That’s precisely what a group in New Orleans is working on in a project that has been entered in the NetSquared Mashup Challenge.

Here’s the idea:

Imagine a Google map that allows one to select a historical view of the topography, New Orleans before or after the storm. Imagine being able to integrate past and present. Being able to view current data on the recovery on old Sanborn maps. And historic data from archives on contemporary maps. And being able to turn on and off different sets of data simultaneously. In this way, one could see if a historic house is on a demolition list. Imagine that. Making information more accessible, meaningful and interesting.

Mapping gives life to spreadsheets (demolition lists or building permits). Suddenly these droning lists of addresses form patterns and relationships. We can now go to a house, photograph it, blog it and sometimes actually save it. Usually not. But in the very least, it has been documented before it’s history. The current push for demolition before the FEMA money runs out weighs heavy on the collective soul of New Orleans. …

Mapping is destiny and people all over the city are trying to map the madness away. Citizen created content in Google Maps track housing demolitions, housing project locations, shootings in 2008, mid-century modern architecture, unopened schools, schools to be demolished, the Housing Conservation District Review Committee (HCDRC) agenda, and of course New Orleans music.

Interestingly, another featured project called Your Mapper proposes some of the same functionality. Let’s hope a powerful system available for broad use emerges.

> NetSquared: City of New Orleans: A Mashup for Citizen Monitoring of the Recovery
> XXNO: Manifesto for a Mashup
> Think New Orleans: Help Me Obtain Funding for Online Mapping of the Recovery

Here’s the three way comparison (larger):

And just Obama and McCain (larger):

Obama’s top three are technology, urban policy, and family, and McCain’s are economy, national security, and veterans, and Hillary Clinton’s are innovation, veterans, and schools.

I noticed both Democrats have long pages on technology and innovation issues, a topic McCain omits entirely.

Barack Obama is also unique in organizing a variety of urban-related policy proposals and positions under the umbrella topic of Urban Policy, something that was added to the website since I scrutinized it last. As the first bullet to his plan he proposes creating a White House Office on Urban Policy to “develop a strategy for metropolitan America” and coordinate federal urban programs, reporting directly to the president.

Update: On the suggestion of Andrew Gelman, here’s a different version ranked by the difference in words between Obama and McCain.

Another just by Obama topics:

Also, see the NY Times story “As Gas Costs Soar, Buyers Flock to Small Cars“

I’m using the data for a larger ridership study that should appear here sometime in the future, but in the meantime I realized it allows us to evaluate the level of transit oriented development in each jurisdiction. For Montgomery County and Prince George’s County, because the stations are spaced sufficiently far apart, we can also estimate the percentage of total jobs within half a mile of a Metro station. This relative measure takes into account the many more jobs in Montgomery County. Because the half mile radii overlap significantly in Arlington, Alexandria, and D.C. I can’t easily say what proportion of all jobs are accessible by transit for those jurisdictions.

Here’s the results after averaging the development for each station in the various jurisdictions.

The analysis confirms what we might expect: D.C. and Arlington have the most jobs near their stations, and the Prince George’s County stations have the fewest in absolute terms. The pattern holds in relative terms for the Maryland counties — according to the WMCOG data, roughly 50% of Montgomery County’s 500,293 jobs were within 1/2 mile of a Metro station, versus only 38.4% of Prince George’s County’s 358,450 jobs. While I agree there’s much Prince George’s should be doing to boost development around their stations, there are a couple important caveats. The county has seen much less real estate investment than other parts of the region, and the Metro stations are much newer. Metro made it all they way out to Shady Grove in 1984 and Glenmont in 1998, versus Greenbelt in 1993, Branch Avenue in 2001, and Largo Town Center in 2004.

For households, on average Arlington County’s stations have slightly more than D.C. stations, likely a reflection of Arlington’s aggressive development of high density housing along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and the low-density residential neighborhoods surrounding many D.C. stations.

Not surprisingly, some of the least-used stations I identified in my popular post on station ridership also have the least development around them. My next step is to use a regression to evaluate the relative role of jobs, housing, parking, bus lines, multi-modal access, and a variety of other variables to explain ridership.

