I attended a good lecture yesterday by Bert Gregory from Mithun of Seattle. It was interesting to see the work they have done (conceptual and planning) for revitalizing urban areas in Portland and Seattle and at the same time making them resource efficient. On their website (which does not make it easy to link in) look at the expertise section/ urban planning and the Lloyd center project. I also found a south Lake Union/ Seattle Center project that he talked about, but can't find it again.
It would be worth looking at this more closely as an inspiration for our Legacy Crossing area.
The WSU blurb on the talk read
As President and CEO of Mithun, Bert Gregory has led the 220-person firm to national recognition for concept-based, environmentally intelligent design. He is renowned as an expert in the development of resource-efficient structures and communities, and serves as a national leader, speaker and advocate for sustainable building and urbanism. His perspective reaches beyond traditional architecture to merge science and design – an interdisciplinary approach that creates lasting places for people. With Mithun’s expansion in 2008 to a second office in San Francisco, Gregory strives to expand the reach of the firm to inspire a sustainable world through integrated design. Awards include four AIA COTE Top Ten Green Projects, two ASLA national honor awards, and the AIA national honor award for regional and urban design. Gregory serves as Vice-Chair of the USGBC LEED® Neighborhood Development core committee, and the Washington Clean Technology Alliance steering committee.
This presentation is co-sponsored by the Institute for Sustainable Design, the Office of Research, and the Center for Environmental Research, Education and Outreach.
DATE: Friday, September 5, 2008
TIME: 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
PLACE: Compton Union Building, Butch’s Den
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Bike Boluvards and New Moscow Comp Plan
I was describing my disappointment with the Mobility chapter of the new Comp Plan to a bicycle enthusiast this AM. It turns out that, based on 2000 Census, Moscow is in the top 1% of cities in terms of bike/walk to work.
I was saying that we have this elaborate scheme for classifying arterials, collectors and local streets, which is all about auto use, and we need some 21st century language rather than bringing assumptions from the past. (See previous Bicycle City post for more vision.)
He mentioned Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/99-4/bicycles.php concept.
Very cool idea and fairly simple set of requirements. P&Z had a good conversation last night about shifting the focus of the Mobility chapter to put the ‘alternative’ modes more on par with the vehicular mode and reduce the implicit bias of the document. Its going to Transportation now with P&Z comments.
Phillip Cook supplied these additional links.
From the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (Oregon’s large bike advocacy organization):
http://www.bta4bikes.org/at_work/bikeboulevards.php
From Portland Department of Transportation:
Clinton Street Bike Boulevard project
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=46371
Portland Bicycle Master Plan
http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?a=71843&c=34812
From Berkeley CA Office of Transportation
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/transportation/bicycling/bb/BicycleBoulevard.html
From Streetfilms (out of NY) about bike boulevards in Berkeley CA:
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/berkeley-bike-boulevards/
I was saying that we have this elaborate scheme for classifying arterials, collectors and local streets, which is all about auto use, and we need some 21st century language rather than bringing assumptions from the past. (See previous Bicycle City post for more vision.)
He mentioned Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/99-4/bicycles.php concept.
Very cool idea and fairly simple set of requirements. P&Z had a good conversation last night about shifting the focus of the Mobility chapter to put the ‘alternative’ modes more on par with the vehicular mode and reduce the implicit bias of the document. Its going to Transportation now with P&Z comments.
Phillip Cook supplied these additional links.
From the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (Oregon’s large bike advocacy organization):
http://www.bta4bikes.org/at_work/bikeboulevards.php
From Portland Department of Transportation:
Clinton Street Bike Boulevard project
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=46371
Portland Bicycle Master Plan
http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?a=71843&c=34812
From Berkeley CA Office of Transportation
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/transportation/bicycling/bb/BicycleBoulevard.html
From Streetfilms (out of NY) about bike boulevards in Berkeley CA:
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/berkeley-bike-boulevards/
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Safe Routes to Indian Hills
This post was delayed at request of Moscow Attorney Randy Fife and Community Development Director Bill Belknap until the rezone and PUD process had run their course. The development passed P&Z and Council.
I went to two meetings on April 23, a presentation by Safe Routes to School, a joint UI/Moscow grant that is working on education and programming for school children and opinion gathering among parents regarding non-motorized ways of getting to school. The lion's portion of the grant is being used to build sidewalks in several areas near the JrHi that will make travel to the school, Eagan, and the pool safer. We got here because of a series of, probably small, choices years ago that let developments take place that didn't provide sidewalks. Now Safe Routes is looking at how development has unfolded, where public facilities have located, and seeing routes that seem unsafe or undesirable for walking. And that has become more important as we've come to recognize child obesity and diabetes might be linked, in part, to changes in exercise. Not only is walking probably good for kids, at $4/gallon for diesel it could be good for the District bus budget if we could reduce the number of bus routes, and could be good for our collective carbon footprint if we quite driving kids to school. From many angles, Safe Routes seems like a good thing.
Then I went to the P&Z hearing on Indian Hills 8th addition, a proposal to create a 20 acre R4 zone on Palouse River Drive behind Columbia Tractor. I voted against both the rezone and the preliminary plat for reasons I'll outline.
