High Speed Rail and Sprawl

I saw this article today and had to share it, High-Speed Rail As a Conduit of Sprawl. Years ago, when I wore my Transportation Planner hat, I made similar assertions regarding Commuter Rail services between Boston and Worcester. I argued, based upon data for residential development patterns along other rail lines, that the rail network between the two cities would open up new areas between them for additional sprawl. I based this upon basic travel times. If the average commuter is willing to spend XX amount of time commuting and we open up new areas to that travel time, why wouldn't you expect people to locate in those areas?

When I offered this argument, nearly twenty years ago, I was soundly criticized as being anti-transit and anti-rail. So i feel somewhat vindicated by reading quotes such as the one below. The authors are correct, before we expand high speed rail, we need to address suburban and exurban land use.

“High-speed rail will simply add another layer of access to the far-flung suburbs/exurbs and Central Valley, resulting in more mass-produced subdivisions,” warns Robert Cervero, director of the University of California Transportation Center and author of Development Around Transit.

Approval Not Required and Zoning Freezes

An interesting article out of Easthampton, MA, Easthampton Landowners move to 'defend' Route 10 property for possible development. Without getting into the merits of the zoning proposal, the article is quite revealing relative to the absurdity of grandfathering in Massachusetts. These Approval Not Required Plans lock in land use "rights" even when, in the words of one land owner, "There are no plans to develop the parcel immediately."

It really is amazing that one can vest "rights" for something that has not been even conceived in ones imagination. This truly illustrates the need to do away with the "Approval Not Required Plan".

Fair Housing Problems - Giving Children a Place To Play

A couple of news stories:

Children's play restrictions spur suit

Single moms file bias complaint against condo manager

Lately I have been seeing more and more stories about people in multi-family condominium living arrangements having problems. Obviously living in the close quarters such as a condominium project, where there are limited private yards is going to lead to a conflict between those with children and those without. Unfortunately, it appears that these conflicts are leading to attempts to drive out children.

As planners this private conflict becomes also a public one. Many condominium projects come forward as means to either protect open areas on a site, or to make allowances for more affordable housing. Often, achieving these lofty goals, leave behind the idea of creating a user friendly environment.

As we review multi-family housing, as planners we need to remember that we are placing people in very close quarters. We need to remember that the big back yard of a traditional single family subdivision is lost, in exchange for common area. These common areas need to be designed to provide for areas where different residents can find solace, or active entertainment. A project with multiple bedroom units clearly needs to include areas specifically designated for children to play. These areas need to address areas for playing baseball or basketball or skateboarding. Things that often take place in lower density neighborhoods.

The designs should also look at more quite, contemplative areas. Areas for the older, empty-nest residents to enjoy away from the hustle and bustle of children play areas.

Passive open space, perhaps needs to be traded off to create these active areas in condominium projects.

As the two situations described above points out, we also may need to include conditions in site approvals that protect the rights of children to play.

This Is Just So Wrong On So Many Levels

I subscribe through RSS to Planning and Zoning Headlines. It provides me with an opportunity to see news reports from around the country on various planning issues. I have found it to be quite interesting to read about various planning initiatives in other areas. It is quite amazing the number of different news stories that come up everyday. However, occasionally an article comes along that makes you ask "is this for real?"

The following story out of Greensboro provides one such example, Zoning Says Students, Chemicals a Good Mix. The article clearly points out the importance of Master Planning, and sticking to it. To think that residents would essentially use other people as the "canary in a coal mine" to try to force out a long-time business is astounding. The fact that the zoning panel in the article actually agreed with the neighbors who supported a rezoning so that people would be living on top of a chemical plant is dumbfounding.

No one in the article is quoted as saying the paint factory should be rezoned. The description of the land uses in the article clearly illustrate that the heavy industry zoning for the property is appropriate. The idea of rezoning land, located on top of such a zoning district to any form of residential seems mistaken.

Perhaps We Need a New Approach

Recently the Barnstable Old King's Highway Historic District Committee denied the erection of a wind turbine at Cape Cod Community College. This action was not an isolated incident as there are examples of similar actions across the country in historic areas. Some states have even taken to stripping historical commissions of their authority to review wind and solar installations.

Perhaps, proponents of wind and solar need to pursue a new approach. The National Park Service, among many others, has raised concerns about the impacts of acid rain on historic structure, What are we doing about acid rain?

Perhaps, we need to pursue this angle. We have focused much of our discussions on the energy savings - and dollar amount - saved by entities seeking to use solar and wind in historic areas. It might be time to quantify the savings in tons of pollutants removed, reductions in acid rain producing compounds in the environment.

As planners we might want to direct our historic committee members to read a few of the documents that are out there on the impacts of acid rain, such as Acid Rain and Our Nation's Capital which discusses the impacts of acid rain on limestone and granite buildings. We need to direct them to the impacts on homes, Acid Rain's Effect on Your Home, to illustrate the increase in maintenance costs, costs which can be quite extensive on historic properties. We need to point out, ultimately, that acid rain is directly related to fossil fuel burning for electricity.

We need to point out that, for every megawatt of energy produced by a wind or solar installation, 20 tons of sulfer dioxide and nitrogen oxide (the two leading contributors to acid rain) are avoided.

Finally, we need to point out that the same chemicals which cause acid rain also produce smog and haze, ruining most peoples views of our lovely part of the world.

Perhaps this approach needs to be explored prior to stripping historical commissions of some of their review powers.

What Goes Around, Comes Around

The American Planning Association put up one of its historic Planning Advisory Service documents this month for all to consider, Hot Rods, Car Clubs and Drag Strips. After reading it, I was surprised how easily it would be to substitute one of today's more popular activities, off road recreational vehicles, for the hot rods.

