Author Archive

Young Professional Connection: Article in the Colorado Springs Business Journal

Posted in Events, Landscape Architecture with tags , , on February 19, 2012 by John Olson

I was thrilled to be asked to be featured this past week in the Colorado Springs Business Journal in the Young Professional Connection section. It has been a tremendous two years of business and the evolution from Olson Planning & Urban Landscapes to EVstudio Planning has put business in fast-forward.

The following link is the article published by Amanda Miller: Landscape Architect Drawing on Partnerships

Thank you to all who have been a part of this ride the past two years. I look forward to continuing our relationships over the next several years!

The following are some other friends who have been previously featured in the section of the Colorado Springs Business Journal. I encourage you to read their articles as well!

Ryan Riesterer: Riesterer left Ohio for D.C., but made the Springs home

Hannah Parsons: Parson’s focus is on the city’s downtown community

Aaron Briggs: HB&A’s Briggs designing plans for Springs’ future

Implementing LEED-ND for Existing Neighborhoods

Posted in Events, Sustainability, Urban Planning and Design with tags , , on February 14, 2012 by John Olson

I will be presenting at Rocky Mountain Green in Denver on April 13, 2012 at the Colorado Convention Center in Downtown Denver. The topic of conversation from our LEED-ND committee of USGBC Colorado is “Implementing LEED-ND for Existing Neighborhoods.”  Please join us in Denver!

USGBC Colorado Press Release:

Rocky Mountain Green 2012: This is What Change Looks Like!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Denver, CO (January 23, 2012) – U.S. Green Building Council Colorado will host its 6th annual Rocky Mountain Green conference April 12–13, 2012 at Embassy Suites Downtown Denver. The theme this year will highlight change —at the local and national level.

“The conference is designed to help attendees grow their business, network with a targeted audience, and learn about cutting edge green building strategies,” said Patti Mason, USGBC Colorado Director of Advocacy. “We plan to top all that off with some fun as we celebrate Colorado’s recent accomplishment as the number one state for LEED certified buildings per capita.”

Rocky Mountain Green 2012 is USGBC Colorado’s annual green building conference. Twenty-four education sessions, five building tours, exciting keynote addresses, and networking opportunities draw industry leaders from across the region. Rocky Mountain Green provides professionals in the built environment the opportunity to learn from experts and keep abreast of the latest changes and happenings in green building.

The opening plenary, “Harmonizing Life, Not Compromising—Regenerating Ecosystems and the Human Spirit,” will be presented by Bill Reed, President of Integrative Design Collaborative.

For more information on Rocky Mountain Green 2012, or to register for the event, please visit www.rockymountaingreen.com.

Contact Patti Mason at U.S. Green Building Council Colorado if you would like to obtain a press pass to the 2012 Rocky Mountain Green conference at patti@usgbccolorado.org or by phone at 303-292-6183.

Date: April 12–13, 2012

Time: all day event Location: Embassy Suites, Colorado Convention Center, Downtown Denver More information: rockymountaingreen.com

Press Passes: Email Patti Mason at patti@usgbccolorado.org or call 303-292-6183.

Village Green: How Big is Too Big?

Posted in Landscape Architecture, Urbanism, Town Planning with tags , , on February 5, 2012 by John Olson

Last week I posted The Village Green: Size Matters to the EVstudio website. “Right-sizing” the Village Green is a topic that is always on my mind as I design and visit new urban communities. Unfortunately, there are too few Village Greens that feel just right. They are often built with too much space, making it feel uncomfortable to spend a lot of time.

The numerous ceremonial Piazzas in Italy are often looked at as the justification toward a large Village Green. However, there are major differences between Italy and most places attempting to construct American Village Greens – Density and Activity Intensity in particular.

Some of the best urban outdoor places to congregate have a sense of enclosure and can be utilized for multiple purposes. When we design large places for a single purpose, failure is often imminent. When the space is designed to be adaptable and flexible, the results are often unpredictable and organically lovable.

The Village Green in Prospect New Town in Longmont, CO has an appropriate ratio of density and enclosure, produced in part by the intensity of mature trees.

