Vote Yes on Alameda’s Measure B for a More Sustainable City and Region

At times, government leaders, planners, environmentalists, and advocates in California can lose sight of the bigger picture.  Even with all of our immediate problems, one of our biggest challenges in the coming decades will be population growth: our state of 38 million will add another 10 million people over the next 20 years.  For reasons ranging from Climate Change to Peak Oil to declining public health to congested infrastructure to simple geographic limits, California will not be able to tolerate a continuation of its past suburban growth paradigm .  We must grow in a more smart and sustainable manner, which means channeling a significant amount of development back into our urban cores.  Within the Bay Area, there are only a few large-scale opportunities for such growth: Hunters Point, Treasure Island, and the Eastern Neighborhoods in San Francisco, the Broadway corridor and Oak to Ninth in Oakland, the Salt Works in Redwood City, and Alameda Point in Alameda.

This Tuesday, Alameda will vote on Measure B, which will decide whether or not to approve SunCal’s plan for the city’s gigantic decaying Naval base that has been abandoned for almost two decades.  After 12 years of planning, SunCal has submitted a plan that would bring 10,350 new residents, 9,590 new jobs, two new schools, and 145 acres of open space (including a 58-acre sports complex and 15 miles of bicycle routes) to the site.  This vote should be extremely close, and will probably come down to two major issues: traffic and density.

From the beginning, Alameda Point has posed significant challenges to redevelopment due to the infrastructural limitations of Alameda’s West End.  Unlike the East End, which has three bridges connecting it to neighboring Oakland, the West End relies only on the Webster and Posey tubes as its only connection off the island.  With each tube currently at capacity, every morning traffic backs up well into the West End, causing some residents to drive miles out of the way to the East End for an easier exit.  Although Alameda has great potential for transit and bicycle use, its underdeveloped bus service and extremely poor bicycle connection to Oakland fails to draw enough people away from driving.  40 years ago, these same concerns over traffic produced Alameda’s Measure A.

Resulting from a backlash against developers in the 1960s, Alameda’s Measure A was passed in 1973 to essentially outlaw multi-family housing in order to prevent redevelopment and limit traffic.  While Measure A is among the harshest lot size restrictions in Northern California, it came at a time when Victorians were being bulldozed weekly to make way for new apartments and condominiums, seemingly stripping the city of its sense of identity.  Two major bay-fill projects—the development of the South Shore and Bay Farm areas—further contributed to the fear that Alameda was being overtaken by developers.  The anti-growth movement that produced Measure A is rightfully credited for preserving Alameda’s unique charm, but it has also hindered the city from creating livable neighborhoods that support walking, bicycling, and transit use.  Having constructed very little housing and no new apartments in nearly 40 years, Alameda has become increasingly unaffordable, even after the housing crash.  While many Alamedans still ardently cling to Measure A with their “Low Density=Less Traffic” lawn signs, a growing number of residents are recognizing the need for new housing if done properly.

Because of Alameda’s past experiences with major developments, it is logical to expect that Alameda Point’s redevelopment would be met with significant skepticism and opposition stemming from fears of another traffic-inducing development disconnected from the core of Alameda; but, the Alameda Point Plan has responded to these challenges with an innovative set of transportation mitigations which will result in only a slight increase in overall car trips.  The plan calls for nearly as many new jobs as new residents, making longer commutes unnecessary for some of its residents.  For trips outside of Alameda Point, SunCal will provide $200 million in island-wide infrastructure improvements, including a vastly improved ferry to San Francisco, a new BRT system linking Alameda Point with Downtown Oakland, the 12^th St. and Fruitvale Bart stations, and the rest of Alameda, and a dramatically improved bicycle network (which, coupled with a new bridge to Oakland’s Jack London Square, could make Alameda one of California’s premier bicycling cities).  In addition, unbundled parking, mandatory transit passes, and an on-site transportation coordinator would help to limit automobile use and promote transportation alternatives.  SunCal’s redevelopment of Alameda Point would not only produce a walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented neighborhood, it would give Alameda the complete transit system that it deserves.

