Mainely Urban

Maine Med Tower

2011-10-13T15:27:00.000-07:00

As some may know, Maine Med recently completed a new addition to its ever growing complex of office and patient space. That project, along with other expansions over time, was cause for concern amongst some in the neighborhood, and prompted a story in the Bollard, a local newspaper, entitled "Institutional Creep." The issue highlights a common problem in land use--how to accommodate the need to grow while simultaneously respecting and catering to the needs of those who choose or need to live in or near urbanized areas. While I do not propose an answer to this question, I do seek to highlight a potential next scene in the unfolding drama that is the expansion of Maine Med. Rumor has it that, on some piece of property--I have no idea where--Maine Med is planning a major new addition. Remember, 'planning' doesn't mean 'proposing,' and this information has come to me as second or, in some cases, third hand knowledge. But it will be interesting to watch, if it does materialize. The discussions as to how to accommodate new growth should be happening now, in an economic downturn, so that when construction costs and market conditions are right, all the pieces are in place to please both sides of the debate.

Reflections on the Densest City on Earth

2011-10-10T18:37:00.000-07:00

Manila, Philippines

A field in the foreground of the world's most tightly packed city

As the world continues to urbanize in an accelerating manner, mega-cities continue to pop up across the globe, most notably in Asia. Although Manila is a long-established city and metropolitan region, it reinforces the notion that to a large extent urbanization and Asia are every day becoming more and more synonymous. Manila is the densest city on earth, and last August I was fortunate enough to visit this powerhouse of the Philippines in person. Here's what I saw:

The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority lists the city's land area at a mere 38 km, or just under 15 square miles, which for comparison sake is more than three times smaller than Boston (est. pop. approx. 620,000), and about 5 square miles smaller than Portland, ME (est. pop. approx. 66,000). Despite this small size, Manila is home to a staggering 1.7 million inhabitants. That's almost three times more people than Boston, and more than the entire population of Maine. In every square mile of Manila, 112,000 people reside. Contrast that with Boston (12,000 ppsm), or Portland (3,300 ppsm).

Manila is approximately 10 times more dense than one of the densest cities in the United States (Boston), and even New York City has a comparatively sparse population density of 27,000 people per square mile. So, what did the city of Manila look like? The city is one of contrasts. See below:

A corporate-looking office tower reminiscent of major American city downtowns

Construction seemed to be occurring all across the city

A pair of uniformed guards stands in front of a monument in the amazing Rizal Park in downtown Manila

Rizal Park tourist transportation

Manila has an impressive central business district

Occasionally, the shells of former buildings line the streets of the central city, as they do in countless American cities as well

More construction

Bicycle riding after a typhoon

Suburban developments built in what American planners might recognize as similar to New Urbanism ring Manila. The major difference? They are gated communities.

Public transportation in Manila is easy, and takes place via Tricycle (a motorbike) or Jeepnee (pictured here)

Transforming Forest Ave

2011-09-23T09:43:00.000-07:00

In line with my post on the idea almost a year and a half ago (see http://mainelyurban.blogspot.com/2010/06/simple-ways-to-improve-our-town.html), the City of Portland and a consulting firm, through a process of public input and imaginative urban redesign, have begun to envision a grander entrance to the City's north side via Forest Ave. Here are some renderings of current concepts and ideas.

Any of these small but important physical design changes is sure to enliven and stimulate the growth of this important commercial and transit corridor.

Portland, Maine Streetcar

2011-09-18T20:05:00.000-07:00

Please click to view the larger image.

As many already know, David Marshall--current city councilor for Portland, ME--is running for the position of popularly elected Mayor this coming election. With an expressly stated goal of restoring, in modern fashion, a streetcar line to Portland's urban core, his true interest in planning for livability is hard to miss. But with the establishment of an interest in laying the groundwork for such a system in place, another issue remains: where would/should it go? In the past, several people have recommended Franklin Street, an arterial way that crosses the peninsula between Marginal and Commercial streets, as a key segment of any such route. Out of curiosity, I hand sketched what such a line might look like with some new adjacent land use/development of the sort under consideration by the Franklin Reclamation Authority (dense and walkable mixed use retail/commercial/residential). The high-rise structures depicted in the background are slightly out of line with what FRA's consultants have envisioned to date, but are located on the Top of the Old Port parking lot and land adjoining the county courthouse--both of which have had similarly sized projects proposed previously. I have tried to show Franklin as a "Complete Street"--usable by all modes of transit (walking, cycling, car and rail). The scene shown is looking south, just after the Whole Foods market. Hopefully, Portland elects someone with the vision and foresight to put something like this in place.

Are Skyscrapers Anti-Urban?

2011-09-15T20:23:00.001-07:00

As more and more of humanity gravitates toward cities and urban areas, particularly in the developing world, this question seems particularly relevant to the times. Megacities across the globe are struggling to find new ways to accommodate masses of rural immigrants seeking work and new opportunities, and often the most obvious, and cheapest, way to accomplish this is to maximize the efficiency of land by building straight up. This is a concept pioneered in Chicago and New York over a hundred years ago, but one which has also spread to cities as small as Portland, ME, where height isn't an issue of absolute necessity but rather one of displaying commercial might, and economic power, or even simply maximizing return on investment for a particular piece of property in a few select areas of intense urban density. So, the question arises: are tall buildings appropriate for urban areas, or are they anti-urban?

Although some urban theorists have posited that cities should be built in ways that pursue a tower in the park design, this idea has been rejected by most. New Urbanists in particular have advocated for more of a village-like setting for cities, akin to traditional land use patterns in European and many Asian cities. This is especially so in the context of low income or subsidized housing of the Pruitt-Igo sort, and has led to programs like HOPE VI, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) efforts to revitalize housing projects by fostering community settings with "defensible space." This shift in approach has led major cities, chief amongst which is Chicago, to demolish dozens of low income housing projects. Beneficial as this may be in the projects, is it a logical step from this assumption to conclude high rise buildings negatively effect cities in other urban contexts?

The answer, it would seem, is no. Plenty of the most livable cities in the world have high-rise structures, namely Portland, OR and Vancouver, B.C., while plenty also retain a largely traditionally scaled city center. Any correlation between good urbanism and building height as a general rule, then, seems to be lacking. Instead, what appears to be most important are the details: good design and a welcoming appearance to people on foot can, as is true for buildings of any height, go a long way.

And in fact Planetizen recently featured an article that made the same point (http://www.planetizen.com/node/51164). In that piece, it was rightly emphasized that the true issue for skyscrapers is an emphasis on good entry-level design, which is critical for the success of any structure, tall or small.

So, it would appear that not much of a guaranteed difference in street level interaction for low-rise and high-rise structures exists; rather, the problem seems to be that for whatever reason skyscrapers have a poor track record in this regard. That is not, however, to say that this must necessarily remain the case. Assuming good (or better) street level design for yet to be proposed skyscrapers, what, then, can be said of the effect such structures have on other elements commonly associated with good urbanism?

Well, as for mixed use, the answer is plain to see. With more space, the opportunity to mix uses is far greater in a high-rise structure than in a low-rise building. The vertical mix of uses may play out as a sterile environment at any given section, but at street level there is opportunity to create a magnificent mix of people and interests--and it is the street, or public, level, after all, that truly matters in great city design.

What about public transportation? As the Burj Khalifa and its rivals demonstrate, the sky really is the limit for determining opportunities for increased density on a given piece of real estate. Why is this important for transit? Certain minimum densities are necessary to make possible the modes and operational types of transit so often touted by progressively minded planners (think streetcars, light rail, dedicated lanes, etc.). In truth, this is an economics issue--any mode of transit could in theory work with any level of density, but below a certain threshold the benefits are outweighed by the cost. Increased density transfers some of the cost and responsibility of transit to the private sector (an elevator performs the same function as a bus or trolly, but is not publicly funded). In this realm, too, therefore, it would seem skyscrapers have at least the potential to be positive urban features.

What about "sense of place"? New Urbanists, which I consider myself amongst, often express a need to make unique urban places to create a 'sense of place.' Anywhere USA is to be avoided, the theory goes, because quality urban environments must be localized and not of an assembly-line nature. Can skyscrapers, which often consist of relatively uniform design, ever really be unique? Some in NYC seem to think so. The Landmarks Preservation Commission in Brooklyn, for example, recently enacted a new historic district which incorporates 21 of the borough's tallest structures.

Even if "uniqueness" isn't--or at least doesn't have to be--an issue, what about light and shadows? New Urbanism often expresses a desire to create intimate settings by narrowing street widths. I agree this can and does create a more enjoyable urban experience in most settings. However, with narrow streets, even buildings of modest height begin to block sunlight almost immediately. Skyscrapers, therefore, don't add much to the problem at all. Dense settings require a tradeoff; shadows are a part of city life. Public squares often offer a degree of refuge from hostile urban shadows, and are a tremendously important aspect of city life for that and many other reasons. Additionally, legal tools have evolved to require light reflective designs for tall structures neighboring sensitive areas (say an historic district), such that a solar easement can be obtained to maintain a degree of sunlight which would otherwise be absorbed, even in the presence of a skyscraper. This enables a nearly perfect balance of property rights, which is always a good, if difficult to achieve, outcome.

In sum, unless it can be said that well designed, dense, transit supportive mixed use structures are anti-urban, it would seem incorrect to suggest as a per se rule that skyscrapers are to be avoided because they are anti-urban. The real issue, as is often the case, is design. The question then becomes, how do we incorporate traditionally good urban design into regulations dealing with skyscrapers?

Civic Center Renovations Renderings Released

2011-09-14T13:07:00.000-07:00

The Cumberland County Civic Center, under study for renovations or replacement for over a decade, has finally released, after numerous feasibility studies and architectural consulting, renderings of the proposed renovations for which a bond will be floated for voter approval this coming election in the amount of $33 million. Those renderings can be seen below:

In a move similar to that employed by the architect(s) for the recent Portland Public Library's Main Branch renovation, the architect for this work appears to have capitalized heavily on the cavernous voids created by wasted outside space by enclosing them in glass-walled additions. This approach seems to have worked well expanding the Library's footprint without expanding its property boundary, and for achieving a similar result the Civic Center architect(s) should be commended; however, the remainder of the structure, especially on Spring Street, fails to interact well with pedestrians passing by, and for that reason this structure, although improved, will continue to be an anti-urban centerpiece to downtown Portland. But, there is only so much that can be done to improve a structure like this without the political will to make a larger financial commitment.

Urban Streets: a look at Portland, ME

2011-09-12T20:17:00.000-07:00

Anyone even remotely interested in the urban character of Portland, ME (and there are a lot of us) has probably heard of the impressive studies and engineering/planning/fundraising being undertaken to prevent Franklin Arterial from becoming what the City once envisioned as a possible underground expressway, and instead turn it back into a neighborhood street with a more enjoyable character for pedestrians. Designed decades ago as a means of (a) moving traffic into and out of the city center to compete with the fast developing suburbs, and, probably, (b) as a way to secure federal dollars under the Model Cities Program, Franklin Arterial (recently renamed Franklin "Street") is an example of mission drift in American cities; elected officials and technocrats seemed to have forgotten the people they represent in creating what today is a scar on the urban fabric of our beloved city. True as that may be of the past, however, many are beginning to realize the mistaken nature of slum clearance and massive infrastructure projects of the sort that empty and divide cities, like Franklin Street. In fact, the Portland Society of Architects is hosting a members-only event on September 20, 2011 where ideas for re-envisioning Spring Street, designed around the same time and with the same purpose as Franklin Street, will be discussed.

But, in the time it has taken people to realize the effect inner city arterials have on walkability and neighborhood fabric, engineering standards have evolved in such a way that many fear liability if traditional traffic design standards are abandoned. It is always safer from a legal standpoint, it seems the logic of this apprehension goes, to follow what has already been done, instead of pioneering a break from tradition. However, Michael Lewyn, professor of law at Touro College Law Center, and guest blogger for Planetizen, has written an interesting piece on why pedestrian friendly design is not negligent. That work, along with others, can be accessed here: http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/64/

And in addition to Mr. Lewyn's points, work across the country, perhaps most notably in Texas, is being done to reform design and engineering standards altogether--rewriting the rules to accommodate greater urbanism by way of introducing enhanced walkability. Is all this good? Let's take a quick look at some admittedly dramatized video footage contrasting two streets in Portland, one made for cars, the other made for people. The answer to the aforementioned question should be self evident after viewing. Although they aren't Spielberg, enjoy!

Revitalizing Mill Towns - An Example from Vermont

2011-08-28T14:53:00.000-07:00

Cascades at Winooski Falls, Downtown Winooski, VT

Before I begin the main part of this post, one minor update. Further research by the Portland Daily Sun has discovered that the Federated Companies' plans for centrally located City-owned land in Portland's Bayside neighborhood (see previous post on Maritime Landing) are not in fact accurately depicted by the rendering circulating the internet. According to one source, that rendering is a city-commissioned drawing for potential development of an urban nature, and nothing more. The City of Portland, however, maintains this rendering, although similar, was not commissioned by the City, and in fact is Federated's. One thing appears to be certain out of this confusing information--Federated's plans have evolved from that depicted in the rendering, but maintain an emphasis on serious mixed-use development, including retail, parking, housing and commercial office space. Now, on to mill towns.

Burlington, VT from Lake Champlain

As an alumnus of the University of Vermont who graduated at the peak of the previous real estate bubble, I had ample time to witness several large commercial development proposals and projects in and around Burlington, Vermont, that state's largest city. Burlington is a small but densely populated and lively city about an hour and a half from Montreal, Canada. Directly abutting it to the north, separated only by the Winooski River--which drains the Green Mountains into one of the largest lakes in the country (Lake Champlain)--is the Town/City of Winooski. Winooski is an old industrial suburb of Burlington, somewhat analogous to Biddeford or Westbrook outside of Portland in terms of how it relates to the region's core.

When I began college, Winooski--which is also the State of Vermont's most densely populated municipality, with approximately 6,000 people per square mile--was a peripheral housing center, with the effects of urban disinvestment apparent. When I graduated from college, in 2006, the City had begun to reclaim its identity as a "center"--it drastically re-routed downtown traffic, and invested in several large mixed use housing projects, all easily accessible to transit lines. The effect is that, today, Winooski is a destination in and of itself. Is this success replicable in other mill towns? Yes, and, ironically, it may in fact be easier in mill towns than in other anywhere, USA towns looking to create a sense of place.

This is because mill towns and many attractive urban centers have a very important element in common: waterfronts. The mills of Winooski depended on the Winooski falls for their livelihood just as today the residents of new developments like Spinner Place, the Cascades at Winooski Falls, and converted mill lofts depend on stunning water views as a contributing factor to their quality of life. San Antonio, Texas, Providence, Rhode Island, and even Biddeford-Saco and Westbrook, Maine have all realized this to one extent or another, and developed attractive pedestrian walkways along their riverfronts, drawing visitors and residents alike. Some river-towns or former industrial cities have taken it a step further, investing heavily in new inner city living units along the water, as well. Lowell, Massachusetts has even adopted a specialized form-based zoning district for its Hamilton Canal District.

With proper and appropriate density for transit already in place by virtue of their working class backgrounds, mill towns and other industrial cities are well positioned to capitalize on the "return to the cities" movement, currently afoot across the country and world, and the stunning waterfront vistas they offer create especially alluring alternatives to traditional cul-de-sac development. As a visual example, consider the following shots of Winooski, post re-development:

Downtown Winooski, VT has witnessed major re-investments culminating in the rebirth of its downtown.

Maritime Landing: Portland's Future?

2011-08-15T20:07:00.000-07:00

An artist's rendering of Federated Companies' planned "Maritime Landing" in Portland's West Bayside neighborhood

In 2011, The Federated Companies, a national acquisition and development firm with offices in Boston and Miami, and also new owner of the formerly financially distressed Bayside Student Village complex, was awarded a contract to buy the most visible and centrally located city-owned development parcels in Bayside.

As part of that deal, the organization will be required to commence construction on their development plans within 2 years of site plan approval, or allow the City the right to re-purchase the property at its sale price. The fact that the Federated Companies has entered into this sort of a contract indicates it is a serious developer, and not looking to make a quick buck by holding onto these 3.25 acres until they can be sold during a subsequent bubble. And as the above rendering shows, the company has game-changing plans for the Portland peninsula.

As planned currently, this infill site will house a variety of uses, from structured public parking, to retail, office, and over 500 units of housing. More importantly, its form will be urban in nature, unlike so much of the development Bayside has seen since its district plan--"A New Vision for Bayside"--was adopted a decade ago. Thanks to new, permissive, and urban-minded zoning, what promises to be the most exciting development proposal for Portland since the 1980s is probably also completely legal, too. It should be interesting watching this vision take shape; with the right recipe for political, financial, and planning success, this project possesses the potential to single-handedly extend downtown, create a new neighborhood, and enhance Portland's aesthetics 100 fold. The development team for One City Center said they thought that building was the future of downtown; maybe they were right.

Real Estate Policy Updates

2011-07-18T22:20:00.001-07:00

IS SMART GROWTH STUPID?

Planetizen reports that the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) recently released statistics indicating Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are in no way linked to land use patterns, or at the very least tremendous uncertainty remains in the literature. And they're serious. While the real estate industry is at times notorious for resisting New Urbanism and therefore perpetuating the suburban state of our nation, home builders cannot reasonably argue that it is questionable whether greater density translates into less GHG emissions. If anything, not enough progress has been made toward smart growth to enable people who so desire to live in communities where walking or bicycling are modes of transportation just as viable as anything else. Pods of new urbanist communities do little to change overall land use patterns when they themselves are disconnected from urban centers. But this, as it turns out, is not Smart Growth at all; rather, it is traditional leapfrogging development at a different scale. In its truest sense, smart growth means connecting to existing infrastructure, on infill sites (as opposed to greenfields, or undeveloped countryside) whenever possible. Assuming a project proceeds adhering to these principles, it is difficult indeed to understand the NAHB's criticism of Smart Growth; any evidence marshaled to the countrary should fail to discourage communities from considering Smart Growth alternatives to sprawl in light of common sense. Closer buildings mean shorter travels and more easily serviceable infrastructure needs, all of which directly limits GHG emissions.

MAINE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE VOTES TO EXTEND HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX CREDIT

Related to Smart Growth in Maine is a policy decision to implement this concept in downtowns and central areas across the State--the Historic Preservation Tax Credit. What is it? Unlike tax deductions, which reduce taxable income, tax credits are a percentage subtracted directly from tax liability. In this case, for projects that meet federal guidelines for securing a 20% federal credit, the State of Maine will provide a 25% state credit for historic rehabilitation projects. This amount is increased to 30% when certain affordable housing benchmarks are reached. Since its enactment in 2008, the policy has created thousands of construction jobs, hundreds of housing units (a majority of which have been "affordable"), and perhaps more importantly has provided incentive to the real estate development community to reinvest in areas with historic structures, which often means reinvesting in town centers. Further House and Senate approvals are necessary.

MIDDLE STREET, PORTLAND, MAINE

Tim Soley was smart when he recently bought the three buildings located at Canal Plaza: his purchase was less than half the price the previous owner paid. The recession enabled this smart move, but something more than that must explain the other reasons Mr. Soley seems so smart these days. Specifically, Soley has recently announced plans/desires to add one to two floors on top of two of the existing mid to high-rise buildings abutting the plaza, as well as creating a glass-walled restaurant to fill the now underutilized and mostly vacant plaza. This is more than the recession at work; it is a well-positioned visionary investing in the core of his business community. The restaurant will re-create a street wall where currently an awkwardly angled building sits, and the new tower space will increase rents and attract more tenants to shop in surrounding Old Port boutiques and restaurants. Canal Plaza also recently opened up a formerly hostile wall to the Bank of Maine by providing a newly constructed entrance along Middle Street. A rendering of the proposed changes can be seen here:

When Mr. Soley announced in 2009 that he hoped to have the Plaza better integrate with its surroundings, he meant it. For this he should be applauded.

IDEXX -- Bayside and Portland's Missed Opportunity, or Blessing in Disguise?

2011-07-12T20:02:00.001-07:00

Campus-Style Development Versus Traditional Urbanism, and the Viability of Eminent Domain as a Means of Community Development

An architect's rendering of IDEXX Corporation's expansion plans in the Portland Suburb of Westbrook

In 2000, the City of Portland, after substantial community input, adopted "A New Vision for Bayside" (the "Baydie Plan"), a district plan officially incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan. That document aims to revitalize--or vitalize--the industrial back door to Portland in recognition of the fact that most people today no longer arrive to the City via the waterfront (though many continue to do so during cruise ship season). The idea is to make the neighborhood--which is bounded roughly by Forest Avenue to the west, Cumberland Avenue to the south, Marginal Way to the North, and Franklin Street to the East--a pedestrian and transit friendly home to new businesses and residences, a sort of extension of downtown. The Bayside Plan cited area scrap yards as the single biggest barrier to implementation of this vision. And it was right.

Around the same time as the Plan's adoption, IDEXX corporation, a major biotechnology firm located in Westbrook, was nearly lured to Bayside by a tax arrangement worth $33 million over several years. However, that company ultimately backed out of the tentative deal because of the blight associated with inner city scrap yards which pre-date the Bayside Plan and which presumably set up shop where they did because of the (now-defunct) railway lines that once traversed the area. Seligman Data Corp. similarly backed out of plans to relocate to the area. As shown in the rendering above, IDEXX continues to grow and may have been just the ticket for Portland's desire to create a micro community of high tech computer chip manufacturers and designers in Bayside. However, it may have also damaged the neighborhood's current attempt to become an extension of downtown. The reason for this is that, according to the City's former Economic Development Director, Lee Urban, IDEXX planned to create a "campus style" development in Bayside. Campus style developments are neither ideal for urban nor suburban settings, yet they are almost invariably relegated and confined to the latter.

Had IDEXX pursued plans to relocate to Bayside, the City today might benefit from a tremendous influx of skilled and highly educated workers, but would also likely be stuck with a very suburban landscape abutting--and for all intents and purposes limiting the expansion of--its urbanized downtown.