Calling it a meaningless “quick-fix” solution, Barack Obama argues the real solution lies in alternative fuels and higher fuel efficiency standards.

To that list I’d add increased investment in transit and a higher gas taxes, although I can understand why those proposals may not make it into a television ad in Indiana and North Carolina.

High gas prices don’t just effect consumers, they have resulted in record profits for oil companies. However, according to economic theory we should be doing the exact opposite of what McCain proposes if we want to cut their profits. Economists have found consumers pay roughly half the federal gas tax — the other half comes from the oil companies themselves. This study concludes:

Using the estimated coefficients, we can determine the incidence of federal and state specific taxes. An increase in the federal tax by 1¢ raises the retail price by 0.47¢ and decreases the wholesale price by 0.56¢. Thus, consumers and wholesalers each pay roughly half of the federal specific tax.

In effect, a higher federal gas tax would shift wealth from the oil companies profits to federal coffers, and help pay for badly needed infrastructure improvements.

Intuitively, it would seem logical to conclude that compact cities release less greenhouse gasses on a per capita basis than low density ones. We might hypothesize compact cities shorten distances between destinations, encourage walking and biking for short trips, and encourage public transportation use. It may also be more energy efficient to heat and cool the housing in more compact cities.

Amazingly, many scholars disagree. Just one year ago UCLA professor Randall Crane stated on his blog “how discretionary land use decisions can best address global warming is virtually unknown.” Crane is co-author of a 240-page research survey on the relationship between urban form and travel. At the root of the issue is the difficulty of disentangling person preferences, culture, and the physical environment. Even if urban residents use much less energy per capita, it may be because of socio-economic or so-called “self selection” factors. This scholarly ambivalence has left the planning profession at the sidelines of the global warming debate. Despite a striking cover on last September’s Planning magazine (found in the mailboxes of most American urban planners) the articles inside were sadly disappointing, with few meaningful strategies presented. As a sign of the profession’s state, one reader wrote in to complain “other theories also explain the same observed data,” contrasting modern global warming theory with urban renewal theories of the 1950s. Another letter expressed disappointment over the lack of an article summarizing recommendations about what to do.

There are signs this is changing. A draft policy guide currently being considered by the American Planning Association on climate change features as its first two policy findings that land use patterns play a “significant” role in reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and that parking and transportation policies can be employed to “discourage” private auto use.

This is precisely the case Ewing and his co-authors make in Growing Cooler. In essence, they argue that even if alternative fuel vehicles are phased in aggressively and the gas mileage of vehicles is increased to 50 miles per gallon, the U.S. will be far from meeting its goal of reducing CO2 emissions. The reason is that travel growth is expected to continue to grow rapidly along with rising population and economic growth. They find that people living in compact neighborhoods drive roughly 20 to 40 percent less than the residents of sprawling areas. They define compact neighborhoods by five criteria — the five D’s — density, diversity of land uses, design, destination access, and distance to transit. In the aggregate, a national smart growth policy could cut transportation CO2 emissions by 7 to 10%. Since transportation is only responsible for 33% of total U.S. CO2 emissions the role of Smart Growth is modest, but significant factor.

The authors point out compact development is a particularly attractive strategy to combat climate change because the emissions savings are permanent, it also results in public health and environmental gains, and may result in additional greenhouse gas savings through more energy-efficient homes. We know people buy smaller houses in compact communities, and even if the size of their units don’t decrease, row homes and condos are more energy efficient to heat and cool than freestanding homes. (Indeed, my neighbor told me his heating bill dropped significantly when our row house was remodeled after being vacant for many years.) Chapter 9 on “Policy and Program Recommendations” offers a wide range of suggestions, from a reformed federal transportation policy in the form of a “Green-TEA” law and national cap-and-trade system, to a variety of proposals at the regional, state, and local levels to create compact development patterns. I’m happy to see the very last proposal listed “Invest in Civic Engagement and Education.” Recognizing that “successful planning requires the meaningful engagement of people who live and work in the affected community,” the authors call on “planners and decision makers [to] actively seek out public input early in the planning process.” After all, under our urban planning system local communities have the biggest role to play determine the form of our cities. This book makes the case their decisions will play a critical role in our effort to combat global warming.

