urban musings’ blog

This article was first published in Worldchanging Seattle

A recent conversation that I had with local architects Robert Humble and Joel Egan triggered a renewed interest in transitory land uses -- developments that are relatively temporary and can be established with very limited investment. In my own experience as an urban planner, self-storage facilities and private parking lots have long since been the traditional transitory land uses, acting as placeholders for more intense development. True, some of these projects could be credited with cleaning up vacant yards full of weeds. But I always found them disappointing, as they add very little value to the community.

Needless to say, I was delighted to see that at least one city in the Pacific Northwest is redefining what it means to foster creative uses for transitory land. While in Portland over the weekend, I paid close attention to the modular businesses that have cropped up on vacant lots all over the Mississippi and Alberta neighborhood districts. These uses, albeit still placeholders, clearly add a bit of vibrancy to the community and are great places to grab a maple pecan ice cream cone, veggie burrito, or mum plant! Hopefully these little establishments mark a new trend in transitory land use toward modular style development and community enrichment.

A vacant residential lot serves as the perfect home for a homemade frozen treat stand

A vacant corner lot in the Mississippi District plays host to a mobile Mexican Food Stand

An underutilized corner lot in the Alberta District is transformed into a gardener’s green oasis

This article was first published in Worldchanging:

Seattle resident Sarah Bergmann is working diligently on behalf of native bees, birds, and butterflies to create pockets of pollinator-friendly habitat throughout our urban environment. Sarah's recently launched project, coined Pollinator Pathways, will be transforming city-owned planting strips into pollinator-friendly gardens with the hopes of igniting meaningful dialogue about the declining population of pollinators in our region.

west coast scene

These recent declines in population are particularly alarming given that approximately one-third of the human food supply depends on insect pollinations. Research has identified a number of contributing factors to this problem including pesticide misuse, urban/suburban development, and habitat loss. It is at once apparent that the relative size of pollinators belies how integral they are to a balanced eco-system.

The goal of the Pollinator Pathways project is to counteract some of these harmful developments by re-appropriating underutilized spaces for pollinator habitat. Effectively, resource intensive, grassy planting strips will be replaced with pollinator-friendly, pesticide free gardens, lush with native plants and trees. The result will be the creation of a series of nectar corridors for pollinators migrating through our urban landscape.

The project has garnered a broad base of community support with funding coming from Seattle's Neighborhood Matching Funds, technical assistance being provided by the City's Department of Transportation, and helping hands being offered by Nova Alternative High School students. The first demonstration garden will be planted along Columbia Street between 12th & 29th Aves, utilizing a template designed by Seattle landscape architect Sara Lawrence. This initial pathway will serve as an educational resource about pollinators and spark interest in the prospective role of urban spaces in larger ecosystems.

In the coming months, interested project participants can expect to see additional demonstration gardens and an educational website complete with garden templates for all sun exposures, a comprehensive planting list, and general information on native pollinators and their respective habitats. Sarah hopes her initial efforts will inspire residents around the City to plant pollinator-friendly gardens, thereby redefining the role of the urban landscape.

This article was first published in Worldchanging.

Dwell Development and other local firms show us how to increase density while enhancing the existing urban environment.

The story:

Infill development can be a very controversial topic, especially in Seattle. Rapid growth in our city has produced more than a few townhouse projects that tower above neighboring homes, flaunting design that seems oblivious to the traditional character of the streetscape. But a select group of local design/build firms have shown remarkable sensitivity and insight with their work, which sets an inspiring example of how to add density successfully.  I recently spoke with Anthony Maschmedt, long-time South Seattle resident and founder of one of these innovative firms, to learn more about his company’s design philosophy. 

Maschmedt's firms, Dwell Development and the associated Dwell Design, are boutique design/build firms committed to creating ecologically sound homes in Seattle that are positive additions to the neighborhoods around them.  In Maschmedt's opinion, designers must acknowledge the environmental and social impacts of infill development in order to create successful projects.