Therefore, although the neighborhood's scrapyards certainly have their limitations, they may have also, somewhat ironically, helped steer Bayside toward a better community vision. Portland officials used the failed IDEXX exercise as an opportunity to secure federal funding to clean the neighborhood up. The Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") committed nearly $7 million to buy and prepare land for IDEXX to relocate to, and even after that corporation's decision to remain in Westbrook, HUD still committed $1 million to an Economic Development Initiative grant for Bayside property acquisition.

Today, Bayside has seen a number of positive developments, from new supermarkets to high-rise office construction and housing, and new zoning adopted in 2006 incorporates form-based elements in an effort to prevent precisely the sort of campus-style development once contemplated by IDEXX. However, the scrapyards continue to blight the area and may pose a barrier to further redevelopment.

The City contemplated exercising Eminent Domain to deal with recalcitrant scrapyard landowners with respect to relocation of their operations to more appropriate areas from a land use perspective (Eminent Domain is controversial power allowed by negative implication in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as a means of acquiring land from uncooperative owners at a fair price for public uses), but in 2006 the exercise of this federally recognized sovereign power was limited in the State of Maine by the enactment of 1 M.R.S.A. Section 816.

That law was enacted as a property rights response to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. Town of New London, which upset landowners across the nation when it held that economic development was a proper "public use" justification for the acquisition of private property by eminent domain powers. It essentially proscribes the exercise of eminent domain for the purposes of private retail and office uses (i.e., precisely the sorts of uses envisioned for Bayside in that neighborhood's district plan). While the law does provide an exception for "blighted" areas, that option may be politically unfeasible given the touchy nature of that term and the poor track record of urban renewal based upon it.

However, another opportunity for a creative legal solution to Bayside's scrapyards presents itself in the form of taking land directly through the middle of scrapyards for a public street (not a use prohibited by State law), thus disrupting the viability of business operations and simultaneously increasing the attractiveness of offers by the City to pay for relocation to an area on the outskirts of town. This option, in theory, is very interesting. However, it is likely to be perceived as both unjust/unfair by at least a segment of the electorate, and therefore faces the distinct possibility of being labeled a "pretext" taking by the courts. Courts in the past have held that where a stated purpose may justify a taking pursuant to eminent domain powers, if it appears the real but unstated purpose is in fact another, improper motive, the taking will not be allowed. Therefore, it appears that until the scrap yards decide to move on their own, they may well be there to stay. But if nothing else, the City can thank them for channeling development and planning energies away from campus-style projects and toward a more urban and sustainable setting.

Thompson's Point Adaptive Re-Use?

2011-07-05T11:22:00.000-07:00

By now, most people are familiar with plans of the Portland-based Maine Red Claws management to build a new arena, parking garage, and surrounding hotel/office space on Thompson's Point near the Portland Transportation Center. Instead of demolishing the entirety of the existing built environment on this site, why not consider some adaptive re-use and redevelopment, especially in light of the fact that--as the Old Port proves--this sort of development is far more attractive than standardized assembly line office buildings? Can't imagine it? Consider the following before and after (photo copyrighted by owner indicated).

A Form Based Code for Portland, Maine

2011-06-23T21:54:00.000-07:00

Fixing Eastern Middle Street

Take a look at the following two photos. One is the state of Eastern Middle Street today, and the other is how it could look.

It is very likely most though not all people would prefer the street to grow in the manner depicted by the second photo, or something close to it. Although evolution of building style is desirable in a dynamic city, the basic form of buildings should fit contextually if a meaningful "place" is to be created in the public realm enclosed or framed by numerous private buildings. Achieving this is possible under many regulatory systems, but only prescribed under a form-based code. A form-based code is a simplified version of zoning which focuses primarily on the size, shape, and placement and orientation of the structures it regulates, rather than their uses. A FBC may or may not be right for Portland as a whole, but for rapidly redeveloping areas like the Eastern Waterfront/India Street neighborhood, splicing some element of a stricter form-based code into Article 14 of the City Code (land use) may help to ensure pleasant existing building forms, like that of the building occupied by Duck Fat, are continued in new development.

Clearly, the parking garage shown above is not in keeping with the character of what makes Portland distinctive. A form-based code would allow parking but mask it by wrapping it in the interior of other, more appropriate, structures. Given the contentious neighborhood discussions regarding Opechee Construction's plans to build a "Phase II" of their Hampton Inn and Portside Residences project on the site depicted above, and given the touristy nature of Portland, the numerous advantaged of a FBC are something to consider. Towns far smaller than Portland, including Damariscotta and Dover, NH have recently either considered or adopted form-based codes. Town's far larger have, too, including Miami, Denver, and Lowell. Why not here?

Transforming the Maine Mall

2011-06-11T21:29:00.000-07:00

Can it be done?

One need only compare the cost of goods sold in the Old Port (or any fancy "intown" shopping district) to those sold at the Maine Mall (and most standard shopping malls) to see that people pay a premium to shop in a pleasant environment. Given the regional importance and pull of the Maine Mall as a shopping and job center, it is interesting to think of the prospects for improving this location to make it more similar to the Old Port while retaining the easy access that is responsible for its attractiveness to many. Is it possible to transform the large swaths of wide open parking areas at the Maine Mall into a more walkable and pedestrian-friendly atmosphere for both sound regional planning (i.e. Smart Growth concentration of new growth in an existing service center) and economic development (i.e., increased attractiveness to shoppers) reasons? In fact the answer appears to be yes. As a case in point, consider the town of Johnson City, TN, a post-war rapid growth suburban town of about 55,000 people. That town commissioned a well known urban planning and design firm out of Miami (Dover, Khol & Partners) to commission a master plan called "Connecting Johnson City," which attempts to intelligently link transportation planning with land use. The visual effect of the plans proposed full implementation is, to my mind, evidence enough as to why something like this is a good idea.

Consider how the current situation as shown in this rendering

may be turned into a more interesting and visually pleasing town or village center by comparing it to the following build out scenario depicted in this rendering:

Notice how the large low-rise shopping center-style building in the upper left corner of the first rendering is retained in the second rendering. This indicates that the Maine Mall needn't disappear for its surrounding environs to be enhanced. Rather, it can be incorporated as one part of a larger growth scenario. With Downtown Portland and the International Jetport nearby, this area has potential to absorb much growth in a meaningful and pleasantly designed way. Its parking lots provide virtually perfect development sites, with relatively little to build around. New parking arrangements could be accommodated in the interior of lots, either structured or in smaller surface lots. Smaller parking areas wouldn't be a detriment to the area if affordable workforce housing filled some of the new development which might occur on currently underutilized parking spaces, because fewer spaces would be needed as mall workers began walking to work.

How can we accommodate such a vision? The process must start with a comprehensive planning process to update or replace that in place for this area at present, and must be followed with a strict form-based code to ensure whatever community vision emerges from a new plan is mandatory for new development and accurately implemented through the proper regulatory framework. This sort of progress toward traditional development and away from sprawl is not science fiction; it is happening all over the country, in places typically considered far less progressive than Greater Portland. Why not here?

Bay House Site Plan Approval Extension Request

2011-05-24T19:17:00.000-07:00

The Bay House, a scaled down version of the previously proposed Village at Ocean Gateway, hopefully to be built on land last occupied by the popular Village Cafe restaurant, a 500 seat local Italian favorite for years.

Portland's Eastern Waterfront neighborhood is home to a large vacant parking lot at the foot of Munjoy Hill where the East End transitions into the Old Port. Actually, there are quite a few such properties, but the one relevant for this post belongs to a company doing business as Ocean Gateway, LLC. That company consists of investors hoping to turn the former Village Cafe site into a multi-phase and multi-story housing complex set in a rebounding neighborhood of the sort that would create precisely the type of urban mixed-use village atmosphere the City has expressly stated it desires for this area. Yet, for some reason, the recently formed India Street Neighborhood Association opposes the Village at Ocean Gate's request to extend its site plan approval and conditional zoning by a few months to allow the economy to improve, citing the derelict state of the undeveloped site as its primary concern. The best way to ensure the site is improved, however, is to--not surprisingly--improve it. Therefore, although many neighborhood complaints about new development are valid, this one is not. The Village at Ocean Gate's proposed structure is directly in line with the Eastern Waterfront Master Plan, and although the site sits just outside the boundaries of the plan, it is indistinguishable from an urban fabric perspective. It should, therefore, be allowed to progress. The project has already been scaled down substantially due to the concerns of the person who built the Federal Street Town Houses up the slope (who referred to the former 10-story project version as "massive towers" in a blog post from 2005), and represent responsive design changes stemming from extensive public input. Further delaying a much needed housing project in the midst of an economic recession is sure to send only one message to national investors: Portland is anti-development. This cannot and will not benefit the region. Here is a letter submitted to the Portland Planning Board urging it to grant the request for an extension as to site plan approval. Hopefully the request is granted and the Eastern Waterfront and India Street neighborhoods continue to develop as envisioned by comprehensive plans supported by hundreds of community members' input.

Re: Bay House Site Plan Approval Extension Request

Members of the Portland Planning Board:

I write to you this date to express my support for the request for site plan approval extension the development company operating as The Village at Ocean Gate, LLC is likely to formally make at your next meeting, on May 24, 2011.

Despite opposition likely to arise from the recently formed India Street Neighborhood Association (“ISNA”), I ask that the Board not lose sight of the fact that the project known as “Bay House” is directly in line with the City’s clearly expressed objectives for this neighborhood, and therefore should in no way be hindered by additional permitting obstacles merely because it fell victim to the same global credit crunch that evaporated so many other progressive projects around the City. Given the current economic climate, it is a wonder this project is able to continue expressing interest in Portland at all, and the investors behind it should be applauded for their commitment, not hindered in their admirable effort. The ISNA may be right that the vacant lot currently occupying the development site is less than desirable, but it in no way stands to reason from that assertion that the Bay House’s site plan approval is not worthy of extension. For all of the following reasons, the exact opposite is true.

Beginning at least as far back as the early 1990s, the City has referred to the India Street neighborhood as a downtown “perimeter growth area” and sought to encourage mixed use projects on properties directly abutting that at issue here as part of the Eastern Waterfront Master Plan’s redevelopment principles. Not only will this project create the sort of critical mass of residential units necessary to create a dense and lively urban neighborhood of the sort envisioned by the City, it is also of a scale that perfectly transitions between taller structures west of Franklin Street and shorter residences east of Hancock Street. Moreover, this “smart growth” proposal is also directly in line with the City’s previously stated housing goals.

As for potential size complaints likely to arise, while the proposed structure is admittedly slightly larger than much of the surrounding building stock, I would hasten to add that the developers have already dramatically scaled down their initial 2005 proposal, by several stories, in response to complaints from upland neighbors. Moreover, this project is nearly exactly as tall as other projects recently completed or currently under construction in the immediate vicinity. To further obstruct this urban housing proposal in an area expressly targeted for redevelopment by the City would, in my mind, send the wrong message not only to the Village at Ocean Gate, but also to other potential developers interested in investing in Portland’s future.

Finally, in response to complaints by the ISNA regarding the unkempt appearance of the site at issue, I ask the following rhetorical question: what better way to improve current conditions than to ensure speedy development? Denying the request for site plan approval extension will only prolong current concerns. Without this project, the former Village Café site will remain a crumbling open space susceptible to precisely the land uses the ISNA complains of: dumping, snow storage, and vandalism.

In closing, I would like to ask that for the foregoing reasons the Board vote to recommend extending The Village at Ocean Gate’s site plan approval for the maximum time permitted in order to allow the Bay House additional time to weather the current economic storm.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these points.

Sincerely,

Patrick Venne

Portland, Maine Convention Center Proposed for Shipyard Brewery Property

2011-04-27T08:30:00.000-07:00

Ambitious Plans for a Downtown Convention Center Resurface

Fred Forsley of Shipyard Brewing Company recently proposed a rather large scale project for what was before the recession Portland's up-and-coming Eastern Waterfront district, which bleeds into the India Street neighborhood. Growth in this area is generally guided by the policies highlighted in the Eastern Waterfront Master Plan, adopted in 2004, which is a low-intensity but still admirable vision for redevelopment in what is quite an eclectic and diverse built environment. The plan is available here: http://www.ci.portland.me.us/planning/easternwater.asp

Some areas of this neighborhood are wide open parking lots with no vision for the future different from their current state, while other parking lots appear to be temporary placeholders for large scale projects trying to wait out the poor economic climate. Still other parcels are home to what some consider super-block projects, either recently constructed or under construction. Those projects are of a "downtown" scale, and include a new parking garage on Fore Street, the new Marriott hotel on the same street, and the near complete Hampton Inn and Portside condominium residences a few blocks west, on the site of the former Jordan's Meats plant. Other properties in this area are more traditionally scaled low-rise structures, with small parcel sizes and a pedestrian orientation.

Given the discord generated when the aforementioned larger projects began emerging in recent years in the Eastern Waterfront and India Street neighborhoods, Mr. Forsley will likely face opposition from at least one segment of Portland's population: that interested in maintaining a "small town" feel in downtown's peripheral areas. While such concerns have their place, this area of Maine is precisely where development should take place, because it is in the middle of an established and densely built urban area, proximate to city services, infrastructure and amenities of the sort which are attractive to convention-goers. Moreover, an important aspect of legitimate "livability" concerns is economic growth, and a convention center may be just the ticket.
Portland has for years toyed with the idea of bringing a convention center to town, including talks of locating one next to the Civic Center on Spring Street, by or on the site of the current Maine Health headquarters, as well as on the large parking lots next to One and Two Portland Square in the Old Port. Most recently, Joe Boulos proposed a convention center as part of his $250 million proposal in 2004 to replace the Cumberland County Civic Center with a new 10,000 seat arena, convention center, 17-story office tower and a 10-story hotel on the Top of the Old Port parking site along Franklin Arterial. That plan was "scuttled" in 2005 when the Governor and lawmakers showed a lack of support for the increase in meals and lodging taxes necessary to finance the structures contemplated.

So, the question this time around seems not to be whether Portland has interest in a convention center--it does, as evidenced both by past proposals and the current support of the business community--but rather how it can be financed. According to the Press Herald, this is where 'tax increment financing' may play a role, in addition to other finance options, potentially including resort to meals and lodging taxes. As a preliminary matter, because the industries on which meals and lodging tax increases would be levied are the very same industries likely to directly benefit from increased convention center visitors, a meals and lodging tax increase only seems sensible. Unlike a hotel, which the current proposal also calls for, a convention center won't pay for itself entirely through user fees. Additional fees can be generated by spreading leftover costs amongst not only the convention center visitors who visit surrounding establishments, but also amongst other patrons who will utilize and benefit from the increased business activity generated by such visitors' occasional presence and the associated increased demand which makes more hotels and restaurants viable.

But back to Tax Increment Financing, or TIFs. There seems to be a confusion amongst most as to what these things really are. Are they tax breaks? Sort of, but not really. At least 47 states have authorized the use of TIFs, and they generally work as follows:

A municipality will designate a blighted or redeveloping area of town, like the Eastern Waterfront and India Street neighborhoods, and "freeze" the assessed tax value of that area or parcel. That is, the assessed value of real property for taxation purposes is left as is for a period of time, even when it increases from improvements like the convention center contemplated here. But that doesn't mean the property owner isn't paying out at an increased rate when his or her improvements (the convention center, for example) add to the value of the property. Rather, the additional money generated is still collected by the City, yet it is used to pay off bonds the City floated to investors with its own backing in order to help finance the project. TIF, then, is a sort of municipal loan used to kick start development in declining or blighted areas, or sometimes in redeveloping areas, as here. The "frozen" taxation amount, as based on the assessed value of land prior to redevelopment, is still given to the City in taxes. The additional amount which would have otherwise been added to the tax base because of a higher assessed value resulting from redevelopment is referred to as the "tax increment," and it, too, is given to the City. The difference emerges not from the amount paid each year in taxes, but rather what the City does with it once collected. Tax increments in TIF projects are used by the City to make debt payments on financial instruments the City used to secure loans from private sector investors for the purpose of helping a developer finance their otherwise unfeasible project. Private sector investors are lured more to City backed bonds than to invest directly in the developer's project because City's are often inherently more stable than private entities. Why would the City take on this risk? In an effort to rejuvenate an area deemed appropriate for redevelopment, as the people of Portland determined the Eastern Waterfront and surroundings to be in 2004.

So, is this a tax break? Not really. The developer still pays an increased amount, but the City diverts it to be used to pay for debt financing. In the short term, this means less money for the City to use on general obligations, but municipal revenue is no worse from the use of TIFs, and an improved structure which might not otherwise have been feasible from private sector financing alone is made possible by public backing. Eventually, the increment pays off the City's debt, and is applied toward general obligations, as other taxes are. The short term period of financial risk is appropriate when a municipality has confidence in its future, as they all should. It is an upfront investment with payoffs in the long-term, analogous to a college education.

The potential downside to TIF is that it must be used in the right context, because if a project fails to sustain itself financially, it may default and be unable to pay increased tax assessments and city-backed bonds, leaving the City holding the bag. At the risk of using the analogy of a college education again, this would be like investing in a degree unlikely to translate into job skills at an expensive college. The trick, then, is to make sure the investment is worth it. Sometimes it is not, but sometimes it is. In this case, a convention center appears to be a wise move, given Portland's ever increasing national reputation as a hot spot for young professionals and foodies, its many nearby scenic attractions, and especially the perfect location of Shipyard's property, a block from Ocean Gateway and Franklin Arterial.

Portland, Maine Population Growth

2011-03-25T21:39:00.000-07:00

Since the Federal Government began tracking decennial census figures, the City of Portland has lost population only four times. One of those times represented a virtually stagnant decade of only minor change. The most recent figures suggest Portland is again on a healthy growth trajectory. At 66,000 people, Portland is still short of the nearly 78,000 that once called this fair city home, in 1950. But it is a fair number of inhabitants ahead of its 1980 post-peak low of roughly 61,000, as well. The period between 1980 and 1990 represented one of Portland's largest economic booms ever, and reversed three decades of population decline, posting a 4.5% increase in overall numbers. The following decade saw comparatively little development, and this is reflected in the numbers. A net 109 people moved out of Portland between 1990 and 2000. From 2000 to 2010, even with the recession, Portland witnessed a huge development boom, referred to by some as the largest downtown construction craze in over 100 years. Many if not most projects conceived during the real estate bubble of 2005 - 2007 were not built; however, many were. Walker Terrace, Marginal Way student housing, Pearl Place, 53 Danforth Street, and innumerable smaller rental projects, as well as many condominiums--from new construction to conversion units--all represent proof that the idea of a "return to the cities" movement is afoot. Rising gas prices coupled with the lower economic potential associated with a recession of this magnitude (actually, apparently we are now in a weak recovery) also contribute to a distaste for commutes, to Portland's benefit. Not all see the wisdom of coming to or staying in the city, however. Portland suburbs, including Gorham, South Portland, Scarborough and Westbrook also showed gains of 1,000 - 2,000. One economist at the State Planning Office seems to think this is indicative of the fact that these places have developed interesting town centers and become hot spots of their own. Perhaps. More likely, however, is that these cities, all of which are closely related to and associated with the Portland metro area, are considered the same housing market. Whatever the rationale is, the fact is clear that Portland has shown positive growth, both in the city itself and its closely related suburbs. Smart Growth policy advocates, myself included, should be pleased with this (and I am). Yet Maine as a whole gained approximately 53,000 new inhabitants, and only a handful went to the largest cities. It is clear, then, that more remains to be done to promote attractive inner city housing. How to do this is the real question.

Advantages to a strict Form-Based Code in Bayside

2011-02-22T00:00:00.002-08:00

New Pearl Street housing is in the works. More specifically, phase II of Pearl Place comes before the Portland Planning Board at that body's next meeting. Although this project represents a much needed contribution to the downtown housing stock, its design leaves much to be desired. For instance, the renderings show a street level essentially devoid of windows--not a good thing for inner city urban neighborhoods. CPTED--the idea of crime prevention through environmental design--might be employed here to change the building for the better. More windows would allow more people to keep track of what's going on on the street from inside the complex, the idea of "eyes on the street" promoted by famous citizen advocate and urban critic Jane Jacobs. Now is the time to advocate for such a change in design, before construction begins. A more reliable land use ordinance for this neighborhood, in the form of a strict form based code, could require these suggested changes by law. Bayside B7 zoning already incorporates form based components in the form of minimum height requirements and maximum setbacks, but more is needed. Until these small but important design requirements are mandated, developers are unlikely to take them into account.

Land Use Patterns and Biodiviersity

2011-01-24T11:44:00.000-08:00

In Discussion of Book 'Rewilding the World,' Fraser Forgets Land Use

Caroline Fraser has written a new book, entitled "Rewilding the World," in which she addresses the politics of conservation in an attempt to shed light on how we might better protect the biodiversity currently threatened by human activity. Fraser stresses the need for wilderness "Cores," which are wide areas of wilderness necessary for preservation of species in their natural state, and the "Corridors" connecting them. In a recent discussion of her work on NPR, Fraser was asked how these things can be obtained while simultaneously accommodating human needs. Fraser responded that there was a third "C" -- "Community" -- and that it would be important to get communities on board in terms of supporting her ideas if they were to have any traction. How might this be accomplished? Fraser responded that it would be accomplished by fees associated with things like hunting licenses and the like. The idea seemed to be that by tapping into the economic potential of the resources sought to be protected, such resources might be able to "pay for themselves." Without having read the work in its entirety, it seems like Fraser has missed something quite obvious here. Although the "C" for "Community" is most certainly right, instead of tying support for her ideas concerning biodiveristy resource conservation to exploitation of the resources (animals) themselves, community might better serve Fraser's conservation ideals by structuring itself correctly in a physical sense. This means ordering land development intelligently. That means denser, more compact, efficient and walkable communities.

