urban | design.banter:: All I Want for Christmas is to Replace Sprawl with Infill

urban | design.banter 
:: infill | re-knitting our urban fabric | cohousing | keeping small towns from becoming suburbs ::  

why shouldn't where you live be somewhere you would want to visit?

Not a very simple request, is it? But it seems that every time I go home for the holidays, the new "it" retail center is located farther away, as the newest neighborhoods are built farther and and farther out. I am well aware of the hypocrisy of lamenting lost nature adjacent to the suburb where I grew up. My parent's house, built in the early 80's, was once in someone's prairie. There are still plenty of acreage around us, with cows, horses, and even some emu happily roaming. What upsets me is the skipping over of large plots of land not being used by happy animals (and not designated parks and greenbelts, which are essential with increased density), abandoned strip malls, and underused parking lots in lieu of greenfield development many miles from nowhere.

I know that I risk sounding like a "no-growth-er." I'm not a no-growth-er, just a smart growth-er. The term smart growth is used a lot, but here I'll look at implementing a few smart growth principals in my beloved hometown, or should I say, home Metroplex of Dallas/Fort Worth, and similar cities with many miles of suburbs.  I believe we can maintain the positive quality of life aspects of suburbs that people love while reducing the aspects they don't love (namely traffic, long commutes and total dependence on a car).

Why not infill instead of sprawl?

"But, there will be so much more traffic." Yes, with any development comes more traffic. But building farther out decreases the density of an area, making everyone dependent on a car (or a ride from mom). In an already populated area, it may seem like the existing roads could not bear the traffic added by an infill development. But that is the point: transit, walking and biking are only more viable options when they are the easiest and most desirable. When you are stuck in traffic on the highway and watch six trains go by while you sit in the same place, that's when you will think about using transit. The more density in an area, the more efficient transit can become. More density can support more businesses per square mile, bringing things closer to you and therefore more walkable and bikeable. 

"But, the city says we need all that parking." Maybe on the three nights before Christmas Eve. But most of the vast seas of parking lots are rarely full, and as density with transit, walking and biking become more viable options, less parking will be needed. Northgate Mall, a somewhat sad, smaller, older city mall in north Seattle, was given new life with a suburban style lifestyle center face lift. Now, the parking that is remaining is always full due to the popularity of the new stores and restaurants, but a revival of the whole area has occurred, with an improved transit center and new multifamily development. If the mall was not located along a freeway (as most malls are), providing parking in the middle and the new shops along the exterior (with zero lot lines along sidewalks) would have been a even better "smart growth" design. I am encouraged by cities realizing how detrimental so much surface parking is to the urban landscape, and making exceptions to require less parking.

 The new lifestyle center exterior of Northgate Mall in Seattle. Photo Credit.

"But, we don't have the space we need for a proper development." Yes, master planned developments depend on economies of scale, and buyers have come to expect certain amenities. However, I believe that if subdivisions were not totally isolated, autonomous developments, residents wouldn't need these extra amenities. If new developments were built as infill, residents would already be close to schools, city parks with pools and sport fields, greenbelts, and places to walk and bike. Existing and new residents would not have to pay for the roads and infrastructure expansion (including new schools, as city schools are being closed due to under enrollment). Following smart growth principals, streets inside the developments can be thinner and more appropriate for low speeds (versus the freeway width curving streets found in new suburbs). 

As we begin to pull out of the current state of the economy, I hope that the decreased value of homes in places of unchecked sprawl and the hours spent in traffic commuting farther away will serve as reminders that we cannot afford to keep up the current pace of suburban green field development. I believe that smart growth will bring suburban commuters a higher quality of life, and the happy horses and cows will thank us.

 

urban|design.banter: Why shouldn't the place you live be somewhere you would want to visit?

A key topic of urban|design.banter will be making where you live a place where you would want to visit. Think of cities where people go to vacation or tour: Rome, London, Amsterdam, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Savannah, Charleston. People even come just for the day to downtown Friday Harbor. The urban core of these places share common traits, including:  older buildings mixed with new buildings; traditional neighborhood/mixed use development with zero lot lines and storefronts lining wide sidewalks; a variety of sizes and types of businesses, shops, bars, restaurants; well planned and maintained green space; and last but not least, the ability to walk or take transit to your destination, or to find the place so appealing that you don't even need a destination. When I lived in Rome the phrase I used for this was "You don't always have to go, you can just be."

A place to just "be:" folks hanging out at a street fair in beautiful downtown Asheville, North Carolina.

So why is it that we build the places that the majority of Americans live with exactly the opposite characteristics? Mostly because it is against the law to do otherwise, and because it's easier to make the numbers pencil on a large greenfield development of almost identical houses. 