Tuesday’s vote is one of the most pivotal moments in Alameda’s history.  A yes vote ensures a more sustainable and affordable Alameda and significant housing relief for the region, while a no vote preserves the status quo of an increasingly gentrified and congested island, a decaying and contaminated Naval base, and a more sprawling region.  I am sympathetic to those in favor of redevelopment but concerned over the complex developer agreement, but this is a case where Alameda voters need to realize that no perfect deal will ever exist, and this is still a solid plan will a committed developer that wants to get building.  Most importantly, the cost of doing nothing is not zero: a no vote means Alameda will miss out on a BRT system, a vastly improved ferry, new schools, tons of open space, $12 million in yearly tax revenue, and countless other benefits.  Please, Alameda, if you care about the sustainability and livability of your city and your region, vote yes on Measure B.

UPDATE: Measure B was dealt an embarrassing defeat with 85% of Alamedans voting against it, a product of bad timing, a huge anti-Measure B movement, and a mediocre measure to begin with.  The reality is that not many leaders came out to support it in the first place because it was such a risky and uncertain issue (the developer agreement really doomed the entire project).  It will be interesting to see whether or not SunCal sticks with the project–it sounds like they might be willing to renegotiate and give the project one last shot through other means besides a ballot measure, but who knows what will happen at this point.  One thing is certain: the Point will not change anytime soon–just how the “Low Density=Less Traffic” crowd wanted.

Three Elements of Portland’s Success

Portland's Pearl District is one of the truly unique neighborhoods on the West Coast

I recently returned from a few days up in Portland, a city well-known as being decades ahead of its peers when it comes to urban planning.  While I wont go into as much detail as my examination of innovative urban policies in Colorado, I took away three primary elements of Portland’s planning paradigm which have helped it to earn the title of most sustainable city year after year.

Element #1: The Urban Growth Boundary

Portland's UGB is the single most important policy in understanding the region's successes.

In Portland, land is a limited resource.  For the past 30 years, Portland has protected farmland and open space by limiting the development of sprawling suburbs and exurbs through strict controls over the location of growth.  When done right, an urban growth boundary can be the single most effective policy to create a livable and sustainable city and region.  By containing sprawl, Portland makes the most of its built environment, which mostly resembles a less-congested Berkeley density-wise.  What really blew me away was the sheer number of vibrant neighborhood commercial streets that were often within only blocks of one another–NW 21st and NW 23rd, Hawthorne and Belmont, not to mention the entire Pearl District–something which could not occur in a more heavily suburbanized region with a greater presence of strip malls.

There are a number of misconceptions that result from Portland’s UGB.  Contrary to the claims of libertarian critics, the UGB has not stopped all growth and led to an unaffordable region; Portland is actually one of the most pro-growth cities in the nation and has made it easy (through progressive zoning codes and parking requirements–see below) for developers to construct high-quality yet affordable housing to meet the demand of the market.  As a result, Portland experienced much less of a boom and bust than cities in California, and currently has a median housing price is 40% that of San Francisco, 60% that of LA, and 80% that of Seattle, making it one of the most affordable cities on the West Coast.

Element #2: Smart Parking Management

A village of food carts lining a surface parking lot in Downtown Portland.

In the Bay Area, parking can turn conservatives into progressives and liberals into Teabaggers.  Because land is a limited resource and Portland must make the most of existing space, Portland has pioneered a number of interesting and innovative parking management practices.  The two most noticeable of these practices are the adaptive reuse of surface parking lots with food carts and the parking management policies around transit.

Unbeknownst to me before my visit, Portland is famous for its food carts, second to only New York City (which has about 14 times the population).  The 400+ carts range from Indian to Cambodian to Mexican to Brazilian and boast some of the best food in the entire city for a price of $5-$7 dollars.  What do food carts have to do with parking management? Whereas surface parking lots are traditionally one of the single biggest causes of blight in cities, Portland’s food carts play a vital role in fostering a vibrant street life where there otherwise would be none.  Food carts make surface parking lots work.

Portland is also a leader in smart parking policies around transit.  While many local governments maintain high parking requirements even in transit-rich areas, new developments in Portland near frequent transit (buses, light rail, and streetcars) have no parking requirements whatsoever.  Keep in mind this does not mean developers have stopped building parking altogether; it simply gives the power of determining parking ratios to developers and the housing market rather than local governments.  Since an average parking space adds $40,000 to the cost of a housing unit, allowing for unbundled parking with lower ratios has a huge effect on housing affordability near transit.  Even in booming areas such as the Pearl District, condos and live-work units currently start under $200,000–try and find that in San Francisco.