Human settlements will continue to sprawl for as long as civilizations continue to grow. As growth is not a bad, but a good thing, I am not suggesting the absence of sprawl per se. Rather, what I am suggesting is what many before me have suggested, the absence of unnecessary sprawl. When land development takes place away from established cores, in the middle of "greenfields" (new development sites, as opposed to redevelopment opportunities or urban infill), it often creates a need for services that ultimately take place in a similar uncoordinated and poorly planned (or merely accommodated) manner. The result is a leapfrogging pattern of land use, where small areas of green are interspersed amongst and fill in between larger areas of development (or vice versa). The consequence of this is that, although some green areas remain in the form of "open space," they are often much smaller than necessary to promote meaningful development or hosting of the species crucial to the ecosystems we depend on. Moreover, by creating a disconnect between even these smaller open spaces, species are often times unable to interact and inter-mate with each other in a way promoting biodiversity of the sort that naturally responds to changing circumstances (to our detriment). Imagine a series of islands populated by species unable to swim, or planets populated by beings unable to orbit. This is the situation which exists with many species, with sprawl substituted for the water or inter-spacial buffers.

Many species go extinct every year. Some have been home to genetic codes capable of greatly advancing biological sciences, yet unable to be studied now. This can all be changed by land development patters facilitative of the Cores and Corridors Fraser references in her work. Moreover, these types of land development patterns are actually more desirable for humans aside from their effect on biodiversity, as well. Whether from a direct perspective, one based on environmental concerns, natural resources, science, or even economic efficiency, dense land development patterns are better all around. This is but another instance capable of providing direct support for this contention.

Congress Square Plaza Portland Maine

2011-01-18T00:55:00.000-08:00

Letter to the Task Force addressing this important site's re-design:

Patrick Venne
157 Wolcott St.
Portland, Maine 04102

18 January 2010

Congress Square Plaza
Redesign Initiative Taskforce
City of Portland, Maine 04101

Re: Options for Congress Square Plaza Redesign

Dear Members of the Redesign Initiative Taskforce:

My name is Patrick Venne. I am a land use attorney, student of urban planning, and most importantly a concerned citizen/resident of Portland interested in the proper redevelopment of Congress Square Plaza (and the City in general, but for purposes of this letter, I’ll narrowly focus my points). It is this concern that has prompted me to write you today.

Although I have been unable to attend any of the public forums on this issue due to a busy schedule, as I understand it the consensus appears to be that Congress Square Plaza should remain park space. The meeting minutes for October 25th’s forum are unavailable, but given the tone of the first three forums I assume this general trend didn’t change much on that date. If this is true, I would like you to please reconsider this issue when responses to the RFQ are returned, and to do so for the following reasons.

Congress Square Plaza, as you know, was formerly home to structures adding to rather than detracting from the built environment. In the 1970s, an idea to turn this space into a park was developed and finally implemented in 1982 (after a few construction blunders which required serious re-dos). The original idea encompassed an area grander than the plaza itself, and was aimed at invigorating the entirety of Congress Square in general, including the stretch leading up to and including the PMA.

According to period newspaper articles, the Eastland was to have opened a new entrance onto the Plaza. As we all know, this never happened. For this reason and others, the Plaza has been deemed a failure, thus prompting the current effort to re-imagine its future. I would like to highlight some points as this reexamination takes place, in hopes of providing a viewpoint which seemed underrepresented at the public forums, according to the meeting minutes, but which anecdotally seems to pervade the viewpoints of many others in the City.

This viewpoint is that cities are for buildings, not parks. That is not to say parks are not welcome in cities, but rather that the place, role, and use of parks in cities is secondary and incidental to the primary structures which surround them. This is not a value judgment, merely an observation. People do not visit cities to rest or congregate in parks; rather, they come for necessity or pleasure as based on the services or amenities offered by surrounding buildings and land uses, and stop only for convenience’s sake to utilize parks. I highlight this for several reasons. One is that the park itself is not a failure, the urban landscape which surrounds it is. The Eastland never constructed an entrance opening onto the park and should not now be heard to complain about the park’s failure when its inaction is perhaps the greatest contribution to this failure. Moreover, as was noted in the meeting minutes, the traffic on High St. makes this place unsuitable for the sort of leisurely use it sounds like we would all like to see in a park like this (Tommy’s park is different due to different transportation patterns in the surrounding area). Thirdly, it is strange that one of the most commonly cited problems with the Plaza is that it attracts transients. The irony is that a park has been deemed a failure for attracting people--the very purpose parks typically are intended to serve. The real but unspoken issue, it would seem, is that this park doesn’t attract the “type” of people desired. It is a failure at attracting professionals, tourists, shoppers, and other “desirable” people. Those people are several blocks east, in monument square and, to a greater extent, the Old Port. The difference is explained by the orientation of surrounding buildings to the parks in those places, not the design of the parks or plazas themselves.

The truth is that, although the problem has to this point been framed as one of design, it is really one of context. The issues Congress Square suffers from will remain the same regardless of the park’s redesign. Traffic won’t change (barring some external transportation investments); the Eastland is unlikely to open on to the park; and this area of the city will not magically become free of transient panhandlers. The key to a successful park, then, is to place it in an appropriate area. History tells us that Congress Square is not such an area. Redesigning this space will be a waste of time unless its use is simultaneously re-imagined. And such a re-imagination should go beyond merely placing café tables on the park or a skating rink. Those changes, like the park itself, fail to recognize and appreciate the context within which the Plaza must function.

A better alternative would be, in my opinion, a restoration of the street wall to enclose pedestrians walking along Congress Street as they are for the remainder of that street until City Hall. Currently, Congress Square Plaza functions like a parking lot--an urban dead zone which is unattractive. Its not the cars that make parking lots so anti-urban, it’s the utter lack of integration with surrounding areas. Absent major external investments, Congress Square Plaza is unlikely to find the appropriate level of integration to allow it to serve the purpose originally intended by the City. Because of its ideal location along the Downtown district’s major business corridor, this should hardly be cause for concern. Instead, it should be cause for celebration. A real estate development opportunity awaits Congress Square Plaza which could make this site an unparalleled “Gateway” to the Arts District indeed (as apparently desired by the public as based on my reading of the forum meeting minutes).

The term “Gateway” is thrown around far too often in Portland. Bayside is supposed to be a gateway to Downtown, yet the new building at 84 Marginal Way turns its back on approaching visitors. The Veteran’s Memorial Bridge is supposed to be a western gateway to Downtown, but it brings visitors to a long and unattractive industrial stretch of Commercial St. Like messy mudrooms, those areas are unappealing and uninviting. Let us not label Congress Square Plaza an intended “gateway” site in the same failed manner as these sites. If the site is desired as a gateway, it should be just that. 477 Congress St. and the Fidelity Trust building form a gateway to Congress Street at Preble. The Hay building presents a gateway to Downtown at High. Gateways are formed by buildings and the public spaces they form in their interrelations. For Congress Square Plaza to function in this manner, its best bet is to develop a landmark structure.

Fortunately, current zoning should facilitate this goal quite well. The Downtown Portland height overlay map indicates the Plaza is situated in the second most permissive zone allowed in Portland. That zone allows structures of up to 150’ tall, with an additional 40’ building cap. This amounts to a building 12 or so stories tall--similar to other major downtown landmark buildings. What better way to say to traffic coming off of the Casco Bay Bridge “turn right, downtown awaits you” as opposed to allowing them to quickly pass through the peninsula en route to suburban Portland?

Although a potential structure on the Plaza site wouldn’t have to completely fill the available height standard, the regulations in place certainly would be useful in marketing the site. With the high traffic volume of High St., direct frontage on Congress St., and an abundance of coffee houses and restaurants nearby, I can think of few sites more ideally situated for a commercial office or similar structure. The influx of professionals such a structure would create would immediately either (a) displace the undesirable transients, or (b) cause them to blend in with the masses as they do in the Old Port and Monument Square.

I appreciate the time it has taken you to read this letter, and thank you for your consideration of the points raised in it. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patrick Venne, Esq.
(207) 899-0265
land.planning.law@gmail.com

Iconic Structures

2011-01-03T17:29:00.000-08:00

In February 1987, at the peak of one of Downtown's biggest building booms, the City of Portland employed the Cambridge, MA architecture and planning firm of Carr, Lynch, Hack & Sandell (now just Carr, Lynch & Sandell) to conduct a Downtown Height Study to follow up on the Portland Waterfront Study conducted previously. That study envisioned the skyline under several growth scenarios, and recommended height limits which were ultimately adopted by the Downtown Vision, which was incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1991. The purpose of the height study was manifold, and included preserving view corridors on the Downtown peninsula as based on the City's uniquely sloping topography. The study also coincided with a proposal to turn the Top of the Old Port parking lot into a series of four large office towers, most of which would have exceeded current height restrictions. This is important because, were it not for a comprehensive review of Downtown zoning, any changes that would have allowed that failed project might possibly have been challenged as illegal "spot zoning." Despite increasing height limits along the Congress Street "spine," the study recommended, and resulted in, limits lower than those originally envisioned by developers for the aforementioned project (Lincoln Square). The wisdom of this move is debatable.

One of the biggest exports Portland, Maine offers--as is the case with all places in Maine--is an "experience" offered to visitors and tourists who spend their dollars here. Tourists don't come to Maine looking for a cosmopolitan experience, but perhaps this is different with Portland. If tourists wanted seaside and coastline, would they be in Portland? No. Do they come for the forests? No. Arguably, they come for something approximating the amenities and experience they are used to in the larger metropolitan areas they come from to our South. These include restaurants, shopping, more upscale hotels and, yes, a certain ambiance only found in cities--no matter how small they may be. Just observe a tourist next time you see one (they are easy to spot). What are they taking pictures of? Its usually not the ocean or the trees (as it would be in other towns in Maine). It's the Observatory, or the Time and Temperature Building, or perhaps the intricate details of the facade of the Fidelity Building. Maybe they are even taking pictures of the Courthouse. One thing is for sure: day tourists in Portland come for the built environment, not the natural environment. While the Old Port is magnificent, perhaps Portland should reconsider the limitations imposed by the height limits imposed two decades ago. Here's an example why: The Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco.

Former Director of Planning and Development for that city--Alan Jacobs, author of "Great Streets" (a great read)--is on record as opposing the building for innumerable reasons. He considered it to be a mistake from its inception. However, the structure is today amongst the most iconic in the City, and can be seen on any number of postcards and tourism advertisements. When people picture San Francisco, what comes to mind? The Golden Gate Bridge, Full House, and the Transamerica Pyramid. The same is true for any city. In Boston, it is the Zakim Bridge, Bunker Hill monument, John Hancock building and Prudential Center, etc. In New York it is the Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, etc. In Washington, it is the Washington Monument, the Capitol Building, etc. Dubai, the Burj Khalifa. Chicago, the Willis (formerly Sears) Tower. The point is that cities benefit from positive association with major landmarks. This may perhaps be even more important in a place like Portland, situated as it is in "Vacationland," a place where tourism is usually the biggest employer. These landmarks don't have to be skyscrapers, they could just as easily be something like the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, or something similar. But why not employ some people in the traditional economy while simultaneously providing a powerful backdrop for the tourists' camera lenses? Some corporations won't consider a building with less than a certain amount of floor area, meaning they are forced to choose between sprawling suburban office parks (which young professionals don't desire), or not relocating to Maine at all. Is this what we want?

Bayside Zoning Changes on the table

2011-01-02T01:44:00.000-08:00

Proposed B-7 Amendments Bad Idea

The Portland Planning Staff has requested the Planning Board take a look at the idea of reducing minimum building height requirements in the Bayside neighborhood. Although an understandable desire from the individual property owners' perspective, this would be a bad move for the collective good of the neighborhood, and a step in the wrong direction from an urban design standpoint. Here is a copy of a letter I just sent off explaining things a bit more.

Portland Planning Board
389 Congress St.
Portland, ME 04101

2 January 2010

Patrick Venne
157 Wolcott St.
Portland, ME 04102

Re: Proposed B-7 Amendments

Dear Chair Hall and Members of the Planning Board:

I am a Portland resident and land use attorney interested in the proper development of Bayside as a dense, urban mixed-use district as called for in the now decade-old district plan for that neighborhood. To that end, I would like to express a concern with amendments to the B-7 minimum height requirements recently proposed by Planning Staff.

As you are no doubt aware, height district A--one of 4 in the recently adopted Bayside Height Overlay District--has a minimum height requirement of 4 floors. City staff is proposing a reduction in the stated minimum to 3 floors. The same is proposed for height district C, but the suggested move there would be from 3 floors to 2. Although I agree with virtually every other aspect of Staff’s recommended amendments, such as the “averaging” of heights to allow for more flexibility in this evolving neighborhood, I strongly disagree with the lower overall minimum height requirements for the following reasons, each of which I thank you in advance for thoroughly considering:

In its memo to the Board of 26 October 2010, Staff uses as the basis for its recommendation to lower the required minimum height of 4 and 3 stories for districts A and C, respectively, the fact that such requirements are “clearly ambitious,” and result in “a lot of space to occupy, even in a strong economy.” However, in the same paragraph, Staff continues by noting recent development has been able to meet these requirements. As we all know, the global recession from which we are just now barely beginning to emerge impacted the real estate industry to a particularly great extent. If the minimum height requirements and the “lot[s] of space to occupy” they result in were able to be met by projects completed in the midst of this recession, it hardly seems “ambitious” to expect projects conceived in a more stable time could do the same. As I see it, 3 and 4 story minimum building height requirements are not ambitious at all. They are, rather, exactly what one would expect to find in a city like Portland, the largest in the State. Anything less appears distinctly un-urban, if not anti-urban.

The need to accommodate growth in Bayside is real, and the desire to cater to the needs of those unable to contemplate taller buildings for their property is therefore understandable. However, if Portland is to fulfill its vision of creating a dense and urban neighborhood in Bayside, it must refrain from engaging in a “race to the suburban bottom.” The dreaded surplus implied by the “lots of space to occupy” resulting from taller minimum height requirements is, it would seem, precisely the point of such regulations. It detracts certain non-urban investments, and attracts other, larger, more urban investments (those capable of meeting the larger space and density requirements), thus ensuring an urban form of the sort one might expect to abut our Downtown. Granted, such larger investments won’t (and shouldn’t) happen overnight, but accommodating
quicker growth by deregulating urban form requirements will come at the expense of the neighborhood’s character, and will be a costly mistake in the end.

I would also like to highlight that Staff’s apparent reasoning regarding the justification of lowering District C’s minimum height requirement to 2 floors also seems to be flawed; that reasoning is essentially based on the fact that District C and D are closer to the traditional (i.e., residential) Bayside neighborhood, as opposed to being located along the more “built up” Marginal Way. This is hardly reason to further lower the minimum height requirements in Districts C and D because, as it turns out, that “traditional neighborhood” is home to the City’s two tallest buildings: Franklin Towers and Back Bay Tower.

The same area has also witnessed some of the largest building project proposals in the cities history, and is sure to see the same in the future. As a few cases in point, consider that Back Bay Tower was originally proposed as a 19 story building, and Waterview at Bayside, a now-defunct condo project at the corner of Forest and Cumberland Avenues, was planned (and approved) at 12 stories. Moreover, a block south of this “traditional neighborhood” is the high spine of the Congress Street corridor, home to the highest density of “tall” buildings in the state and the site of building proposals that have reached over 300 feet (20+ stories). The point is that Districts C and D are hardly areas where a 3 story minimum height requirement should be considered “ambitious,” and to seek to capture non-urban growth by lowering even this modest regulatory requirement is shortsighted and disregards the history of development proposals in the area directly adjacent to these districts.

Moreover, the 1991 “Downtown Vision,” from which the Bayside Plan’s origins stem in part, contemplated Bayside’s redevelopment as a Downtown “perimeter growth area.” The implication such phrasing has, to me, is that the neighborhood should be a release valve for development pressure unable to be accommodated Downtown. If not that, it at least suggests a seamless transition from Downtown to Bayside is desirable. A series of shorter buildings in District C and D--especially those rising to only 2 stories--will not enable the end state contemplated by the Plan. Allowing shorter structures in this transitional area will only serve to further isolate larger commercial development along Marginal Way, and prevent a cohesive Downtown business district.

By making the aforementioned point, I am reminded of the debate which took place both within and outside of bureaucratic circles in 2006 when the new Bayside Height Overlay District was adopted. Many thought taller buildings should have been expressly encouraged closer to the existing downtown (i.e., in the district where the new 2 story minimum height requirements are now being proposed) as opposed to along Marginal Way. Regardless of the merits of that argument, it makes no sense whatsoever to have a suburban 2 story urban form requirement in place. Such a requirement is, actually, not much of a requirement at all. It certainly isn’t an “urban” requirement.

To conclude, I would like to emphasize by reiterating that, while I agree with virtually every aspect of the 26 October 2010 memo from Planning Staff to the Planning Board other than the proposed amendments to the urban form requirements of the B-7 zone, I remain adamantly and vehemently opposed to any downward adjustments in the District’s minimum height requirements. Such a move would be (a) unnecessary from an economic growth accommodation standpoint, (b) irrational from an urban design perspective and (c) inconsistent with the very plan B-7 zoning purports to implement.

Thank you all for your consideration of both the proposed B-7 amendments and this letter
in opposition to the same.

Very Sincerely,

Patrick J. Venne of Portland

Portland, Maine Skyscrapers

2010-12-30T22:51:00.001-08:00

2010 wraps up a century of "skyscrapers" in Portland, Maine. Though hardly considered tall by today's standards, the Fidelity Trust Company building, built by a Portland lawyer in 1910, was considered Maine's first skyscraper. This is hardly surprising, given that this Beaux Arts building was the tallest in New England--taller than anything in Boston--when completed. It is a prime example not only of the City Beautiful movement in architecture and planning, but also of the way steel frames revolutionized the form of American cities. The building as it stands today can be seen below, next to its taller neighbor, the "Time and Temperature" building.

The history of American urban form in the 20th century is, to a large extent, a vertical one. So, it might be interesting to take a look at the history of Portland's urban form from this perspective--that is, from the perspective of its vertical growth.

The Fidelity building has seen a tremendous amount of change around it. As can be seen from its easterly side, where a blank wall exists without windows, a narrow structure which formerly bordered it has been torn down and replaced by the Portland Public Library--which itself has to a degree been "replaced" recently, having just undergone a major renovation. To its west, the Time and Temperature building was built in 1924, shortly after the City's vertical pioneer. That building, originally 12 stories, was home to Maine's first indoor shopping "galleria," an arcade the form of which can still be seen today. Decades after its completion, the Time and Temp building, located at 477 Congress Street, added an additional two stories and the digital sign from which it derives its nickname to this day. That move inched this structure slightly above the maximum height of the Fidelity building. Not to be outdone, however, the Fidelity building pursued expansion plans of its own in the 1980s. A theatre on Preble Street, the site of which today is home to an ATM and the back entrance of PowerPay (located in the former Public Market building) was cleared to make way for a 15 story addition to the Fidelity building, which would have made it the tallest office building in the City. A picture of that plan can be seen below:
Unfortunately, as is evident by the paved surface occupying the planned footprint of this addition, this structure was never added to the Fidelity building. Across the street, however, several large high rise projects were in fact completed. One Monument Square, originally planned as a 20 story building, was constructed as a ten story office tower in 1966.

On lots adjacent to this building, land was cleared of several buildings resulting in what became dubbed the "Golden Triangle" for its redevelopment potential. This land was considered for several projects, including a low rise hotel, but ultimately was developed into what is now One City Center.
The reason One City Center is designed in a fashion that "steps" down as it heads south is to provide a means of seamlessly integrating the Central Business District with what was at the time of its design the still-emerging Old Port Exchange, a low-rise neighborhood. That is also why the street and rotary which used to occupy the pedestrian alley which now runs in front of the building were closed to all but bikes and walkers. To a large extent, it seems this plan worked.

Speaking of the largely low-rise Old Port, that neighborhood, too, was targeted for vertical growth at one point, until a comprehensive overhaul of Downtown height limits largely limited the potential of parcels in that area in the late 1980s and early 1990s. For instance, 20 Pearl was a high rise structure planned for a lot on Pearl Street in the Old Port which is today still a surface parking lot.
So, if this formerly planned structure is still a parking lot, what was the "good cause" that resulted in the study prompting a revision of the prevailing height restrictions Downtown? The answer is Lincoln Square, arguably the most ambitious construction project ever contemplated for the Peninsula. That project would have consisted of four office towers, the tallest of which would have been 330 feet tall (at least 22 stories), taller than any other building north of Boston. It was proposed by a development team consisting of local residents born and raised in the India Street neighborhood. Ultimately, according to the developer Rocco Risbara, the project failed to materialize due to lack of tax-increment financing to pay for structured parking. I wonder how many parking garages it took to build the Fidelity building?

Since that time, a series of shorter but still tall buildings have been proposed for Portland, most of which have failed to materialize. They include a 17 story building, a 15 story building, and a few 12 story buildings, as well as several shorter structures in the neighborhood of 10-11 stories. The most recent "tall" building to be added to Portland's skyline is the Intermed structure located at 84 Marginal Way in the redeveloping Bayside neighborhood.

That building was completed in 2008. Despite an acknowledgment by the City's professional planning staff that the skyline has become uniform, and specific zoning regulations intended to ensure a slender top to taller buildings, it appears 100 years after the City boasted the tallest building in New England, it is still building 10 story squares. I say the "City" is doing this because it is not for lack of interest on the part of developers that a taller more slender and appealing skyline has failed to take shape in Portland. Every proposal for structures that would achieve this has been met with substantial struggle imposed by a number of regulatory hurdles and negative attitudes. No wonder a recent Brookings Institute report cited Greater Portland as one of the worst cases of sprawl in America. Growth not accommodated centrally is pushed outward and contributes to the wonderful strip malls that have dotted the metropolitan area. Jane Jacobs is often credited with saying cities are not works of art, but perhaps they should be. The alternative is anywhere, USA. Is it possible, then, that the City Beautiful movement was on to something? If skyscrapers today were built like they were 100 years ago, maybe people wouldn't have such a fear of them and the blank walls they are associated with. It is often amusing to consider that many of the answers to our urban problems of today were solved centuries ago. We just need to take a look at where we have been to see where we should go. Period.

