Archives for posts with tag: smart growth

Back in October, Ellen Dunham Jones came to Vancouver and presented a lecture on New Urbanism and also what she felt were the short comings of landscape or ecological urbanism, which was starting to become a competitor in the theory of place making. Jason King, on his Landscape and Urbanism blog linked back to my review of the Ellen Dunham Jones lecture. His post, entitled, ‘More on Ecological Urbanism‘ provides a view from the other side, a counter balance if you will and is actually quite refreshing for those of us who may have only ever heard ecological urbanism described by those who distrust it (e.g The Congress for New Urbanism). I’m still not convinced, due in part to the lack of actual examples they can point to, but I do appreciate that in the main, new urbanists and ecological/ landscape urbanists are after most of the main things, but they vary in their methodology for how to get there. Discuss…

I attended one of the SFU  City Program’s free lectures last night. The topic was ‘What’s Up With the Viaducts?’ in reference to the fact that the City is now considering what the future of these structures, and more importantly what the future of this area of the City, should be.

There seem to be two main aspects. Firstly, what happens to all the traffic that currently uses the viaducts? Does everything come to a grinding halt if they are removed? The consensus was – no. And to be fair, all the evidence now supports this, including the little experiment the City did in February last year when a small sporting event shut down the viaducts and a few other streets! There is now a fair body of evidence from all over the world which supports the notion of  ‘disappearing traffic’. One of the most notable examples is from Seoul and Gordon Price’s blog has a lot of info on it here. Basically, in this case, they removed 6km of a huge freeway through the city and replace d it with a park. And traffic in surrounding areas did not go up. It has even got the folks in New Westminster grappling with a planned expanded Front Street wandering whether its the right thing to do. Traffic is like a gas, it expands and contracts to fill the space available. Hence also, ‘induced traffic’ where new road capacity is used up quicker than expected. As an aside, the exception to this is if its tolled. I have heard of two examples recently of Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects where new bridges or tunnels have been constructed and tolls and financial models calculated based on a certain number of vehicles using the route (and paying the toll). And the traffic hasn’t come. One of the examples is the Golden Ears Bridge here in Metro Vancouver. I’m sure this wouldn’t have happend a few years ago. Times, they are a changing…

The other part of the debate was what should replace the space that the viaducts currently take. The skytrain weaves up and down around the viaducts at the moment so that’s one challenge, although I personally like the roller coaster feel to this part of the route and think its a feature in its own right. There was an interesting history lesson given as to what was there before the viaducts which acted as a reminder about how much we can loose in the name of ‘progress’. Hogan’s Alley was a thriving black community (Vancouver’s only one) which was wiped out. Someone suggested naming this project Hogan’s Alley Planning Initiative (HAPI) which got a cheer of approval.

This is only the beginning of the debate. So, what do YOU think? As Bing Thom said last night, the City Councillors want to hear from the people, otherwise they don’t really know what to do. So make your voice heard on this blog or elsewhere.

Ellen Dunham-Jones spoke on Next Generation Urbanism on Tuesday evening as part of the SFU City Program, here in Vancouver. She is a new urbanist and member of the Congress For New Urbanism. She co-authored Retrofitting Suburbia. She spoke on many things and I thought it was a thought provoking presentation that was nicely balanced between being theoretical and conceptual, as well as practical and realist. Her main topic was critiquing a new upstart which is challenging new urbanism. This new movement is called Ecological Urbanism. According to Dunham-Jones, while new urbanists like to plan through good design, ecological urbanists don’t. They prefer to set something in motion and see what happens. Kind of more ecology in the city, but it also seems to be more lower density suburbia where, although surrounded by hills and other natural landscapes, most people would still have to drive everywhere. Being a new urbanist, unsurprisingly, she is fairly critical of ecological urbanism, although she did acknowledge that new urbanists can learn something from the less planned, more spontaneous places that seem to be so popular. I asked a question at the end, suggesting Vancouver’s own Granville Island was a good example of this. She hadn’t heard of Granville Island, but I hope she has time to check it out during her stay. Now I don’t know for sure whether Granville Island was unplanned or whether it just appears that way. But Dunham-Jones didn’t seem to think that mattered. The fact that it feels different and looks different, in a good way, is enough.

She also mentioned that post recession, we will have to find cheaper ways of doing things. People may become less consumer focused out of necessity. Will there be a new emphasis on seeking happiness? I thought it interesting that she thinks that as a result we’ll have to find alternatives to retail to enliven our public spaces.

As part of this, she mentioned some small scale examples of temporary things people have done to enliven public spaces. Examples included Parking Day, Build a Better Block, Pop Up City and, one I especially liked the sound of, Pie Day.

And I won a book. ‘Historical Atlas of Vancouver and the Lower Fraser Valley‘ by Derek Hayes. It has a lot of old maps in it – I like it already. Thanks to Gordon Price and the City Program for that. All I did was stand up when asked who had a blog!

Here is an interesting idea from the City of Mission in Kansas, USA. The City wants to charge fees based on how much traffic a development generates. Developments that generate more traffic and thus more wear and tear on the roads will be charged more. The article, from the Kansas City Star states that:

Larger businesses that generate lots of traffic, such as Mission Bank, could pay $5,659 a year. A drive-thru fast food restaurant could pay $12,200 a year. Target could pay as much as $64,750 annually.

From the article it sounds like this is a set fee, based on looking up an ITE trip generation table (or similar) to tell you how much traffic a certain development type will generate per unit area (usually per 1,000 sq ft). This in itself is an outdated approach of course, as surrounding land use and density have a vital role to play in influencing the trip generation of a certain development type. However, it is a good idea in theory. I would suggest a couple of improvements to this approach, that would further promote smart growth principles. Firstly, it should include a factor which acknowledges that building a McDonalds (for example) in a higher density, pedestrian friendly area will generate less traffic than building one out in suburbia on a strip mall. This would financially encourage developers to locate in built up, walkable neighbourhoods, as it will cost them less in ‘traffic tax’. Even better, for larger developments, this should be done dynamically. With a permanent traffic counter (or temporary one used at regular intervals) on a site driveway, the number of trips the development generates can be regularly monitored. The more car trips, the more tax they pay. Therefore reducing these trips has a direct financial advantage for the owner. This would make developers think about the location that they build in, but also strive for continual improvements in the travel mode of their employees and visitors. A potential drawback of this approach is that municipalities receive less tax revenue if developments successfully implement vehicle reduction strategies.

Of course, the traffic counter approach only works if each development provides its own parking supply. In urban centres, it is good practice to have a pooled parking supply of on-street parking and municipal owned public parkades. In conclusion therefore, making developments that generate more traffic pay more for the upkeep of the roads makes sense, but the system needs to reward location and potentially other measures such as TDM strategies that an individual development may wish to implement.