Continuing my weekly roundups, here’s the best of what I found/read last week:
The Planning Commissioners Journal continued its Planning ABCs series with “R is for Regional”, which had some interesting highlights of prescient planning in America over the past few centuries. I particularly enjoyed reading about Ogilthorpe’s plan for Savannah, which
set a framework for growth by providing for development by planned neighborhood units, focused on public squares, and edged by through streets. A key feature of the plan was the provision of public land reserves for future neighborhood additions.
The plan also provided for Savannah’s urban center to be bounded by small allotment gardens for growing food for family consumption. These gardens were, in turn, rimmed by a network of larger farm plots. Each grouping of ten farms shared a wood lot, providing fuel and game. Oglethorpe’s recognition of the connection between agricultural production and urban vitality remains instructive for planners today.
Since planners sometimes
don’t get it right, in contrast to the examples above, the Sustainable Cities Collective post
Ecological Urbanism: Redesigning the City urges us to
learn from past mistakes:
Related to that is another point of concern deriving from the narrow interpretation of sustainability. Quite frequently, particularly during the last couple of years, sustainability is equated with minimising energy and resource use. I am afraid that applied to the urban realm, the dictate of resource efficiency can produce similar outcomes to those generated by the push for greater functionality which dominated modernist city planning during the previous century. Following such rationale, for instance, one can easily make the argument for the wholesale replacement of the energy inefficient historic housing stock of many cities around the world.
There were good ideas and examples of real-life applications in Mashable’s
How Social Media is changing government agencies. “While many government agencies still tend to employ the “broadcast” model when using social media, some are engaging…”
At the local law enforcement level, Web 2.0 technology has been implemented in some departments to give people details about what officers have been up to. At the Bellevue Police Department in Nebraska, Twitter is used to solicit help from the public and Facebook is used as a comment and complaint board for residents. In Great Britain, the Merseyside Police website personalizes information according to neighborhood, also appealing to the public for help as needed.
Finally, a thought-provoking
article in The Atlantic tells about a program to address “food deserts”, urban areas in which there is literally no access to fresh food and people are confined to a diet of Cheetos and Big Gulp soft drinks. We’re very fortunate in our choices here, but many poorer areas have been denied that.
When I first began working. . . we had to spend a lot of time showing people maps, showing them the evidence. Of course, when we spoke to the folks who actually lived in those neighborhoods, they were acutely aware that there was no fresh food available. . . The areas where there was no access to fresh food also had the highest rates of diet-related deaths. After we launched our first report, showing a connection between health and food access, people started to pay attention here. City council members and state representatives were surprised. They hadn’t seen anything like that. So we started to feel some movement and some mobilization.
More next week. This is fun.
A couple of our recent posts and comment threads have alluded to walkability, pedestrian-friendliness and multi-modal transportation in Northfield. I just found a nifty new site that utilizes the power of Google to rate how walkable different cities (and neighborhoods) are. It’s a cool example of the kind of mutation that can happen when cross planning geeks with web developers and cross-pollinate with a few eco-Nazis. I like it.
According to the authors, some features that make an area walkable are: … [read more]
I’m experimenting with my newest gadget. Since my preferred learning modality is so overwhelmingly visual, it’s taken me awhile to get into this audio thing; but having purchased a digital audio recorder for other, non-blogging reasons, I thought I’d take it with me to yesterday’s Planning Commission meeting with the consultants from ACP to test it out. In addition to being a relatively successful test of the recorder’s technical abilities in being able to pick up a roomful of discussion, I’m able to share some interesting material which was presented at the meeting.
As a teaser, here’s a two-minute clip of consultant Randy Gross of Randall Gross/Development Economics talking about some of his findings related to the housing market in the Northfield area. This got my attention because it was an economic development argument I hadn’t really considered before.
Our Nielson ratings indicate that the Planning Commission meetings on NTV have quite a following, but I like having options, and some may prefer the ability to listen to the meetings while doing something else that’s actually productive at the same time. If you’re a masochist, you can download and listen to the whole darned almost-three-hour thing here.
Made you look. 
The Planning Commission and City staff have a big week ahead of us. The consultants from ACP Visioning and Planning will be in town most of the week, and some of us are involved in meetings Monday night, Tuesday morning, Tuesday night, Wednesday night, and Thursday morning (whew!). Check out the official schedule on NorthfieldPlan.org.
Note: The photo above is of planning commissioner Alice Thomas, taken today in Oman. She may be jet-lagged for next week’s series of meetings, but she appears to have a good shot at being relaxed and happy.
My posts to different blogs (here, LocallyGrown.org, NorthfieldPlan.org) are scattering me all over the web, and I may have to strategize about exactly what I post where in order to retain some consistency. But, in conjunction with my belief that it’s not possible to overcommunicate about local government issues, I’m posting the timeline for the Comprehensive Plan review and revision process put out by our consultants, ACP Visioning and Planning, even though the timeline is also posted on the NorthfieldPlan.org site. Please post any questions or comments to NorthfieldPlan.org.
… [read more]
This coming Tuesday, Nov. 14, a presentation on Low-Impact Development will be given by Jay Michels, Coordinator of the Twin Cities Project NEMO (Nonpoint source pollution Education for Municipal Officials).
If we can get beyond the trendy obfuscation of terms like “low impact”, “nonpoint source pollution”, etc., this simply means finding responsible accommodation between land use and natural resource protection. The “Low-Impact Development” concept has specifically to do with stormwater management in an environmentally sensitive and cost-effective way.