Downtown Quincy, MA: Revitalization or Repeated Planning Blunder?

2010-12-22T21:07:00.000-08:00

For those who haven't heard, Quincy, Massachusetts--a metro Boston community with nearly 100,000 inhabitants--has been pursuing negotiations with a major developer, "Street-Works", to revitalize its downtown urban core. As stated, this sounds like a worthwhile effort for any older, run-down city center. A potential problem starts to arise, however, when the word "revitalize" is defined to mean "replace."

Street-Works has proposed tearing down around 80% or more of structures in the area it began considering for urban revitalization in 2004 and building a new city center from scratch at a cost of $1.3 billion, over 10-15 years.

The urban "revitalization" district, and Properties to be acquired:
The well-intentioned plan is to replace currently existing structures with newer, better structures, providing several new parking garages, a fancy new skyscraper, a couple of department stores, condos, and a "wellness center." See the following images for a clearer understanding:

Before (now):

After (at least they say):
In theory, such new development doesn't sound terrible. In fact, had Street-Works proposed the same amount of real property investment as infill (and there are plenty of existing parking lots in Quincy, perhaps leftover from the last great revitalization plan, which would allow this), Quincy might have cause to celebrate. Instead, the developer has proposed demolishing not just one or two structures, but the essence of Quincy itself.

Any generic (re)development that replaces the existing town center is sure to generate consumer dollars, but will it generate a sense of place? Or will Quincy become just another 'Anywhere USA,' like so many other towns across the nation? I tend to think it is the latter.

Even worse, what if the developer demolishes but never rebuilds? It is mind boggling that the urban scars left by 20th Century "renewal" and "slum clearance" programs have so quickly been forgotten.

Although a team of planners and lawyers representing Quincy have devised an agreement aimed at ensuring Street-Works follows through with its stated goals, the final agreement appears to be nothing more than a TIF arrangement masquerading as something more.

According to press releases, the agreement essentially says that Street Works will pay for $300 million in public infrastructure improvements upfront, for which it will only be paid back if and when new development increases the City's revenue stream to a level which would allow it. The theory is that, if Street Works fails to deliver, it will have forfeited $300 million. This is essentially a drawn out way of using the increase in commercial property taxes created by new development to help fund the very same development. Through the use of impact fees, Quincy might have otherwise required Street-Works to invest in public infrastructure improvements as a condition for permitting approvals anyway; instead, the City is saying "go ahead, built it and they will come. And when they do, we will subsidize your investment by repaying your initial payment for infrastructure costs which directly benefit you."

At base, the City is planning to capture increased tax revenues from all of this planned new development, and use it to help the developer pay for something it could have otherwise required the developer itself to pay for as a condition to the right to develop--which is essentially the same result as a TIF agreement. Why is this odd? TIFs are usually used in neighborhoods that are either decaying or stagnant, yet the developer itself has stated they are interested in Quincy precisely because it is within what they consider to be the radius of desirable Greater Boston locations for investments. This seems to contradict the rationale typically used to support the appropriateness of TIF.

Perhaps even more interesting is the following, additional contradiction which exists with regard to the Street-Works development scheme:

Somewhat ironically, Quincy planners have said that this Robert-Moses-Style redevelopment effort will put more "eyes on the street" (citing the famous Jane Jacobs argument for mixed use development), thus preventing crime. The irony of this quote as here applied comes to light when one considers the diametric opposition of planning styles favored by Moses as compared to Jacobs. In fact, if a difference in planning approaches has been more pronounced than that between Moses and Jacobs, I have yet to hear of it. Funny, then, that even planners--who have presumably been formally educated in planning history--seem to have overlooked the irony of using a Jacobs quote as the rationale for a Moses-type development.

If this development looks anything like the renderings, success is a possibility. If, however, the global credit crunch and resulting economic meltdown we are just now beginning to emerge from have any say in things--and they inevitably will--the timing may be off here. What will happen when the thousands of envisioned condos don't sell? Perhaps the dozen new department stores won't be financially viable. With no anchor tenants to draw customers to new cafes, what will become of the grand Parisian style sidewalk seating eateries then? At least there will be a new arterial road and an abundance of parking garages, with an even greater abundance of free spaces, if nothing else. Who doesn't like the quaint atmosphere produced by parking garages?

The intent of this post is most certainly not to appeal to an anti-development demographic. I am very pro-development, pro urban revitalization, and pro consumer driven investments. However, the particular plan envisioned by the developer in this scenario is one that has been tried before, time and again, with a virtually constant outcome: failure. To believe otherwise would be to turn a blind eye toward the history of urban America and attempts to plan it into a state of perfection.

Restoring Urban Form to Gorham's Corner, Portland, Maine

2010-12-21T20:39:00.000-08:00

As a final examination for my Plan Making class (required for my Masters in Planning and Development), I devised a 20 page "policy plan" with action statements aimed at improving the old Portland neighborhood of Gorham's Corner, located at the intersection of Danforth, Pleasant, York and Center Streets by Brian Boru in the center of Portland's Downtown Peninsula. For purposes of this plan, the area also includes prime developable lots directly adjacent to the traditional Neighborhood boundaries.

Gorham's Corner is one of three Downtown "perimeter growth" areas identified in Portland's Downtown Vision plan, which was officially adopted in 1991 as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is the only one of those three which has not since been comprehensively planned for. The other two neighborhoods, India Street and Bayside, have to one extent or another seen major planning efforts undertaken on their behalf (the Eastern Waterfront Master Plan, and the Bayside Vision). It is my hope that, if nothing else, the following presentation will stir or renew interest in what is the most centrally located, yet least developed, of the three aforementioned districts.

A summary of my fictitious plan can be seen in the power point slides for the presentation that accompanied it. A real plan for this neighborhood would, admittedly, be much more polished, but I think this plan touches on some important issues to consider, primarily restoring an urban sense of place to eastern Gorham's Corner while maintaining the residential stock and neighborhood integrity of western Gorham's Corner, all while reintegrating the Neighborhood with its surroundings in the larger context of the Downtown peninsula. Enjoy.

Side Note: The height limits shown below stem directly from a Downtown Height Study commissioned by the City in the late 1980s and completed by a Cambridge urban design firm in the early 1990s. The study was done, apparently, in response to "taller" buildings cropping up in the Old Port, as well as in response to a zoning change/height variance requested by the City's tallest ever proposed skyscraper (the 330 feet tall Lincoln Square)

(c) C. Michael Lewis, used by express permission

To clarify, the regulatory framework shall require all new development to be at least a certain height (instituting minimum height requirements), and require that all new development be no farther back from the street than allowed by a maximum permissible setback. Similar requirements are, I believe, already uses, to an extent, in Bayside.

Transit Options

2010-12-02T20:33:00.000-08:00

The following is based on a power point presentation I gave this evening.

A Look Back at Portland's Development Past

2010-11-26T11:19:00.000-08:00

With the economy still sour, if somewhat rebounding, and with Waterfront zoning in a state of flux, I thought it might be interesting to take a look back at where Portland has been, in order to shed light on where it might want to go. Here's what a brief bit of research indicated:

In June of 1985, during the peak of Portland's commercial office tower construction boom, unemployment in the city was at 2.8%--lower than any other metropolitan area in New England. By comparison, Boston's UE rate was at 3.4%; Springfield's, 4.1%; Hartford's, 4.8%; Providence's ,5.2%; and Bridgeport's, 6.2%. An intense period of construction and investment on Portland's peninsula continued through the late 80s and early 90s, about the same time the City adopted a more comprehensively planned regulatory structure governing the height of Downtown buildings and also about the same time strict development controls were imposed on waterfront building.

To preserve the Fishing industry--surely a worthy goal--very stringent development controls limited new structures on Portland's waterfront to marine-only uses. Undoubtedly, this impacted plans to create a waterfront park at the former Scotia Prince terminal by the Casco Bay Bridge, a plan that would have included a new "festive-park", hotel, offices, and aquarium similar to sites in Boston and Baltimore. It also impacted further residential development along Portland's piers, such as the Chandler's Wharf project constructed by Michael Liberty in 1988. According to a press release from that era, Chandler's Wharf sold out in 3 days.

In the 1980s, Portland was ranked the #2 most business friendly metropolitan area in the country, out of a total of nearly 200 competing localities. Business was good, unemployment was low, and new investments fueled one another. Today, with restrictions that may have been understandable when adopted for the purpose of obtaining some "breathing room" and taking a step back to examine our future still in place, the local economic environment appears somewhat different. Although undoubtedly still considered a good market to invest in, Portland may be achieving less than it is optimally capable of. Situated just north of Boston, on a scenic harbor near a multitude of outdoor attractions, Portland occupies an enviable position indeed. Why can't we seem to capitalize on this to a greater extent? Might it be time to not only re-examine the growth limiting restrictions put in place in the late 1980s, as is now being done for the Central Waterfront Zone, but to also do so in a way that takes into account where we have been so as to more realistically understand where we might go? I think so. The point of this post isn't to argue that no one is aware of Portland's past, but rather to encourage those who aren't to incorporate a historical perspective into their analysis of current assessments of Portland's future. This little city has boomed in the past, and is destined to do so again. Despite the postcards, magazine articles, and touristy websites, Portland is a 20th century--albeit postage stamp sized--American metropolis. The task now at hand is to ensure it develops into a 21st century version of the same.

Let us not be fooled into believing we are capable of becoming nothing more than a retiree community.

Bayside Rebounding Again

2010-11-10T19:26:00.000-08:00

Pearl Place II Back on Track

After a few years of relatively slow development in Portland's Bayside neighborhood--planned as an emerging residential and commercial center that extends the downtown northward--the pace of development in that area has again begun to increase. Specifically, Avesta Housing's Pearl Place, a relatively new residential project near the Whole Foods market, is again pursuing Phase II--previously put on hold. Initially, that phase was to consist of market rate units, including some condominiums, across from the scrapyard on Lancaster Street. From my outsider's understanding, that phase was contingent on the marketability of market rate units in the area, which, in turn, was largely contingent on relocation of the abutting junkyard. Today, with the junkyard still in place, a major site plan and subdivision review is taking place for a shorter and much less ambitious project, consisting of just over 50 units in two 4 story buildings, each atop 14 parking spaces. Unlike the first proposal for Phase II, this proposal consists of entirely affordable units, with none marketed to renters earning above 50% of the median area income. The structure, shown below, will be in the Bayside B7 zone, and except for failing to meet a 10' maximum street setback requirement (resulting from a type of 'form based' coding adopted in this neighborhood to achieve a more urban feel), Phase II largely satisfies all applicable requirements. Phase II will, itself, be built in two phases--A and B--and will be constructed on the site currently used as surface parking for Pearl Place Phase I. This project will be an important step toward continuing the progress toward achieving a critical mass of residents in the Bayside neighborhood, and it is encouraging to see it back on track, albeit in a smaller version than previously envisioned. However, a bit of criticism might be launched at the initial design from a livable communities perspective.

Specifically, notice the first floor level is completely devoid of interaction with the street. This is already an unpleasant neighborhood for residential development, and the virtual lack of interaction between passersby and residential stock will ensure it remains this way. It is particularly odd that this project lacks much street interaction given its proximity to the East-Bayside neighborhood--for which the City last year received a demonstration grant to investigate the idea of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED, often pronounced "SEPTED"). With the first floor level consisting of parking, and with only one main entrance for the majority of units, this project is not going to contribute greatly to the vibrancy of the Bayside streets. At least a few porches overlooking the street would be preferable to the current design. That said, however, anything is better than the current parking lot.

Benefits of Light Rail

2010-11-09T13:56:00.000-08:00

Portland, Maine's Missed Opportunity for Expedited Economic Development

In 2005, Phineas Sprague, Jr.--a co-founder of the Maine Narrow Gauge Railroad--proposed adding an additional 3.3 miles of track to the tourist attraction that currently skirts the Eastern Waterfront and Promenade. The increased travel distance would have aimed primarily at attracting visitors at Hadlock Field to the Old Port and Vice-Versa. As the redeveloping Bayside neighborhood--targeted by the City in 2000 to become an "urban gateway" for Portland--continues to grow, the idea was that this loop might eventually evolve from a tourist transporter to a form of convenient mass transit. If that were to happen, plans called for upgraded rail cars capable of handling increased capacity. These plans, however, were derailed (pun intended) shortly after they surfaced. For one thing, the Bayside neighborhood was mostly aligned against this project, despite the fact that in numerous cities, light rail or streetcar systems (tram/trolley systems) have had astronomical returns on investment.

For instance, in Portland, OR, at a cost of approximately $11 million per track mile and $56 million in operating costs, an estimated $1 billion in property development was stimulated, according to the National Community Streetcar Coalition, for a staggering 4,112% return on investment (ROI). Although this statistic speaks to a streetcar system, modern light rail loops usually integrate easily and seamlessly with on-street routes as opposed to grade-separated tracks (thus doing away with one of the primary distinctions between these two forms of rail-based transit options). And while the argument is often made that the success of mass transit depends on population density, Portland proper (Maine) isn't far in this regard from figures that have proven viable in other cities. For example, although Portland, OR has a density of around 4,225 people per square mile, smaller cities, like Kenosha, WI (population 97,000) have also witnessed the powerful economic development effect of light rail/streetcar systems. That city has a population density of approximately 3,700, not much higher than Portland, ME's 3,029. Despite the lower density figures as compared to Portland, OR, Kenosha witnessed a whopping 2,400% ROI for its initial 2 miles of track.

So, although it is hardly surprising that the presence of a potentially loud new transit system traversing the Bayside neighborhood might raise some eyebrows of longtime residents of that neighborhood, it is curious that the area as a whole--which includes many businesses as stakeholders--overwhelmingly opposed Sprague's idea. It is also strange for another reason, unrelated to the forgone potential of economic spin-off benefits: a light rail line through the neighborhood would have aided costly investments in pedestrian infrastructure--apparently a top priority for the neighborhood--as well.

Consider the following: planning efforts concerning the new Bayside Promenade, which comes to an abrupt quasi-end at Franklin Street, have considered a pedestrian bridge to ease the hassle associated with crossing that inner city highway (I say "quasi" end because if one desires, they can always walk a block down the street, around MDOT's median fence, and cross the busy street to continue their stroll). However, this idea, though not yet rejected, has been set aside for the time being due to high cost constraints (it would cost somewhere in the vicinity of $5 million). But if a pedestrian bridge were but one component of a larger investment in mass transit, the pricetag would be much more palatable. In Portland, OR, for example, the City is building the first new bridge to cross the Willamette River in over 37 years, remarkable not for this reason but because of the fact that it will be totally closed to cars. It is a bridge that provides for 14 foot bicycle and pedestrian crossings on each side, divided by a light rail center lane that is part of a larger $1 billion mass transit investment. A picture of it, known as 'Godzilla on the Willamette' (because of what appears to be two large "fins" emerging from the water) can be seen below.
As can be seen, the structure will be a cable-stayed bridge similar in appearance to the Leonard P. Zakim/Bunker Hill bridge in Boston. The Zakim was part of what is now commonly known as the "Big Dig"--which is, incidentally, the largest highway project in U.S. History to date. So, how is it that Portland, OR can finance a large and expensive ($135 million) bike/ped bridge resembling the centerpiece of one of the most expensive infrastructure investments in the nation's history when Portland, ME can't seem to muster enough money to span Franklin St.? To find out, I placed a call to the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, known as "TriMet," (the public agency responsible for operating mass transit in Portland, OR). The answer, it appears, lies in the integration of projects in Oregon, and the separation of projects in Maine. When speaking to Mary Fetsch, a spokesperson for TriMet, I was told that the financial viability of the pedestrian bridge depended on its ability to be embedded within the larger light rail investment. The ped bridge, as it turns out, is part of a $1 billion+ investment in new light rail for the Portland area, and is only financially viable by its ability to piggyback on this larger investment. The fact that it is but a component part of the larger regional transportation investment as opposed to the primary investment initiative enables the project to qualify for a much more likely grant of federal funding in the form of a 50-50 federal "match" for state dollars spent. Although an appropriations request for 2011 in the amount of $3 million has been made by Maine's Democratic Rep Chellie Pingree to assist in building the Franklin St. bridge (see below), it would seem more likely for a larger project within which a ped bridge is embedded to be successful in such an effort.

It would seem, then, that Portland's failure to see Sprague's visionary idea through to fruition has resulted in numerous setbacks for the City. Not only will economic development be slower in Bayside than it would have with a light rail connection running through the neighborhood (the official plan for which suggests an emphasis on Transit-Oriented-Development, by the way), but progress on connecting the neighborhood's two halves (east and west Bayside) in the form of a pedestrian bridge spanning Franklin St. has also consequently stalled. Sprague's idea would have spun the oft-cited phrase "Transit-Oriented-Development" around and resulted in an investment in "Development-Oriented-Transit" to the betterment of Portland in general and Bayside in particular. Hopefully, therefore, a similar proposal will surface sometime in the near future.

Mayor

2010-11-02T12:14:00.001-07:00

If you haven't already, I encourage all of those registered to vote on Portland's municipal issues to cast a vote in favor of an elected mayor for our city. This is a topic I have debated in my mind for some time, but ultimately I have concluded it is in Portland's best interests to have a politically accountable figurehead--even if largely ceremonial in nature. As has been stated before, Portland really has become a great place "in spite of itself." As this comment indicates, our City government isn't always logical or even coordinated. This can and often does lead to stalemate or inefficient use of scarce resources. With more policy-initiating power concentrated in a single political leader, the City can and will begin to approach key issues from a more coherent and efficient perspective. Although a truly "strong" mayor would, in my opinion, be better than the current question voters have been asked to decide (which entails a largely ceremonial figure that is nonetheless paid as if he or she has real power), even a weak mayor is better than the current system. At the very least, it is a step in the right direction. Portland could benefit from a voter approved political figure capable of enhancing an already wonderful city. Rather than bickering as to what's in the best interests of the City, an elected mayor will be able to point to a public mandate in determining what is best for Portland. As neighborhoods like Bayside and the Eastern Waterfront continue to develop in coming years, and as issues effecting municipal revenue, voting rights, and school initiatives become ever more prevalent and important, an elected mayor--the traditional form of Portland City government, by the way--should continue to develop as a central figure with increasing power in municipal politics.

Cumberland County Civic Center

2010-10-28T11:39:00.000-07:00

Rebuild or Remodel, but don't Re-Study

Private developer Jason Snyder, who owns land in both Portland and Westbrook, received anything but a warm welcome when he pitched his ideas for a new civic center to replace the aging and somewhat dilapidated civic center on Center St. in Portland to the arena's Board of Trustees recently. Only one member was in support of his idea to build an alternative venue on the outskirts of town or perhaps on land adjacent to his planned $300 million lifestyle center dubbed "Stroudwater Place" along the Westbrook Arterial. Snyder proposed turning the current Civic Center into a convention center, a development for Downtown Portland under consideration since at least the mid 1980s. Several serious proposals for such a structure have failed to reach fruition in the past, one of which was planned for the former Sears Building, most recently occupied by Blue Cross and currently undergoing extensive renovations to house Maine Health's new corporate offices. Before a firm commitment could be guaranteed by Mr. Snyder, however, he asked for several months to undergo a feasibility study. This would be the third such study in the last three years as pertains to the future of the CCCC. Although such a move seems redundant and therefore unwise, one thing Mr. Snyder is correct about is the fact that renovating the existing arena, the option currently preferred by Trustees, will only delay more extensive renovations or reconstruction by a decade or so. Such shortsightedness may ease political pressure to keep spending low, but won't assist the region much in the future. If Maine is to thrive as a destination to do business and recreation, more than a temporary fix is needed. Especially with the large scale addition to our international jetport nearing completion, now is the time to critically assess what role Portland is to play in the State of Maine as well as the broader region of Northern New England in general when it comes to hosting business functions and entertainment shows. Although the merits of convention centers are debatable given the apparent move to online meetings, one thing remains certain: people still enjoy large scale live entertainment, and the Civic Center is less and less able to accommodate in-demand modern acts with each passing year. It is time for action, not further study.

Amtrak to Brunswick Expansion Begins in Earnest

2010-10-27T06:51:00.000-07:00

Today, October 27, 2010, expect traffic delays at key rail-street intersections throughout Portland. Amtrak's expansion of passenger rail service from Portland to Brunswick necessitates large rail line deliveries between the hours of 12:00pm and 6:00pm at the following five locations: Riverside St., Allen Ave., Read and Walton St., Forest Ave. near Woodford's Corner, and Congress Street. The $35 million project will rebuild the rail bed currently owned almost entirely by PanAm, and open Midcoast Maine up to Portland and Southern New England via rail--which is certain to provide economic development gains in assisting with the redevelopment of the recently decommissioned Brunswick Naval Air Station. Transportation efficiency is key to attracting new business to an area. The line is also sure to be a favorite amongst the flocks of tourists who visit Freeport, which will have the only other stop between Portland and the Midcoast, each year.

Hampton Inn and Portside Residences

2010-10-22T07:36:00.001-07:00

NEWPORT ON THE MOVE AGAIN

Opechee Construction continues to progress on its erection of a steel frame for its project, located at 207-209 Fore Street in Portland's up and coming Eastern Waterfront, or "Newport" neighborhood. The structure shown below is approximately 55% of the total planned build out of phase one (the hotel and condos). Phase two as proposed includes structured parking and additional residential units on the easterly portion of the site, formerly occupied by the abandoned Jordan's Meats factory, and once planned for a ten story Westin Hotel topped by luxury condos, some of which were rumored to cost as much as $5 million. That was 2005, before the real estate market sunk. Today, this project represents a much more stable investment in Portland's urban core, and it should do wonders in terms of accommodating day trippers who want to stay downtown but would usually be priced out by the boutique and luxury hotels that seem to pervade the Peninsula.