Element #3: Cost-Effective Transportation Choices

The Portland Streetcar is the epitome of development-oriented transit.

Portland’s transit system is geared toward providing the greatest amount of economic growth and mobility for the lowest price.  Over the past 15 years, Portland has had an extraordinary streak of New Starts-funded projects, having built five major MAX light rail extensions totaling nearly 38 miles (not to mention the 15 mile regionally-funded WES commuter rail and the 4 mile locally funded Portland Streetcar).  Yet, Portland’s still not finished, with the 3.3 mile Small Starts-funded Eastside Loop for the streetcar, and the 7.3 mile Milwaukie light rail extension, set to be completed by 2012 and 2015, respectively, as well as a 5 mile rapid streetcar extension to Lake Oswego (essentially a cheaper alternative to light rail) currently in planning and aiming to open in 2014.  The total cost of the 68 miles of rail that Portland will add between 1995 and 2015 is about 25% less than the cost of the 32.5 miles of BART extensions that the Bay Area will have had in the same time period (keep in mind these are just rough estimates adjusted for inflation).  Portland has also achieved better returns on its investment, with around three times the ridership as BART’s extensions (once again, semi-rough estimates).  Even with the fuzzy math, twice the mileage and three times the ridership for 3/4 the price is outstanding for TriMet and embarrassing for BART. As I’ve written too many times before, this enviable cost effectiveness is nothing new for other metro regions, but back to transit in Portland…

The most interesting aspect of Portland transit is its use of streetcars.  Portland’s streetcar system has a very specific function not as an urban circulator or glorified bus, but as a tool of placemaking.  When coupled with a progressive form-based zoning code and market-based parking requirements, the results of the streetcar have been staggering.  Since opening in 2001, 10,000 housing units and $4 billion in economic development have occurred within three blocks of the four mile streetcar line, and new districts have emerged such as the Pearl District, which I found to be one of the best urban neighborhoods I’ve ever been to.  For anyone who believes that streetcars are just glorified buses, I urge you to travel to Portland and see the clear difference for yourself.

Conclusion

Portland is still by no means perfect–there are still numerous aspects of the city’s urban fabric that could be improved.  Portland still has it’s fair share of surface parking lots, at times comically surrounding a streetcar line or light rail stops, and transit mode share is still rather low (13% within the city) considering the city’s reputation (non-commute trips seems to be a big source of ridership as well).  I would have liked to see some nicer buses–Portland was one of the first cities to invest in low-floor buses in the 1990s, but now they look pretty outdated compared to AC Transit’s Van Hools.  Portland could also use a greater investment in Rapid Bus/BRT for some of its major corridors.

View Larger Map

Above: Portland’s Lloyd District–Surface parking lot heaven, in spite of ample transit access (three light rail lines and a soon-to-be streetcar line)

Nevertheless, Portland has accomplished a feat which few other cities can attest to: creating a compact, affordable region with the right mix of densities and transit modes.  Unlike the Bay Area, Portland doesn’t have “www.trimetrage.com,” “www.trimetsucks.com,” or “www.rescuetrimet.com”–transit just works.  I was not able to spend too much time exploring Portland’s bicycle network, though it’s platinum rating, 8% mode share and ambitious plan for 25% of all trips by 2030 could fill up a number of posts themselves.  Overall, Portland is well on its way to becoming “the best European City in America,” leading other regions (such as the Bay Area) to seek to emulate its success.

More photos on the 21st Century Urban Solutions Flickr.

Letter to the Editor: Blame for Collisions Misplaced

–Published in today’s Chronicle–

Blame for collisions misplaced

I am astounded by C.W. Nevius’ ignorance of the facts behind the causes of pedestrian collisions in San Francisco.

According to the Municipal Transportation Agency’s 2007 collision report, pedestrians caused one-third of all injury collisions, meaning that drivers were responsible for two out of every three pedestrian accidents.

Nevertheless, Nevius insists on blaming the victims, referring to pedestrians as “lackadaisical jaywalkers” who carelessly walk into traffic at their own expense.