The Comp Plan sets out the area as Medium Density Residential, which suggests a zoning up to R3. R4 allows higher densities , but the topography of the site was said to preclude achieving those densities. For reasons I still don't understand, staff recommended the R4 classification as the developer requested. R4 is stated in the zoning code to be appropriate for areas near the University and central to the city. Given the site is just over a mile from the UI admin building, and a mile (as you could walk along the abandoned part of Main) from 6th & Main, it does not seem to meet either criteria.
In addition to the items above, which seem to belie the intent of the R-4 zone, the zoning of adjacent parcels is a key consideration in zoning a new parcel -- so one could expect to see requests for more R-4 going east on Palouse River Drive, an action that, I think, would be less likely by having zoned Indian Hills 8th to R-3.
Finally, the safe routes issue. I foresee the same problem that arose at Peterson Dr and Hwy 8 near TriState happening at Styner and Hwy 95. A poor intersection with increasing pressure from pedestrians attempting to walk to the University. That is a second reason I find high density zoning in Indian Hills 8th unwarranted.
As for my vote against the preliminary plat. The proposal created a single 14 acre block, and another large block. Large blocks without pedestrian rights of way across them are antithetical to pedestrian uses, which therefore promotes automobile use. I regret that I missed seeing, and arguing for, a pedestrian ROW from Indian Hills at its extreme western turn around down to the Myrtle St ROW. That could have offered a pedestrian route where the alternative is presently very long.
I went to two meetings on April 23, a presentation by Safe Routes to School, a joint UI/Moscow grant that is working on education and programming for school children and opinion gathering among parents regarding non-motorized ways of getting to school. The lion's portion of the grant is being used to build sidewalks in several areas near the JrHi that will make travel to the school, Eagan, and the pool safer. We got here because of a series of, probably small, choices years ago that let developments take place that didn't provide sidewalks. Now Safe Routes is looking at how development has unfolded, where public facilities have located, and seeing routes that seem unsafe or undesirable for walking. And that has become more important as we've come to recognize child obesity and diabetes might be linked, in part, to changes in exercise. Not only is walking probably good for kids, at $4/gallon for diesel it could be good for the District bus budget if we could reduce the number of bus routes, and could be good for our collective carbon footprint if we quite driving kids to school. From many angles, Safe Routes seems like a good thing.
Then I went to the P&Z hearing on Indian Hills 8th addition, a proposal to create a 20 acre R4 zone on Palouse River Drive behind Columbia Tractor. I voted against both the rezone and the preliminary plat for reasons I'll outline.
The Comp Plan sets out the area as Medium Density Residential, which suggests a zoning up to R3. R4 allows higher densities , but the topography of the site was said to preclude achieving those densities. For reasons I still don't understand, staff recommended the R4 classification as the developer requested. R4 is stated in the zoning code to be appropriate for areas near the University and central to the city. Given the site is just over a mile from the UI admin building, and a mile (as you could walk along the abandoned part of Main) from 6th & Main, it does not seem to meet either criteria.
In addition to the items above, which seem to belie the intent of the R-4 zone, the zoning of adjacent parcels is a key consideration in zoning a new parcel -- so one could expect to see requests for more R-4 going east on Palouse River Drive, an action that, I think, would be less likely by having zoned Indian Hills 8th to R-3.
Finally, the safe routes issue. I foresee the same problem that arose at Peterson Dr and Hwy 8 near TriState happening at Styner and Hwy 95. A poor intersection with increasing pressure from pedestrians attempting to walk to the University. That is a second reason I find high density zoning in Indian Hills 8th unwarranted.
As for my vote against the preliminary plat. The proposal created a single 14 acre block, and another large block. Large blocks without pedestrian rights of way across them are antithetical to pedestrian uses, which therefore promotes automobile use. I regret that I missed seeing, and arguing for, a pedestrian ROW from Indian Hills at its extreme western turn around down to the Myrtle St ROW. That could have offered a pedestrian route where the alternative is presently very long.
Moscow Climate Change
Back in Feb 2007, as part of the Moscow Cool Cities series of events, I was asked to serve on a panel addressing community design issues impacting climate change. Here is the PowerPoint I developed for that presentation. The key point is that we are making structural design decisions, like giant parking lots and roads that are pedestrian unfriendly and will get in the way of moving to a less auto-intensive society. The piece is dated with references to events in local politics. (I need to learn to make these into voice overs because there is often quite a bit of the message only in the audio track.)
Bicycle City
Bicycle City describes itself as "a planned community where people live, work and play. Its eco-friendly, car-free design is healthy, sustainable and animal-friendly." So far, Bicycle City does not exist, its a vision shopping for a location. The site lists places in Idaho as potential existing cities to host this innovation, alas, the descriptions of Moscow seem to have been done by somebody at their dining room table in Manhattan -- there is no sense the person knew the local area or even worked very hard with the Moscow website.
Nonetheless, I filled out the form and suggested that Moscow was an interesting site to consider because of the Legacy Crossing redevelopment downtown and the already developing bicycle culture and path system.
