Planetizen Posts: New Urbanism and Public Notices on the Web

I’ve posted a couple new posts to Planetizen’s Interchange blog recently:

> Should the Internet Replace Newspapers for Public Notices? Most planning and zoning ordinances require cities publish some notices in the local newspaper. In an age of newspapers decline, and with the Internet readily available, I suggest we should amend our laws.

> The Origin of New Urbanism’s Persistent Image Problem: Despite authoring a trenchant critique of contemporary urbanism and articulating a detailed, comprehensive vision for urban development, the New Urbanism movement retains a vague stigma with many American urbanists. Far more than an unfair stereotype, I argue the reputation problem runs to the core of intellectual life among American urbanists, speaking to the way our cities our developed and studied.

Report Finds Public Participation Improves Policy

A new study published by the National Academy of Sciences has concluded public participation processes can improve the quality of policies and help them become implemented. The 270-page report is the product of a research panel of a dozen experts. The report’s primary recommendation urges “Public participation should be fully incorporated into environmental assessment and decision-making processes, and it should be recognized by government agencies and other organizers of the processes as a requisite of effective action, not merely a formal procedural requirement.”

While I have not read the full study yet, I am not surprised by the findings. After all, in the words of panel head Thomas Dietz, since “a lot of science has to be applied to a very local context, local knowledge is essential.” Although a dearth of good research on the topic exists in the field of urban planning, I found several studies drawing similar conclusions. One interesting examination of 60 planning processes in Florida and Washington concluded that “with greater stakeholder involvement, comprehensive plans are stronger, and proposals made in plans are more likely to be implemented.” The study author went on to write (with two others) a subsequent article analyzing how states should mandate participation. I adopted that group’s general framework, derived as it was from the previous study of effectiveness, for my final paper describing how the Internet could be used as a participation tool.

I think the lesson from the National Academies panel must be driven home to the urban development community. Since we are so intimate with participation, we lose perspective on its broader importance and role. Given the legal requirements for transparency and professional approaches to participation, the key is to look beyond an obsession with the intellectually vague “NIMBYism” and design processes that foster consensus and prevent Morriss Fiorina’s “Extreme Voices” from having a monopoly. In particular, I think it means designing processes that are less time-intensive and allow involvement on a wider scale of commitment levels.

> [Read it Online] National Academies: Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making
> NYTimes: “Report Says Public Outreach, Done Right, Aids Policymaking”
> Previous posts: NIMBYism, Urban Development, and the Public Involvement Solution, Public Participation in Urban Planning Series

What Neighborhoods Will Be The Next Hot Spots?

In a splashy cover story this week, the quarterly magazine sent to thousands of local business leaders this week considers which Washington, D.C. neighborhoods will be the next “hot spots.”

The story appears in OnSite, a quarterly glossy magazine sent to subscribers of the Washington Business Journal. With a password-only website, the story’s only readers will be the 16,600+ subscribers who pay over $100 a year to receive the weekly newspaper.

Featuring incendiary graphics (above) and a map with the neighborhood identified with crosshairs, the article will do little to sooth the concerns of activists fearful their neighborhoods will be targets for new development with or without their input. Surprisingly, only 4 of the 13 are within the boundary of D.C., a sign of how much investment has happened in District neighborhoods and the barriers to additional development. In addition to the neighborhoods shown on the map below, the magazine additionally identified Gaithersburg and Laurel in Maryland and Occoquan in Virginia.

The article proposes a number of variables to predict where people “want to live, work and hang out.” They are: accessible to roads, near Metro or other rail, near water or riverfront, geographically distinctive, near parks and recreation, near anchor or stadium, upward economic capacity, arts uses, main gathering place, historical features, interesting architecture, and pedestrian oriented.

The most surprising locations may be Landover (picked due to the ongoing Landover Gateway planning effort), Greenbelt (which we covered on Rethink College Park), and Prince William County’s Occoquan.

Occoquan? Despite being over 20 miles from Washington, OnSite thinks the tiny historic town’s proximity to to I-95, several VRE stations, Fort Belvoir and Quantico bases, nearby “smart-growth style developments,” and attractive waterfront will make it a hotspot for growth.

