Planting Shrubs to Fix a Foundation

If I had began this blog several years before I actually started it, I would posted many blog entries critiquing and discussing the relatively new area of Victory Park.

Let me compress what could be several posts into the rest of this paragraph. Victory Park is a well-intentioned idea of mixing uses, but was executed so poorly that retail can not survive and the "streets" are empty of people, even when there is an event at the anchor of the area, the American Airlines Center (AAC). The basic premise is that instead of focusing the energy towards the main streets like Houston and Victory Avenue, they made those streets function like alleys and made a central "street", Victory Park Lane, the main retail spine when it should be the alley. Street design made Victory and Houston huge one-ways for transporting large amounts of cars and minimizing the pedestrian experience. The retail is destined to fail exactly because Victory Park Lane is isolated, and it was so by design. The intentions were to give the pedestrian a pleasant walk. But, by ignoring connectivity with the rest of the development AND neighborhood, even pedestrians don't go there, making retail foot traffic sparse if non-existent.

Victory Park Lane, complete with no people out and about.

All that to say this, according to Steve Brown, the Dallas Morning News' Real Estate Editor, Estein and Associates, the property manager of Victory, have hired Trademark Property to revamp the shopping area. From the article:

Critics of the project have lambasted the layout of the retail space and its original focus on high-end merchants and restaurants.

Trademark will immediately begin work on plans to remodel Victory Park’s storefronts along Victory Park Lane. 

The developer also will be looking at how to use undeveloped land in the project for additional retail.

About 130,000 square feet of retail space is contained in the lower floors of buildings in the 75-acre Victory Park project.

Preliminary plans call for a total redesign of the streetscape throughout the project.

...

Fair said with the economy turning the corner and retail sales picking up, the timing is right to redo Victory Park’s retail.

“We are getting more calls from prospective tenants and have been looking for the right retail partner,” he said. “There has to be some momentum for the retailers to get excited.

“We are going to try and make a great retail street where people will want to hang out.

...

Trademark Property has experience with both new projects and redeveloping old ones.

It built the popular Watters Creek shopping and apartment project in Allen. And Trademark is developing the Alliance Town Center regional shopping center in North Fort Worth.

Trademark also has redeveloped shopping malls in Corpus Christi, Santa Fe and Michigan.

I still lambast the layout. Without fixing this, the very fundamental flaw, everything else is lipstick. Until the docks for the buildings line Victory Park Lane and the retail fronts Houston, Victory Avenue, Lamar or Olive, no amount of revamp will be successful. It already hurts Victory enough that the office buildings, which are relatively full, are self-contained. You park inside the building, go up the elevator, work, go down the elevator and leave the building. In downtown, there is decent transit access and many workers who do drive have to park off-site, which at least facilitates some amount of pedestrian activity. That is not the case here.

Unless a total redesign of the streetscape means this fundamental swap from the interior lined by Victory Park Lane to the outside streets, then any other effort is going to fall short.

Finally, looking at the credentials of Trademark, I wonder if they are the right group to even understand what Victory needs. The last two paragraphs list their body of works, but none are in even semi-urban areas. All are suburban, and many of Victory's flaws originate in trying to combine elements of suburban design into the urban realm. The result is that you get neither. The positives of both are negated and the negatives standout. 

Here's an example of what I mean. Victory tried to take a suburban positive, ease of car use, and incorporate that into the development. To accomplish this, they made Houston Street four lanes, one-way with wide lanes, approached Victory Avenue, Lamar Street and Olive Street the same and built garages in every building. But, from an auto user standpoint, it still has the negative of a dense district. Drivers thrive in low density surroundings, while they feel uneasy in denser areas. Also, garages are not convenient, especially compared to on-street and surface parking. This means car-based users avoid Victory because of the hassle.

Also, in an attempt to keep the design on Houston, the original developers fought DART from running the first phase of the current Green Line along Houston. This pushed it on the edge of the neighborhood, where it currently is. What should have been an urban positive instead is now a negative, since the distance is inconvenient to anyone but event goers, as the AAC is the closest building. From downtown, some parts of Victory can be reached faster from the West End Station! This means pedestrians and transit-users avoid Victory because of the hassle.

The Rail Station serving Victory. Note in the distance the AAC.

If drivers don't go and transit users don't go, only those who have to be there go. That means only people who have to go (see workers and residents) are the ones that are there. Neither have sufficient mass to support the level of retail, especially if it is high end. Add in the fact that office is designed to be isolated and self-sufficient, it is easy to see why Victory has empty streets.

I hope an future development addresses the issue, but I don't believe the existing Victory area's street level will achieve any measure of vitality until a first-floor redo is completed. Some infrastructure improvements along the major streets would be beneficial too, but not as critically as the first.

The sad thing is, this is typical Dallas development in its core. You see this on Lower McKinney, parts of Downtown, the Design District and the Cedars. Until developers recognize the benefits of the urban area and work to maximize that, Victory results will continue to be repeated.