Nonetheless, I filled out the form and suggested that Moscow was an interesting site to consider because of the Legacy Crossing redevelopment downtown and the already developing bicycle culture and path system.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Water and the Urban Forest
Nichole Baker, the City's water conservation staffer, pointed me to this item (short PDF) from the Panhandle Lakes Resource Conservation and Development Council:
And Bill Belknap reports that Moscow's Tree Commission is "working on a similar study and model for the City of Moscow. The have a group of Americorps volunteers that will be working on updating the City’s TreeWorks GIS public tree inventory system and then integrating it with the CityGreen to model and quantify the environmental and economic benefits of the urban/community forest. It appears that they may have their findings back in time to incorporate within the Comprehensive Plan revision."
Being a fan of the urban forest for its beautiful lumber and the trees for their carbon sequestration value, I'm interested to hear that serious effort is going into understanding their role in watershed management. I hope this information moves forward fast enough to provide guidance to the new comprehensive planning effort.
In the first attempt of its kind in Idaho, IDL (in cooperation with local governments) has applied for a grant from the US Forest Service to develop and implement a GIS analysis, using CityGreen software and high-resolution satellite imagery of tree canopy to address stormwater mitigation and water conservation and quality in both developed and rapidly developing areas of Kootenai County, Idaho, an area of approximately 100 square miles.
And Bill Belknap reports that Moscow's Tree Commission is "working on a similar study and model for the City of Moscow. The have a group of Americorps volunteers that will be working on updating the City’s TreeWorks GIS public tree inventory system and then integrating it with the CityGreen to model and quantify the environmental and economic benefits of the urban/community forest. It appears that they may have their findings back in time to incorporate within the Comprehensive Plan revision."
Being a fan of the urban forest for its beautiful lumber and the trees for their carbon sequestration value, I'm interested to hear that serious effort is going into understanding their role in watershed management. I hope this information moves forward fast enough to provide guidance to the new comprehensive planning effort.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Water and Legacy Crossing URA Project
Wed (4-9) saw a presentation by the Moscow Urban Renewal Agency of the Legacy Crossing Project at P&Z. Gary Reidner laid out the ways in which the Project was generally consistent with the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. You can see the URA materials here.
What troubled me about the document was there was no mention of water conservation as a infrastructure or utility issue that the URA would include in its goals. This post puts my concern in context.
Consequently, here are my notes on the motion passed unanimously relative to the URA request:
My Rationale: A project of this scale cannot fit under the PBAC cap. Given that the URA mechanism funds infrastructure related activities that are for municipal benefit I would like to see in their proposal for infrastructure development by the project structural approaches to water conservation (this would give project activities a municipal benefit in addition to econonmic development).
I don’t want to suggest either a mechanism the URA would choose or an amount of conservation the URA would target, I’d rather they come back with a proposal and convince P&Z of the merits and feasibility of their idea.
I was instructed at the last P&Z meeting by my fellow Commissioners that water conservation could not be taken out on the back of a single developer. I understand that, but if we do not plan for, and make, infrastructural changes impacting water use, the difficulty of conserving is greater. The URA is a great opportunity to make a public-private partnership to steward our resources.
I think P&Z's planning responsibility is to look at these infrastructural issues and plan for long term strategies to impact the city’s efficiency (water, energy, garbage). I'm looking for suggestions.
Council can look at policy mechanisms like price or rationing irrigation to meet specific goals within the constraints that the infrastructure imposes.
What troubled me about the document was there was no mention of water conservation as a infrastructure or utility issue that the URA would include in its goals. This post puts my concern in context.
Consequently, here are my notes on the motion passed unanimously relative to the URA request:
We find the URA proposal generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, contingent on the URA bringing back to P&Z for approval the following modifications to the URA plan:
1. addition of a new section that addresses the URA’s infrastructural strategies to conserve municipal potable water.
2. inclusion of Hogg Creek as a waterway to be preserved/ enhanced
3. inclusion of enhanced emphasis on multi-modal transportation infrastructure (rights of way, facilities, etc) as a goal of the URA
And we request that Staff draft the appropriate reasoned statement for our review.
My Rationale: A project of this scale cannot fit under the PBAC cap. Given that the URA mechanism funds infrastructure related activities that are for municipal benefit I would like to see in their proposal for infrastructure development by the project structural approaches to water conservation (this would give project activities a municipal benefit in addition to econonmic development).
I don’t want to suggest either a mechanism the URA would choose or an amount of conservation the URA would target, I’d rather they come back with a proposal and convince P&Z of the merits and feasibility of their idea.
I was instructed at the last P&Z meeting by my fellow Commissioners that water conservation could not be taken out on the back of a single developer. I understand that, but if we do not plan for, and make, infrastructural changes impacting water use, the difficulty of conserving is greater. The URA is a great opportunity to make a public-private partnership to steward our resources.
I think P&Z's planning responsibility is to look at these infrastructural issues and plan for long term strategies to impact the city’s efficiency (water, energy, garbage). I'm looking for suggestions.
Council can look at policy mechanisms like price or rationing irrigation to meet specific goals within the constraints that the infrastructure imposes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)