Category: lessons learned

reading the evolution of places

On By Chuck WolfeIn everyday urbanism, infill development, lessons learned, myurbanist international, placemaking, sustainability, top posts, urban views, urbandwidth, vignettes45 Comments

This article is a collaboration of two people who have never met, one, an architect in Venezuela, Ana Maria Manzo (reachable via her blog, the place of dreams), and the other, an environmental and land use lawyer in the United States, Chuck Wolfe, founder of myurbanist.

Below, they provide intercontinental guidance for reading urban evolution.

The evolution of place is far from a linear process. Rather, it is an interactive story which features the blending of many dimensions.

Time, of course, creates new and old approaches to the look and feel of habitation, workplace, and the transportation routes between. The elements of water and land interface and interact, sometimes together, with the built environment. Climate drives seasons and forms of building, access and the manipulation of light. And cultural approaches to ownership and stewardship modify these responses to climate, and create alternative forms of building on the ground.

Today, we are driven by a new sustainability ethic, necessarily systemic in scope. Carbon-neutrality is the rage, and location efficiency, clean energy and the return of neighborhood are the watchwords of change. Formulas and metrics, and new regulatory systems attempt results, and show the quest to measure how close we are to achieving ideal forms of location and development.

But as both of us have written in different languages, context is key, and adaptation to a multi-environmental sense of place, associated imagery and sensation is an essential element of building design, urban development and innovation going forward.  Creating beautiful buildings that are able to work for the environment, or crafting appropriate enabling regulations, should also be considered as part of a broader, holistic effort. There is no use in having architects, urban planners, developers and lawyers thinking in isolation about a better future.

This should be a movement of us all; a movement that evokes positive emotions in those who inhabit cities, and a movement which makes us dream.

What forces shape the look and feel of place? Above, the context of a water-oriented urban skyline in modern America (Seattle) compares with today’s view of biblical legend, adjacent to the “Valley of Death” (Silwan, East Jerusalem). Note the stark contrast created by available building space, history and the local ecology of water.

How to live amid the sunset? The interaction of urban space and the same sun shows historical variance in the United States and Montenegro.

How to accommodate population density? Through the advantages of a planned city as in the future Masdar in Abu Dhabi, or through the improvised Barrios of Caracas, Venezuela?

What are the bases of cultural inspiration and sense of place? A false town (Universal Studios) and a real town (Port Townsend, Washington) show how life can imitate art.

What is the relationship between natural resources and urban settlement at the shoreline? Here, in but one example, water, hills and towns blend together in form and function in Northern Italy and the Cyclades Islands of Greece.

How do people choose to “occupy” their familiar public spaces? Here, two young people enjoy public space in a plaza in Mexico, in contrast to a group of Venezuelan students, who, in political protest, spell with their bodies the word “freedom” in the midst of a major thoroughfare.

What is the contrasting look and feel of public street space based on cultural expression, local economies and changing transportation modes? Here, ironically, we see vitality amid economic duress in the Middle East, and economic challenges of removal of parking and loading for bike lanes in the new, multi-modal America.

What additional interfaces exist between commercial settings and public spaces around the world? Here, witness the role of music and dining against the backdrop of a grand, public square, and an eatery amid public streetside darkness.

How is space between new and old buildings used in different places? Here, we see access to a rear residence, compared with two modern towers flanking an older building which has fallen into non-use.

What becomes of mixed use development in areas with with different histories? Here, adjacent to Piazza Navona, we see the commercial path between emblematic public spaces in Rome, as compared to the current use of a street in Valletta, Malta, once reserved specifically for duels between storied knights.

In different contexts, how can bodies of water be used in urban areas? Here, American recreation contrasts with gondolas, now also arguably recreation in today’s Venice.

In conclusion, we reference more than history–we emphasize the need to access multidimensional memories of place to honor positive evolution in the design of new and redeveloped urban spaces. Hence, we must never forget the value of comparison, and of awareness and wisdom about the context of distant and romantic worlds which we often hope to mirror, or regain.

While every culture may provide different, contextual approaches, collectively these approaches should attempt a common goal: human life in a better urban landscape. All elements must be considered: sense of place, climate, sound, population density, geographic orientation and, of course, neighbor buildings.

When we are collectively able to consider all of these elements to envision the re-creation of urban settings, the evolution of place will take a new and positive direction.