What do you think of their picks? What places — or factors — are missing from the analysis?

Shared Vans Already Here … and Illegal

Over a year ago I described Cape Town’s minibus shared van transit system, where licensed drivers provide shared rides along designated routs. At the time, I suggested such a system, common in many countries around the world, should be considered in the U.S. I was wrong — there are examples of similar service in the U.S., although here they’re generally antagonized by the very agencies dedicated to providing public transportation. Miami, Atlantic City, and San Diego have shared taxi, or jitney, services. However, like in so many other areas, New York city is the most notable case.

Since the late 1970s, thousands of unlicensed “dollar” vans (they now charge $1.50 or $2) have provided rides in several New York City neighborhoods. The industry got started in earnest during the 1980-81 transit strike, and have proliferated despite occasional crackdowns by authorities. In the 1990s, the MTA estimated some 5,000 feeder vans operated in the city, shuttling passengers to subway stations in boroughs where conventional taxis are hard to find. The vans often run in direct competition with busy bus lines, providing faster, more convenient service. Robert Cervero’s 1997 book Paratransit in America features a rare scholarly examination of these vans, illustrated with this map describing the parts of Broolyn, Queens, and The Bronx where the vans are active.

A Brooklyn friend confirms the Flatbush corridor is alive and well, New Yorkers are welcome to chime in about the others. Generally operated by Caribbean immigrants, criticism often focuses on ethnicity and safety since the unregulated vans do not have to be inspected or carry insurance. The MTA and city officials accuse the vans of “poaching” bus riders and unsafe operations, and have sought to curtail the vans through occasional crackdowns over the years. Nonetheless even critics concede the operators are providing transportation services with no public subsidy.

The latest crackdown effort came after a hit-and-run accident in Brooklyn involving a dollar van driver who fled the scene fearing arrest. In response, the city began a ticketing blitz and began the process of designing a sticker to clearly identify which of the vans are among the 279 officially licensed carriers, who are prohibited from picking up passengers on-demand by city rules. For now, at least, an uneasy truce exists. “Some van operators argue that one-size-fit-all standards are wrongheaded,” observes Cervero, who asks “Should everyone be forced to ride in vehicles that are fairly new, meet high liability insurance requirements, and have comfortable, padded seats, paying a premium fare for these provisions?” For the time being in most U.S. cities, the answer is yes.

The Economics of Redevelopment

The photo above is a beautiful sight. No mere pile of dirt, the picture shows excavation for the foundation of a new house in a formerly vacant lot. Located at 1502 10th Street NW, the lot has been vacant at least as long as I’ve lived nearby (2 years) and most likely much longer. Although estimates range, the city of D.C. has thousands of vacant buildings and lots (the official list of buildings alone has over 3,500). Many other cities have much more - roughly 30% of the land of Detroit is vacant. While perhaps some should be reserved for public use, much of this should return to residential and commercial uses.

Holding aside the related issues of housing cost and neighborhood change, redeveloping vacant property in the center city is a good thing. The address discussed here near public facilities, served by public transit, and served by existing infrastructure. It’s also located close to jobs, and it’s a safe bet the future tenant will drive very little, if they own a car at all. It’s smart growth.

Up the street, another long-vacant property is being converted into housing at the corner of Q and 9th. Neighbors celebrated when a property owner evicted a used car lot at 9th and P, posting a large banner advertising the land for sale. Through a rough economic analysis, I argue these events are related. Vacant property is being developed in this part of Shaw because housing sale prices have reached the cost of construction.

My simple model of redevelopment is this: residential development will happen on vacant land when it can be sold for more than it costs to construct. I assume land costs and taxes are sunk costs, and land owners are rational and build when they can make a profit, not speculators. Luckily both sale prices and building costs are available. Let’s see how the numbers work out. (For simplicity I’ll discuss home and condo sales, however from an economics perspective the reasoning should also work for rental properties through a net present value calculation.)

Sale Prices

A review of recent sales (I used Zillow.com) in the Dupont Circle neighborhood finds sale prices ranging from $500 per square foot to over $710 per square foot for homes and condominiums. Conversely, recent sales in eastern Shaw are less, ranging between $303 per square foot for a property on 7th to $502 per square foot for a condo at 6th and Q. Although there is some variation in each neighborhood, sale prices generally follow a pattern when measured by the square foot.

