Archive for new urbanism

South Main: Adaptive, Flexible, Resilient

Posted in Sustainability, Town Planning, Urban Planning and Design, Urbanism with tags , , , , on September 12, 2011 by John Olson

Over Labor Day weekend of 2011, my family met up with my parents in the beautiful neighborhood setting of South Main in Buena Vista, Colorado. South Main has been referenced in prior blog posts however for new readers, it is an evolving neighborhood built upon the foundational elements of the Charter of the New Urbanism. The neighborhood is unique in that it was developed by professional kayakers as a kayak river park first – neighborhood second.

A view of a cobblestone street called Swift Street in South Main.

The neighborhood is still in its infant years, yet the buzz across Southern Colorado is comparable to an established urban resort community. It is often mentioned and referenced in discussions in Colorado Springs so it is not a surprise to see other development professionals wandering the streets of South Main. In my brief two-day visit to South Main, I spoke to a couple of home builders from Texas and a new Urbanist legend, Dan Burden of the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute (Check out Dan’s photos and comments on Facebook). The visiting professionals were referred to the neighborhood tucked into Arkansas Riverfront by others – popular simply by word-of-mouth.

The palette of materials in the architecture at South Main allows for variation providing unifying elements throughout the neighborhood.

In the year that I have been away from South Main, many changes have been made. New homes have been completed, attached live/work units have meticulously been constructed, other first floors uses have been activated with a mix of retail, furniture sales, attorney offices and art galleries. It is rapidly taking an organic form that will, at full build out, rival neo-traditional neighborhoods across the country. 

It is the second time my family has stayed in the vacation rental called The Firehouse in South Main. The Firehouse is the second floor of a live/work unit with three bedrooms that sleeps ten guests. The interior of The Firehouse is beautifully finished with high ceilings, wide hallways and a terrific kitchen, perfect for a couple of families, or a group of outdoor enthusiasts.

The vacation rental component of South Main is one of the great features of adaptability in the new economy that is possible in a new urban neighborhood. The framework of a new urban community includes the bones of adaptability and flexibility of use. Conventional single-use subdivisions cannot compete in adaptability because they do not have the same flexibility, nor diversity that enables creative adaptation. The recognition of the South Main Company that there is a demand for week-long or weekend tenants in the Banana Belt of Colorado is just one creative way that South Main is successful in an otherwise poor economy.

I enjoy the casual feel of bicycles parked on the sidewalks. I think that it gives the feeling of a secure, hip and casual neighborhood.

The Allure of Residential Park Frontage

Posted in Landscape Architecture, Streetscapes, Town Planning, Urban Planning and Design, Urbanism with tags , , , , on June 17, 2011 by John Olson

The allure of the residence fronting on to a park setting has been a popular planning methodology over the past 20 years.  Often, homes with a quality park setting are the first to sell in a neighborhood.

Residential park frontage can create neighborhood amenities when used sparingly.

These residences have their place in the market and in a neighborhood that values pedestrian safety and social interactions.  However, I often offer a word of caution when incorporating them into a neighborhood.  The success is dependent on a few conditions that I have outlined below:

  1. Frequency: I believe that the success of a home that fronts on a park is dependent on the neighborhood as a whole and how frequent it is applied.  I use a rule of thumb of applying this condition to ten percent or less of the total homes in the neighborhood. When the whole neighborhood is designed with homes on park settings, the social interactions become similar to that of a conventional neighborhood.  Residents tend to ignore the front door regardless of the architecture and the garage serves as the front door.
  2. Integration: If you were to apply the above frequency rule, the condition must be integrated throughout the neighborhood and not all in one location.  Without careful integration, the unique quality of the park setting is lost and other problems are created, such as vehicular parking.
  3. Diversity: Similar to the success of many great neighborhoods, diversity of home types and sizes is very important.  If the Park Residences are reserved for only one builder or even one type of home, the charm of the Park Home may be lost in the neighborhood.
  4. Block Size: The block size is always important in designing a walkable neighborhood, but it is crucial in the design of a residence that fronts on a park. The reason is access to available on-street parking.  If the front door of a home does not have convenient access (within 100-150 feet) to where the vehicle is parked, you cannot expect the homeowner to use the front door.

