet, but there is no reason to believe that trend has reversed itself. For the suburbs, that is bad news if they are built out. If no new housing stock is built, and the average size decreases, then obviously there is a decrease of population, but that really isn't the big negative.
The fact that seniors are one of the biggest expenses in a municipal budget is the big tale. Seniors have a greater dependency for social services, like transportation, medical help and other general assistance. In the past, that hasn't been much of an issue on a large scale because family supports were there and seniors were generally a lower porportion of the overall citizen base. However, that is beginning to be less and less, leading to a greater strain on limited government resources.
This is were I am going to borrow an analogy from a guest speaker that appeared while I was in school. As a planner, he likes to compare housing choices to a fruit cart. In these suburbs represented in the story, and repeated all over the country, the houses are all apples. Now apples are nice at times, but so is a variety. As the children age and move out, they would like a pear. The parents who are left behind, would like to trade their apple for a banana. A young couple, who is currently having a peach, would like to have the apple of the older couple if they got their banana. But sadly, for Fruit Cart City, all they have is apples. So, the kids seek their pear somewhere else, some parents leave and get their banana elsewhere too, while most usually stay with their apple. This cause the other couple to look further out for their apple.
This is part of the reasons central cities have been having a renaissance these past couple of decades. As single-family homes were built by successive generations, some planners and cities finally see the importance of a more balanced housing stock. For example, in downtown Dallas a buyer can purchase a high-rise condo or a townhouse, they could rent a reconverted loft unit in a high- or mid-rise, a more familiar garden-style apartment or a hybrid. All across the city are more choices, not just single family house built in the 70's through '90's. The M Streets or North Oak Cliff offer houses from different time periods even, so you can get a Granny Smith, Red or Golden apple in those areas.
These types of areas will appeal to a broader market and constantly replenish itself, keeping its vibrancy in equilibrium. It will also be a bit more sustainable for the municipality. I already mentioned the increased need for services, but on the other end of the spectrum, the older generation is also tax-adverse. Somebody has to pay for their increased services. Typically that is the younger residents. If there are no younger residents, then what?
Now what hapens to the schools in these aging places? Can they ever recover to their pre-aged place? Some can I am sure, but others wouldn't be able to accomplish that. This is part of the equation for why suburbs are unsustainable. In the sixty plus years the modern suburb has existed, none have revitalized themselves on a large scale. Targeted areas have succeeded, but nothing on a municipal level. The coming two decades will be a trial for the inner ring suburbs.
I think at some point, some area will pioneer something to regenerate themselves, or perhaps changing demographic trends will do it for them, but there is too much land area and population for them all to decline. I think at the end of the day, I believe the cities that revitalize will have made a trip to the farmers market and stocked up on different fruits.
Essentially, young people are moving out and older people are staying put in the western suburbs. The areas that are experiencing decline are the equivalent of DFW's Plano or Lewisville. There's a lot of relevant points here that will effect planners in a profound way.
The size of the American household has been on a constant decrease. The Census numbers are not complete yet, but there is no reason to believe that trend has reversed itself. For the suburbs, that is bad news if they are built out. If no new housing stock is built, and the average size decreases, then obviously there is a decrease of population, but that really isn't the big negative.
The fact that seniors are one of the biggest expenses in a municipal budget is the big tale. Seniors have a greater dependency for social services, like transportation, medical help and other general assistance. In the past, that hasn't been much of an issue on a large scale because family supports were there and seniors were generally a lower porportion of the overall citizen base. However, that is beginning to be less and less, leading to a greater strain on limited government resources.
This is were I am going to borrow an analogy from a guest speaker that appeared while I was in school. As a planner, he likes to compare housing choices to a fruit cart. In these suburbs represented in the story, and repeated all over the country, the houses are all apples. Now apples are nice at times, but so is a variety. As the children age and move out, they would like a pear. The parents who are left behind, would like to trade their apple for a banana. A young couple, who is currently having a peach, would like to have the apple of the older couple if they got their banana. But sadly, for Fruit Cart City, all they have is apples. So, the kids seek their pear somewhere else, some parents leave and get their banana elsewhere too, while most usually stay with their apple. This cause the other couple to look further out for their apple.