As for our property, just up the street at 1516 10th Street, a 756-square-foot condo sold in 2005 for $332,000, roughly $439 dollars per square foot.

Zoning

Zoning determines how much housing can be built on our lot. The parcel, measuring 1,285 square feet, is zoned R-4, a standard residential zone in the district for row home neighborhoods. Here’s the summary of what the zone requires:

Permits matter-of-right development of single-family residential uses (including detached, semi-detached, row dwellings, and flats), churches and public schools with a minimum lot width of 18 feet, a minimum lot area of 1,800 square feet and a maximum lot occupancy of 60% for row dwellings, churches and Flats, a minimum lot width of 30 feet and a minimum lot area of 3000 square feet for semi-detached structures, a minimum lot width of 40 feet and a minimum lot area of 4000 square feet and 40% lot occupancy for all other structures; and a maximum height of three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. Conversions of existing buildings to apartments are permitted for lots with a minimum lot area of 900 square feet per dwelling unit.

Note the actual lot size is smaller than the zone’s “minimum” size, this is typical for historic neighborhoods. I’m not sure if this affected the owner’s actual lot occupancy, but I can find no mention of the property on the Board of Zoning Adjustment website. It was subject to historic preservation review but the report does not mention the planned lot coverage. If we assume the owner is allowed the 60% coverage, that results in a building footprint of 771 square feet. Multiplied by the allowed height of three stories we get 2,313 square feet for the new building.

Building Costs

Costs of construction can vary depending on a host of factors and the design and character of the structure. The RSMeans website provides a free calculator for zip-code specific costs for various types of buildings. Each estimate includes the building cost, contractor profits, and architectural fees. Using their free cost estimator, I estimated the cost of a 2,313 square foot wood frame apartment building. The estimates ranged from $806,766 on the low end to $1,120,508 on the high end. Recently contractors have been affected not only by increased costs of gasoline, but also increasing costs for metals, piping, and other raw materials. Furthermore, the historic preservation review process may have resulted in additional architectural fees.

Adding it Up

If the new house sells at $300 a square foot, the going rate for condos farther east in Shaw, the property would net $693,900, over $100,000 below RSMean’s lowest cost estimates. At $400, the property would bring in $925,200, and at $500 the property would be worth $1,156,500. Although the calculations are rough, they do seem to corroborate the theory. According to the RSMeans estimate, housing cannot be profitably built in the neighborhood at $300 a square foot, but at $500 a square foot a small profit looks possible. Of course, there are a host of variables that can make housing profitable in neighborhoods with lower prices, including the greater economy of larger buildings and public subsidies like tax credits. Nonetheless, the exercise serves to underscore the role of construction costs in neighborhood investment patterns. If you’re wondering why nothing’s happening with vacant land in your neighborhood, get calculating. Or ask a developer, since they would likely know best.

NIMBYism, Urban Development, and the Public Involvement Solution

NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) activists are one of the most important and least understood issues in contemporary American urban planning. A recent national survey found that roughly one-quarter of all Americans reported they or someone in their family has actively opposed a development project. Although opposition to development is widespread and use of the term common, like gentrification, the word can elude definition. To some, NIMBYs are people who oppose environmentally harmful facilities like garbage dumps, to others they are people who oppose development perceived to lower their property values, and some think they’re just people with “unreasonable” complaints about development. One article I read argued we needed lots more NIMBYism to force capitalism to rethink the very necessity of things like waste incinerators.

I think the term implies a failure of urban planning and public participation. But first, let’s take a look at how it’s usually viewed.

The term barely makes a mention in some of the field’s standard texts. The Practice of Local Government Planning, a bestselling standard reference manual for urban planners, mentions it only in connection to siting facilities with a large environmental impact, like waste treatment plants. Donald Elliott’s reformist A Better Way to Zone mentions the term, but provides no help grappling with the concept. Elliott describes NIMBYism as when “elected officials deny a proposed development that substantially meets all applicable standards because of the opposition of immediate neighbors.” Writing from his perspective as a land use lawyer, he argues there is “usually” a technical reason for rejection, but concedes “they sometimes deny even without a good reason.” He divides NIMBYism into two flavors, early and late. The first is to be expected and weighed by the elected officials making the decisions, the second prevented. The author argues the solution to the problem is to eliminate opportunities for public involvement. After all, an administrative reviewer would simply correct the technicality and allow the entire project to pass. In order to “depoliticize” the zoning approvals process, citizen input opportunities should be trimmed. “Not holding a public hearing when it could easily be abused is as much a part of good governance as holding public hearings at the planning, zoning, and initial review stages.”