The homes themselves are designed and built with the environment in mind:  making maximum use of natural light, incorporating recycled materials, and utilizing energy efficient heating and cooling systems. The projects are also sited to help residents access alternative modes of transportation, with most within walking distance of the Columbia City or Beacon Hill light rail stations. To further encourage the use of fuel-efficient vehicles and to incentivize buyers, new homes are often outfitted with scooters or smart cars.  Future projects may even incorporate solar technologies and greywater systems.

But the Dwell team also uses design to be good neighbors. Dwell Development's in-house architect customizes their projects to maximize privacy through the placement of windows and open space.  This thoughtful detailing also extends to the scaling of the units and the selection of complimentary exterior materials. For one project in Columbia City the team committed to preserving the original craftsman home on the site, even though it meant the loss of two new units in the infill project. These types of efforts to retain the character of a streetscape even while adding homes to the neighborhood set a new standard in sustainable development.

To learn more about Dwell's design approach and see the finished products, you can visit one of the hard hat tours they hold at the completion of a project. Also be sure to check out the infill projects being designed by innovative Seattle firms like OPA Design and Architecture, which is demonstrating that infill projects can be both sustainable and affordable, and Case Design and Project Management, which is dedicated to building low impact developments in emerging Seattle neighborhoods.

Dwell image

Why it’s Worldchanging:

As the global population continues to grow, it's important to find ways to add capacity to our cities without simply stretching the borders of urban areas and swallowing up surrounding green space. As existing urban neighborhoods evolve to accommodate new homes, designers and builders are taking an increasingly active role in public mediation, by recognizing and endeavoring to minimize their projects’ associated environmental and social impacts.  Dwell Development is one excellent local example of how conscientious design can benefit homeowners, the natural environment and the entire community.

This post will conclude my three-part discussion of politics and land use planning.  Today I am going to spend some time discussing how politics plays into the adoption and implementation of federal environmental regulations.  Since the late 1960's the Federal Government has enacted a number of environmental regulations intended to protect our nation's natural resources and endangered species.  The most familiar Congressional Acts are probably the Clean Water, Clean Air and Endangered Species Acts.  These regulations, amongst others, are administered in a few different ways as I'll briefly outline below. 

First, there are regulations that apply directly to local jurisdictions like the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Regs. which stipulate benchmarks for water quality or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regs. that outline requirements for floodplain protection.  In these cases, the jurisdictions have to demonstrate thier City or County's overall compliance to the federal government on a periodic basis.  Then there are regulations that apply to both local jurisdictions and individual permitees like the application of Army Corp Regs. to proposals that impact navigable waters or federal review of proposals that impact endangered species.  These types of review are usually triggered by specific development actions and are site specific.  Finally there are a number of programs implemented at the State and local level that are necessary to ensure compliance with federal mandates for environmental.  These take the form of wetland fill permits, grading permits, floodplain development review, and geotechnical review.  Each of these program can be tied back to congressional acts for Clean Water, Flood & Natural Hazard Prevention, or Endangered Species (ESA) Protection.

west coast scene

It becomes apparent pretty quickly that there are a lot of regulations and a lot of different ways associated programs can be funded and administered! So how do politics affect what happens at the State and local level for environmental protection?

In my experince working on large scale wetland mitigation plans, NFIP compliance, and NPDES Permits, I've seen a few trends.  Republicans tend to cut funding for federal environmental programs with the intent of scaling back oversight into what they consider local matters.  This seems logical except, the regulations themselves are seldomly scaled back.  Thus, developers and Cities still need to demonstrate compliance with environmental regulations without the assistance and guidance of specialists at the federal level.  This poses problems since individual jurisdictions and developers can't afford to hire wetland biologists and geotechnical engineers for every project. They rely on federal experts to guide them through the myriad of environmental regulations.  Without this guidance, the jurisdictions and developers risk getting sued or fined for their lack of compliance.  I can personally vouche that the enforcement actions for things like illegal wetland fill and floodplain disturbance (Katrina is a great example) are way more costly (in terms of time and money) than pro-active assistance at the front-end.  Under Republican administrations, there is rarely any money for anything other than reactive measures that can't be avoided.