This is part of the reasons central cities have been having a renaissance these past couple of decades. As single-family homes were built by successive generations, some planners and cities finally see the importance of a more balanced housing stock. For example, in downtown Dallas a buyer can purchase a high-rise condo or a townhouse, they could rent a reconverted loft unit in a high- or mid-rise, a more familiar garden-style apartment or a hybrid. All across the city are more choices, not just single family house built in the 70's through '90's. The M Streets or North Oak Cliff offer houses from different time periods even, so you can get a Granny Smith, Red or Golden apple in those areas.
These types of areas will appeal to a broader market and constantly replenish itself, keeping its vibrancy in equilibrium. It will also be a bit more sustainable for the municipality. I already mentioned the increased need for services, but on the other end of the spectrum, the older generation is also tax-adverse. Somebody has to pay for their increased services. Typically that is the younger residents. If there are no younger residents, then what?
Now what hapens to the schools in these aging places? Can they ever recover to their pre-aged place? Some can I am sure, but others wouldn't be able to accomplish that. This is part of the equation for why suburbs are unsustainable. In the sixty plus years the modern suburb has existed, none have revitalized themselves on a large scale. Targeted areas have succeeded, but nothing on a municipal level. The coming two decades will be a trial for the inner ring suburbs.
I think at some point, some area will pioneer something to regenerate themselves, or perhaps changing demographic trends will do it for them, but there is too much land area and population for them all to decline. I think at the end of the day, I believe the cities that revitalize will have made a trip to the farmers market and stocked up on different fruits.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
More Downtown Units
Near the end of this post, I talked about how downtown would need a similar growth rate this upcoming decade as it did during last decade. After a lost year in 2010, May should kick start this decade with two projects opening up.
This week, I talked to some folks at Andres Construction, the same guys who did the residential conversions at D&L Lofts and the Mosaic, both for Hamilton Properties. The father/son duo of Larry and Ted own the Atmos Complex, a block's worth of four buildings, with the earliest built in the 1930's. When Atmos Energy left downtown, they gave the buildings to The City of Dallas. They in turn gave it to Forest City, who decided they couldn't do it after they did the Merc (I am sure a critique on that one is coming at some point), and they gave it to the Hamilton's, with the City's approval.
After resolving their issues with HUD and getting the affordable units spread throughout the building, it looks like Hamilton Properties and Andres is set to begin construction in one month. The original proposal called for 269 units. I don't know if that has changed.
While talking with Andres, I also found out they plan to start on the Continental Building at the same time. This was another building Forest City was supposed to do in the Merc deal. They appear to finally have financing in order. The building while house roughly 150 units.
That equates to over 400 residential units, in an area of downtown that could use it. That just leaves 27 and a half thousand more units to equal last decades growth rate. It's at least a start.
This week, I talked to some folks at Andres Construction, the same guys who did the residential conversions at D&L Lofts and the Mosaic, both for Hamilton Properties. The father/son duo of Larry and Ted own the Atmos Complex, a block's worth of four buildings, with the earliest built in the 1930's. When Atmos Energy left downtown, they gave the buildings to The City of Dallas. They in turn gave it to Forest City, who decided they couldn't do it after they did the Merc (I am sure a critique on that one is coming at some point), and they gave it to the Hamilton's, with the City's approval.
After resolving their issues with HUD and getting the affordable units spread throughout the building, it looks like Hamilton Properties and Andres is set to begin construction in one month. The original proposal called for 269 units. I don't know if that has changed.
While talking with Andres, I also found out they plan to start on the Continental Building at the same time. This was another building Forest City was supposed to do in the Merc deal. They appear to finally have financing in order. The building while house roughly 150 units.