I disagree with his definition and solution. First, focusing on technicalities misses the point. Urban development is sufficiently complex and politicized that determined opponents have no shortage of methods to block development, the legal facts of the case aside. The problem has to do with the character of the opposition. Second, cutting some hearings would certainly ease the burden on public officials who have to sit through them and listen to complaints, but it does nothing about the underlying frustrations. His proposal begs the question: if there is no hearing, will anyone be disgruntled? I tend to believe they will. If people are unhappy a highly technocratic process would simply intensify opposition earlier or through other channels, such as lawsuits.

Samuel Stanley thinks that the problem is to distinguish between “legitimate concerns” and “reactionary hostility to anything that might upset the status quo,” arguing “The role of the planning board chair and planning staff is to guide the members of the planning board and city council through this process to ensure that community benefits are maximized and external costs minimized.” This characterization also misses the essence of the problem. What is a legitimate concern to one person is an irrational hostility to another.

The key to understanding NIMBYism comes from political science, not the technicalities of zoning. NIMBYism occurs when a politically unrepresentative minority exacts unreasonable costs on the larger community, up to and including blocking otherwise supported developments. This definition comes from a provocative article by Morriss P. Fiorina titled “Extreme Voices: A Dark Side of Civic Engagement” that appears in this text.

In the article he describes the case of a private school in Middlesex, Massachuessets, that sought a modest expansion of their campus for new athletic fields. He estimates the plan would have originally won approval through a general referendum by a margin of perhaps two or three to one, however “the subsequent proceedings were dominated by a small group of citizens implacably opposed to the Middlesex plan.” Over a seven year process of which he estimates 1/2 to 1% of Concord’s 10,800 voters participated in meetings the school spent at least $400,000 and the city over $10,000 in consultants and fees. He concludes “to some, the preceding case illustrates grass-roots democracy … to others, the preceding case illustrates the opposite of grass-roots democracy: a few ‘true believers’ were able to hijack the democratic process and impose unreasonable costs–fiscal and psychological–on other actors as well as the larger community.” According to a 2006 Boston Globe article, the plan was still being debated 13 years after the original proposal.

To Fiorina, the problem with the events lies not in the minutia of zoning, but the unrepresentative outcome. He concludes that “the kinds of demands on time and energy required to participate politically are sufficiently severe that those wiling to pay the costs come disproportionately from the ranks of those with intensely held extreme views. Given that people cannot be forced to participate, the alternative is to get the costs down.” Ironically, the solution to the “extreme voices,” empowered by participatory processes is more participation: “Thus, the only possibility is to go forward and raise various forms of civic engagement to levels where extreme voices are diluted.”

Understandably, the people who suffer the financial consequences of NIMBYism have the clearest understanding of the problem — and its solution. The Urban Land Institute (where I am working this summer) is a professional organization made up mostly of real estate developers. The institute has published two separate works for the benefit of their members on opposition to development, Winning Community Support for Land Use Projects in 1992 and Breaking the Development Logjam in 2006. The first identifies three sources of opposition to development: a lack of information, a lack of involvement, and a true conflict of interests. The manual identifies the remedies for each source: public information, public participation, and negotiations. The more recent Breaking the Development Logjam comes from a similar perspective, observing

The guardedness, disillusion, and cynicism in evidence will not be put to rest by standard procedures that call for a public hearing or two. Citizens know that such hearings typically offer few opportunities for understanding the real effects of proposed developments, and almost no chance for reasonable discourse about the pros and cons of a proposed project.

The book argues its “premise is that when people are well informed about community development in general, and proposed project in particular, the likelihood of securing their support for a project greatly increases.”