> ULI: Growing Cooler
> Smart Growth America: Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change

Architectural sustainability, or the green building movement, is dominated by concern with buildings energy efficiency and use of sustainable materials. Left largely undiscussed is the question of the cultural values that shape our homes. American homes have increased in size, cost, and complexity, even while the building’s energy efficiency and materials have improved. Geoff Manaugh often points out the possibility that after technical fixes to fossil fuel energy have been perfected, we will still live in precisely the same way as before - with automobiles, large homes, and consumption. The most visible counter-trend, small homes movement, has had a limited cultural impact as its absurd minimalism contrasts so greatly against excessive cultural norms. It’s often pointed out we simply don’t have enough raw materials for billions of the world’s poor to live at the same standards as exist in the developed world. What’s lacking is a concerted effort to cultivate aesthetic and cultural models for more resource-efficient living.

Other professions involved in the planning and design of cities have dedicated considerable effort to realizing models for less resource intensive environments. New Urbanism proposes neighborhood-scale pattern for more efficient development. Together with Smart Growth, some think it is the nucleus to a new “sustainable urbanism.” The field of landscape architecture has sought to align aesthetics with ecology (PDF), and great strides have been made in seeking to design parks and landscapes that are both beautiful and beneficial to natural ecosystems. The architectural profession needs to engage in a similar effort.

Oddly the place best situated to cultivate a cultural ethic of creative and efficient homes are the nations where wealthy and deeply impoverished live side-by-side. Here the resources of professionals can be deployed within the limits of the forced austerity of poverty.

Vaughan Burns, a South African architect I met with last summer while studying abroad, has made it his life’s work to make humane low cost housing. In the country, government efforts to provide housing to the poor had pushed the architectural profession to the limits of economy. Every centimeter of cement or piping, every hinge, every ounce of paint makes a difference in cost when you’re building 2.3 million homes. Although Vaughan lamented how this tendency can result in inhumanely minimal structures (the model to the right is a new version, enlarged from the previously standard 380 square feet), he has taken it as a creative challenge to formulate a philosophy that maximizes the benefit for residents. Vaughn said he’d been commissioned by middle income and even wealthy clients to build homes much larger, but in the same style as low-cost government housing. The owners almost certainly could afford a conventional home, but found the simplicity, economy, and beauty of the “low cost mindset” more appealing.

In his view architecture had just four basic elements: floors, doors, roofs, and windows. These structural categories doubled for metaphors of four rules of design that have guided his designs.

The first, the “floor,” is client participation. Vaughan argues for participation both because it is important to creating good design and also because of its transformative impact on the clients.

The second, the “door,” represents multi-functionality of design. Buildings should maximize the use of every space, surface, and room. An architect specializing in alternative building techniques has observed “many standard homes built today feel hollow and empty until they are filled with possessions.” He observed his designs include window seats, window shelves, and creative flooring making the homes “quite pleasing even before you move in.” An efficient home could convince the occupant to choose a smaller space, and even “need” fewer belongings to live.

Third, the “roof,” is the principle of expandability and sub-divisibility to provide maximum future use of the structure. This may mean making halls wide enough to contain a narrow bed should it need to be converted to a bedroom, using easily recyclable materials, or allowing outdoor access to a bathroom to allow it to be shared among several small homes.

Fourth, the “window,” stands for the value of embracing symbolism. Fake traditional touches can be cheap but provide a sense of community or identity. Murals can transform a plain surface into something beautiful, powerful, and meaningful, all at the cost of the artist’s time and the paint involved. Rather than abolish symbolism as inauthentic or unnecessary ornament, Vaughn argues we must recognize the imaginary thing can be just as good as the real thing. After all, in his view through architecture we transform real things — raw materials and labor — into the unreal — comfort, shelter, and space for living. Perhaps someday, like in Le Guin’s fictional future, economy itself will profoundly affect our aesthetics as one of the desired unreal products of architecture.