That equates to over 400 residential units, in an area of downtown that could use it. That just leaves 27 and a half thousand more units to equal last decades growth rate. It's at least a start.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Dallas and the Census
Planners love the Census. This is the time of decade where mountains of data is analyzed and trends are extrapolated. Municipalities base their plans for the future, decades in some cases, on whatever the numbers say.
Yet, in some cases, I just feel like it is overdone. Sometimes, success or failure of a planners work is judged by these numbers. Whole projects have been scrapped by a change in direction. Imagine if a city like Portland or San Diego, which have nice downtown's today and who began their revitalization's in the 80's, stopped in 1991 after the Census showed population wasn't following expenditures. It also can be an advantage when it works against poor plans.
The 2010 census is a little different from previous ones, mainly in the absence of the long form, which really provided the information that planners seek. That info is still provided in the American Community Survey, but with their numbers differing radically from the Census, one wonders about either of their accuracy. The fact that cities routinely appeal the results of both lend credence to this idea. There has been criticism that the Census under counts minorities within central cities, for example.
But the point I want to make is on the Dallas numbers specifically. There was a lot of disappointment from Dallas officials about their results. Official count gives Dallas a population of 1,197,816, one of the lowest growth rates in the state. The city's rate of 0.8 percent gains Dallas 9,236 in population. While some people are down on the numbers, I think that shows that the urban area, which from a rate of growth perspective, has exploded and that urban renewal prevented a first for Dallas, population decline.
In 2000, there were 959 residential units downtown. Of that, 299 opened in 1999 and 29 in 1998, meaning there is a great chance that much of those opened at the end of the decade were not yet occupied. My graduate school research pegged occupancy rate of 1.25 for the building I live in. Applying that rate to all units (this would not pass in a peer-reviewed journal) would mean 1,200 people living downtown. Adjusting for the newly opened, roughly 1,000 people lived downtown in 2000.
During the last decade, 3,864 units opened up downtown, none near the end of the decade. Using that same occupancy rate, that is about 4,830. So over half of the 385 square mile city's population growth happened in the 1.3 square mile downtown. If I had the stats for Uptown, Deep Ellum, the Cedars, the Design District, Knox-Henderson, Expo Park and other various in-town neighborhoods, the numbers would show that the urban growth of the past decade far outpaced the city's total growth.
What this does is it illustrates that Dallas is mirroring national trends of an urban migration. It also exhibits one of my peeves with housing trends in America. The suburban model is to build a house, live in it for twenty years, then watch the value of the house and neighborhood decline until an eventual vacating of the property. Dallas saw huge population growth from the fifties until the eighties, most of it in single-family housing. Unlike housing before WWII, these houses aren't durable. It is great for population growth at the time, but it costs you in the future.
Luckily for Dallas, they have invested in their future by reinvesting in their urban core. I believe that for the urban core to achieve a critical mass, they'll need near the same rate, not number growth, but in growth rate. That translates to roughly 28,000 people living downtown. Not likely, but possible. Check back in ten years and I'll let ya know.
Yet, in some cases, I just feel like it is overdone. Sometimes, success or failure of a planners work is judged by these numbers. Whole projects have been scrapped by a change in direction. Imagine if a city like Portland or San Diego, which have nice downtown's today and who began their revitalization's in the 80's, stopped in 1991 after the Census showed population wasn't following expenditures. It also can be an advantage when it works against poor plans.
The 2010 census is a little different from previous ones, mainly in the absence of the long form, which really provided the information that planners seek. That info is still provided in the American Community Survey, but with their numbers differing radically from the Census, one wonders about either of their accuracy. The fact that cities routinely appeal the results of both lend credence to this idea. There has been criticism that the Census under counts minorities within central cities, for example.