Around Town

2010-09-27T20:54:00.000-07:00

Construction Projects Progress

On the former Jordan's Meats site, construction of the Hampton Inn and Portside Condominiums continues to progress:

An anonymous donor pledged $100,000 in support of the Art-All-Around project aimed at making the large and bland oil tanks in South Portland into the largest piece of industrial art in the world--with one catch: proponents of that project must come up with matching funds raised by the month's end.

Rehabilitation of an historic brick building on India Street continues:

A modern twist on the traditional triple decker progresses toward completion on Munjoy Hill:

Bayside Benches

2010-09-22T06:42:00.000-07:00

Public Art or Public Nuisance? Photo of the Bayside trail, (c) Corey Templeton 2010

The City of Portland's collaborative and years-long effort to construct a promenade through the slowly redeveloping Bayside neighborhood--now mostly a mixture of low-end housing, industry, and a diverse range of commercial interests--may finally be coming to fruition. Although some work remains to be done, the Bayside Trail's official grand opening took place in late August. Additional trail elements, like a public water feature, public art, and trail benches are still in the works.

As concerns the benches, the City's art committee is hoping to receive something appealing to artistic senses as well as providing functionality. It is my opinion that such an intention, though well-meaning, has the distinct possibility of going too far overboard, to an extent that what ultimately results is neither art nor optimally functional. Take the Bus Shelter on Congress St., for example. Although it may still function like a bus shelter, does anyone really notice that it is shaped differently, in a supposedly artistic fashion? To me, it looks like a defective bus shelter that was sold on sale at auction or something. Others may disagree.

What about the public art that is currently being considered for removal on Fore Street (Tracing the Fore)? That piece both detracted from the functionality of the square it occupies (precluding pedestrian use) and failed to achieve artistic acclaim. From what I have seen so far, it appears the Bayside Trail benches may be headed in the same direction.

Notice how the benches in the following images (just 3 of a total of 16 candidates for consideration), for the most part, are both hideous and preclude optimal functionality. Two of the three benches appear to provide room for only one person to sit, whereas people generally enjoy sitting together, and the third bench (with the birds atop it), although providing more space, is hardly anything more than a typical park bench with a twist and a sculpture. Just like the Bayside Student village isn't terribly artistic for the little curve over its eastern entrance, neither will this bench, although the best of the three proposals I have seen, be anything more than a typical, non-artistic bench (other than the fact it will doubtlessly cost more as a result of the effort involved in slanting the seating area).

Perhaps the best of the three proposals recently displayed in the local newspaper--what appears to be an ocean wave dividing sea from air.

If context is everything, and it usually is, are these sorts of benches really right for Bayside? Traditional street lamps have been installed to bring a more urban feel to the district. Do these mesh well with odd looking benches and poor attempts at public art? Or are these benches destined to become just another public nuisance lucky enough to call Bayside home, just like the nearby scrapyards?

New Hampshire, New Urbanism

2010-09-20T19:21:00.000-07:00

Woodmont Commons : A Promising Londonderry PUD Striving for Legitimacy

Londonderry, NH, population 23,000, may soon be home to a densely developed $1 billion new town center designed by famed architecture and planning firm Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ), a pioneering firm in the new urbanism movement. Londonderry, like many peripheral Northern New England towns, currently lacks a discernible downtown. Instead, it is primarily a haphazardly developed bedroom for nearby cities like Manchester, Nashua, and Boston, with a population density of just over 500 people per square mile. Pillsbury Realty Development, Inc.--the visionary development team behind this proposal--hopes to change all that. In hopes of bringing a traditional community feel and "Main Street" atmosphere to town, PRD has been working tirelessly with local community members to form a more concrete proposal for a mix of residences, retail shops, and office space, all centered around attractive green space. Some of the residents attending local charettes and pin-up design tweaking sessions have voiced concern over the perceived destruction of the apple orchards at Woodmont Orchard, but others welcome the idea of creating an identifiable community "center."

Older towns and cities in America developed much differently than more modern, auto-dependent cities and towns. New England, home to some of the oldest settlements in the country, exemplifies this point with its historic main streets and village centers. Unfortunately, many places, including some in New England, have instituted legal frameworks that long ago precluded development of this desirable land use pattern. Following the rise of zoning as a municipally-enforced set of rules rigidly separating residential from non-residential uses, many towns in the 20th century proceeded to develop in an increasingly boring and uniform fashion, devoid of the characteristics most people find interesting about towns and cities. Moreover, with few exceptions, from the 1960s onward, towns began to develop based on the large scale investments of developers, in contrast to the traditional small-site parcel-by-parcel approach. Traditional Euclidean zoning, coupled with this trend toward larger-scale developments, led many municipalities to struggle in their attempts to provide adequate city utilities and infrastructure, and increasingly led to large, low density residential-only housing developments.

Sensing a need to protect the environment, some planners and land use experts with admirable foresight proposed implementing the idea of "cluster zoning," whereby a developer is allowed to depart from normal development regulations, like setbacks, frontage requirements, and minimum lots sizes, in return for conserving the resultantly vacant land. The idea is that, not only will a denser development pattern allow the conservation of scarce city resources, it will also promote the conservation of open space for the good of the environment and the community alike.

An image depicting a potential layout for Woodmont Commons, as shown by DPZ at a recent pin-up session

Although some have criticized cluster zoning as an essentially suburban development pattern leading to a fragmented landscape in otherwise rural areas, cluster zoning provides an alternative to unnecessarily increasing the reach of city infrastructure and utilities in fast-growing communities. However, it does not provide an alternative to the traditional Euclidean zoning notion that land uses should be rigidly separated. That's where Planned Unit Developments, a form of "smart coding", come in. PUDs allow housing to be mixed in with commercial and retail space, and to include several different styles and densities. Townhomes, apartments, and single family dwellings can co-exist in PUDs with offices, shops and restaurants.

PUDs are a type of "floating zone"--a zone described in a city's or town's land use ordinance, but not located on a specific spot on the zoning map. In other words, a municipality decides upon the desirability of the zone or district within a zone, but reserves the act of actually locating it on the land use map until a particular proposal begins to take shape. The soundness of the legal basis on which this novel idea rests was initially in doubt, but was eventually affirmed in the case of Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc., a 1968 case out of Pennsylvania. http://www.arch.ksu.edu/jwkplan/cases/cheney.pdf.

The typical regulatory flexibility tools--known as special exceptions (conditional uses)--are difficult to use in effectuating the land use outcomes characteristic of PUDs. Because of this, PUD proposals require an alternative legal approach. First, the floating PUD zone is enacted as a general concept for a district within a community's land use plan. Second, once a proposal begins to spring into starker and more perceptible relief, the town council amends the zoning ordinance. Before the second step can take place, the town Planning Commission must review and recommend the project for approval. This is the stage Woodmont Commons, relying on the town's new PUD ordinance, is about to enter.

Recently, presentations by Andres Duany and company concluded what is known in architectural circles as a "pin-up session", wherein rough sketch concept-drawings are shared with interested community members in hopes of generating input to incorporate into final proposal models to legitimize the project in the eyes of its neighbors. Although Duany stayed until the last comment was addressed and the last question answered, as is characteristic of his approach, many attendees voiced opposition to the project in general and the design charette in particular. One editorial described the process as less of a charette, and more of a charade. Judging from video footage of the event, that description may be somewhat on point. DPZ and its leading retail consultants appeared to be presenting what would be more than asking what should be. Although I think the PRD proposal is great, if it is destined to move off the shelf and into reality, this approach needs to change. The biggest obstacle to any development, even in the midst of a great recession, is always bound to be achieving legitimacy in the eyes of interested community members. This fact highlights the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to land use planning and development--one including a balance between reflective and responsive interactions with community groups on one hand, anchored by sensible design and ambitions on the other. Hopefully, if they haven't already, DPZ and PRD will adjust their game plan according to the local politics of Northern New Englanders. Otherwise, a great and potentially transformative project may be destined to remain nothing more than an unrealized dream.

The following image highlights the conceptual plans for Woodmont Commons as of mid September.

Lighten Up:

2010-09-15T19:16:00.000-07:00

A Brief Discussion of New Development Projects and the Shadows they Cast

The Empire State Building overshadows its neighbors in NYC. Image courtesy of www.dovetraining.co.uk

Although some physicists can bend light around an object at a micro scale, the general rule is that all objects standing between a light source and some adjacent property site cast a shadow on someone or something, at some time during every day. Often times, this reality is the basis of complaint and opposition aimed at proposed projects (particularly dense, high-rise projects) in cities. To some extent, the underlying concern is a legitimate and easily understood one: neighborhoods and streets lacking adequate light and air were, after all, one of the primary safety concerns prevalent in industrial slums of the past two centuries that led to more stringent building codes. Inner courtyards were often devoid of any and all sunlight, with some dwelling units even lacking windows altogether. Obviously, such conditions were less than optimal. But are shadows bad things in and of themselves such that we can say new buildings that produce them are are necessarily a problem? The answer is, quite frankly, absolutely not. Consider the following:

Properly planted street trees, which are an urban design plus, are often promoted because of the "shade" they offer. The idea is that they provide a comfortable refuge from hot summer days, where people can stroll, relax, and congregate in a comfortable setting.

At least one study also shows that proper placement of trees can significantly reduce energy bills by providing summertime shade, thus reducing the need for air-conditioning in hotter climates. http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm.

But, the positives of urban shade aside, suppose a property owner must have light, say to experience the full architectural splendor of their landmark building. Or, suppose a property owner just really likes sunlight. What then? Property law provides a mechanism by which the enjoyment of even these uncompromising sun-related interests can remain unaffected. It is called a "negative easement."

Whereas an affirmative easement is a nonposessory right to enter onto and use the land of another, such as a right of way, a negative easement is a legal tool that requires an owner of land to refrain from doing something they would otherwise be entitled to do, including blocking access to light. How can a negative easement not to block sunlight and a new development project that would otherwise cast large shadows co-exist? An example can be seen in the John Hancock building in Boston, built out of reflective glass paneling to allow light sources to bounce off of its exterior so as not to cast a shadow on a nearby historic church.

So, as it turns out, even for those who prefer the absence of shade in urban areas, shadows cast by large development projects should not be seen as insurmountable barriers or obstacles to large-scale construction. Although the issue of shadows should always be addressed, it shouldn't derail large scale investments--as is often the outcome of community opposition based on access to sunlight. Opposition to tall buildings is completely legitimate, but sunlight blockage as a rationale for that opposition is weaker than it may at first appear.

Eminent DoMaine in Bayside?

2010-09-10T11:09:00.000-07:00

A Way Around Holdouts:

Phase I of the new Pearl Place housing development in Bayside, located across the street from what some might label a "recalcitrant" scrapyard.
A rendering showing the proposed massing of Pearl Place, Phase II, consisting of mid-rise condominiums, construction of which is contingent on relocation of the nearby scrapyard.

In the year 2000, the City of Portland and key stakeholders drafted a neighborhood plan now known as 'A New Vision for Bayside' for what is arguably the area's most important urban gateway. That document outlined numerous goals to pursue in the area bounded by Franklin, Marginal, Cumberland and Forest Avenue in Portland. The idea is to pursue policy choices and development projects that will increase the neighborhood's housing stock, commercial presence, and social services centers, all in a transit oriented mixed-use fashion, providing walking trails and other "complete street" features.

As part of this neighborhood plan, the area's scrapyards (which are used primarily for scrap metal recycling), and the City's public works station were identified as two major obstacles to future development. In fact, phase II of Avesta Housing's "Pearl Place" development on Pearl Street is contingent on the relocation of an adjacent scrapyard. Apparently, scrapyards aren't the most desirable neighbors.

In 2005, Portland paid $5 million for land on Riverside Street to facilitate relocation of the Bayside scrapyards to that area, allowing purchase of their current sites in exchange for a readily available alternative site. The money for the land acquired on Riverside Street was provided by the Trust for Public Land, which made a loan to Portland in exchange for an agreement to maintain a degree of open space in the rapidly redeveloping Bayside neighborhood. The City subsequently entered into purchase and sale negotiations with New England Metal Recycling for 13 acres of this property, to which that facility plans to move this fall.

The visionary urban plans for this once residential neighborhood-turned wasteland will be aided tremendously by the opening up of the central locations currently occupied by junk heaps, and they are long overdue. However, the behavior of one particular Bayside junkyard, E. Perry Iron & Metal, has been a thorn in the side of local officials for years. To date, E. Perry has refused to move, even for a reasonable price. Could it be that the Bayside location is necessary because of its proximity to a rail-line that heads straight to Boston, as was the case when the scrapyard located in Bayside? Considering the fact that such rail connections have long been out-of-order, or even paved over, probably not. More likely is the fact that E. Perry senses that, especially with NEMR having already "sold out", its bargaining position would be enviable in any private negotiation. But this isn't a matter of private dealing; it's a matter impacting the public at large. We all stand to benefit from Bayside's transformation into an attractive and sustainable urban gateway to Downtown Portland. E. Perry shouldn't be allowed to unfairly hold out for an enormous sum paid by the City at our expense.

The power of eminent domain exists for precisely this type of situation: where one landowner, realizing the strategic position of their land (often in the line of a planned railway or similar development) "holds out" for an unrealistically high purchase price. Eminent domain allows the sovereign to "take" such a landowner's land, and pay fair market value for it (thus allowing the public to avoid the excessively expensive transaction that would otherwise result). There are a few catches, however.

The land taken must be for a "public purpose." The 2005 Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London (Connecticut) affirmed the beliefs of some that private economic development was in fact a public purpose. In a way, that makes sense. Economic development in a down-and-out and blighted area brings jobs, increases the tax base, and often beautifies the area, thus attracting further neighborhood investment--all things from which the "public" benefits. However, for obvious reasons, this led many private property owners to worry that their house or land could be taken for a Wal-Mart or like development at any time. Responding to these concerns, many state legislatures, including Maine's, enacted legislation tightening the scope of purposes for which eminent domain acquisitions could be used. In Maine, this legislation is LD 1870 Sec. 1. 1 MRSA §816 (http://www.legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills_122nd/billtexts/LD187001-1.asp), which specifies that the eminent domain power may not be used for private economic development purposes. It does, however, have some loopholes that may in effect serve as exceptions to this rule.

For instance, §4 states that governmental purposes, like streets, government buildings, schools, or parks are NOT beyond the reach of a municipality's eminent domain powers. Why is this important? For several reasons. E. Perry Iron & Metal is bounded by four existing streets (see below):

While the City cannot take this land by eminent domain for a commercial office building or residences, per LD 1870, suppose it took it for a new street (either running east-west or north south), which would be permissible, regardless of LD 1870. What would a new street do? Nothing in and of itself, other than make the pre-existing streets in this area unnecessary. Unnecessary streets could then be condemned and transferred to developers for more tax-positive structures.

But, would a court see this as a "pretext" taking (taking land for a street the City doesn't actually need)? Probably. So what about using it for a park? Surely, overlooking a park isn't as bad as overlooking a junkyard. And the Bayside Plan already calls for open green space. If not a park, perhaps new county courthouse office space (as is very much needed)? If none of these ideas work, what about taking it because it amounts to a blight on the neighborhood (also an exception under LD 1870)? While the definition of "blight" is subjective, and has been used unfairly in the past to uproot entire neighborhoods that some today might consider desirable living areas, surely a junkyard would satisfy most peoples' test of blight.

So, what's the point of all of this? Creativity. E. Perry Iron & Metal is holding up a process that is difficult enough as it is. If that business continues to refuse to sell at a reasonable price, the City should consider all of the options on the table. I'm not saying taking someone's land is right or wrong; but I am saying that, when it would benefit the wider community, and when fair compensation is paid, eminent should be considered as one of many potential options. Hopefully, though, a less contentious and less controversial process will result in an outcome more palatable for all involved.

Downtown Scarborough?

2010-09-02T05:25:00.000-07:00

Main Street Ambitions Resurface

In 2008, Scarborough Downs pitched an idea to the State and City (town) in which, if a "racino" were allowed, a portion of the company's giant land tract in the prime area it occupies by the Maine Mall would be set aside for development of a "Main Street." Currently, Scarborough, like many towns around here, has no identifiable town 'center.' Whether it can make one from scratch remains to be seen, but a step in that direction was announced in today's paper. Scarborough Downs, which is considering moving south to Biddeford, has put its 400 acres in Scarborough up for sale. Today, the site has no existing utilities connections, which is a major drawback, but the town is in the process of fine tuning zoning to ensure the maximum probability possible that the area will develop into a mixed use district, rather than as a continuation of big store suburbia. At least one town planner, Dan Bacon, has expressed enthusiastically that the site's lack of utilities can be overcome by an efficient (i.e., "dense") design.

Urban Shopping Malls

2010-08-03T12:35:00.000-07:00

What Downtown and Regional Suburban Shopping Centers Can Learn From Each Other

Are indoor shopping malls and the historic downtown cores of yesteryear mutually exclusive? At first blush, it would seem so. One setting intentionally and by design operates at the expense of the public, shutting out casual passersby and those who don't intend to shop. Traditional shopping malls, consisting of large anchor tenant stores, smaller "filler" stores, and surrounded by swaths of concrete, asphalt, and poorly landscaped shrubbery, have in many ways been the force behind declining urban America, the retail mecca of the past. Main streets and downtown public plazas have given way to strip malls, vacant store fronts, and discount businesses, while shopping malls have risen to a position of uncontested champion in the retail realm. The reason for this is hardly surprising. The convenience of being able to drive to a single destination and obtain all of the goods one seeks in a covered and secure atmosphere providing shelter from the elements (as well as shelter from the less desirable elements of urban environments, namely, the poor, trash, eccentricities, etc.) is hard to argue with. The market speaks for itself and, apparently, this is what a majority of people desire. However, this convenient shopping experience drives a wedge between retail and commerce on the one hand, and community on the other, resulting in a less integrated and consequently less enjoyable settlement pattern. This raises the question of if--and how--the best elements of urban public space and suburban shopping convenience can be combined to create a better outcome for both forms of development. It is my contention that both the shopping mall and traditional downtowns stand to learn a great deal from one another.

For example, shopping malls would do well to take note of the public spaces people enjoy in downtown settings. Although most malls provide seating, food courts, benches, etc., perhaps even a wishing well, these "public" amenities fail to approximate the experience of public spaces commonly found in downtowns. They lack a presence that "fits" with their surroundings in an authentic way. Haphazardly placed and arranged more as "rest stops" than destinations in and of themselves, these perches for tired shoppers are less places to congregate and socialize than places to quietly relax before beginning the shopping parade anew. This can be changed by altering not only the physical layout of such places in malls, but also the policies which govern them. Benches and tables in shopping malls should be enclosed in an outdoor room fashion, though not separated from the mix of shoppers passing by. The Maine Mall in South Portland, for example, recently accomplished something close to this by adding stone walls, benches, sidewalk cafe style tables, and indoor trees in a stretch of its indoor corridor. People now flock to this area, which was once populated by a calendar stand. Instead of merely housing ephemeral business experiments, this area is now a destination in and of itself. The coffee shop nearby now sees customers drinking and socializing outside of its walls, in this new quasi-public space, rather than segregating themselves from the human superhighways that usually characterize foot traffic paths between stores. More is needed, however, to make shopping malls truly urban.

Mall policies should tolerate more and to a greater extent behaviors that are traditionally accepted in public spaces downtown. For instance, free speech, the issue of which has several times been litigated as pertains to private shopping malls, should be allowed and in fact encouraged, rather than constrained. People enjoy the "theater" of public spaces, and if the convenience of the car has shifted our retail centers outside of the city core, we shouldn't allow this essential aspect of the community experience to be left behind.

Freeport, Maine comes close to achieving the best of both worlds by blending its historic Main Street shopping district--which consists of private stores and public spaces--seamlessly with a new privately owned shopping development, the Freeport Village Center. The Village Center not only has brick sidewalks like an authentic downtown, it also has city street benches, lighting, and an open air atmosphere reminiscent of a truly urban environment. Yet it is still a shopping mall, replete with chain stores and a parking garage, the two things consumers seem to desire from their shopping experience the most. Some malls in Southern California come close to this model as well, like the Fashion Valley Mall in San Diego (an open-air outdoor shopping mall), but they lack a similar level of integration with an already existing downtown presence. Other cities, like Burlington, VT, come closer to hitting the mark with places like Church Street, a pedestrian-only outdoor shopping experience blending local and national retailers alike, connected directly to a narrow indoor shopping mall more akin to what usually comes to mind at the mention of the word "mall."

What about downtown districts? What can they learn from shopping malls? Plenty.

Shopping malls are in many ways similar to apartment buildings or condominium subdivisions. The tenants may be commercial rather than residential, but they pay fees and dues that are used to upkeep common areas, and they are required to abide by a common code of conduct, just like residents of many residential complexes. Furthermore, shopping districts within malls are run as a unit, rather than a collection of individual stores. This provides customers with confidence and builds goodwill and faith in malls amongst a client base that can be sure certain standards will be enforced and respected. For instance, shopping malls open and close at a certain time. You can be sure that, if you enter a mall, there will be places to shop. Downtown isn't always this predictable. Some stores make their own hours, resulting in an unpredictability that is bad for business. Merchants' associations begin to walk down the right path when they band together to endorse things like downtown improvement districts, where a portion of commercial taxes is set aside for street improvements and upkeep, and when they recognize their interdependence on each other as cogs within a shopping machine, by doing things like posting signs that encourage shoppers to "buy local," or putting water bowls outside their doors for those with animals, or by staying in step with the general feel and character of a neighborhood so as to provide the shopper and casual pedestrian with a sense of continuity of purpose and place. These are all somewhat uniquely urban manifestations of the secular mantra employed by shopping mall tenants: cohesion and common purpose results in better business.

Downtowns and shopping malls could both be improved by taking a look at what works well for the other.

Sprawl Policies

2010-07-22T16:19:00.000-07:00

The Power of Policy Choices Lies in the Incentives they Create

Many argue that allowing a tax deduction for home mortgage interest encourages sprawl. The idea is that, by deducting the amount paid for home mortgage interest, owning a home becomes more attractive to those who must resort to mortgages to finance purchasing a house (which includes most people) by artificially lowering the cost (i.e., subsidizing this dwelling choice).