Sec. 59-E-3.7. Schedule of requirements.

Off-street parking space must be provided as follows:

Airport, airpark and airfield. Adequate space for off-street parking for at least 50 vehicles.

Ambulance service or rescue squad. Adequate space to accommodate all motor vehicles operated in connection with such use and 2 additional parking spaces per each such vehicle.

Apartment. Same as multiple-family dwelling.

Apartment, accessory. Normally 2 parking spaces per lot. However, the Board of Appeals may require more or permit less in accordance with the special exception provisions for accessory apartments contained in Section 59-G-2.00(c)(4).

Apartment hotel. One parking space for each transient bedroom; for each apartment or transient suite with no separate bedroom–one space; for each apartment or transient suite with one separate bedroom-1 1/4 spaces; for each apartment or transient suite with 2 bedrooms-1 1/2 spaces; for each apartment or transient suite with 3 or more separate bedrooms-2 spaces, and one parking space for each 2 employees on the major shift; plus 2.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of area used for ballrooms, private meeting rooms, dining rooms and other similar places of assembly.

Auditorium or stadium. One automobile parking space for each 4 seats or similar vantage accommodations provided. The base requirements may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions contained in Section 59-E-3.3.

Automobile filling station. Two parking spaces for each car wash bay, grease bay or similar service area, and one parking space for each employee.

Automobile repair and service station. One parking space for each employee, and 3.3 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area.

Bed-and-breakfast lodging. Except as provided in the special exception provisions of Section 59-G-2.09.2(f), one parking space for each guest room. These spaces are in addition to the number of off-street parking spaces required by this Section 59-E-3.7 for the dwelling unit in which the establishment is located.

Boardinghouse. One parking space for each guest accommodation on new construction. One parking space for each 2 guest accommodations in converted structure.

Charitable or philanthropic institution. See requirement under Section G-2.21(a) and (c)(1).

Child day care facility. For a family day care home or group day care home, one space for every non-resident staff member in addition to the residential parking requirement. The required number of spaces may be allowed on the street abutting the site. For a child day care center, one space for every non-resident staff member in addition to the residential parking requirement if applicable and adequate parking for discharge and pick up of children. In this instance, the average drop off and pick up space required is one space for every six children. Waivers and variances are allowed in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.

Church, synagogue or other place of worship. One parking space for each 4 persons for whom seating is provided in the main auditorium; provided, that the number of spaces thus required may be reduced by not more than 30 percent if the church, synagogue or other place of worship is located within 500 feet of any public parking lot or any commercial or industrial parking lot where sufficient spaces are available during the time of services to make up the additional spaces required. This requirement does not apply to any existing building or structure located in a commercial or industrial zone which is used for religious purposes, if the existing parking meets or otherwise exceeds the requirements for any commercial or industrial uses allowed in the zone. This requirement does not apply to any existing building or structure which is used for religious purposes, nor to additions, alterations or enlargements of such existing buildings and structures, nor to new buildings on land now improved by a building in use for religious purposes, or land contiguous to such improved land, as of May 1, 1962; nor to any such building or structure for which a valid building permit has been issued prior to such date.

Any place of worship used by a congregation whose religious beliefs prohibit the use of motor vehicles in traveling to or from religious services conducted on their Sabbath and principal holidays shall only be required to provide one space for each 8 persons for whom seating is provided in the main auditorium; provided further, that the spaces thus required do not have to be provided on the building site if such place of worship is located within 500 feet of any public parking lot or any commercial parking lot where sufficient spaces are available during the time or services or other proposed use of the building to provide the spaces required.

Clinic. See “Medical or dental clinic.”

Community center, library, museum, civic club, private club, lodge or similar use. Two and five-tenths parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area.

Country markets. Five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of area used for interior and exterior retail display sales.

Day care facility for senior adults and persons with disabilities. One space for every 4 non- resident senior adults or persons with disabilities. The Board of Appeals may reduce the number of spaces required in accordance with the special exception provisions of Section 59-G-2.13.