But the point I want to make is on the Dallas numbers specifically. There was a lot of disappointment from Dallas officials about their results. Official count gives Dallas a population of 1,197,816, one of the lowest growth rates in the state. The city's rate of 0.8 percent gains Dallas 9,236 in population. While some people are down on the numbers, I think that shows that the urban area, which from a rate of growth perspective, has exploded and that urban renewal prevented a first for Dallas, population decline.
In 2000, there were 959 residential units downtown. Of that, 299 opened in 1999 and 29 in 1998, meaning there is a great chance that much of those opened at the end of the decade were not yet occupied. My graduate school research pegged occupancy rate of 1.25 for the building I live in. Applying that rate to all units (this would not pass in a peer-reviewed journal) would mean 1,200 people living downtown. Adjusting for the newly opened, roughly 1,000 people lived downtown in 2000.
During the last decade, 3,864 units opened up downtown, none near the end of the decade. Using that same occupancy rate, that is about 4,830. So over half of the 385 square mile city's population growth happened in the 1.3 square mile downtown. If I had the stats for Uptown, Deep Ellum, the Cedars, the Design District, Knox-Henderson, Expo Park and other various in-town neighborhoods, the numbers would show that the urban growth of the past decade far outpaced the city's total growth.
What this does is it illustrates that Dallas is mirroring national trends of an urban migration. It also exhibits one of my peeves with housing trends in America. The suburban model is to build a house, live in it for twenty years, then watch the value of the house and neighborhood decline until an eventual vacating of the property. Dallas saw huge population growth from the fifties until the eighties, most of it in single-family housing. Unlike housing before WWII, these houses aren't durable. It is great for population growth at the time, but it costs you in the future.
Luckily for Dallas, they have invested in their future by reinvesting in their urban core. I believe that for the urban core to achieve a critical mass, they'll need near the same rate, not number growth, but in growth rate. That translates to roughly 28,000 people living downtown. Not likely, but possible. Check back in ten years and I'll let ya know.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Homes + Transit = Green
The EPA published a study that is no shock to me. As the USA Today reports, "Location, location, location -- it's a well-worn mantra in real estate. New research shows yet another reason why it's important: it decides how green a home really is. Housing near public transportation uses less energy than homes in the suburbs, even Energy Star-rated ones."
Again, no shock here. You drive less, you pollute and consume energy less. You walk more, you pollute and consume energy less. You take transit more, you pollute and consume energy less.
Since it is the USA Today, details are scant but it does get into a little bit of the methodology.
The study compares the total energy use of various kinds of housing in conventional suburbs vs. "transit oriented" developments, including the energy used for heating and cooling the home as well as for transporting its residents. It found homes in walkable neighborhoods near public transit were "location efficient" because residents didn't need to drive as much.
Not something I think planners will find groundbreaking. Denser developments tend to lower driving and increase other modes of transport. Also, denser developments, particularly those that share walls, like apartments, lofts and townhomes, have lower energy leakage and therefore lower energy usage. They also tend to lack the ornate and oversized windows that are seen in abundance in the suburbs. These things tend to increase energy use, especially in the summer.
Households in TOD's tend to have less cars than their suburban counterparts. Whether that means carpooling, transit use, biking or walking, it does translate into lower Vehicle Miles Traveled per household, and therefore lower energy needs.
Some facts taken from the study: Suburbs tend to use 108 million BTU's (British Thermal Units are an energy consumption measure) for their house and 132 million for transportation, a 240 million BTU total. Homes in TOD's tend to use only 39 million for transport. Somehow, the energy consumption for house stays the same and the total for a denser living is 147 million BTU's.
The ironic point is that suburban Energy Star-rated households still consume 158 million BTU's in conventional suburban locales. So if I were to do the math (since USA Today either didn't report it or the EPA didn't publish it), an Energy Star-rated household in a TOD would consume about 65 million BTU's, or 175 million BTU's better than average and 93 million BTU's better than the suburban best.