The PAS report, from 1955 discusses how popular hot rods and drag racing were becoming in that era. It provided information on how some communities were adapting to these new demands by creating areas for car clubs and even sanctioned drag strips.

Today, the same could be said about the two, three and four wheel off-road recreational vehicles, except that the idea that areas should be set aside for sanctioned activities.

As planners, we should think about the needs of everyone in the community. Do we have significant, moto-cross type activities occurring? Do they have sanctioned, safe facilities? Can the community find a location for such a facility? If so, perhaps the same approach as took place in the 1950's for hot rods and drag strips should be taken for these newer activities.

Just something to think about. We can learn from our past, and repeating these lessons may not be a bad idea.

What goes around, most certainly comes around when it comes to recreational activities.

Affordable Housing Change

The headlines are screaming it:

Affordable Housing Changes Pushed

Town Struggles with Affordable Housing

Suggestions Abound on Affordable Housing Rules

Governor Freezes Affordable Housing Rules

Unfortunately, these do not come from here in Massachusetts.

Affordable Housing Changes Pushed In New Jersey

Mount Laurel Struggles with Affordable Housing

Suggestions Abound on Affordable Housing Rules

Christie Freezes Affordable Housing Rules

These stories out of New Jersey illustrate the battles that are ensuing over housing development and growth. Mount Laurel is the focal point, as always. The town that was the landmark fair housing court battle both in the 1970's and 1980's. In their recent struggles, they have met their initial obligations. Prepared a plan for achieving the "third round" rules, only to find that the bar was raised substantially further.

Mount Laurel is near, if not at, build-out. Achieving targets for over 1,400 new housing units throws out the concept of build-out.

Here in Massachusetts, the bar is about to be raised in a similar fashion. The upcoming 2010 census will establish new base housing counts. The number of units of year round housing will surely increase, even in "built out" communities. With the completion of this new count, the bar will go up.

As we talk about the future of Chapter 40B, and it is being talked about, just not at the level it is in New Jersey, we need to recognize that the new census is going to generate significant ammunition for both sides. Total housing units created and the ratio that is deed restricted affordable will become new fodder. Towns that are near 10% will find the gap, quite likely grew once again. Pro-40B voices will be quick to point out the increase in the gap. Housing growth rates will illustrate the continued loss of open land, growth of housing in areas not served by transit or near job centers. Anti-40B voices will obviously pick up on these issues.

It is time for everyone to sit down. Chapter 40B, the State Housing Inventory, and which houses count towards "affordability" need to be hammered out. Cities and towns that are inherently affordable should be recognized. Partnering programs, like use to be in existence in New Jersey, need to be considered. The zoning override, or "builder's option," needs to be reigned in. This will require the Housing Appeals Committee to rethink its process and its philosophical position. High density, low income, housing in the wrong spot does not make sense. Similarly, the lack of work force housing costs everyone in the end.

We need a solution. What we have is broken, from whichever side of the discussion you might fall on.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera... Where's the Outrage?

Saw this in today's paper, When the signs say 'walk'. A major commercial real estate speculator walked away from $4.4 BILLION in loans. Dropping that debt, ultimately, on all of us as part of the bank bailout. The speculator walks away with other investments worth $33 BILLION.

Essentially, the investors took a risk. Buying rent controlled property, with the idea that they could escape these controls and sell the properties at a large mark-up. Unfortunately, they overpaid for a fully rented, performing property. Paying more for the project than the rents could support, with the idea that they could quickly flip the housing for quick cash.

They lost the gamble, and we will all pay.

"Affordable Housing" It Will Just Blow Your Mind

A tragic story out of West Springfield brings to the forefont some of the decisions, which have been being made by state housing officials for years. In the article it is reported that "28 rooms in the Clarion were rented by a state housing assistance program."

If you check the Clarion website you find the cheapest rates at the West Springfield site is $79.95 per night (5 night stay). A one month stay, about $2,400 per room, could rent at least two apartments in the surrounding community. The full cost of the 28 rooms, about $67,200, could house more than double the people served for the cost.

The Boston Globe has also reported on these expenses, A room to call home. The Globe reported that the state was spending on average $85 per night for rooms, and people were staying for as long as three months. At a expense of $2 million per month - $2,663 per month per family. The Globe goes on to point out that these situations lead to increase crime calls (MassLive reports gang members taking advantage of the rooms), and safety violations.

While many people simply oppose affordable housing programs, the vast majority understand the need to meet the needs of those in need. However, waste, such as is illustrated in these two stories lead to outrage that ripples into opposition to all efforts. Understandably, emergency shelter is needed, but the goal needs to make these stays as short as possible - perhaps stays as short as one week, moving people to permanent housing in days, not months.

Replace The Citizen Volunteers With Paid Professionals? A Bad Idea.

Ray and Maria Stata Center, designed by Frank Gehry, photo from (Harmony and Home)

Planetizen had a link to the following article out of England, Amanda Levete: why architects know best. The article suggests that architects should be making all land use decisions and that planners, in particular citizen planners, were not capable of making sound decisions.

The proposition that citizens cannot make the appropriate decisions for their communities seems outlandish. As a professional planner, I feel properly versed in advising my citizen planners on local committees. However, only having a professional attachment to the communities I have either worked in or for, I would hardly feel positioned to be the final arbiter on the tastes of the community.

I have worked with many architects, as with most professionals, they have their beliefs as to what is best. These beliefs often do not mesh with zoning controls or neighborhood style. Even the article suggests that contemporary style is lost under the current citizen planning regime. Perhaps, contemporary styles are not what the community wants, but instead wants to connect with its historic style.

I also found it interesting that this article came out about the same time the Boston Globe Magazine ran the following, In praise of ugly buildings, an article about how the much detested architecture in downtown Boston represented the "contemporary style" of its era.