In contrast, Democrats tend to allocate more dollars to community assistance for compliance with environmental regs.  They also tend to add more regulations!  Having said that, I have seen, particularly with ESA protection and FEMA Regs., that more staff and resources usually equates to more periodic review and project monitoring.   This type of review gauges the effectiveness of programs and often leads to meaningful programs cuts or revisions. The Democrats' focus on proactive assistance, and project monitoring results in more efficient and effective environmental protection.

As the official debates take place over the coming weeks, be sure to listen for references to infrastructure spending, transportation funding, and envirnmental regulations.  As noted in my recent posts, these programs in particular have the greatest impact on land use planning at the local level.    

Yesterday I wrote about how politics can effect the financing of critical water and wastewater facilities in rural and urban areas throughout the United States.  Today I am going to touch on federal transportation policy and how it impacts land use planning at the local level.  Many regional transportation projects like highways, railroads, interchanges, ports, and public transit are subsidized by the federal government through the bi-annual transportation funding bill.  These moneys are primarily allocated to projects that serve to expand capacity, spawn economic development, or encourage multi-modal transportation.  The Federal Government has a keen interest in keeping goods and people moving from one market to another, which explains the tremendous amount of money spent on transportation projects each year.

I have been involved in two Interchange Area Management Plans, a Metro-wide Transportation System Plan Update, and have served as a City representative on the Metro Policy Organization Board (the organization engaged in requesting and disseminating transportation project funds at the regional level)  These experiences have exposed me to the complex nature of transportation funding and the ciritcal role politics play in the prioritization of projects.

street grid of stockholm

In general, I have observed the Democrats being more favorable to transportation projects that reduce the demand for single-occupancy vehicles.  Under a Democratically controlled legislature, local jurisdictions will often push their public transit agenda and seek funds for light rail, regional bus systems, and pedestrian/bike facilities.  These facilities are strategically proposed in poorer areas where individuals can not readily afford a vehicle to get back and forth to work.  These types of facilities are also seen as being more environmentally friendly since they reduce the number of vehicles on the road.

In contrast, Republicans are recognized as supporting expansion of the interstate highway system.  The jurisdictions I worked for often proposed their interchange reconfigurations and highway lane additions under Republican controlled legislatures.  The intent behind this approach is that high capacity freight networks will encourage economic development. Depending on the cmpany, this may be an effective economic development strategy.  For instance, warehouse distribution facilities depend heavily on freight routes, whereas tech companies prefer a high quality of life for its employees and will often implement van pool/car pool programs if public transit isn't available. 

Of these two approaches, I support the first.  I would rather see companies pay for the additional capacity they might need on a transportation route and have federal money go toward the construction of multi-modal transportation facilities for the community as a whole.  But then that's pretty obvious since I bought a house less than three blocks from Seattle's new light rail line!

Stay tuned because tomorrow I'll be discussing politics and environmental regulations!  

So there's at least one topic you wont see debated in the upcoming weeks by the democratic and republican presidential nominees; land use planning.  Although planning and development are very hot topics at City Council meetings and in State legislative chambers, they are not often discussed at the federal level.  This is in large part because zoning laws, albeit authorized by Constitutional Police Powers, are implemented at the State level.  Every State has the option of enacting Statewide Planning Programs and/or Zoning Initiatives.  Oftentimes, the State will turn over as much power as possible to the local jurisdictions with the understanding that land use planning is a very community based discipline.  Having said all of this, the Federal Government still garners a significant amount of power over environmental regulations and enforcement, along with the financing of critical infrastructure.   On these two issues, there are significant differences between the Republican and Democratic parties.

I decided I will write my own three part series on land use planning at the federal level.  This first post will look at Regional Wastewater and Water infrastructure projects.

Regional Wastewater and Water Infrastructure infrastructure projects are traditionally subsidized by the US Department of Agriculture (and administered by the State).  In the 1950's a significant amount of money was allocated to construct modern infrastructure that would service urban and rural areas alike.  The projects were intended to spawn economic development and protect public health.  Most of this infrastructure was designed for a 50-year life and some 60 years later, is now overdue for upgrades and/or replacement.  I worked on behalf of two Metro areas to try and secure funding for these types of projects (regional level facilities) and learned first-hand that very limited funding was available during the years of the Bush Administration.