I've said it before, the best way to reduce energy consumption is to fundamentally rethink how we design our cities and living spaces. The EPA reports that TOD's consume 40% less energy that their suburban counterparts. That is an extreme energy savings that requires nothing more than an increase in housing options from today's current stock.
Again, no shock here. You drive less, you pollute and consume energy less. You walk more, you pollute and consume energy less. You take transit more, you pollute and consume energy less.
Since it is the USA Today, details are scant but it does get into a little bit of the methodology.
The study compares the total energy use of various kinds of housing in conventional suburbs vs. "transit oriented" developments, including the energy used for heating and cooling the home as well as for transporting its residents. It found homes in walkable neighborhoods near public transit were "location efficient" because residents didn't need to drive as much.
Not something I think planners will find groundbreaking. Denser developments tend to lower driving and increase other modes of transport. Also, denser developments, particularly those that share walls, like apartments, lofts and townhomes, have lower energy leakage and therefore lower energy usage. They also tend to lack the ornate and oversized windows that are seen in abundance in the suburbs. These things tend to increase energy use, especially in the summer.
Households in TOD's tend to have less cars than their suburban counterparts. Whether that means carpooling, transit use, biking or walking, it does translate into lower Vehicle Miles Traveled per household, and therefore lower energy needs.
Some facts taken from the study: Suburbs tend to use 108 million BTU's (British Thermal Units are an energy consumption measure) for their house and 132 million for transportation, a 240 million BTU total. Homes in TOD's tend to use only 39 million for transport. Somehow, the energy consumption for house stays the same and the total for a denser living is 147 million BTU's.
The ironic point is that suburban Energy Star-rated households still consume 158 million BTU's in conventional suburban locales. So if I were to do the math (since USA Today either didn't report it or the EPA didn't publish it), an Energy Star-rated household in a TOD would consume about 65 million BTU's, or 175 million BTU's better than average and 93 million BTU's better than the suburban best.
I've said it before, the best way to reduce energy consumption is to fundamentally rethink how we design our cities and living spaces. The EPA reports that TOD's consume 40% less energy that their suburban counterparts. That is an extreme energy savings that requires nothing more than an increase in housing options from today's current stock.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Several Quick Links
Several stories have come out in the last two weeks that I have been meaning to post and discuss, so I'll knock them out here.
First up, we look at the car ownership rates of one of the youngest driving generations, or perhaps more specifically, the declining rate. There have been these stories for years now, usually in the form of demographers or planners predicting the future. This one is a bit different, in that it comes from people who care, the car companies.
The cause are quite numerous, from personal reasons (environmental conscientiousness, social networks, time), to social (economic slowdown, cities investments in transit and urban areas, convenience) but the underlying point is still the same, if car companies are focused on this, planners should be too. Cities that are adequately prepared for the car-lite/free lifestyle will be ahead in the game.
New York has always avoided the population fate of its peers, but don't be surprised to see other NE cities stabilize/gain population. Conversely, cities like Dallas and Los Angeles that are building extensive systems to offer that lifestyle in car dominant areas will also be winners of this population segment.
Of course, this coincides with the youngsters parents moving back to the city as well as staying in place, a well documented phenomenon for a few years now. This is important for two reasons. One, cities need to provide for a variety of lifestyles, not just the boomers or Gen Y. Second, do we really want the largest elderly generation (as well as the largest current generation) behind the wheel for everything with their deteriorating physical skills?
The next link comes from USA Today. I read the paper version and immediately thought of the planning ramifications. In essence, for the first time in...perhaps ever Americans are buying smaller houses. The median size house has dropped 200 square feet since its peak in 2007. Again the reasons are varied and even the same as before, but one thing isn't clear. Is this a response to the current economic situation or a longer term trend? Certainly this is unheard of in prior recessions, but none have been as severe either.