(Initially co-published at the place of dreams and el lugar de los sueños. Republished in slightly different form in seattlepi.com and appeared in planetizen on August 23. Please scroll over photos for credits).

lessons learned, the sequel, redux: the day after the development boom

On By Chuck WolfeIn lessons learned, sustainability, urban administrationLeave a comment

Yesterday, I “republished” my first piece in seattle pi.com, below. Here is the companion piece which followed on April 30, which asked the still prevalent question of “who pays” for sustainable practices going forward.

“Lessons Learned from the Development Boom” (April 21 seattlepi.com, reproduced below) warned of potential disincentives for sustainable development in the new economy. The article advocated for further and careful coordination of the silos of design, regulation and finance to avoid oversimplification, unfunded hyperbole and excessive cost.

The first responsive comment embraced cost, and emphasized that well-meaning regulations could make desired development untenable, especially in our current economic circumstances. After all, it is in this “cost trench” that the battle of sustainability will be fought–who will pay, and in what form–will determine the success of urban redevelopment at the “cutting edge”.

As lawyers, we are relearning how to be advocates and for what result, as the public benefit/private burden equation recalibrates. Will our clients benefit from demand management assessments, from “greenwashing” at the regional or building-specific level, from voluntary compliance or incentives, from mitigation or subsidies which reward optimization of transportation and land use, tax or fee rebates, less parking, retrofitting existing or building new? Once the rail line is there, how will reduction of vehicle miles traveled and quality development of surrounding areas be assured and at what densities?

The range of creative thought on sustainability and related topics is unprecedented. The dialogue is rich, and ranges from implemented to visionary, glib to insightful. New icons such as Alex Steffen catalogue and itemize the elements of a changing world. Easy regulatory references include Seattle’s 2006 density bonus incentive for LEED silver rated projects (with affordable housing contributions), similar programs in, e.g., Arlington, Virginia and pending efforts in King County and statewide to implement measures to mitigate greenhouse gas impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act (perhaps ironically, the economy and political climate have delayed Department of Ecology efforts to formalize guidance to counties and cities). A recent Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Report to the Legislature showed the range of potential amendments to the Growth Management Act to address climate change.

Meanwhile, in the cost trench, multiple studies debate the cost of green. The PI.com cited recent American efforts on April 14. A comparative British CBRE study, “Who Pays for Green?” examines green as “the latest trendy must” and prices LEED certification, other rating systems, and the price of a carbon-neutral building, while noting that at some point, the trend will prevail based on a longer-term commercial logic and environmental desirability.

As author Auden Schendler has noted, “Getting Green Done” is no easy task and the trench warfare has and will occur far beyond the “101 level” where we often dwell. His new book purposely takes on simple greenwashing and, among many tales of “wrong turns”, casts today’s green building certification processes as something good but not end-all, a necessary step towards figuring out true energy efficiencies.

In the end, the first responsive commenter on April 21st appeared in the key trench, where costs will be allocated and success will be measured. For all of the debate and creative thought, we still know relatively little about the cost of sustainability, and who will pay. But change is rapid and readily apparent. I did not read Schendler’s book on paper, but in its Amazon Kindle edition, downloaded on an iPhone at the Starbuck’s at 6th and Union.

lessons learned from the development boom, redux

On By Chuck WolfeIn compact development, lessons learned, politics, transit oriented development, urban administration2 Comments

Last April 21, I wrote my first piece in seattlepi.com, and have not stopped since. I thought it would be worthwhile to “republish” here, as economic uncertainty stays with us well into the new year.

Infill development, or redevelopment of existing development, is among the key land use focal points in Washington State’s urbanized areas. As entrenched land use and environmental professionals, we have long advised clients on the broad range of due diligence, compliance and related issues which arise as infill development proceeds from planning to implementation. This advice has been practical by nature, not the stuff of daily dialogue. But suddenly, our entrenched professional dialogue is mainstream.

But have we lost a practical, implementation-based perspective?

“Green”, “sustainable” and “shovel ready”–and their older cousin, “smart growth”–have arrived with a vengeance, albeit often more as separate silos of ideas and inspiration than as interrelated elements of societal change. Even in a now slow real estate market, we now hear often from their advocates and thoughtful critics. How and where should we grow? Will the new residents of our region live, work and travel in a more sustainable way?