People will walk. Main Street and Deep Ellum are examples. Developers can get it right. West Village, One Arts Plaza and Third Rail are examples. But until the city requires this, rather than hope for the best, Victory will be the norm, not West Village.

Finding the Grey in the Black and White

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.

The Paradox that is the Suburbs: Kids, Death and other Deficiencies

As a parent with a kid in the urban core that is not a prototypical city (like New York or San Francisco), I am asked all the time when I am moving to the suburbs. In an area where that thinking has been entrenched for decades, city living is for those without kids and the 'burbs are where kids are raised, folks have a hard time understanding the severe trepidation my wife and I have towards moving to a conventional suburban setting.

I posted before about the myth that kids and suburbs hold hands and skip in the wildflower fields. While my opinions since that post haven't changed, I want to add a supporting stance from articles discussing new academic research about this topic.

Sarah Goodyear penned this article in the Atlantic Cities that says much of the same that I did, and also adds other useful information. For example residential neighborhood design that still reflects an auto-favored design force kids away from the street. Without decent parks, and for some, with a nearby park, this encourages a sedentary childhood. This contributes to the lack of place that pervades our cities, since they don't really experience their city.

She also wrote this one, that gives numbers to the point. Bottom line, there is no greater killer of children than cars worldwide.

Aside from schools, lack of a backyard is the other big reason I hear for leaving my current living situation. However, there is no proof that a backyard equals physical activity. Manhattan kids, many of which have no backyard, are still less obese than the American average. The same exists everywhere, urban kids are less obese than suburban counterparts.

In the end, it comes down to design. An environment that encourages activity will have healthier people. We walk, bike and play in the park across the street as an everyday activity. The same can not be said in the modern suburban setting. Just by living day-to-day, my family burns more calories than if we had to drive everywhere.

Note, when I reference urban versus suburban, I am not referring to city boundaries, but urban design. Lake Highlands in Dallas is suburban, downtown Plano is more urban, even if small in area.

The last point I want to make is that it is not just kids who suffer. Continuing the citing of Atlantic Cities, Nate Berg points out that there has been a correlation established between the health of adults and time spent behind the wheel. Keeping it local, the study cited followed drivers in DFW and Austin and found the longer the commute the greater chance for decreased cardiorespiratory fitness, increased weight, high cholesterol and elevated blood pressure.

The scary part is that all these are simply direct results. These are easily quantifiable. But what happens to the indirect externalities?  How do you quantify health impacts of particulate matter? Smog? The end of a car's life? Estimates vary widely, but even conservative ones show a huge societal problem.

If you see me next, ask about my family, job or thoughts on a certain topic. Please don't ask when I plan to move to the suburbs.

Why so Late?

Loyal readers no doubt understand that I am an advocate for transportation balance. Transit, walking and biking are the three main ones that I place forth ideas to increase mode share. Betting transit planning has been discussed as has pedestrian-friendly and urban design to increase walking. Biking will naturally follow those two, but otherwise I haven't offered much in the way of increasing bike share.

I mentioned briefly that San Antonio has a bike share program after my visit there. I have also discussed bike lanes as a strategy, though for personal reasosns, I have avoided the local battle over the lanes. I do feel like the old guard has a hard time embracing the change from the old way of doing things. As a case in point, the continued support of the Trinity tollroad versus the can't do nature on the bike lanes.

Yet, it appears that once again, even in Texas, Dallas is about to get left behind. I really feel a bike share is one of the best ways to increase bike use. As it turns out, Fort Worth is been working on plans to introduce a service. Unlike Dallas, they have also figured out a way to start bringing bike lanes to the city. If you read the link, it also mentions that Austin is working on a bike share program too.

Now, add Houston to the list of major Texas cities that have figured out or are working on a way to implement the program. They used federal funding to get it started, proving a will will find a way.

I just get frustrated by the lack of urgency Dallas is has in approaching this. On the one hand, you hear officials talk a good game. Reduce congestion, increase biking, good.

But when it actually comes to doing something that increases bike use, the feet start to drag. It is frustrating. By continuing to status quo, the city is ignoring the obvious shift in society towards a more urban preference. Unless Dallas embraces something other than the car, Dallas may have troubling competing, even in Texas. Already, officials were concerned by the lack of population growth in the last census. But trying to grow the same way and expecting different results...well, I think we all know what that definition is.

The Key to Changing Transportation Preferences

In 2005, as part of the congressional transportation bill, four areas were selected for bike and walking improvements as a pilot program to monitor the results. The Department of Transportation has released the findings and it shows exactly what I have said from the get go.