The presence of such homes with garages located off of the alley and the front door opening on to a pocket park has been falsely associated with new urbanism.  It is true that many neo-traditional neighborhoods constructed on the principles of the new urbanism exhibit one or more pocket parks with homes fronting directly on to them.  There are also many subdivisions that are constructed with the park home used exclusively, many of which are falsely marketed as new urban neighborhoods.

Landscape Urbanism vs. New Urbanism: Review of the Discussion at CNU 19

Posted in Events, Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning and Design, Urbanism with tags , , , , , , , on June 6, 2011 by John Olson

This past Saturday evening, I attended a much-anticipated discussion about landscape urbanism, sometimes referred to as ecological urbanism, at the annual Congress organized by the CNU, or Congress for the New Urbanism, in Madison, Wisconsin. The Landscape Urbanism’s own Charles Waldheim led the discussion with a lecture on the history of the movement and how it does, and does not, relate to the new urbanism. According to Mr. Waldheim, Landscape Urbanism is a movement that is ten years old and was created in large part by the Harvard GSD, or Graduate School of Design.

Charles Waldheim presents the Landscape Urbanism at the closing plenary session at the Congress for the New Urbanism in Madison. 4 June 2011.

Much of what Mr. Waldheim had to present was illustrated examples of the intention of the landscape urbanism, including a lot of the work from the offices of Michael Van Valkenburg Associates, Inc. and James Corner’s Field Operations.

One of the very few examples of constructed work includes the High Line in New York City. The High Line is a beautiful reuse of otherwise undevelopable space providing ecological relief in an extremely dense city of nearly 20 million people. The High Line, and it’s “sequel” The High Line 2,” have recently been critiqued by Urbanist Witold Rybczynski in The New York Times.

The Landscape Urbanism, in my professional opinion as a landscape architect, is a useful movement in terms of a compliment towards the lower ends of the rural-to-urban transect (T-1, T-2 and T-3). This is the portion of the transect that the CNU, as an overall organization, is not as well-versed as the upper echelons of the transect. As the landscape urbanists continue their current endeavors in the United States and abroad, hopefully they can begin to understand the formulas currently practiced and proven by the new urbanists for the past 30 years.

Le Corbusier's Towers in the Park.

There is a fear, which was emphasized by Andres Duany, that landscape urbanists are confused regarding the difference between ‘urbanism‘ and ‘density‘. Case in point, high-rise buildings in a sea of parking, or in a sea of parks, do not provide the social experience that makes the place walkable nor livable. In most instances, these conditions create greater dependence on the automobile.

As I previously referenced one year ago, I wrote that my hopes were that the landscape urbanism movement could find a way to be included and incorporated into the new urbanism movement. I felt that there were many things that we could learn from each other. Upon seeing the confrontational and seemingly dismissive attitude toward the new urbanism by Mr. Waldheim, I am afraid that this is far from reality.

Because this is unlikely, my hope for the coming years in the Congress for the New Urbanism is that the CNU and it’s multi-disciplinary members can learn from the positive achievements of the landscape urbanism and perhaps incorporate an ecological, and edible landscape, where it is applicable, without jeopardizing the urbanism. “Having said that,” the CNU membership already includes several Landscape Architects, Civil Engineers and Urban Planners that are ecologically friendly– and that are already incorporating the ecological framework into a fabric of quality urbanism. Perhaps it is not the incorporation of the landscape urbanism that we should focus on. Perhaps there should be greater fostering and promotion of our own initiatives and suggestions, such as the Rainwater-in-Context Initiative and the Light Imprint Handbook.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,366 other followers