Perhaps they are right, but, on balance, I think the desire to own one's own home might be more important than a Utopian city where everything is perfectly dense (key word "might"). If anything is worth subsidizing, surely a comfortable, private home should be at or near the top of the list. However, this tax policy extends beyond merely allowing people to own homes. It applies to up to $1 million of home mortgage interest in the aggregate for both "principal" and "secondary" personal residences. Assuming it is worth trading a little bit of urban perfection for the American dream (i.e., allowing some sprawl so as to allow people a choice between city and suburban lifestyles), can we really say the same is true for the purpose of allowing vacation homes? These homes are like parking lots: they sit there, unused, for most of the time.

Other tax policies in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) likewise promote home ownership. For example, homeowners can deduct the interest on up to $100,000 in home equity loans. So, although the interest on credit card debt and other revolving loans is not deductible, homeowners can consolidate their personal debt, take out a home equity loan, use that loan to pay off such consumer debt, and then deduct the interest. Therefore, this tax policy artificially lowers the cost of consumer goods for homeowners, thereby increasing the attractiveness of owning a home.

There are a number of provisions in the IRC that are very homeowner-friendly. Maybe this is a good thing. Maybe home ownership promotes investment in neighborhoods. But maybe it's not. Maybe apartment dwellers would be more invested in their surroundings if they had fewer dwelling alternatives (which would undercut one of the main arguments for encouraging home ownership). But even if this were not true, how much subsidization is too much? We either pay now in tax liability, or in the environmental and social costs associated with sprawl later.

And, while I'm on the subject of government policy, what about E-Zpass? Does not that encourage commuting by lowering the hassle associated with it? Making commuting more attractive makes suburbia more attractive. This, however, is only in terms of personal cost-benefit analysis. In fact, what actually ends up happening because of this is that suburbia becomes ugly, as do the primary routes which lead to it (think strip malls, large billboards, fast food, and trash). Of course, if you like those things, current policies should be a cause for celebration. But if, on the other hand, in your mind the suburbs and sprawl leave something to be desired, perhaps you should take a second look at the effects of the government policies you control indirectly in this--a representative--democracy.

Just some things to think about.

Whatever Floats Your Boat (Or Not)

2010-07-20T11:25:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on Portland's evolving Central Waterfront Zone

Recently, there was an interesting article printed in the "Insight" section of the Maine Sunday Telegram on the future design guidelines for Portland's waterfront:

http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/Portlands-piers-are-streets.html

In it, the author, Michael Belleau, discusses some very insightful and important ideas for rewriting the zoning code for our central waterfront zone--currently home to a mix of business, residential and parking uses. Educated at the Boston Architectural Center, a proponent of form-based code for the waterfront, and author of the blog Maine Architecture, Michael can be reached at www.michaelbelleau.com or his blog: www.mainearchitecture.blogspot.com. Michael has some great ideas for improving our waterfront while also retaining the aspects of it that have historically been its greatest draw to residents and visitors alike.

Currently, the CWZ is subject to a longstanding ban on future residential development, a consequence of the City's displeasure with a condominium development on Chandler's Wharf in the 1980s that blocked public access to the waterfront and displaced marine related industry. That ban, along with the entirety of the zone's use-based code, is also currently the subject of heated debate around the city regarding alterations to the legal framework within which landowners and investors can build or improve upon their property to increase revenue flows from tenants. This highly controversial debate includes the extent to which new development--if even allowed at all--could or should include residential or business components, (i.e, non-marine related components), and if so, how and where they should be oriented and located. Apparently, this is quite a big deal for Portlanders. It may have something to do with our name, but that's just a guess.

This may be one fish that is too big for the city, with its current form of governance, to reel in. There are so many different viewpoints here (not physical view corridors, but opinions) as regards this issue, that this process may very well be a botched effort no matter what--not for lack of well intentioned and meaningful efforts on the part of all involved, but for lack of cohesion. It highlights the need for an elected "strong" mayor (which the soon to be dissolved Charter Commission doesn't seem to back). If a recent article in the Portland Press Herald was correct in stating that Portland really has become a great town "despite itself," imagine what it could be with a vision that could be effectively implemented!

Also, are we forgetting that there are three--almost four--waterfronts in town? What about the City's efforts to redevelop Bayside? You can't even see the bay from from that neighborhood unless you stand on the roof of the new Intermed building. The water is literally cut off from downtown Portland by 295. lets remove, elevate, or tunnel under that urban planning blunder and build in the open space park by the bay. Of course, that park is an asset, too, but I'm sure ways could be imagined to incorporate it or move it in any new vision for that area. Of all the waterfronts we have, two are devoted to recreation, and one and a half are devoted to parking. Only one, however--the Central Waterfront Zone--is ever really mentioned for development. Is it time this should change? perhaps the other three waterfronts (Bayside, the East End, and the Fore River) can be littered with business and residential development while the so called "working" waterfront (these days more aptly described as the "looking-for-work" waterfront) can remain intact as a make-pretend fishing industry hub.

The fishing industry is not what it used to be. There was a time when fish were declared to be an inexhaustible natural resource. They have now been over-fished to a point where regulations and quota systems (neither of which work ideally) are necessary just to stave off extinction. How far should we go to subsidize this caricature of our collective identity? Oh, and by the way, South Portland (which has much less valuable real estate in relative terms) is right across the harbor. Do I sense an opportunity for some regional planning and coordination? Sure, the Portland side of the harbor may have the deepest and therefore best positioned geography for larger ships, but smaller shipping vessels should be able to adapt quite easily to new docking areas. This is something to think about that, while to my mind is very logical, will likely be dismissed for illogical emotional reasons that will end up sinking the City in the end. When it does sink, moreover, there won't be any fish to eat on the way down.

Eastern Waterfront on the Rebound

2010-07-09T19:10:00.000-07:00

THAT WAS FAST...

After several years of delayed or defunct projects, allegations of political corruption and charges of securities fraud thrown around at major developers by the SEC, and a lawsuit over land title that derailed a major waterfront project, the eastern waterfront may finally be heading in the right direction. Specifically, the developers of the Hampton Inn and residences on the former Jordan's Meats site are at it again. This time, they are proposing a parking structure, a row of townhouses, and more condos for the eastern portion of the Jordan's lot (formerly slated to be just a parking lot).

According to a submittal by Fore India Middle LLC (a Maine limited liability company consisting of the principals of Opechee Construction Corporation, a design-build firm out of Belmont, NH), the developers currently constructing the new Hampton Inn and Portside condominium residences on the western half of the former Jordan's Meats site plan on constructing additional condos and a row of townhouses on the eastern half of the same site.

FIM consists of the same membership as Old Port Hospitality, LLC, but was formed for the purpose of achieving more desirable tax and liability status with regard to the subdivision and development of the additional land.

According to the subdivision/site plan application, FIM plans on constructing a parking structure with a raised deck on the Middle street side of the Jordan's block, expandable for future development of condos or other residences atop the parking level. Beneath this will be a surface lot with 110 spaces reserved for guests and residents of the adjacent hotel and condo development (which will replace the currently approved 90 space lot). The Fore Street side would have, in addition to a surface lot, a row of 4 townhouses. Above the townhouses 6 condominiums will be constructed.

Proposed phase 1 of this new project will be construction of the two level parking structure. Proposed phase 2 will consist of the townhouses and condominiums. The developers hope to complete both phases simultaneously, but request the option of delaying and later phasing in phase 2 if the market prevents sufficient pre-sales of the units. The site will also be further enhanced with a new perimeter sidewalk and 22 bicycle spaces. The parking structure is expected to take 8 months to construct, while the residences will take approximately 10 months from start to finish.

The approximately $1.2 million parking structure will be financed from internal funds, and the approximately $2 million townhouses will be financed from outside sources. The FIM group plans to wait to seek bank financing until after a sufficient number of units are under contract for the new residences.

The Limits of Planning:

2010-06-28T19:05:00.000-07:00

When 'Channeling' Growth Turns Into 'Limiting' It, We Should Reexamine the Balance We Wish to Strike Between Quaintness and Economic Prosperity

In the 1980s economic boom, the Portland economy was adding approximately 10,000 jobs a year. This led to a surge in demand for land on which to build in the city. Consequently, developers desired to build upwards to maximize the returns on scarce and expensive land as they invested in the construction of new office space. This is why we saw the late 1980s peppered with proposals to build high rises across the northeast, not just in Maine. In Portland, this rise in interest in building tall fueled the 1989 "Downtown Height Study" which recommended lowering the then prevailing maximum height limit in the Old Port (125') to 65 feet to preserve the character of the existing building stock and neighborhood. In return for this decrease, the proposal called for raising height limits along the City's spine, aka Congress Street, to a maximum of 190' in most places, or as high as 210' on a select few parcels, with 40 or so extra feet permitted for a stepped back and angled roof cap to hide utilities. The idea was to channel growth toward the center of the city, and gradually slope height limits down, starting at 150', as buildings spread out toward the peninsula's perimeter. This proposal, which was adopted in virtually the same form as suggested, sounds good in theory. However, it has also to an extent stifled economic development.

For instance, Congress street may have a taller height limit than it used to, but how many spaces along Congress are there to actually build modern tall buildings? Very few. The Top of the Old Port Parking Lot, adjacent to the Portland Press Herald's former printing plant, is perhaps the best suited for such development, but it remains an anomaly along the street's otherwise densely developed blocks. Moreover, it was previously the site of a 330' proposal by the DMR group in 1988 which was given final approval but never built (meaning this so-called height "increase" was in fact a decrease for some areas compared to what would have previously been allowed). A rendering of the DMR proposal, known as Lincoln Square, can be seen below:
At the same time, the Old Port, which has several vacant parking lots ripe for development, has witnessed interest in tall buildings fade.

For example, the empty parking lot next to 100 Middle Street's twin mid-rise towers was once the proposal for a 125', ten story office building. This was before the height limits were revised. Today, the lot is still vacant, over 20 years later. Another parking lot, on Pearl Street in the Old Port, was also the site of a planned 125' ten story building, known as 20 Pearl Street. That building can be seen in the rendering below.

Neither of the aforementioned structures were built. Historical newspaper clippings indicate this was due in large part to widespread criticism of their height. Fortunately, Portland still has the pristine parking lots that these buildings would have ruined. See below.

(Site of the 1980s Middle Street High Rise Proposal as it looks today)

and

(Site of the 1980s Pearl Street High Rise Proposal as it looks today)

For the humor impaired, that was sarcasm. To say zoning restrictions regarding height, or mere criticism of height alone, or even both operating in tandem were the reasons these particular projects never materialized, would admittedly be a stretch. The nation did, after all, enter a major recession in the early 1990s which derailed or canceled numerous projects across the country. However, nothing was built on these lots in the subsequent period of relative economic prosperity that characterized much of the 1990s, either. Nor was anything built (or even proposed) for these sites during the height of the most recent real estate market bubble. Is it possible, then, that overly restrictive height limits so reduce return on investment that these parcels are just destined to sit there, remaining undeveloped in perpetuity? Perhaps. The same criticism has been leveled against height restrictions in the Eastern Waterfront's 'New Port' neighborhood, which has high land prices but low height limits.

I understand the want to maintain historic, pedestrian friendly character, and I fully support it. But at what cost does this admirable aim become unacceptable? Are we telling developers that we only want continuous replicas of historic Old Port brick buildings, at the risk of making a caricature out of our famed boutique shopping district? Even if the alternative is a sprawling sea of asphalt that is used for only a small fraction of the day and is otherwise wasted space? Why is the character of the Old Port so important anyway (I'm not saying it isn't important)? Think about it. Most of the people who rely on Portland for their economic well being live off of the peninsula anyway. The character of the Old Port, therefore, is a draw mostly for out of staters--for tourists, that is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. But, do we want to let it stand in the way of our own economic prosperity? In other words, are we maintaining strict limits in the Old Port for the right reasons? For the right people? I know Maine's primary industry these days is tourism, but does this necessarily have to be the case for Portland, too? Tourism is a major industry in Portland both because the City is pleasant to be in, and because we won't let the city be much else. Is this really how we want to do things? Is this really what we want?

Remember, no one is advocating tearing down existing structures in the Old Port or similarly important historic districts. But what of the empty lots? Should they necessarily be so strictly limited in their development potential? Would a ten story building (which is considered a "low rise" structure in virtually every city outside of Northern New England) really even be a detriment to surrounding structures? I would think not. Fewer parking lots and more office or residential buildings, especially tall ones, means more foot traffic for surrounding businesses (wouldn't it be nice if the summertime vibrancy of the Old Port existed year-round?). It also means a higher proportion of the City's revenue sources (and thus Portland residents' tax burden) can be shifted to commercial properties. Assuming mixed use structures where housing plays a central role in the development were allowed in more of downtown's empty lots, the cost of rental units and housing would also likely drop, due to an increase in supply.

More jobs, fewer parking lots, more business, lower housing costs, lower taxes--what could possibly be so bad about that? Whatever downsides there are to allowing a marginally tall building to be built in Portland's historic low rise neighborhoods, are they really so bad as to warrant forfeiting all of the previously mentioned benefits?

Okay, maybe not, but is it possible to achieve the best of both worlds? Is it possible to maintain lower height limits in the Old Port and increase them elsewhere, as the City recently did in the Bayside neighborhood? Again, this idea sounds good, but how well has it actually worked?

The City has been actively marketing parcels along Somerset street to developers for years now and, although a few builders expressed initial interest, no structures have materialized.

Take a look at what the City hopes will become of the Western Bayside neighborhood, as shown in the following artists rendering from a news paper article titled "An Urban Vision Rises in Bayside" from 2007:
Currently, the area looks like this:

Granted, the Bayside Trail, the initial phase of which is close to completion, will make this area much more attractive. However, today it remains a vacant wasteland. So, it would seem that the answer to the previous question of whether the City can prevent the negative effects of tall buildings in more quaint areas of town while benefiting from their positive effects in more industrial sections of town is, decidedly, "no." There is a reason developers want to build in the Old Port, and it has very little to do with the particular sites on which they hope to build; parking lots are like any other empty space in the city. Rather, the draw to building in the Old Port is what surrounds the site builders hope to invest in. The same critical mass of people and activities that draws tourists to the center of Portland is also what will and does draw businesses and employees. This draw simply doesn't exist elsewhere, and although it is a worthwhile effort to try to make it exist elsewhere, this is easier said than done. Bayside has a long way to come before it has the same draw as the Old Port. In the meantime, prime developable lots in the City's core remain underutilized and empty for most of the day. The attempt to channel large scale business growth and development out of the Old Port has, in fact, limited such growth altogether. Unfortunately, the market, rather than policy choices, always seems to have the final say on regional development. That is not to say that things like the Bayside plan are hopeless; they most certainly are not. But it does highlight that, despite well meaning policy stances, trying too hard to channel growth can in fact prevent it altogether. Again, I ask, is this really what Portland wants?

These Days, Civic "Centers" are Anything But

2010-06-24T12:20:00.000-07:00

A Westbrook Developer May Steal the Civic Center (and Portland Pirates) from the Region's Urban Core

Westbrook developer Jason Snyder has for years tried to get his project, dubbed Stroudwater Place, to materialize on land he owns along the Westbrook Arterial. The 1.65 million sf project would include public open space, a new mall, an ice skating arena, and other amenities. Approximately 32 uses are permitted in the contract zone the project received in 2008. Since that time, the recession has slowed, but apparently not stopped, the project's progress.

On June 23, 2010, the Press Herald reported that Mr. Snyder still intends to move forward with Stroudwater Place, and in fact now has expanded his plans to include a new 8,000 seat civic arena on other land he owns in the immediate area. Snyder plans to meet with county officials later this week to discuss financing options, and appears to have unwavering commitment to this $300 + million development idea. Will this be good for Portland, the region's urban center? Perhaps more importantly, can Portland complain if it would not be good? The answer to both questions, I submit to you, is an emphatic NO. The answer to the first question should be obvious; the answer to the second question is because Portland systematically blows every single chance it has to make meaningful progress toward replacing the outdated Cumberland County Civic Center.

For example, in 1990, Elizabeth Noyce, former wife of Intel Corporation founder Robert Noyce, founded Maine Bank and Trust with her hundreds of millions of dollars following the collapse of her Boston Bank during the 1990 recession. This kick-started a much needed improvement to Congress Street. It was only the beginning of Noyce's commitment to Portland, however. Later, she was instrumental in establishing the now-defunct Portland Public market, an indoor market built behind the Fidelity Building meant to revitalize the Bayside neighborhood. And, in 1999, the Libra Foundation (her organization) donated land and $20 million for an arena in Bayside to replace the aging Cumberland County Civic Center (which, apparently, was built to be only marginally more durable than a summer tent). So, Maine Bank and Trust is on Congress St., the Portland Public Market building (now home to Powerpay) faces Bayside on the south side of Cumberland Ave, but where is the new civic center Libra enabled? It was never built.

Okay, so that didn't work. But in 2005, neither did the next proposal--this time by Portland developer Joe Boulos of CBRE/The Boulos Company--who proposed building a 17 story office tower, a ten story hotel, and a 10,000 seat arena on the Top of the Old Port parking site that currently sits so attractively at the corner of Congress and Franklin. All that was needed to make this project viable was a 1% increase in the meals and lodging tax to fund the public portion of the project (the arena), which Governor John E. Baldacci purportedly supported before giving in to republican political pressure not to raise taxes at the last minute. This project, not surprisingly, also failed to materialize. The ironic thing about this is that the tax that the proposed tax increase that defeated this proposal would have been levied on the very industries that arenas and convention centers, which often operate at a loss, are meant to indirectly benefit: the meals and lodging industries. Think about it: when people come to a show, they need somewhere to sleep and somewhere to eat (not to mention shop and relax). The very industries opposed to an increased tax, then, would have been the exact same industries to recoup that investment in increased consumers. Oh well.

Then, in 2007, the City of Portland and County of Cumberland commissioned noted architect Janet Marie Smith--perhaps best known for her innovative contribution to Fenway Park, Yawkey way--to assess the structural integrity of the Civic Center and make recommendations for extensive renovations. I was at the public meeting when Ms. Smith announced that it may be possible to place a restaurant on the roof, expend the walls to allow for more seating, and add luxury box suites for watching sporting events. One City councilor even wisely suggested building into Spring St., if needed, which is an arterial relic of a bygone era of urban planning. So, I thought, even without a new arena, perhaps these extensive renovations will be just as good. For some time thereafter, I heard very little about the civic center.

But then, in 2009, much to my disappointment, I read a December 11 Press Herald article that indicated the City was shelling out an additional $50,000 to some new out of state consultant group, from Washington, D.C., to complete a feasibility study regarding what would and would not be possible to accomplish in renovating the Civic Center.

What? Did I imagine the fact that Janet Marie Smith had done the same exact thing two years earlier? What ever happened to her report, and why hasn't it been implemented or considered further? If it has been considered and rejected, why haven't we heard more about it? Why the need for an additional study?

While all of this has been going on, the civic arena that Ms. Noyce's money would have built in 1999 would have earned thousands upon thousands in economic spin-off benefits associated with event-goers spending recreation dollars at local businesses. In fact, the arena would have existed for so long that it would be about 1/3 of the way toward being replaced itself (given the record of the Cumberland County Civic Center). So, it is fair to say--not to argue, but to say--that the City has most certainly dropped the ball as regards this matter. The City had and continues to have a responsibility to see this project, which the residents of Portland want, need, and have paid for, through to the end. However, that responsibility was fumbled long before touchdown. Now, the arena may very well leave town, and can we blame the Portland Pirates if they decide to follow? The residents of Cumberland County all have a stake in the County civic center, and it most certainly would not be unfair to let another nearby town attempt to accomplish what Portland apparently cannot. Yet it would, in my opinion, be a shame if the CCCC left Portland. Civic centers have two meanings, to my mind: one is the commonly understood concept of an entertainment arena; the other, however, is perhaps more important -- it is the location where such venues are sited. It is the center of a region, the place where entertainment, city government, and business is transacted. Literally, the civic "center." Despite what Jane Jacobs may have had to say about locating all civic structures in close proximity, the fact is that Portland is the civic center of the region, and more specifically downtown Portland is the civic center of the City. The arena belongs in Portland, not some sprawling parking lot out in the middle of a pasture in the suburbs. But, as I said, if Westbrook can pull off what Portland cannot, more power to them.

SCOTUS Decides "Most Significant Property Rights Case Since Kelo"

2010-06-18T13:33:00.000-07:00

Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection

On Thursday, June 17, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States decided what is being termed the most significant property rights case since the 2005 case of Kelo v. City of New London (which upheld the constitutionality of taking private property for public use where such use is aimed primarily at "economic development.") This newest development in federal jurisprudence relating to takings doctrine is "Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection."

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, made applicable to the various states by way of the 14th Amendment, states: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use...without just compensation." Stop the Beach involved a challenge to a project to restore eroded beaches in the Florida panhandle that encroached on landowners' rights, resulting in what some referred to as a process of turning ocean-front property into ocean-view property. The regulatory scheme at play in this case aimed at aiding eroded beach areas by adding loads of new sand. The effect of this process, known as "renourishment", is to establish 'erosion-control' and, in so doing, reset property boundaries. How can this be? How can property boundaries be "reset"? Good question.

Typically, the starting point for an analysis of what percentage of land a beachfront property owner actually "owns" begins with the assumption that the State owns the "wet" sand (ocean-side of the mean high tide line) and the property owner owns the "dry" sand above it. That is a brief description of the common law rights underlying littoral (coastal) properties. As regards changes in this line, "accretion" refers to the process of gradual changes, over time, but "avulsion" refers to sudden and drastic changes (such as might be caused by a hurricane, for example). When coastal property lines fluctuate due to avulsion, according to common law the state, holding the formerly submerged lands in "public trust", continues to own the newly dry sand areas. Likening the State's beach renourishment efforts more to avulsion than accretion, the SCOTUS held that, like avulsion, the State, holding the lands in public trust, continues to own the formerly submerged lands impacted by the process of renourishment. Like in Kelo, the SCOTUS--upholding the Florida Supreme Court's decision--concluded that petitioners did not suffer an unconstitutional taking of their private property.