I’ll discuss the implications of this conclusion for the planning profession in a subsequent post on Planetizen. The bottom line here is that people serious about changing the status quo in American cities must have a robust understanding and strategy for handling NIMBYism. Thanks to rapid changes in the mechanics of planning — the goals of written plans and character of the zoning — higher density, pedestrian and transit-oriented neighborhoods are increasingly legal again. What remains is the public engagement strategy to minimize the size and ranks of the vocal minority and convince American communities they’re the right form of development for our communities.

Transistasis: A Plan for Dallas’ Cedars Neighborhood

Last January I was a member of a student team at the University of Maryland that entered the Urban Land Institute Gerald D. Hines Student Urban Design Competition. Interdisciplinary teams of students were given two weeks to create a master land use plan and proposed ten-block development for a neighborhood just south of downtown Dallas, known as Cedars.

This year 96 teams from 34 universities entered the competition. Our team selected the number 1856, the year of the founding of the University of Maryland. The team was composed of Dorien Couch (real estate), myself (planning), Nandor Mitrocsak (architecture), Eric Raasch (real estate), and Elizabeth Vetne (architecture). Our entry, mounted on seven 11 by 17 sheets, looked like this:

We also had to work up a full financial proforma on the project to prove it was financially viable:

Although developed at the turn of the century as a residential neighborhood, today very few people call Cedars home. The neighborhood is home to an eclectic combination of light industrial uses, a community college, a few residences, a city park, and even a honky-tonk. I had the opportunity to drive through the neighborhood during a subsequent trip to Dallas, and here’s a few views of what it looks like.

We conducted research into demographics, infrastructure, and the natural context of the site. In these diagrams, the entire site is designated in lime green. Downtown is just to the north of the site, and contains many high rise office buildings and new housing. (See this Google Map for more context.)

Although separated from downtown Dallas by a sunken freeway known as “the canyon,” the site has excellent access to downtown, features a station on the city’s rapidly expanding light rail system, and features a unique eclectic character. Calling our plan Transistasis (the property of a system to reform its functions to maintain a meaningful existence), we organized our proposal around the themes of reconnecting, rethinking, and renewing the neighborhood. We proposed extending the M-Line historic streetcar from the city’s main arts district north of downtown (where the art museum and symphony are located), and develop Cedars into an alternative arts district as a counterpoint to this formal arts activity. We allowed artist studios by-right, and allowed a density bonus for the creation of new arts venues along Lamar Street. Instead of adopting an unrealistic decking plan, we focused on creating an activity spine extending from city hall into the Cedars neighborhood, and along Lamar Street from the convention center into the neighborhood. Our development, outlined in purple on this map, proposed mixed-use urban development near the DART station.

Our plan proposed three major anchors for the neighborhood. We proposed creating a new amphitheater in the Old City Park, providing a venue featuring a dramatic Dallas skyline. The visitors will spill out onto Cedars streets, investigating artist studios and galleries, and passing through our development on Belleview street on the way to the light rail station and parking. The second anchor, a magnet arts middle school, would be just a short ride from the Booker T. Washington High School for the Performing and Visual Arts, now under construction in the arts district north of downtown. The third anchor, a restaurant and craft brewpub would serve as a hub of activity at the Cedars DART Station. The Belleview Redevelopment plan also includes a new supermarket, housing, and retail space.

Although we were not a finalist, the judge’s comments we received back were generally favorable. The finalists’ plans, and the plan created by the competition winner, a University of Pennsylvania team, are available on the competition website.

Nonetheless, we are proud of our plan. In the course of our research, we found that the tree for which the neighborhood is named, the Eastern Red Cedar, is known as a pioneer species often found on damaged land. Early in Cedars’ history it was home to pioneering forms of urban life — Belleview Place, Dallas’ first apartment building, was constructed in 1890 at the corner of Sullivan and Browder streets. Redevelopment of the neighborhood (whether according to our plan or another) could return the pioneering Red Cedar and pioneering new forms of sustainable living to Cedar’s streets, a good thing for the city of Dallas.

> ULI Hines Urban Design Competition
> Dallas Morning News: “Dallas’ Cedars area is focus of urban renewal contest for students,” “Cedars - Buzzing with Activity“