While former City Councilmember Peter Steinbrueck travels to Harvard in search of the ingredients of a more sustainable Seattle, former State Secretary of Transportation Doug MacDonald laments in Crosscut how growth management is not always working as planned, while national columnist Neal Peirce lauds the likely marriage of transportation and land use under the Obama administration–with the actual potential for silos of ideas to synthesize into cohesive programs with allied agendas.

As a long-time practitioner in the region, it is remarkable to see the dialogue emerge as never before, for debates to take center stage (witness the very public process over transit oriented development in South Seattle and Bellevue and the recent establishment of Seattle’s Green Futures Lab). Far more than entrenched and introspective professionals have become interested in land use patterns that conserve land, provide affordability and reduce emissions.

Absent large swaths of single-entity ownership such as South Lake Union, redevelopment of our current urban landscape will not be easy. As the pipeline of permitted and financed projects ebbs, we should take stock of what we have learned during the last boom–and look hard at how the silos and synergies will emerge on the ground.

Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA) has designated urban areas for growth for almost 20 years.

1. In the Puget Sound region in particular, the existing character of a neighborhood may be subject to dramatic change as preexisting neighborhoods are replaced by more dense redevelopment.
2. Critical area and contamination constraints, governed by elements of GMA and related statutes such as the Shoreline Management Act and the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA, the State’s cleanup law) have limited the amount of raw land available for straightforward development and often require sophisticated mitigation and/or remediation solutions.
3. In part to avoid long commute times, the live-work ideal has evolved as a major goal of mixed-use urban infill projects. As noted, transit oriented development has become a related driver of where people will live and work.
4. Cities such as Seattle continue to deemphasize traditional separation of residential from other uses and assumptions regarding parking and assumed modes of transportation.

Given the drivers influencing infill redevelopment, individual and interrelated projects can prove particularly challenging to assure an economic return and the absence of significant practical and regulatory constraints. From the private sector perspective, land must be accumulated in a rational pattern and permits and approvals obtained to allow for an economically and otherwise feasible project.

Infill redevelopment projects generate higher cost given the range of variables involved in the blending of old and new and assuring that existing neighborhood character is addressed in context. From the public sector perspective, GMA and regulatory consistency must be assured, as well as resource and human health protection achieved in concert with related environmental mandates.

Additional challenges result from a range of specific implementation concerns:

1. Assurance of Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation amendments if necessary to assure implementation of project parameters that vary from traditional “Euclidean” zoning requirements or limited floor area ratio, height or excess parking
2. Project mass and building height may require preservation of
view corridors in an urban setting, either from a development regulation of State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) context
3. Historic landmarks impacted by redevelopment plans must be addressed as required (e.g. Seattle Landmarks Preservation Ordinance)
4. Assurance that building, seismic and fire codes, as well as “green building” considerations can be met cost effectively
5. Assurance that impacts to neighbors will be managed appropriately, both from regulatory and public perception standpoints

Finally, as highlighted in a recent University of Washington study on “brownfields redevelopment”, infill sites constrained by historic contamination offer a key example of the balance that must be struck between the needs of the marketplace and the State cleanup law’s regulatory mandate to protect human health and the environment to the maximum degree practicable. The Department of Ecology is increasingly called upon to provide assurance to marketplace stakeholders, such as property purchasers, developers and lenders, over and above its more traditional role implementing a more mandatory or enforcement approach to site cleanup. The forms of assurance provided by Ecology, and the availability of staff, has become a key issue for infill projects where residential uses will be central to a project’s financing and marketing. Project acquisition and construction lenders and equity partners, as well as retail leaseholders and condominium lenders, residents and homeowners’ associations need assurance that site cleanup activities have met legal requirements.

In addition to the issues discussed above, urban redevelopment is often beset immediately with particular expectations or requirements to help solve urban and regional problems such as affordable housing and transportation. As these are elements of cost, a developer must find a way to contribute to resolution of these issues with the allowances of the project pro forma. Allocation of funds towards provision of transportation and affordable housing infrastructure and/or mitigation must be balanced against design and constructability decisions (constrained site construction and demolition challenges, quality of building materials, lighting, etc.), allocations of uses, parking and open/street spaces and vegetation.

The bottom line? Innovation will face implementation challenges that can benefit from practical lessons learned in recent years. The silos of design, regulation and financing must be addressed at an integrated, practical level if the now much-discussed sustainable growth models are to succeed.