Stormwater management doesn’t sound very sexy, but it’s very much to the point when so much of our land use involves paved roads and ginormous parking lots. The Planning Commission is considering some LID language in our updated Comprehensive Plan and land use ordinances. Anyone concerned with growth, land use, and environmental issues would probably find this presentation interesting.
Part of the regular Planning Commission meeting at City Hall, which begins at 7:00p on Tuesday evening, the presentation is free and open to the public.
Northfield.org editor Anne Bretts confronted me on the ISSUES list regarding my extremely undiplomatic comment about certain new residential developments around town. Someday I’ll have to demonstrate that I can actually be tactful, but that doesn’t make for very interesting reading, and if we didn’t have interesting reading, readership would fall off, sponsors would lose interest, and we couldn’t continue to build Northfield.org into the terrific resource it’s become. So really, Anne, I’m helping! And I welcome the opportunity to clarify my position.
Most of the examples in your post have to do with architectural design features, and that’s not really a big concern of mine (except in the historic district). I personally don’t like the building trend for big-ass garages right in front of the house, but as you say, that’s personal taste. My real concern is with urban design and urban planning, which have to do with how buildings relate to each other and how they relate to the street, how they fit in with existing buildings, and most importantly, how they relate to the people who live there.
Northfield simply has not done a very good job of self-determination when it comes to directing or shaping (a/k/a planning) the growth of the community. Growth is a good thing, and I’m in no way opposed to it. I also don’t object to new construction. But as you’ve probably noticed, I have a big issue with what many of the developers are building in Northfield. As a group they are, shall we say, not the most creative and imaginative bunch, and contrary to their claims, they really aren’t interested in providing choice, either residential or commercial. They predetermine the choices available based on their understanding of what “the market” wants, which basically means, whatever they were able to sell on their last project up in Maplewood or wherever. There are developers and builders who are exceptions, but unfortunately there aren’t enough of them around here. (As an aside – one of my suggestions to the EDA is to look regionally and nationally for cutting-edge creative developers as a target industry for Northfield.)
This is where planning comes in. Some people think that planning itself is bad, because it’s “the government” telling people what they can or can’t do with their own property. But when it comes down to a local level, where the idea of government by the people for the people actually has a chance to work, planning is more akin to organization, like arranging your furniture or landscaping your yard – just on a slightly larger scale.
So the questions being asked shouldn’t be simplistic ones like “Should we build new houses?” or “Do we want a multiplex movie theater?” The real questions are along the lines of,
How much land do we have available for new development? Where is it?
What is the ideal balance between residential and non-residential development, what are the tax and cost implications of each, and how should that impact land use planning?
Where is the best place for new developments of varying types?
How should these things relate to and connect with the existing community?
To sum up, I’m not anti-growth. Growth, like change, is inevitable. Nor am I trying to keep Northfield in some idealized time in the past. But how things grow is a concern to me, and I’d much prefer the measured, incremental growth exhibited by a child than the growth demonstrated by a cancer cell. Which is part of the reason why I’d like to see our ordinances dictate a little more about how things are done here, so that we can plan and grow in healthy, effective, efficient and sustainable ways for the benefit of both current and future residents.
There’s been discussion on the ISSUES list recently about balancing development and farm preservation. Obviously, like any complex issue, there are many angles from which this may be approached, and it’s particularly relevant to Northfield, with its strong agricultural base and its history as an essentially rural community.
The summer issue of the Planning Commissioners Journal had an interesting article about the growing interest in farmland protection, and the steps some municipalities have taken to create a solution that balances competing needs and tries to accommodate as many as possible. It isn’t too early for us to be pondering what we citizens want our community to be, and to look like, as far as the surrounding greenbelt is concerned. If we want to keep it as a resource and a part of our community identity, steps need to be taken and plans laid.
If we don’t want to preserve this resource, or we simply don’t care one way or another, the good news is: we don’t have to do a thing! The mindless “free market” will make all the decisions for us.
And I’m sure the free market has our best interest at heart.
The Real Estate section of Sunday’s New York Times featured an article about urban planning issues and the controversy surrounding the use (or misuse) of the cul-de-sac by developers. Northfield was cited as an example of the controversy. (If you can’t view the article with the link, you can download the article in PDF format here.)
Being “against” cul-de-sacs seems positively un-American. But rather than being viewed as against cul-de-sacs, I’d prefer to be seen as for multiple means of mobility and pedestrian-scaled planning. It’s my way of resisting unsustainable automobile-dependent development styles which are 1) a historical and cultural anomaly, 2) not well suited to a geographically compact community like Northfield and 3) a stupid idea whose time is long past, especially in view of rising fuel prices and greenhouse gas emissions.
Planning commission chair Ross Currier said, “I love the fact that what gets Northfield in the New York Times is our planning debates…”
The Planning Commissioners Journal continued its Planning ABCs series with “R is for Regional”, which had some interesting highlights of prescient planning in America over the past few centuries. I particularly enjoyed reading about Ogilthorpe’s plan for Savannah, which
Since planners sometimes don’t get it right, in contrast to the examples above, the Sustainable Cities Collective post Ecological Urbanism: Redesigning the City urges us to learn from past mistakes:
Finally, a thought-provoking article in The Atlantic tells about a program to address “food deserts”, urban areas in which there is literally no access to fresh food and people are confined to a diet of Cheetos and Big Gulp soft drinks. We’re very fortunate in our choices here, but many poorer areas have been denied that.