infrastructure

In general, I would say Republicans support direct incentives to encourage economic development.  These commonly take the form of tax breaks to large companies and residential developers to spawn growth and expansion. The major constraint with the Republican approach is that most communities are competing for the large companies that have funds to contribute toward a regional infrastructure project.  What I've seen happen in places like Albany, Eugene, Westfir, and Salem is that these large companies know they are in great demand and thus, play hard ball with jurisdictions.  I have been at the table with Pepsi Cola in the City of Albany when they threatened to walk away if the City didn't subsidize the necessary infrastructure upgrades for their bottling plant.  Small cities like Albany drain their generul fund just to placate companies that promise to bring family wage jobs.  In this particular case, Pepsi Cola received corporate tax breaks from the federal government, as well as local subsidization.  The community received the promise of jobs and tax dollars, but what is a promise worth from a multi-national corporation like Pepsi-Cola?  

Democrats, on the other hand, have historically supported community based projects, like public and/or community facilities, to attract economic development and provide a better quality of life for the community.  This approach puts communities on a level playing field when they are preparing their economic development plans.  It also ensures small and medium sized companies receive adequate services to expand their businesses.  According to studies I participated in with the Southern Willamette Research Corridor, it's the small and medium sized companies that provide the most stable family wage jobs in the community.  Thus, it is critical we find as many ways to support them as possible since they are not the companies that are eligible for enterprise zones or large corporate tax breaks.

Tomorrow, I'll be covering transportation so stay tuned!

This past week I took my usual trip to the Columbia City farmers market, but in addition to buying produce and chatting with my favorite vendors, I spent some time thinking about the most effective marketing techniques.  Neighborhood farmers markets are one of the most lucrative forms of direct marketing for small, sustainable farms and yet there is no manual or formula that farmers can use to ensure financial success.  My analysis of marketing techniques is of course biased and inconclusive since I have no way to correlate my observations with the actual, financial success of the market vendors.  However, it does begin to create a classification mechanism for the different types of techniques being used at the market and hopefully, future research will be able to identify which techniques are most successful.

I found there are three major types of vendors at the market.  There are the specialist vendors, which focus on one product type or food group like raspberries, chickens & eggs, or stone fruits.  Then there are the generalists, which tend to offer the widest variety of produce and flowers as possible.  The last group I identified are the vendors that sell value added products like pasta sauces, cheese, bread, or chocolate.  There are also a few vendors that dabble in whole foods, as well as value added products.  For purposes of this analysis, I will classify these last vendors as generalists.

farmers market

Within each of these categories, there seem to be different marketing techniques.  The specialists appear to market their product by offering samples and enticing customers with sheer volume (imagine a booth just covered in fresh raspberries!)  There are also those specialists that have developed a niche within the market, such as the one vendor selling beef or wild mushrooms.  It's difficult to say whether it's the product type or the lack of competition that effects how these vendors market.  What I can say is that they usually have the most unadorned product displays and booths.

The generalists are more apt to market by establishing a connection to the farm where the produce is grown.  Hence the many booth signs saying things like "family owned and operated," or "sustainably grown."  Customers wanting to support one type of farm or another will select their produce accordingly.  The only other visible way farmers compete in the generalist arena is by price.  Interestingly enough, the booths with the lowest prices are lacking in information about the farm source!

The last major group, the value added vendors, seem to do the most visible marketing.  These are the booths with a plethora of samples, brochures, and intricate labels.  These vendors, in particular, have the unique challenge of converting customers from grocery store brands to artisan products. To complicate matters, these products tend to be some of the most expensive ones in the market.  

I shop at vendors in each one of these categories.  I purchase chicken, eggs, meat, stone fruits, and potatoes from specialist vendors, veggies from a generalist vendor, and cheese and pasta from value added vendors.  With the exception of the generalist vendor, all other vendors I interact with are virtually the only ones at the market that carry said products.  To select a generalist vendor I chatted with a few farmers to find one that utilized sustainable practices and was family run.  Out of the vendors that fit this classification, I ultimately selected one that was in its first few years of operation sine I wanted to support a farm that was still in the process of getting established.  Ultimately, it's the relationships with the vendors that keep me returning week after week.  To that end, they're all using effective marketing techniques.    