Domiciliary care home. One parking space for every 4 beds and one space for every 2 employees on largest work shift.

Dwelling, carriage house. One space in addition to the required parking for the main dwelling.

Dwelling, multiple-family. For each dwelling unit with no separate bedroom, one space; for each dwelling unit with one separate bedroom, 1 ¼ spaces; for each dwelling unit with 2 separate bedrooms, 1 ½ spaces; for each dwelling unit with 3 or more separate bedrooms, 2 spaces. The base requirement may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions of Section 59-E-3.33. Not more than 50 percent of the total area of the minimum required side and rear yards shall be occupied by parking spaces, drives, access roads to, from and between such spaces, turn-arounds or other surfaces designed for vehicular use, and no parking spaces or vehicular uses, except entrance drives, shall be located within the minimum required front yard. (See R-H zone for controlling provisions in that zone on parking in yards.) In the R-10 and R-H zones, TOMX Zones, the TSM and TSR zones, and the CBD zones in Section 59-C-6.2, the requirement for each moderately priced dwelling unit, as defined in Chapter 25A of this Code, shall be one-half the number of spaces indicated above.

Dwelling, one-family. Two parking spaces for each dwelling unit; except, that when the slope between the standard street sidewalk elevation at the front lot line and side lot line adjacent to a street, established in accordance with the county road construction code, and the finally graded lot elevation at the nearest building line exceeds, at every point along the front lot line, a grade of 3 inches per foot, such space shall not be required.

Dwelling, semi-detached or two-family. Same as one-family dwelling.

Educational institution, private. One parking space for each employee, including teachers and administrators, plus sufficient off-street parking space for the safe and convenient loading and unloading of students, plus additional facilities for all student parking.

Farm machinery and supply. For retail sales of farm machinery and supply, 5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of interior and exterior sales area, unless, in the opinion of the Board of Appeals, the required parking spaces can be reduced without adverse impact on adjoining uses; in no instance can the number of required spaces be less than 2 for each 1,000 square feet of interior and exterior sales area. For an establishment devoted solely to storage and service of farm machinery and supply, see “Industrial or manufacturing establishment or warehouse.”

Funeral parlor. One space for every 25 gross square feet of space in the public rooms (chapel, main viewing parlor, visitation rooms, and any flexible space that can be used as viewing rooms when necessary, such as family rooms), plus one parking space for each employee on the major shift, and one parking space for each vehicle used in connection with the business.

Fourplex. A lot or parcel used for the development of dwellings in this zone shall provide at least 2 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. The base requirement may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions of Section 59-E-3.33.

Fraternity, sorority and dormitory. One parking space for each 2 students residing on the premises in a fraternity or a sorority and 4 students in a dormitory, plus one additional space for each housemother or manager and each employee.

Furniture store. Two parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area plus one space for each employee. This requirement does not apply to the furniture section of a department store or furniture store located in a regional shopping center.

Guest rooms in a country inn. One parking space for each guest room.

Health clubs. Five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area devoted to patron use, except that 3.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area is required when located within an office building.

Heliport/helistop (public use). If at ground level, adequate space for off-street parking of at least 15 vehicles. If elevated, reasonable parking space shall be provided or be available for use as required by the Board of Appeals for the convenience of persons using or working at the facility.

Heliport/helistop (private use). Whether at ground level or elevated, reasonable parking space shall be provided or be available for use as required by the Board of Appeals for the convenience of persons using the facility.

Hospice. One space for each bed, plus one space for every two employees on the largest work shift, plus a space large enough to accommodate an ambulance or delivery vehicle that must be designed so as not to impede normal vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Compliance with the minimum parking standards does not presume sufficient parking for this use. The applicant must demonstrate that the parking needs of visitors, staff and volunteers are adequately accommodated. This requirement does not apply to any facility which is used for residential hospice purposes on (date amendment is effective [May 6, 2002]); nor to any hospice care facility for which a building permit was issued before May 6, 2002.