What can we do to begin to reverse this trend? First of all, we can support policies that increase or allow for increases in density: allowing for ADU's or backyard apartment, transit (or at least transit funding equal to roads), allowing zoning laws to be updated to allow for mixed uses and less parking, and notifying your city council person when a sidewalk needs repair. These are just a few suggestions, some so big they seem to be insurmountable. "Density" is a four-letter word to many, and many oppose transit because they don't want "those people" to have a way into their neighborhood. But the most expensive and desirable places to live in the country are also the most dense and the most heavily served by transit, and creating density allows for more services close by, thus increasing walkability, thus allowing for places to be more human-scaled, and more like a place you would choose to visit.

When I lived in Chicago, I had to cross over Michigan Avenue on my way from the train to my office building. I would get annoyed as the tourists began descending upon the Magnificent Mile. So, I had to remind myself of a few things, the least of which being that I have been a tourist many, many times and have surely annoyed the citizens of the place I was touring, but also that I was so lucky to live my everyday life in a place where people save up their vacation time and money to come visit. I ran errands in the Hancock Tower and on the Magnificent Mile, and could walk home along the lakefront or through Lincoln Park (and the free zoo) if time allowed (I especially loved to do this when it snowed, as the park was serene and the train would be running behind anyway). 

This subject is covered extensively in James Howard Kunstler's The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's Man-Made Landscape

ADU 101

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) have become more popular and acceptable in the past few years. The City of Seattle began allowing for ADU's in all residential zones (it had previously been only some south Seattle neighborhoods) in 2009. San Juan County allows for a limited number of permits for ADU's each year.

An ADU can be attached, as in a basement apartment, or detached, as in a backyard cottage, carriage house, or alley flat. The implementation of ADU's can fulfill many goals of sustainable development, including density, affordable housing, and smaller house sizes. As our urban fabric is "re-knit", neighborhoods can become more dense, creating more demand for services, therefore creating more opportunities for walkable neighborhoods and less dependence on a car.

Truly sustainable development also includes social goals, many of which are also met by integrating ADU's: a way for homeowners to have a separate income stream, a mix of income and ages; the ability to stay in one neighborhood through varying phases of life, therefore creating lasting community: kids can live in a backyard cottage as they start on their career path, elderly parents or relatives can live in smaller spaces that require less upkeep and be close to their children and grandchildren. The term "mixed income" may be worrisome, but from a social standpoint, renting out an ADU can more successful than an absentee landlord renting a house, in that owners are close to the rental unit, tenants are close to their landlord, so each keeps an eye on each other. The Kentlands Development in Maryland (designed by New Urbanism pioneers DPZ)  is a neighborhood that has successfully integrated market rate, large suburban housing with backyard rental units. An often cited example is of a woman who lived in her ADU and rented out her large house in order to save money and pay off her mortgage.

Anna spoke to BUILDERnews magazine about the benefits of building an ADU or guest apartment. See the article, including photos of two of our projects that include these structures here.

Hare House in Friday Harbor, Second Floor Plan: an apartment over an office and garage can be used for family, or rented out for extra income.

Summaries of Seattle and King County's rules for Accessory Dwelling Units are below. In the coming weeks we will have summaries of the rules of other cities and counties.

Rules for Seattle ADU

View the Backyard Cottage Overview from the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development here. 

From the overview:

Among those aware of a backyard cottage in their neighborhood:
• 71% said that the backyard cottage in their neighborhood fit in with the surrounding homes.
• 84% noticed no impacts on parking or traffic directly related to the backyard cottage.
• 83% were supportive or strongly supportive of backyard cottage policy.

Highlights from the Client Assistance Memo 116A, "Establishing an Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)."

• Backyard cottages, also known as detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) are allowed citywide effective Dec. 4, 2009
• Seattle Defines an ADU as: a room or set of rooms in a single family home that has been designed or configured to be used as a separate dwelling unit.
• A single family lot my have one ADU or Backyard Cottage.
• An ADU is limited to an area of 1,000 square feet in the single family structure. A unit in a single-family
  home may exceed the maximum size if the structure was in existence prior to June 1, 1999, and if the
  entire accessory unit is located on the same level.
• A parking space for the ADU is required unless it is located in a designated urban center or village, or if the topography of the site or structure location makes it "unduly burdensome."

Rules for King County ADU's

View a summary from the county with links to the code document (summarized below) here.  

• Accessory dwelling units are allowed in all zones in unincorporated King County except Mineral (M) and Industrial (I), provided that certain conditions are met.
• No separate ADU's are allowed on urban lots less than 5,000 square feet, a non-conforming rural lot, or a lot containing more than one
• Either the primary dwelling or the ADU have to be owner-occupied 
• Only one entrance can be located on the street side