San Francisco must address the epidemic of pedestrian collisions through calming car traffic so that everyone can be safe crossing the street.

DANIEL JACOBSON Stanford University

A Relic from San Francisco’s Freeway Revolt

In today’s Chronicle, there’s a great Letter to the Editor about the freeway revolt from Phillip Richardson, a San Francisco highway planner in the 1960s from Tiburon.

Thank you for the interesting article about the city taking back control of regional highways in its usual self-centered way (“Freeway Revolt set S.F.’s course,” Insight, Oct. 11).

The result transportation-wise is that there are congested streets – Oak, Fell, 19th Avenue and Lincoln Avenue – that would now be free of all through traffic and livable again. The two routes that you mention, Park-Panhandle and Golden Gate, were the only serious programs ever put forth by the state. They both were underground or depressed and would not have been noticed by city residents.

However, the Division of Highways was not set up to sell such a program, and the NIMBYs, as you call them, were totally ignorant of what they were contesting.

The result is serious regional highway disconnect and a quite reduced level of livability for the city.

PHILIP RICHARDSON,

Division of Highways planner

1961-69, Tiburon

There’s so much good stuff to dissect here.  Richardson’s core argument rests upon the belief that San Francisco’s freeway revolt was led by a group of “self centered” NIMBY residents “totally ignorant of what they were contesting.”  Richardson argues that some of San Francisco’s busiest streets–such as the 19th Ave, Lincoln, and the Panhandle–would be “free of all traffic and livable again” with “underground or depressed [freeways that] would not have been noticed by residents.”  Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Richardson fails to recognize his own self-centeredness as a suburban Marin driver, believing that San Francisco should completely change its cityscape to fit his desires.  Maybe he should actually go to Hayes Valley or the Embarcadero and ask residents if freeways made their neighborhoods more livable (I suspect the answer will be a “HELL NO!”).  The notion that residents would not even notice freeways is nonsense–imagine a depressed freeway in place of the Panhandle, or the surrounding traffic impacts of offramps and onramps along 19th Avenue.  The current situation on Fell/Oak, 19th Ave, and Lincoln is nothing near ideal, but it still beats bulldozing victorians and businesses for a traffic aquaduct (a really big traffic sewer? I tried).

Richardson’s backwards logic is a true relic of the postwar freeway boom in which central cities were expected to bend over backwards for the desires of their suburban residents.  If Richardson had his way, San Francisco would be split with freeways and even more gridlocked due to induced demand and insufficient capacity.  The most important lesson we can learn from is the arrogance implicit in Richardson’s argument–his assumption of the infallibility of the freeway plan and his dismissal of local objections as ignorant and irrational.  San Francisco’s freeway plan was not a fundamentally sound plan doomed by a poor marketing strategy; it was a selfish attempt by power-hungry suburbanites to fashion San Francisco into their own image at the expense of the city’s residents (especially the working class and Black populations).  The Freeway Revolt was one of the most pivitol moments in San Francisco’s history and the history of urban planning as a whole.  Without it, San Francisco would be an awful city to live in.

Does Oakland’s Hotel Policy Really Showcase the City?

Over the summer I spent a lot of time working with Oakland’s zoning code at my job at the Port of Oakland.  Zoning laws are inherently dull, but they have an enormous influence on shaping cities–San Francisco’s zoning code limits cheap housing options by restricting in-law units, Richmond’s zoning code reinforces the city’s unsafe streets by outlawing mixed-use buildings, Alameda’s zoning code encourages sprawl and hinders the city’s neighborhood commercial centers by not permitting any housing smaller than a duplex, etc.  Oakland’s zoning code isn’t all that progressive, either, but what I want to focus on in this post is how Oakland presents itself to visitors and tourists through its hotel zoning policy.