Hospital. One parking space for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area, plus one space for each resident doctor, plus adequate reserved space for visiting staff doctors, plus one space for each 3 employees on the major shift.

Hotel, motel or inn. If located within a central business district or a transit station development area, one-half space for each guest room, plus 10 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area used for ballrooms, private meeting rooms, dining areas, and similar places of assembly. For other locations seven-tenths of a space for each guest room, plus 10 spaces for each 1,000 gross square feet of area used for ballrooms, private meeting rooms, dining rooms and similar places of assembly.

Housing and related facilities for senior adults or persons with disabilities. Base parking requirements for housing for senior adults or persons with disabilities must be determined in accordance with the location of the property in relation to the Parking Policy Areas approved by the District Council on June 28, 1984, and maintained by the Planning Board. The base parking requirements vary according to the number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit.

Individual living unit in a personal living quarters (PLQ). One space for each individual living unit, provided that parking for any complete dwelling unit in a personal living quarters building must comply with the standards for a dwelling, multiple-family, as required in this section.

Industrial, manufacturing establishment or warehouse. One and one-half parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area and sufficient area to provide for loading and unloading of trucks.

Medical or dental clinic. Five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of the gross floor area of the building.

Meeting center. Ten (10) parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of net floor area used for ballrooms and meeting rooms; and 2.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of net floor area used for foyers and other space.

Mobile home development. Two parking spaces for each mobile home in the development.

Nursing home. One space for every 4 beds and one space for every 2 employees on largest work shift.

Office, general office, and professional buildings or similar uses. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the parking requirements for office developments contained in Section 59-E-3.2. The base requirements may be reduced in accordance with the credit provision of Section 59-E-3.3. The calculation of building square footage is based on the sum of the gross areas of the several floors of the building, measured from the exterior faces to the exterior walls or from the center line of party walls, which area shall include cellars or basements but shall not include floor area used for off-street parking.

Office, medical practitioner’s. Not less than 4 parking spaces for each practitioner occupying or using such office.

Office, professional, nonresidential. Five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area used by medical practitioners and 2.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area used by all other professionals. The gross floor area calculation shall exclude storage area, and the attic and cellar areas of the building if not occupied by professional personnel.

Office, professional, other than medical practitioner. Two spaces for each professional person occupying or using such office.

Railroad station, bus depot or other passenger terminal facilities. One hundred parking spaces.

Recreational establishment, commercial, other than a theater, auditorium or stadium. Twelve and five-tenths parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area, except as to racquetball, squash, and handball courts. As to racquetball, squash, and handball courts there shall be 3 ½ parking spaces per racquetball, squash, or handball court.

Regional shopping centers. Five and one-half parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable square feet as defined herein. In addition, parking requirements for separate standing office and professional buildings shall be as set forth under the category of this subsection pertaining to office buildings, professional buildings or similar uses. As used herein, “gross leasable square feet” is defined as the total floor area designed for commercial tenant occupancy and exclusive uses, including basements, mezzanines and the upper floors if any, expressed in square feet measured from center lines of joint partitions and exteriors of outside walls. This definition does include banks, furniture stores, and other such activities which are part of a regional shopping center. In accordance with the exception provision of Section 59-E-5.8 all storage space that exceeds 35 percent of the total gross leasable area shall be excluded in calculating the number of required parking spaces. Not included in this definition are separate standing office or professional buildings.

Restaurant or similar place dispensing food, drink or refreshments. Twenty-five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area devoted to patron use within the establishment and 15 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of ground area devoted to patron use on the property outside the establishment. The base requirements may be reduced in accordance with the credit provision of Section 59-E-3.3.

Retail establishments, auxiliary. Three and one-half spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable space. The base requirement may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions contained in Section 59-E-3.3. Retail establishments must be classified as auxiliary retail uses when located within an office building that contains at least 100,000 gross square feet, contains less than 15 percent of the building’s overall gross square footage, and contains less than 30,000 leasable square feet. Auxiliary retail uses shall not qualify for reductions for shared parking in mixed-use developments or parking lot district facilities.