This article was first published in Worldchanging.

The story:

When most people imagine a wastewater treatment plant, they think of large conveyance pipes and ponds of brown sludge that are neatly tucked away behind chain link fences on dead-end streets. Instead of building facilities that need to be hidden, what if we designed these critical parts of our urban infrastructure with a second purpose: to engage and educate community members?

The King County Brightwater Project has done exactly that. By turning their new state-of-the-art wastewater treatment plant into an educational hub, they provide an opportunity for hands-on community learning on a range of environmental topics, including low-impact stormwater management, reclaimed water, habitat restoration and alternative energy production.   

Community engagement has been a cornerstone of the project’s design process from day one. Throughout the many steps of the process, the Brightwater Design Team consulted with community advisory groups to collect feedback on the project’s design and functionality. This close interaction with stakeholders resulted in active community spaces and high-quality landscape design like the project’s Environmental Education and Community Center and 75 acres of natural habitat interspersed with pedestrian trails.

As the official design process comes to an end, the Brightwater project hopes to continue engaging community members in the importance of resource conservation through activities in the Community Center and research labs. Even now, although construction of the Community Center building hasn't yet even begun, individuals can learn about wildlife habitats by attending one of the regularly scheduled natural habitat tours.  

The Brightwater project is already making waves around the world: King County has hosted delegations from Korea, Uganda and Canada who wanted to learn more about the facility’s pioneering endeavors to utilize 100% of the byproducts of the wastewater treatment process.  It is this kind of information sharing and global thinking that ensures the healthy exchange of ideas and more responsible resource consumption.

northwest habitat

Why it's Worldchanging:

The Brightwater project is a living example of a new way of thinking about infrastructure projects: as multi-functional facilities that act as centers for community engagement. By removing the literal barriers between citizens and the public utilities that serve them, Brightwater has seized a unique opportunity to educate people on the connection between the water in our homes, and the water in the natural environment. As other U.S. cities upgrade and expand their urban infrastructures, the Brightwater design model will be a valuable learning tool.  Similarly, as cities in developing nations design and construct critical infrastructure projects, they should endeavor to integrate these facilities into their communities and utilize them for environmental education and research purposes. As our global resources become increasingly scarce, public education and awareness will become more valuable than ever to the success of our cities.

I've been pondering a few ideas lately that I may forget if I don't spend the time writing them down. Thus, here is my list of a myriad of project ideas related to planning, local food production, and community development.  I hope to explore these ideas in more detail in future posts and am looking forward to hearing your feedback on whether they are valuable and viable pursuits.

Here's the list:

• Rural economic development planning by growing-shed
• Agrarian cluster communities
• Rural live/work co-ops
• Urban live/work co-ops
• Modern cottage developments
• Neighborhood tool collective
• Neighborhood garden and harvest collective
• Neighborhood produce stands
• Mobile greenhouse project
• Industrial transition farming
• Woonervian planning for commercial corridors
• Sustainable agriculture zoning
• Regional agriculture co-op

I am sure this list will grow as I read more books and chat with more people.  The challenge of course isn't developing new ideas, but rather how to turn those ideas into reality!

I find the phrase "conscious design" particularly intriguing.  It's a phrase that connotes a level of awareness of externalities like the environment, community, and economy that is not common amongst conventional design processes.  As mentioned in last Friday's post, the design of a building or space is usually client driven, regardless of whether the client is known or speculative, and that design processes can be generally classified into two groups; closed or inclusive.

modern seattle home

Conscious design appears to be a hybrid design model whereby the process is closed, but the client's directives are balanced by community oriented initiatives.   These initiative may take the form of natural resource protection, neighborhood compatibility considerations, and economic assessments.  The end result is a project that retains many of the benefits of an inclusive design process, without the added complexity.  As such, I think it may the most suitable model for small to medium sized infill projects that have negligible impacts.

As projects increase in size and their impacts become more adverse, the design process should respond accordingly and become more inclusive.   At this critical juncture, a conscious design approach needs to take into account affected community members and agencies like the watershed council or economic development corporation.  Although there is no formula for which design process should be used in any given situation, I suppose the best rule of thumb is to think about what a good neighbor would do in the same situation.