Personally, I hope the trend continues. These types of houses are more costly to serve from a civic standpoint. Take a piece of paper and draw one-inch square. then draw a line connecting those squares. Do the same again, but this time draw squares with only 3/4 inch sides. The line connecting them can be a number of infrastructure types/services, water, sewer, roads, postal, fire, police, etc. Obviously, the longer line means a greater cost. It is more expensive to serve low-density areas, primarily because the tax revenues generated do not cover the costs of more infrastructure. This may help balance civic budgets in coming years.
Finally, I post this link from the Miami Herald to back up an earlier point on parking. This concerns Brickell Avenue in Miami, which according to the article is one of the densest places in Florida. Planners residents and city officials want this road to become what is termed a "complete street" where cars, pedestrians, transit, cyclists, etc. all can use the space equally.
However, the State Department of Transportation, composed largely of traffic engineers, is making the street an auto-oriented one, to get as many cars through as fast as possible. It is common place to see pedestrians dodge oncoming cars and see cut-through's in the bushy median.
It hearkens back to something I have said consistently, if Americans do indeed love our cars, it is similar to an arranged marriage. People tend to do what is convenient. When we build for cars, we all of a sudden love them. We will never divorce our cars if we keep following a traffic manual designed for maximum car use at the expense of any other mode.
First up, we look at the car ownership rates of one of the youngest driving generations, or perhaps more specifically, the declining rate. There have been these stories for years now, usually in the form of demographers or planners predicting the future. This one is a bit different, in that it comes from people who care, the car companies.
The cause are quite numerous, from personal reasons (environmental conscientiousness, social networks, time), to social (economic slowdown, cities investments in transit and urban areas, convenience) but the underlying point is still the same, if car companies are focused on this, planners should be too. Cities that are adequately prepared for the car-lite/free lifestyle will be ahead in the game.
New York has always avoided the population fate of its peers, but don't be surprised to see other NE cities stabilize/gain population. Conversely, cities like Dallas and Los Angeles that are building extensive systems to offer that lifestyle in car dominant areas will also be winners of this population segment.
Of course, this coincides with the youngsters parents moving back to the city as well as staying in place, a well documented phenomenon for a few years now. This is important for two reasons. One, cities need to provide for a variety of lifestyles, not just the boomers or Gen Y. Second, do we really want the largest elderly generation (as well as the largest current generation) behind the wheel for everything with their deteriorating physical skills?
The next link comes from USA Today. I read the paper version and immediately thought of the planning ramifications. In essence, for the first time in...perhaps ever Americans are buying smaller houses. The median size house has dropped 200 square feet since its peak in 2007. Again the reasons are varied and even the same as before, but one thing isn't clear. Is this a response to the current economic situation or a longer term trend? Certainly this is unheard of in prior recessions, but none have been as severe either.
Personally, I hope the trend continues. These types of houses are more costly to serve from a civic standpoint. Take a piece of paper and draw one-inch square. then draw a line connecting those squares. Do the same again, but this time draw squares with only 3/4 inch sides. The line connecting them can be a number of infrastructure types/services, water, sewer, roads, postal, fire, police, etc. Obviously, the longer line means a greater cost. It is more expensive to serve low-density areas, primarily because the tax revenues generated do not cover the costs of more infrastructure. This may help balance civic budgets in coming years.
Finally, I post this link from the Miami Herald to back up an earlier point on parking. This concerns Brickell Avenue in Miami, which according to the article is one of the densest places in Florida. Planners residents and city officials want this road to become what is termed a "complete street" where cars, pedestrians, transit, cyclists, etc. all can use the space equally.
However, the State Department of Transportation, composed largely of traffic engineers, is making the street an auto-oriented one, to get as many cars through as fast as possible. It is common place to see pedestrians dodge oncoming cars and see cut-through's in the bushy median.
It hearkens back to something I have said consistently, if Americans do indeed love our cars, it is similar to an arranged marriage. People tend to do what is convenient. When we build for cars, we all of a sudden love them. We will never divorce our cars if we keep following a traffic manual designed for maximum car use at the expense of any other mode.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)