Retail, general. Commercial establishments devoted to retail sales, merchandising or other similar use, except furniture stores, 5 parking spaces for each 1,000 gross leasable square feet. In accordance with the exception provision of Section 59-E-5.8 all storage space that exceeds 35 percent of the total gross leasable area shall be excluded in calculating the number of required parking spaces.

Self-storage facility. Three (3) spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area of office space associated with the use plus one (1) space per employee, and two (2) spaces for a resident manager. The width of travel aisles for vehicular access and loading and unloading will be subject to the approval of the Director.

Swimming pool, commercial. One parking space for every 4 persons lawfully permitted in the pool at one time.

Swimming pool, community. One parking space for every 7 persons lawfully permitted in the pool at one time except where such pool is a permitted use pursuant to the provisions of Section 59-C-1.531 or 59-C-1.621, the number and location of parking spaces required shall be determined by the planning board.

Theaters, indoor or legitimate. One parking space for each 4 seats or similar vantage accommodations provided.

Tourist home. One parking space for each guest room or suite.

Townhouse. Two parking spaces for each townhouse. The base requirements may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions of Section 59-E-3.33.

Editor’s note—In Grand Bel Manor Condominium v. Gancayco, the Court quoted and cited § 59-E-3.7 and analyzed the effect of § 59-G-2.36 in relation to § 59-E-3.7, holding that a waiver of § 59-E-3.7 does not serve as a waiver of § 59-G-2.36.

(Legislative History: Ord. No. 8-55, §§ 10, 11; Ord. No. 8-80, § 2; Ord. No. 8-81, § 16; Ord. No. 9-1, §1; Ord. No. 9-2, § 4; Ord. No. 10-21, § 1; Ord. No. 10-32, § 11; Ord. No. 10-39, § 12; Ord. No. 10-63, § 2; Ord. No. 10-69, § 7; Ord. No. 11-27, § 3; Ord. No. 11-29, § 7; Ord. No. 11-32, § 3; Ord. No. 11-34, § 4; Ord. No. 11-40, § 4; Ord. No. 11-41, § 11; Ord. No. 11-50, § 24; Ord. No. 11-70, § 4; Ord. No. 11-72, §10; Ord. No. 11-73, § 11; Ord. No. 12-1, § 1; Ord. No. 12-8, § 4; Ord. No. 12-49, § 2; Ord. No. 12-50, §2; Ord. No. 12-68, § 4; Ord. No. 77, § 3; Ord. No. 13-12, § 4; Ord. No. 13-21, § 11; Ord. No. 13-46, §8; Ord. No. 13-47, § 11; Ord. No. 13-58, § 4; Ord. No. 13-60, § 2; Ord. No. 14-47, § 1; Ord. No. 15-56, § 4.)

Editor’s note-Section 4 of Ord. No. 11-70 purported to amend § 59-E-3.4. The amendment was actually to this § 59-E-3.7, changing “roadside farm markets” to “country markets.”

Our University of Maryland team included Peter Mellen, Tyler Abrams, Eric Raasch, Tiffany Williams, and Malav Patel. Group members represented the Masters in Real Estate Development, Masters in Community Planning, and Masters in Business Administration Programs. Peter was the team leader and Tyler was responsible for the architectural renderings. The team is pictured to the right with one of our advisors, UMD Real Estate Development Program Director Dr. Margaret McFarland.

The site was located in Rosslyn, adjacent I-66.

We proposed a $1.5 billion development that would replace an aging collection of 1960s buildings with four new buildings, containing office, residential, retail, and a hotel.

Our proposal was not only profitable, but also contained an allowance for LEED Gold certification, a $19.6 million contribution to affordable housing, and other community amenities. We also proposed establishing a “Friends of Roosevelt Island Trust” to oversee the restoration of Roosevelt Island, which would be connected to the project via a new bike and pedestrian bridge over I-66.

A representative from the sponsor said they were preparing a real-life redevelopment proposal to present to county officials. After studying the site so intensively, I’ll be interested to see their proposal and what similarities it has with our design.

> UMD: “Real Estate Development Team Wins $15,000 First Prize“