Archive for smart growth

« Older Entries

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.

3 Comments »

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.

Leave A Comment »

Agricultural Urbanism: A Smart Growth Opportunity for Entitled PUD’s

Posted in Comprehensive Planning and Codes, Town Planning, Urban Planning and Design, Urbanism with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 20, 2011 by John Olson

The topic of Agricultural Urbanism is fascinating to me and like many tenets of the New Urbanism movement, there is something very intrinsic about how agriculture relates to urbanism.

There may be confusion in what Agricultural Urbanism is compared to Urban Agriculture.  Andres Duany, Author of an upcoming book on Agrarian Urbanism and co-founder of the Congress for the New Urbanism, provides the following definition to assist in understanding the difference between Agricultural Urbanism and Urban Agriculture.

“Agricultural urbanism creates a walkable urban form surrounded by large-scale food production, while urban agriculture simply refers to growing food in empty lots or backyards.” - Andres Duany

Both Agricultural Urbanism and Urban Agriculture have similar intentions, that is to provide something closer to independence in regards to food.  Society today in the United States (and most other non-Third World countries) are very dependent on others in providing food.  Specifically, society is dependent on oil as a means of transporting and gathering food from grocers, who import the majority of the food from across the country or outside of the United States.

I believe that Agricultural Urbanism can easily be applied to many of the “entitled” Planned-Unit Developments across the United States.  “The New Economy” has provided many opportunities where this can be incorporated.  For example, a square mile (640 acres) of land entitled for 5-acre single-family lots could arguably be “clustered” as 2-1/2 acre lots under common conventional county zoning codes.  By clustering the homes and using smaller lot sizes, there is an opportunity for 240 smaller lots on the 640 acre parcel of land.  Using an approximate net density of 6 dwelling units/acre, 240 detached single-family lots can be achieved on only 40 acres of land, preserving the remaining 600 acres for agricultural use.

A transfer of development rights provide for more compact development accomplishing two times the density on 1/16th of the land. This abstract diagram shows a square mile of 5-acre lots in the northeast quadrant and smaller lots at a net density of 6 dwelling units per acre on the other adjacent quadrants of the intersection. The remaining land is preserved for agricultural uses. In an ideal situation, the crops produced from the adjacent agricultural uses would be shared by the residents through a cooperative agreement.

This application of a “transfer of development rights,” or TDR, allows for compact development that is more cost-effective for the developer, less intrusive on the land, and provides for decreased stormwater runoff.  The long term maintenance costs for the county is also decreased with less infrastructure to be maintained.

If this concept were applied on all four corners of 4 square miles (2,560 acres), an agricultural-based village could be a reality with a small urban footprint of 160 acres and approximately 2,400 acres of agricultural land.

1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,366 other followers