First, here's the numbers.
•Over four years, people in these four communities alone walked or bicycled an estimated 32 million miles they would have otherwise driven;
•The communities saw an average increase of 49 percent in the number of bicyclists and a 22 percent increase in the number of pedestrians;
•The percentage of trips taken by bike instead of car increased 36 percent, and those taken on foot increased 14 percent;
•While each pilot community experienced increases in bicycling and walking, fatal bicycle and pedestrian crashes held steady or decreased in all of the communities; and
•The pilot communities saved an estimated 7,701 tons of CO2 in 2010.

So in essence, what I have said was that people will do what is convenient. We don't love our cars, we use them so much because it is convenient, usually at the expense of every other mode. Biking and walking increased in the communities involved in the pilot because it was convenient. Money was invested specifically to improve those modes and, unshockingly to me, they increased the amount of users traveling on those modes.

In essence, if you make anything convenient, people will use it. The opposite is also true. That maxim, even if somewhat simplistic, explains exactly why our cities are what they are.

How the Car became King

No editorial or opinions today, I just want to post something that speaks for itself.

A couple of planning-related sites posted some unconnected, though related articles chronicling how we went from a country with good-to-great-urban cities to one that is dominated by cars. It's a fascinating read, no matter your take on the issues and really paints a great picture of all the forces and actions that were put into play to make our transportation system what it is today.

The Invention of Jaywalking from Atlantic Cities

Car Culture: Freedom Brought to You by the American Auto Industry, Hello Officer, Put the Phone Down, and More from Urban Milwaukee

Transit in the DFW Burbs

The Dallas Morning News ran two articles last week pertaining to transit service in some local suburban cities, both of which underscore the difficulty of providing that service in an area not built for it.

On April 23, the headline read "Mesquite's DART deal irks Garland." Ray Leszcynski outlines how the City of Garland has poured millions into DART over the past few decades with its one-cent sales tax, while Mesquite is paying $300,000 a year for one DART express bus route. John Willis, a Garland council member expresses his frustration that Garland can't use its sales tax since it goes to transit and Mesquite can, even though a fraction goes to transit. Just a note, Willis was a person who I sparred with on a message board prior to office and remember he was critical of DART no matter what they did, see here, here, here, here and here just for some quick examples (if you can figure out who I was, I want to apologize as that version of me was quite a bit more idealistic and naive).

The thinking of some DART suburbs is that they could have stronger local economies if they could use their sales tax for economic development. I don't agree because there is a strong correlation between local cities with transit and their employment numbers, while those that use their sales tax for economic development have higher resident populations than employment numbers, indicating a lower performing local economy.

I guess part of the issue for Willis is that Mesquite is paying for transit with that sales tax while also using it for other purposes, but Garland is certainly the winner in terms of transportation. They have two rail stations, 20 bus routes and paratransit service to show for the money. Mesquite gets one express route with limited service and has to pay for paratransit elsewhere. Garland carries over 10,000 trips on an average weekday, while the Mesquite service tops out near 100.

But as I warned in this post, this type of reaction was eventually going to happen. It is only natural because we leave transit up to every city to determine if they want it or not and how do they want to pay it. There will always be folks who are against the funding mechanism as we know. I even am. I don't see the state legislature authorizing the city residents to vote on if they want sewers or not, trash pickup or not, roads and highways or not. They deem that a valuable public service the state needs to allocate. However, they don't see the same for transit. It's the same 1960's thinking that has doomed much of our cities to mediocrity. How we fund and operate this system is borne out of this detrimental period.

The second bit of news came from the headline "A-train's weekend lag studied" from Friday's edition. The Denton County Transit Authority is struggling with how to schedule or even have Friday night and Saturday service on its commuter train. The agency has a goal to achieve 50% weekend ridership when compared to its weekday service. It hasn't met them consistently.

The main reason I want to bring this up is a quote in the DMN from board member Tom Spencer.

"I remind you of the statement that 'nobody ever built a successful commuter rails system catering to discretionary ridership,'" he wrote.

He's right. That's the problem. We know beforehand that by building a commuter rail system, its design has long headways, high capacity and low-density surroundings. It is no-doubt a commuter focus. But because it is cheaper than any other form of rail, it gets preference. When most of the area is suburban, it doesn't make sense to build more urban forms of rail.

This really gives ammo to the transit detractors. It is too expensive. No one will ride it. Yes, there is some increase in riders from express bus to the rail line, but is it enough to justify the added expense of rebuilding the rail line? As a voter, does the increase in cost have an effect on future ballot decisions?

In the end, any transit investment will be muted if there aren't any land use changes to accompany it. That is the struggle for the DCTA's A-Train. There would be plenty of discretionary riders if the stations and surrounding areas they served were denser. But then, they would be a more urban rail system.

Commuter rail works best when it connects to large employment centers, even if it still carries less riders than the urban forms that run in the large employment centers. This line doesn't even do that. It connects to an outlying light rail station and requires a transfer, and remembering that transfers suppress ridership, maybe the DCTA has bigger problems than weekend scheduling.