Some of you might be thinking "Okay, so the government can't take private property without just compensation, I get it, but where is it written that the government can even take private property at all, in the first place?" This, too, is a good question, and one I myself have wondered about.

Historically, the idea is rooted in the philosophical concept of sovereignty itself--there is an implied contract if you will that the "part" is less important than, and consequently cannot stand in the way of, the "whole". In return we all receive a smooth functioning world. If this notion was rejected, ordered civilization may very well grind to a halt because the interests of society in general would be at the mercy of a few land owners who could hold out for any amount of time or money they desired. Obviously, this wouldn't be efficient and would, to an extent, undermine the very purpose of government--to act in the common good. Even more directly, however, the government's right to take private property in certain circumstances is derived by negative implication from the 5th Amendment language quoted earlier. So, this is where the right comes from, but how do we know when it applies such that the government can exercise it?

The trick remains deciding when in fact a taking has occurred, how, and to what extent. The degree to which this case will muddle the existing framework for legal analysis should become clearer in the near future. Other questions, like that of the possibility of a so-called "Judicial Taking" under the 5th Amendment, were not decided in the decision. For now, all that remains crystal clear is that, despite the legislative backlash Kelo prompted across the nation in many states, the government has won again.

Simple Ways To Improve Our Town

2010-06-11T10:45:00.000-07:00

Some Ideas for (relatively) Cheap Improvements to Portland

1. Plant a median line of evenly spaced trees, along with widened sidewalks and a correspondingly narrower arterial street width, down Forest Avenue from Woodford's Corner to USM. Additional sideline trees and nicer looking streetlamps wouldn't hurt, either.

Forest Ave was once called the "Million Dollar Mile" and from aerial views it is easy to tell why: it's the sprawling means of egress from the City's core to its northern suburbs. The thoroughfare has tremendous amounts of untapped potential.

Not only would such improvements provide for more of a natural "gateway" to Portland than Bayside--with its haphazard growth and poorly oriented structures--could ever hope to, they would also take away from the otherwise harsh urban setting of sprawling low rise buildings, traffic, and an altogether blighted scene.

Moreover, the view corridor as one looks south down Forest Ave would be perfectly framed in a natural, arching tree-scape that draws the eyes forward. The celebrated Eastern Promenade once had many more trees lining its way than it does today, but most were infected and had to be cut down due to disease. Park Street in the West End is another great example of blending the built environment and natural landscape well. Its shady, relaxing tree canopy mixed in with late 19th century brick architecture creates a sum far greater than its parts. It is truly urban.

As an out-of-town example, Greenville, SC kick started the renovation of its downtown decades ago by planting hundreds of trees along its main drag, which today is anything but a drag. Main Street in Greenville was a sprawling and unattractive sight in the 1970s, much like Forest Ave in Portland is today. This changed with the installation of attractive streetlamps, free angled parking--made possible by narrowing the street from an uninviting four lanes to a pedestrian friendly two--and especially the trees. Today, Greenville is hailed as one of the prettiest midsized southern cities, and for good reason.

Greenville today

The trees, though seemingly a small addition, have had an immeasurable impact on the town's identity. Since their planting, Main Street has become an attractive tourist destination lined with shops and eateries.

Could a similar idea work for Portland?

A few years ago, there was much talk, and serious debate, about narrowing Congress St. to appease the residents of Stroudwater, who complained of busy traffic. If this idea--which, like nearly all good ideas the City considers, disappeared--was seriously contemplated, narrowing Forest Ave shouldn't be unthinkable. So the idea seems feasible, but what about the financial wisdom of such a plan?

Although trees aren't free, they would probably pay for themselves via increased (and more sustained) interest in our city from those who choose to invest in it for quality of life reasons. Maine is not a natural economic hub--the 19th century is a bygone era. Today, major out of state businesses locate here for quality of life. Anything we can do to improve that, therefore, makes economic as well as aesthetic sense. We should strive to be the envy of surrounding towns--which, to a large extent, we already are. Why locate in Westbrook when Portland is so much more attractive? The higher cost of doing business in Portland, as compared to its surroundings, would be much easier to swallow, I imagine, if it correlated with a more enjoyable atmosphere in which to do business. The Old Port, to an extent, is a micro-version proof of this assertion. Forest Ave could be as well.

2. Close State Street at its intersection with Park Avenue.

Currently, the portion of State which runs through Deering Oaks cuts off the main portion of the park from the famous Rose Garden to its east. As an inaccessible island surrounded by concrete and very few residences, it is no surprise this beautiful addition to Deering Oaks--built on a former Tannery--is experiencing financial woes. The garden, home to 600 roses, is the largest in Northern New England. It is, also, too expensive to maintain, prompting the City to consider discontinuing it. If State St. were discontinued through the Park, visitors to Deering Oaks would naturally visit the Rose Garden, thereby justifying the expenditures associated with its upkeep (which are currently far disproportionate to its use). There may be some complaints associated with closing State, which runs directly south, over the Casco Bay bridge and on to Route 77, but should we really care? Is State St. a part of Portland or a mere means of passing through? Don't we want people to stay in our city, circle the block if necessary, visit our famed Rose Garden and, most importantly, be spared from the ugly sights of Millcreek? Millcreek, by the way, is home to the first modern shopping plaza in the State of Maine and has, for that reason, been seriously considered for designation as an historic landmark. Really? Yes.

Millcreek also serves as a great example of the effects a street can have on its surroundings when used merely for "passing through". The nearby Knightville neighborhood was once a bustling commercial strip, but the Casco Bay Bridge, which replaced the Million Dollar Bridge over the Fore River in 1997, turned bustling downtown South Portland (yes, it had a downtown) into a sleepy backwater memory. The bridge used to funnel travelers directly through Main Street USA, but now routes them southward around it, winding by sprawling parking lots and "Dollar Stores". Forest Ave and State Street should NOT be allowed to let the same happen in Portland. Let's reclaim these spaces and benefit from the inherent potential they possess. The Romans understood the potential of city streets when they designed cul-de-sacs and other dead ends as strategic tactics to be employed in military combat. Today, rather than meeting peril, travelers should be channeled toward exciting and rewarding urban amenities, not simply allowed to pass through without stopping for a visit. This is an easy and relatively simple task to accomplish, and all it requires is acceptance of the fact that our world doesn't (or at least shouldn't) revolve around cars and commutes. Stop and smell the roses, literally.

(Portland's famous Rose Garden, located between High and State Streets, and part of Deering Oaks Park)

Memorial Day and the Urban Landscape in Portland

2010-05-31T05:37:00.000-07:00

Memorial Day and Monument Square

121 years ago today, Memorial Day in 1889, the cornerstone for the soldiers and sailors monument (Our Lady of Victory) in Monument Square was laid, sparking the beginning of a transformation of what used to be Haymarket square into a public gathering space centered around the figure. Original designs called for statues up to 7 stories tall, but funding wouldn't allow them. The first Civil War monument in a Maine city was erected out of Bronze in Lewiston. Portland's monument used to be surrounded by an ovular grass section, in addition to the grass square that is there now, and it had an iron fence around it, with old fashioned lamp posts. Looked neat. All this and more is available in the "Portland's Urban Landscape" chapter of "Creating Portland: History and Place in Northern New England" book. An interesting read for sure. Read it online here: http://books.google.com/books?id=4WjGkuhZyaoC&pg=PR11&lpg=PR11&dq=creating+portland+history+and+place+in+northern+new+england&source=bl&ots=oVa9rv7U4y&sig=QHE2qXHIqxECsOdyB0YOlAsQROA&hl=en&ei=Ma0DTND3C8T48AaAq-n2DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

or order it here: http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Portland-Northern-Revisiting-Regionalism/dp/1584655216

Irrational Rationalism

2010-05-27T10:32:00.000-07:00

Alternatives to the Discredited Rational Planning Approach and Their Implications for Decision-Making in the Public Domain

I. Introduction:

Defined broadly, planning is the process by which specific schemes are devised to achieve certain objectives; more specifically, it has been described as the attempt to “link scientific and technical knowledge to action in the public domain.” (Friedman 1987, p. 38). Exactly how this is done and which objectives are emphasized is of particular importance. The reasons for this include but are not limited to the complexity of policy and political environments and the diversity of interests involved. These factors can influence both planning’s objective efficiency, as well as assessments of subjective legitimacy in the eyes of the attentive publics planning purports to serve. For these reasons, theorists struggle with issues concerning how best to proceed when making decisions that are to be implemented by public agencies and which affect a diverse range of stakeholders and actors, continuing a lengthy and disputatious trend.

There is no universally endorsed or single best decision making paradigm or approach to planning. (Alexander 1959). However, a model referred to in various contexts as the ‘synoptic’ model, ‘rational comprehensive planning,’ or, merely, ‘rationalism,’ dominated the theoretical underpinnings of planning for a considerable stretch of time, and to some extent continues to do so for many practitioners. Given the relative ascendancy of this approach, it might seem odd that academic circles now generally tend to align themselves in opposition to this model, retracting their previous endorsement. This paper investigates the reasons this approach has been largely rejected by theoreticians. This analysis will examine the implications the abandonment of rationalism as a dominant procedural model has had for the theory of planning, and conclude with an assessment of what suggestions such a paradigmatic shift may indicate for planning on a more pragmatic level.

II. Problem Overview:

In 1946, noted urbanist Charles Abrams commented on several of the more obvious obstacles planning must contend with if it wishes to function well in a democracy, not the least of which included winning public and political approval of any proposals the process may prescribe. Since that time, complexities in the field and profession of planning have only increased, thus amplifying these hurdles. (Alexander 1995). Given the diversity of interests and contexts involved when modern planning decisions are made in the public sector, resulting policy proposals are generally guaranteed to conflict amongst stakeholders at one juncture or another. This is true despite planning’s aim to achieve public consensus about future actions. Arguably, therefore, effective planning necessitates an awareness of context and environment, in addition to emphasis on mere technical expertise.

In light of the variety of factors influencing the context in which its suggestions are shaped, the process of planning should be viewed as more than the sum of its individual parts. Only with larger social and political frameworks in mind can planning hope to succeed in the implementation of its recommendations. It has been precisely such a realization that in part formed the basis of an acknowledgement that rational models of planning are perhaps not ideal when implemented in the public sector; at the very least, such approaches are not likely to be accepted wholesale without some challenge regarding how different interests are going to be incorporated.

These issues are of extreme importance; however, they have not been rational planning’s only, or even most significant, criticisms. Indeed, the theoretical attacks to be discussed next strike at the very core of the model’s methodological validity itself, and thus further undermine the legitimacy of rationalism as a decision making process, this time on grounds of practicality. Comprehending this particular line of rejection and disagreement requires an understanding of the basic process on which the rational model is based.

Although varying slightly in the number of steps and precise articulations used from description to description, in summary form the process of rationalism as a decision making model can be thought of as consisting of the following steps: 1.) defining a problem and a goal; 2.) determining ways to evaluate alternative approaches to achieving the goal decided upon and remedying the problem defined; 3.) coming up with alternative courses of potential action to achieve the desired goal and fix the perceived problem; 4.) evaluating each potential course of action; 5.) implementing the preferred policy option; and 6.) monitoring the resulting outcome(s). (Luzzi 2001). Boiled down to its essence, rationalism as a paradigm for planning in the public domain consists of a three-step process: problem definition, analysis of alternatives, and selection of the most efficient course of action. (Hira 2004).

The process seems, and in fact in a very basic sense is, very logical, sensible and reasonable--that is, rational. However, in the implementation of such a procedure, despite its seemingly sound recommendations for decision making, problems can arise. The nature and extent of such problems will be discussed shortly. For now, however, it is just important to grasp the basic ideas underlying rationalism as a model applied in a public decision making context, so that later illustrations of the pitfalls of this paradigm can be understood in light of the procedure they criticize.

It would be wise at this point to note that to highlight the potential problems of rationalism as a paradigm for planning is not to say that planning would benefit from the opposite of rationality--namely, irrationality. That is, attacking rationalism as a model is not meant to criticize rationalism as a general concept. This is a subtle but important distinction. The analysis undertaken in this paper pertains solely to the pitfalls of the rational model, as applied to decision making processes, and not to rationality as it is more commonly used, to refer to sound logic and reason.

III. Pitfalls of Rationalism in Planning:

The idea of rationalism in planning has been criticized from an academic standpoint on numerous grounds, for both theoretical as well as practical reasons. Specifically, it has been argued that many of the problems planning is concerned with most, elude effective treatment by the rational model, as they simply do not exist in a vacuum and are therefore not susceptible to effective treatment by mere technical processes. (Luzzi 2001). That is, rationalism as a model is ill-equipped to deal with the contradictory and often fluctuating nature of various societal problems to which it might be applied as a planning mechanism. In fact, it has even been argued that any approach to solving social problems via implementing a scientific process of deduction in public sector decision making contexts is bound to fail. Essentially, the nature of social problems makes them not amenable to treatment by processes based solely upon science--they are what has been termed “wicked” problems. (Rittel 1973).

At a more basic level, further criticisms have been launched against the limitations of the rational model itself, as a process, not merely as applied in a public domain context. These include the impossibility of meeting the requirements of the model--namely, the unlikelihood that complete and comprehensive consideration of all possible alternative courses of action is feasible; the need for absolutely perfect information; and research based evidence supporting the conclusion that organizations tend to make decisions in more of an incremental fashion than comprehensively. (Luzzi 2001). In short, the model has been widely attacked for its impracticality and the hopelessness of satisfying the challenging prerequisites to effective implementation of rational planning‘s outputs. (Camhis 1979). At best, rationalism as applied to planning approximates what polymath Herbert Simon has referred to as ’bounded rationality,” a term reflecting the cognitive limitations of those tasked with making decisions. (Simon 1997).

Realizing the host of both abstract as well as practical limitations on the rational paradigm as applied to public domain decision making approaches, a multitude of alternative approaches have attempted to fill the theoretical and prescriptive void left by rationalism’s abandonment. (Allmendinger 2001). Although many have made valuable contributions to the aggregate body of planning theory, none has yet to exclusively or conclusively fill the rather large shoes left empty by rationalism’s decline. However, it is nonetheless important to examine the available options for substitute or replacement theories in hopes of drawing at least some useful “food for thought” regarding what might be done, if not to replace rationalism, at least to supplement it as concerns policy prescriptions for practitioners. To this extent, I now turn to a discussion of the various alternate planning models that have cropped up in the wake of rationalism’s theoretical demise.

IV. Alternative Approaches:

Although not exhaustive in scope, the following models represent a degree of the diversity amongst the processes which have attempted to redefine decision making processes in the latter half of the 20^th century: disjointed incrementalism; satisficing; mixed-scanning; Transactive planning; participatory Planning; and advocacy planning. To be sure, there are many others of note as well; but the range of ideas showcased by this list catalogs some of the more prevalent approaches to explaining or prescribing methods for public sector decision making and the theory that guides it. To set the stage for subsequent analysis, a brief description and discussion of each of these models follows.

A. Incrementalism, Bounded Rationality & Satisficing:

In response to rational planning’s unrealistic informational and intellectual demands, the ideas of Incrementalism and Bounded Rationality take a somewhat more pragmatic view of decision making. Both descriptions of the planning process are attempts to describe how decisions are actually, as opposed to optimally, made. In 1959, political scientist Charles Lindblom wrote influentially about what he referred to as “disjointed incrementalism.” (Lindblom 1959). For many of the reasons outlined earlier in this paper, Lindblom recognized the practical shortcomings of rationalism, and consequently rejected the idea that a single best comprehensive plan could be devised by any such method. Convinced that the rational model of planning was unfeasible, Lindblom chose instead to describe how decisions are really made by public officials. According to Lindblom, rather than making decisions on the basis of synoptic theories, public officials instead proceed along decisional paths characterized by baby-steps, or incremental progressions, in which attention is focused on only those changes necessary to address immediate problems. (Hyman 1982).

Lindblom argued that public administrators merely consider the ideas that come to mind and which are not disagreeable to other officials. Rather than considering every possible alternative for action, the appropriateness of a decision is determined by how it plays out in practice. Incrementalism represents a drastically different decision making process than that promoted by rationalism. Similarly, political scientist Herbert Simon also attempted to formulate a descriptive conception of planning which takes into the limitations of the rational model. Simon recommended adequacy of outcome over perfection, in a wise acknowledgement of the practical limitations of theories devised for achieving optimal outcomes. Importantly, Simon’s model of “satisficing” highlights the fact that, to be effective, planners must take account of institutional limitations, and the bounded nature of any planning analysis imposed by practical constraints like the scarcity of resources. (Forrester 1989). Thus, taking account of fluctuating informational and institutional landscapes is important, nay, essential for planners, according to Simon. Simon’s ideas provide the foundation for what has come to be known as “contingency planning,” a term used to describe decision making processes which acknowledge that different circumstances may require different approaches. (Forrester 1989).

Both Lindblom and Simon, though perhaps more descriptive than prescriptive in their analyses, have provided meaningful contributions to the field of planning theory in that, together, they make painstakingly clear that the broader organizational framework in which decisions are made matters--a lot. Failure to pay attention to institutional constraints, they both argue, will necessarily lead to biting off more than can be chewed, resulting in underperformance. (Forrester 1989). If such advice is heeded, how can these outcomes be avoided? It is unlikely that strategic decisions are actually made in a process of “muddling through” or stumbling haphazardly into a future state of affairs, as disjointed incrementalism seems to suggest. (Tichy 200&). So, what are some more prescriptive measures that can or should be pursued? Amitai Etzioni promotes an idea of “mixed scanning” as one possible answer.

B. Mixed Scanning: A Hybrid Approach:

Etzioni sees as optimal an approach to decision making which seeks to combine elements of both rational planning and incrementalism, acknowledging the practical constraints of bounded rationality on one hand while striving to incrementally progress based on what limited information can actually be rationally concluded on the other. (Tichy 2007). Mixed scanning endeavors to make the best of incomplete knowledge rather than proceed with no direction. This approach further provides a method for “overcoming the conservative slant” necessarily flowing from an incrementalist approach by exploiting, rather than ignoring, basic societal advancements and remaining open to consideration of longer term objectives. (Etzioni, 1967). Planning theorist John Forrester promotes another alternative to both rational planning and muddling through in “participatory planning.” A bit of substantive background information regarding this paradigm is needed before discussing this approach further.

C. Participatory Planning: Towards Pluralism:

Forrester highlights in a rather basic way perhaps one of the rational model’s biggest practical shortcomings by reminding us that “planning is for people.” (Forrester 1989). Although perhaps obvious, in a world dominated by adherence to purportedly rational models of policy analysis and decision making processes, this point bears repeating. What may be a logical process from a factual or technical perspective may in fact, perhaps somewhat counter intuitively, have adverse effects on certain publics. Indeed, this is precisely what we see with some of the pitfalls of the rational model mentioned earlier--in many respects, rationalism is unable to adequately serve the very communities planners should be acting on behalf of. Ultimately, whether an approach to planning or decision making in a broader sense is appropriate should be assessed in light of its objectives. Where those objectives include the betterment of public life, planning for people is be the bottom line. Although rationalism suffers from practical difficulties, it further suffers from another set of defects and shortcomings, wholly unrelated to the impracticalities of its application. As alluded to earlier in this paper, these have to do with legitimacy and making sure the process actually achieves its goals.

To focus on this, Forrester endorses an overarching theory of participatory planning, which in the broadest sense concentrates on involving the entire relevant community in making strategic decisions. Forrester explicitly emphasizes his affinity for planning for social welfare and justice by taking account not only of efficiency, as would a pure rationalist, but also of “decent outcomes.” (Forrester 1989). Due to this, according to Forrester, interaction in planning matters at least as much analysis. Regardless of how exacting a study of relevant data is performed, analysis matters very little indeed if its results, even if rational, are presented at the wrong juncture within a larger sociopolitical conflict structure or in a way that people fail to properly understand. Participatory planning seeks to alleviate some of these obstacles and accommodate conflicts amongst different groups, classes, and interests by having public agencies and officials foster increased pluralistic involvement in the planning process.

According to Forrester, both Lindblom’s incrementalist and Simon’s satisficing approaches both stopped short of facing the real problems of planning practice, hardly any of which, he claimed, dealt with technical issues. These include the place of value judgments in decision making processes; political biases; structural economic and political factors; and accountability. (Forrester 1989). Participatory planning prescribes a recipe for addressing such issues by democratizing the planning process. It requires planning with those planned for, in a more bottom-up (as opposed to centralized, top-down) community participation approach. (Leeuwen 2004).

According to this model, participation in public sector decision making is facilitated and stimulated by forging both formal and informal diplomatic connections, or linkages, between public agencies and officials, community organizations, and private sector stake-holders. The result, in theory, should be a “[decision making] process where . . . Demands [are] jointly prioritized and implementation strategies jointly developed.” (Chege 2006). This feature of the participatory approach is perhaps the most relevant to addressing some of the shortcomings of the rational model previously discussed, and has normally been seen as a positive contribution to the body of planning theory. However, as noted by Forrester himself, some have criticized this approach as illegitimate due to a failed orchestration of participating public interest groups. Essentially, so the argument goes, unless every possible affected interest has a “Lindblomian Watchdog,” agreements arrived at between public officials and representatives of specific interests will result in anything but neutral outcomes. (Forrester 1999). Are there alternative community involvement strategies? Yes. Citizen participation is a conceptual umbrella under which other, more specific and nuanced approaches, fall. One of these subcategories, advocacy planning, has caused a particular stir in planning theory since its inception. .

D. Advocacy Planning: Towards an Adversarial Process:

Advocacy planning as a subset of the broader framework of citizen participation is distinguishable from the participatory planning endorsed by Forrester in several important ways. For instance, as an approach to making decisions, it is a process initiated outside of and independent from the confines of the institutional agencies and public officials serving as catalysts for community involvement under participatory planning. Additionally, it is particularly focused on sponsorship and promotion of specific objectives and points of view. As a discipline, ‘planning’ stems from at least three foundational concerns: physical land use, design, and socially-motivated reform efforts aimed at the less well off in society. It is the last of these bases from which advocacy planning developed. (Blau 1983).

