The words “walkability” and “connectivity” have probably been engraved on my brain due to the extensive work the Planning Commission has been doing on our draft Land Development Code (zoning ordinances), so I was interested but not at all surprised to learn that there can be a clear economic benefit to living in neighborhoods or communities that meet certain criteria for walkability:
A study published in August by C.E.O.’s for Cities. . . looked at the sales of 90,000 homes in 15 markets to estimate how much value was associated with something called the Walk Score. Using a 100-point scale, this score rates the number of destinations, including libraries, parks and coffee shops, within walking distance of a home. . . The study found that houses with above-average Walk Scores commanded a premium.
I wrote a post about WalkScore a couple of years ago. Some parts of Northfield score very highly; other parts are much worse than the national average. How does your address do? Does this tell us anything about corrections we should make in our built environment? Is it valid?
Additional links and information:
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.
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.