Neighborhood Retail Dynamics

Posted in Town Planning, Urban Planning and Design, Urbanism with tags , on January 29, 2012 by John Olson

Neighborhood Retail can be accomplished with the retrofit of existing shopping centers by opening the shell of the structures to connect the neighborhood. Image created by John Olson. Participants in the vision were John Olson, Dave Foster and Jim Houk.

The term “neighborhood retail” makes me a bit nervous. The idea of neighborhood retail is to provide accessible services to an adjacent neighborhood. The way that we define accessibility has changed since the automobile enabled people to access greater distances in less time. It is not as necessary today to be accessible by foot in communities where traffic congestion is a non-factor.

A few questions to ponder:

  1. When we provide “neighborhood retail” that is only accessible by automobile, does it really meet the intention of a neighborhood?
  2. Shouldn’t neighborhood retail be accessible from a neighborhood in the same way that a “neighbor” is accessed – by foot?
  3. Do we, as a general population, really “live” where we reside?

There are economic realities of scale that are needed to attract the appropriate uses for neighborhood retail. Developers and their investors do a tremendous job of identifying the uses. Generally, the uses are service-oriented to meet the daily needs of the neighborhood. Uses often include food, pharmacies, restaurants, barbershops, liquor stores, and convenience stores.

The form and accessibility are generally the problem. Usually, these uses are dependent to major anchor retail and follow like remora to the shark, as referenced in the post The Life and Death of the Big Box. It is the balance of incorporating these economic realities and appropriate form that planners, architects and landscape architects must meet to achieve true neighborhood retail in new development.

This post was developed a part of a BlogOff assembled by Steve Mouzon and others in the New Urban Network. For other related posts in the Neighborhood Retail series, see the following posts:

  1. Original Green: The Necessity of Hope
  2. PlaceShakers: Retail: When it bends the Rules and Breaks the Law
  3. Street Trip: BlogOff: Neighborhood Retail
  4. Walkable DFW: Retail BlogOff
  5. Kaid Benfield: When Shops and Services are Within Walking Distance, We Walk More and Drive Less

Where is a Sharrow Applicable?

Posted in Comprehensive Planning and Codes, Streetscapes with tags , , , , on January 8, 2012 by John Olson

An image of a sharrow from the Cornell Local Roads Program.

Sharrow is a fairly new term for transportation planners in the United States. The word sharrow refers to an arrow found within a travel lane to remind drivers to “share the road.” Drivers in most places need this reminder. Cyclists are allowed to travel with the flow of traffic on city streets unless otherwise stated.

The bicycle, as a form of transportation, continues to increase across the world. Many people change their mobility habits for reasons of gasoline costs and the desire to combine exercise and daily commutes. This provides the need to incorporate bicycle lanes, trails, and even bicycle boulevards into our planning processes.

The sharrow is one of the major components to the bicycle infrastructure equation, as referenced in the previous blog post Bicycle Infrastructure. I am making the argument that the sharrow is almost utilized too much. Often times, the sharrow is added to a street that would otherwise be better suited for a bicycle lane. I have also asked the following question that I would like to pose to my readers: “By designating multiple streets in a community as the need to ‘share the road’, are we therefore telling drivers that on the unmarked streets, that they do not have to ‘share the road‘?”

Please don’t misread this post believing that I think that sharrows are a bad idea. That is certainly not the case. I believe in sharrows and think that they are a great addition to bicycle mobility. However, they cannot be used as a substitute for bicycle lanes.

I have seen the sharrow used as justification for making travel lanes wider than they need to be on streets that not appropriate, nor safe, for bicycle travel. To understand the flaw in this justification, one must first understand that the wider the space for typical vehicular travel, the more dangerous that it is. If the street requires widening for bicycle mobility, the bicycle lane is a much greater option.

The sharrow is intended to be used on streets with target vehicular travel speeds of 20 to 25 miles per hour. For more information regarding the use of sharrows, there is a valuable tool available as a module to the SmartCode titled The Bicycling Module. The Bicycling SmartCode Module was authored by Mike Lydon with Zachary Adelson and Tony Garcia. It can downloaded free at http://www.transect.org/docs/bicycling_pdfs.zip

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 924 other followers