Advocacy arrived on the scene in the 1960s and is grounded in adversarial procedures mirroring those of the legal profession. It aims to level the playing field as between feeble and dominant community organizations so as to protect the interests of disadvantaged and poor community members against more well established governmental and business groups. Ideas of environmental justice also pervade this approach. (Hudson 1979). Essentially, advocacy planning is concerned foremost with matters of social reform and purging society of inequality. (Blau 1983). Advocacy is an approach to planning wherein the assumption of a singular public interest is questioned and confronted, and it has been instrumental in efforts blocking thoughtless and unresponsive plans. (Davidoff 1965).

Primary amongst the champions of this model for planning is Paul Davidoff, who in the 1960s influentially called upon planners and activists to explicitly communicate their values via their work rather than attempting to remain impartial and unbiased. He suggested they do so by advocating for what they regard to be suitable and right. (Davidoff 1965; Blau 1985). Davidoff espoused these ideas in the midst of one of the more turbulent eras of recent history; in the 1960s, civil rights and welfare political measures were hot topics. To a large extent the successes of both these trends exhibited the wide range of potentialities and possibilities presented by protest and advocacy. (Davidoff 1965).

To Davidoff, the field of planning represented far more than an opportunity to exercise technical skill; it symbolized an opportunity, a one-of-a-kind chance to contribute to the betterment of urban conditions through a functional understanding of city dynamics. (Davidoff 1965). He viewed the future of planning as a field inviting, nay, necessitating discussion and reexamination of social and political values. This, Davidoff believed, required an abandonment of the idea of planner as mere technician. Though acknowledging the inherent value of increases in information available to decision makers, Davidoff strongly opposed the notion that technical measures devised for accomplishing such increased information should take priority over goal setting and the pursuit of ideals. (Davidoff 1965). In essence, as he put it, advocacy planning should strive to achieve pluralism by planning not just through official city planning departments, but also through alternative organizational frameworks and structures, by which those previously lacking a presence in decisions making processes could make known and actively campaign for their interests. (Blau 1983). We have seen bounded-rationality-based and incremental approaches, and now pluralistic and adversarial methods, but what other alternatives or complements to rational planning exist?

E. Transactive Planning:

In the sense that it acknowledges a need to address the shortcomings of scientific-like rational approaches, transactive planning is somewhat similar to the approaches already discussed. This is illustrated, for instance, by the remarks of one of the theory’s biggest champions, John Friedman. Friedman refers to the pursuit of a transactive methodology as moving toward a “Non-Euclidean” planning style, apparently in reference to the comprehensive process of deduction practiced by the late Greek mathematician, Euclid, which approximates in many ways the process of rational decision making promoted by the synoptic model. As we have seen, the rational planning model has lost theoretical approval for its lack of attention to relevant factors other than cold, hard data inferred from axiomatic assumptions. Indeed, just as legitimate geometric paradigms other than the Euclidean model have evolved, so too has planning theory witnessed the rise of arguably more legitimate approaches to decision making. Transactive planning falls within this category, but what exactly is it?

Friedman abstractly defines the planning process as that which is characterized by linking knowledge to action. (Friedman 1993). The relevant inquiries then become, says Friedman, what knowledge matters, and with whose actions should we be concerned? Before exploring this matter further, Friedman notes that, unlike traditional models of planning, planners in the postmodern era should strive to act in the everyday “thick of things” as opposed to acting in a removed fashion, preparing analyses for future developments. (Friedman 1993). Instead of anonymous bureaucrats, Friedman advocates for planners fulfilling their roles in face to face interactions. He doesn’t argue for dispensing with imaginative future-oriented preparation, which he views as an inescapable aspect of how the human mind works, but he asserts that it is only possible for planners to be truly effective through their actions in the ‘here and now.’ Planners, Friedman argues, must focus on processes unfolding in the present time more than analyzing how things might unfold at some future date. The transactive model of planning further suggests a shift in spatial emphasis from national to local and regional decision making, acknowledging that the particular concerns and challenges to be addressed by planning vary based on geographic locality. This suggestion further takes note of the fact the local level where the hordes of groups and organizations new to participation in planning spend the majority of their time and exert the majority of their influence. (Friedman 1993). In this way, then, transactive planning represents a decentralized decision making paradigm. It is with these ideas in mind that Friedman proposes a host of characteristics for the ‘non-Euclidean’ mode of planning he desires. Specifically, such an approach to planning will be normative; innovative; political; based on a process of social learning; and transactive.

By ‘transactive’ Friedman means to refer to a process through which the two types of knowledge central to planning--expert and experiential--are linked in a process of back and forth transactions between planners and those whom their decisions will directly affect. To be effective, Friedman argues, planning must address problems which are properly defined; this, in turn, necessitates bringing together the two aforementioned bodies of knowledge in what he refers to as a process of “mutual learning.” (Friedman 1993). Friedman further asserts that this decentralized face-to-face process of problem and remedy definition is best served in small groups of up to twenty people. (Friedman 1993). In essence, Friedman seeks a manner in which information and expertise additional to that of experts can be brought to bear on the every-day decisions made by planners, based on interactions with the people most relevant to such an inquiry--those directly impacted by planning decisions at neighborhood, city, and local-regional levels.

In sum, transactive planning seeks to expose policy issues via a concentration on the experiences of the people its decisions will affect. (Hudson 1979). In this sense, planning should not be an abstract activity focused on faceless or anonymous recipient communities, but rather a process of interaction, of person to person contact between planners and community members. A process of mutual learning guides this approach, not the analysis of data calculated in a pseudo-scientific manner. (Hudson 1979). As described by Friedman, “planning is not . . . Separated from other forms of social action, but rather [it is] a process embedded in the continual evolution of ideas validated through such action.” (Friedman 1973, as quoted in Hudson 1979). Transactive planning represents a departure from traditional methods of evaluation, where plans are conventionally assessed on the basis of delivery of goods or services; transactive planning looks to the effects of plans on people and their capacity for cooperative growth and development as the litmus test for success. (Hudson 1979).

We have now explored several of the many alternatives to the process of planning and making decisions in the public domain. Some of them are similar or very closely related; some are prescriptive while others are largely descriptive; some operate from the perspective of institutional agencies while others approach planning from an individual-based adversarial advocacy point of view. Of what significance or relevance are these theories in terms of gleaning from a retrospective of postmodern planning theory ideas for replacing or complementing rational synoptic planning?

V. Analysis:

It is clear that, in the second half of the 20^th century, planning theory witnessed a dramatic paradigmatic shift resulting in a rift between theoreticians, who began endorsing novel approaches to the field, and practitioners, many of whom still adhere to principles of rationalism. Academics largely abandoned the formerly widely endorsed model of synoptic planning in search of a more workable model, resulting in incessant debate, while incomplete, impractical, idealistic and unrealizable processes attempting to achieve a logical comprehensive evaluation of planning issues has continued to guide approaches to decision making “on the ground.”

While rationalism may be imperfect, however, its competitors have been unable to fill the large shoes it left behind in a manner comparable to the dominance once enjoyed by the synoptic model. Why, if at all, are these competing theories relevant, then? What have they contributed, and what can we take away from the dynamic history of planning theory they have been at the epicenter of? Principally, and perhaps also somewhat obviously, these theories provide us with invaluable insight as to what has and what has not worked. Furthermore, it is quite plausible that the reason no single decision making theory in particular has ascended to the level previously afforded rationalism is that, for reasons which are now better understood, not even the rational model itself filled the shoes it claimed to. Part of the explanation for this is that such shoes, as planning theorists have come to realize in the post modern era, are much larger than previously envisioned. Dispensing with the footwear metaphor, the point is this: as the discipline and practice of planning has evolved, so too has the understanding theoreticians have of it; consequently, the model previously most widely endorsed has been exposed for what it truly is: flawed. The model seems to make sense, but given that the nature of problems planning seeks to address has proven far more expansive and complex than the human intellect can reasonably be expected to synthesize and act upon wisely, it is contextually defective.

With this at least cursory understanding of why academics have lost faith in rationalism, to answer the foregoing questions in more detail we must further strive to comprehend what explains the precise nature of the theories that arose in an attempt to fill the resulting void. Such an understanding will provide an awareness of the fundamental issues that necessarily must be addressed before an overarching theory of planning can, to the extent possible, again provide a guiding set of principles for decision making in the public sector in as much of a concerted effort manner as possible.

Some of these basic matters include the following: Why plan? How plan? For whom? And by whom? (Hudson 1979). Contemplation of these issues in large part underlies the diversity of alternative approaches to rationalism proposed in the post-modern era. The potential answers to such inquiries are likely to differ based on perspective, and can thus only begin to be approached analytically in a meaningful way. However, the theoretical approaches emerging in response to the fall of rationalism provide, at the very least, a good launch pad for such an undertaking. Thorough familiarity with such models provides the retrospective intellectual history that is prerequisite to ensuring future decisions made in the public domain are informed, sensible, and responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse publics that make up our societies. As concerns the pitfalls of the rational model and what the options are for addressing these, such reflection seems to indicate on a general level that, although individually no planning theory alone seems capable of taking the helm, together the vast array of alternatives which have sprung up in the wake of rationalism’s demise provide a comprehensive toolbox to which planners can turn and, based on the particulars of specific situations and scenarios, construct and implement useful hybrid approaches.

VI. Conclusion:

Approaches to planning theory have evolved over the last century from a pseudo-scientific perspective into a more attentive and considerate set of proposed decision making methods in a continued process of theoretical reflection. Throughout this progression, as highlighted by the foregoing text, some things have worked better than others. How, specifically, might such an understanding guide us to approach planning in the public domain in a more sensible way? There are a number of lessons which, arguably, should be taken away from a review of recent debates in planning theory.

In particular, we must remember the bounded nature of our intellectual capacity, an acknowledgement which, when applied to the wicked nature of the problems planning seeks to address, severely limit’s the practical implementation of a purely rational model of decision making. Moreover, we must bear in mind the institutional, political, and structural conflict based frameworks within which planning decisions are made if we are to effectively guide or pursue public sector decision making. Furthermore, we must strive to keep the objects of planning--people and their local environments--in focus as we endeavor to develop and implement strategies for improving and bettering society. In so doing, we must additionally consider and be attentive to the diversity of publics potentially affected by planning decisions, and where possible embrace those advocating for interests which have traditionally been excluded from the process. Incorporating a more participatory and face-to-face approach to making planning decisions in a manner demonstrating awareness of circumstantial constraints and practical limitations, i.e., combining several of the arguably more beneficial characteristics of the host of planning theory approaches discussed in this paper, is, I would argue, at least a good place to begin an assessment of what can be done about the pitfalls of the rational model.

None of the planning approaches discussed in this paper are perfect. Moreover, it is unlikely proponents of any of them would likely agree on even the idea of a perfect approach to decision making, given the varying sets of objectives likely to be expressed by diverse publics. What is clear, however, is that from the host of concepts and philosophies that have evolved in the wake of rational planning, we can begin moving toward a realization that as planners, we have many tools to draw on, which even the slightest degree of reflection on the turbulent history of planning theory allows to be combined complementarily. The rational planning process may not be faulty or counterproductive per se, but the bounds imposed upon the extent to which it can in fact be implemented, coupled with the unique nature of “wicked” problems faced by planners, has presented a series of unintended failures, or “pitfalls,” to this approach that must be remedied. Just as a canopy of foliage may disguise a physical hole to be used as a trap, the seeming logicality of the rational planning process, for many, has camouflaged its true shortcomings.

Alternative planning approaches that have successfully met practical demands must be taken account of, while those elements that in retrospect seem to have been riddled with pitfalls should be discarded. Moreover, deliberations regarding exactly what form this process could or should take must occur in light of the specific and perhaps unique challenges facing planners in particular, individualized circumstances.

At bottom, planning represents far more than expertise in physical design or spatial layout; it is a process. The procedural nature of decision making as applied to planning is not well served by a strictly analytical, calculating, pseudo-scientific approach. Planning is a methodology employed to achieve goals which are not entirely responsive to such tactics--they are “wicked” problems. For these reasons, the more participatory, collaborative, supportive and capable of advocacy for heretofore unrepresented minority interests planning efforts can become, the more encouraging the process and ultimate results are likely to be.

When making decisions of any sort, not just in urban or community planning contexts, it is important to bear in mind what is being decided, why such a decision is needed, and for whom the decision is being made. This paper contends that the answers to such questions in the context of community planning are not realistically attainable through use of a rational synoptic model of planning. Not only is the model itself subject to several practical information constraints, but furthermore the specific answers to the questions posed above are for all intents and purposes excluded by such a paradigm. Arguably, the intent of planning is to better society. This is a vague and generalized answer to the ‘why’ in the question of why plan? If this premise is accepted, it follows that the questions of what decisions should be made, and for whom, are simply not addressed in a scientific process of pure rationalism, which fails to incorporate the channels of informational input and circumstantial constraints that directly bear on “bettering” society. Rather, these inquiries require attention to details that range much broader in scope than that likely to be considered by technocrats. This paper has attempted to illustrate some of the many possible alternatives for achieving such a state of affairs in planning processes. Perhaps John Forrester put it best when he wrote “only when we understand that it is quite rational to plan differently under different conditions can we avoid the embarrassment of thinking and saying that our thinking and planning may be rational in principle, yet anything but rational in practice. (Forrester 1989). This potential state of discomfiture is what is meant by irrational rationalism.

____________________________________________

References

Alexander, E. (1995). Approaches to Planning: Introducing Current Planning Theories, Concepts and Issues. (3^rd ed.). Luxembourg City, Luxembourg: Gordon and Breach.

Allmendinger, P. (2001). Planning in Postmodern Times. New York, NY: Routelage.

Blau, J., La Gory, M. (1983). Professionals and Urban Form. Albany, NY: SUNY.

Camhis, M. (1979). Planning Theory and Philosophy. New York, NY: Tavistock.

Chege, P. (2006). Participatory Urban Planning and Partnership Building: Supporting the Provision of Access to Basic Services for the Urban Poor. Kitale, Kenya: 5^th FIG Regional Conference, Accra, Ghana. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from http://www.fig.net/pub/accra/papers/ts18/ts18_04_chege.pdf.

Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, 544-55.

Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed Scanning: A “Third” Approach to Decision-Making. Public Administration Review, 27, 385 - 92.

Forrester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Forrester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.

Friedman, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: Linking Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Hira, A., Parfitt, T. (2004). Development Projects for a New Millennium. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Hudson, B. (1979). Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45, 387-406.

Hyman, H. (1982). Health Planning: A Systematic Approach. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Lindblom, C. (1959). The Science Of 'Muddling Through'. Public Administration Review, 19, 79- 88.

Luzzi, J. Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon. (Nov. 3, 2001). The Rational Planning Model in Forest Planning: Planning in the light of Ambivalence. Retrieved November 1, 2009, from http://ewp.uoregon.edu/pdfs/wp2.pdf.

Rittel, H., Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Journal of Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.

Tichy, N. M. (2007). Judgment: How Winning Leaders Make Great Calls. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Van Leeuwen, J. (2004). Recent Advances in Design and Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Tailoring Land Use and Urban Design for Sustainability

2010-05-23T18:24:00.000-07:00

Carbon Emissions, Calthorpe, and TODs

Yale-educated architect and planner Peter Calthorpe, a founding member of the Congress for New Urbanism, is perhaps best known for his firm's work centering around transit-oriented-developments, or TODs. Now, in a politically savvy move, Calthorpe has moved beyond principles of urban design in his quest to influence the built environment. Specifically, he is implementing a system of complex metrics to quantify the impacts of urbanized settlement forms on two items which are increasingly important to a large and concerned portion of today's electorate: (1.) the cost of doing business, and (2.) climate change, the two of which are more closely related than some realize.

Calthorpe devised a complex scientific method for statistical modeling capable of tracking the carbon emission consequences of land use patterns as part of an effort known as "Vision California", funded by the state's High Speed Rail Authority. Essentially, he suggests that, unless the benefits of new urbanism can be touted in a way that translates directly into quantifiable empirical data with concrete implications, the general public has less, if any, reason to support more sustainable forms of urban development. He makes a good point.

An artist's rendering of a typical TOD

The impetus for this clever and somewhat unique foray into alternative means of influencing urban design was California Assembly Bill 32--a highly controversial state law seeking to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels in the next decade. Subsequently passed Senate Bill 375 requires this effort to include considerations regarding land use planning. In response to the recent recession, which caused California's unemployment rate to top 12%, the law is opposed strongly by industry and some gubernatorial candidates. Such opposition illustrates the delicate balance many believe is necessary to strike between responsible environmental stewardship and development before any degree of meaningful progress can be made. However, Calthorpe believes development and environmentalism can peacefully co-exist, and even perhaps aide one another, if approached correctly. To that end, he stresses the benefits of dense, mixed urban environments centered around transit stops, particularly those involving train stations. Such settlement patterns are known in planning jargon as transit-oriented-developments, and usually follow the tenets of new urbanism (which is really old urbanism) quite closely.

Based on a report from Mickinsey & Company (http://www.mckinsey.com/), trusted advisor to many of the world's leading corporations, Calthorpe notes the cost savings inherent in patterns of tightly knit urban fabric, as well as the reduction in CO2 emissions flowing from fewer commuter miles traveled in such communities. The importance of this emerges when one considers the primary line of attack employed by opponents of AB 32 in California--the excessive costs of devising technology capable of sufficiently mitigating CO2 effects. Industry officials and lobbyists are right--technological innovation isn't cheap. However, nor is it the only way to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Urbanism, Calthorpe argues, is a mutually beneficial solution to the cost concerns of industry and the climate concerns of environmentalists alike. Perhaps best of all, it necessitates zero technological innovation.

While saving money in transportation and infrastructure efficiency, urbanism--particularly new-urbanism-based TODs--lower costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Yet it is also, somewhat curiously, absent from many of the debates concerning the pros and cons of AB 32 and many pieces of like legislation or policy debates. In light of current demographic trends, this is somewhat alarming.

The world community recently passed the 50% mark in terms of urbanization, and this trend is predicted to continue--at an increasingly rapid pace--into the future. Many areas of leapfrogging suburban density are included within metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), so the fact that someone lives in an "urban area" doesn't indicate the lack of a sprawling back yard or nearby wal-mart. It simply means their livelihood is directly or indirectly tied to the fluctuations of a nearby center of commerce in a more than incidental way. So, increasing urbanism does not mean increasing efficiency in land use, contrary to what the 50% urban statistic may seem to indicate. This raises the question, then, of what "type" of urbanism is being created by such a demographic shift. And, more importantly, what type should be created?

Calthorpe believes we can and should capitalize on an already rapidly unfolding demographic shift toward urban centers to shape the cities of tomorrow in a way capable of (a.) saving money and increasing efficiency, and (b.) simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These are the practical effects of TODs that bear directly on the pocketbooks, wallets and consciences of American voters, and therefore directly on their political inclinations. But a secondary effect of TODs is perhaps just as important, even if less readily identifiable in concrete terms: an increase in interesting and vibrant urban environments.

For numerous reasons, then, the new urbanism--particularly TODs--while not necessarily the answer to all the woes of urban or urbanizing society, should be a serious and central component of any political platform. It serves the interests of urbanists, environmentalists, and industry alike. Who can complain about that? TODs, by the way, are nothing to fear. As I said previously, the new urbanism is really the old urbanism. It promotes a return to traditional settlement patterns, with closely knit and interactive neighborhood communities, easy accessibility to transit, and a mix of activities for a broad range of neighborhoods' constituent parts. Traditional inner ring suburbs, sometimes called "streetcar suburbs" are somewhat of an example of this from a bygone era. These same areas also often contain the most desired and sought after pieces of real estate in many older, well established metro areas. Calthorpe strives to chart a similar path for the future of urban civilization so the benefits and convenience of urban amenities don't remain the exclusive possession of a privileged few.

Achieving this will not require a vast overhaul of what it means to be "American," but will, rather, simply entail a reversion to traditional settlement styles with a modern twist. Transit oriented developments are as old as cities themselves. Imperial Japan witnessed numerous centers of commerce spring up along central routes of travel heading to Edo (now Tokyo), for example. The same could, and arguably should, happen here. Calthorpe believes, further, that this commonsensical way of overcoming the hurdles to legislation like AB 32 is important for an additional reason as well: the success or defeat of AB 32 at the state level in California will have significant implications for similar attempts at the federal level. It is imperative that confidence in wise environmental decisions not be undermined; new urbanist developments, like the TODs supported by Calthorpe, represent an interesting way to go about ensuring this--a way, moreover, with spin-off benefits perhaps as important as, or even more so, than its primary purpose. Smart urban design, therefore, promotes sustainability on numerous levels: economic, environmental, and social-communal.

So again, I ask you, what normative state should we, as a global society, strive for in and around our urban centers? And remember, we can strive for, nay, actually influence the way things literally take shape. Remember, the built environment isn't natural; it's built. This truism bears repeating to highlight the fact that our urban future lies in our hands. We are at the helm, and can navigate amongst competing development styles in any way we choose. Let us choose wisely.

___________________________________________________________________
The video posted above, which details some of the successes of Portland, OR regarding increased urbanization and transit based development (which are not without downsides, however, specifically regarding affordable housing concerns) is meant to showcase the benefits of the foregoing discussion. The Picture below is of an area in Portland, Maine, ripe for this sort of development. The rendering depicts Pierce Atwood's submission to the Portland Planning Board for major site plan review of their proposed renovations to the Cumberland Cold Storage building on Western Commercial Street. Next to this structure is a site eyed by MDOT for potential passenger rail service into the City. Also surrounding the area are several large parking lots, all wiped clear by urban renewal. Gorham's Corner, as the neighborhood is known, would, in my opinion, make an excellent area for a TOD district today.