Oakland has an interesting layout of hotels, motels, and inns.  The vast majority of Oakland’s hotels are within the Downtown, Jack London Square, and Airport areas, with a small corridor of cheaper hotels along MacArthur in North Oakland.  What’s most striking is that there are no hotels in Rockridge, Grand Lake/Lakeshore, and Piedmont Ave, and only two motels in Temescal.  Check out the map below:

View Larger Map

Much of Oakland’s hotel placement is due to the city’s strict hotel zoning laws.  Here’s what Oakland’s municipal code states regarding hotels:

17.102.370  Conditional use permit for hotels and motels.

A.   Use Permit Criteria for Hotel and Motel Uses. A conditional use permit for hotel and motel uses may be granted only upon determination that the proposal conforms to the general use permit criteria set forth in the conditional use permit procedure in Chapter 17.134, to any and all applicable use permit criteria set forth in the particular individual zone regulations, and to all of the following additional use permit criteria:

1.   That the proposal is located in downtown, along the waterfront, near the airport, or along the I-880 freeway, and/or in an area with a concentration of amenities for hotel patrons, including restaurant, retail, recreation, open space and exercise facilities, and is well-served by public transit;

2.   That the proposal considers the impact of the employees of the hotel or motel on the demand in the city for housing, public transit, and social services;

3.   That the proposal is consistent with the goal of attracting first-class, luxury hotels in downtown, along the waterfront, near the airport, or along the I-880 freeway which provide:

a.   A minimum of one hundred (100) sleeping rooms;

b.   A full service restaurant providing three meals per day; and

c.   On-site recreational amenities, which may include an exercise room, swimming pool, and/or tennis courts.

What this policy essentially says is that Oakland wants to attract big full-service chain hotels either in the city’s blandest areas (Hegenberger and the 880 corridor) or works in progress (Downtown and Jack London Square).  Meanwhile, smaller and mid-sized hotels are not allowed in the city whatsoever, and hotels in neighborhoods such as Rockridge, Temescal, Piedmont Ave, Grand Lake/Lakeshore are strongly discouraged (these areas could probably not support big hotels, anyway).  The question becomes: are these really the best places that Oakland can show visitors?  Should Oakland really be promoting big hotels in  boring and unattractive areas like Hegenberger or Downtown while outlawing hotels in the neighborhoods that make the city truly unique?  Hotels of any size should be encouraged at least in Rockridge, which is very well served by public transit and has a vibrant commercial corridor, and probably in other neighbrohoods as well.  I want Jack London Square to become a real destination just as much as anybody, but right now if I were a tourist in Oakland, I would be bored and disappointed if I was staying there.

Big hotels in sub-par areas seems to be a standard practice in the Bay Area, between Fisherman’s Wharf, Powell St., the Berkeley Marina, etc, but I still feel like Oakland could do better.  The last thing I’d want to see is a bunch of big hotels ruin Oakland’s most successful neighborhoods, but having a few small and mid-sized locally-owned hotels would add to the vitality of Oakland’s most walkable neighborhoods.  A more open hotel policy that draws people into Oakland’s authentic neighborhoods would contribute to the city’s economic vitality and better showcase all that Oakland has to offer.

Last Lessons from the Centennial State

Old Oakland could use a few tips from Denver's Laramier Square (above)

[The conclusion of a series on urban design in Colorado]

Over the past two weeks I’ve looked at a number of innovative urban planning policies in Colorado, and how these policies have help fostered healthier, more vibrant cities.  Now I’m going to switch back to the Bay Area and look at what we can learn from Colorado.  Below are five lessons that the Bay Area can take away from Colorado:

Lesson 1: Invest in Pedestrians

Across Colorado you’ll find great pedestrian infrastructure–be it Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall or Denver’s artistic pedestrian bridges–but the same cannot be said for the Bay Area.  Palo Alto’s University Avenue and Berkeley’s Center Street are logical starting points when it comes to pedestrian malls–both have been the subject of recent proposals for a Boulder-esque treatments due to their popular commercial districts and their current poor handling of cars, bikes, and pedestrians.  San Francisco has also began to give trial runs for temporary pedestrian plazas, and there’s no reason a pedestrian mall couldn’t work in the Mission or North Beach as well.  One place where I cannot see a pedestrian mall working is Downtown Oakland (I wouldn’t really consider City Center a true pedestrian mall) but half-malls on excessively wide streets could be just as good.  Pedestrian malls can turn good commercial districts into regional destinations and create stronger, more exciting neighborhoods.

A half-pedestrian mall in Denver's LoDo district. Two of the four lanes on this street were converted to pedestrian space with a negligible effect on traffic.

Lesson 2: Why Not Experiment with [Free] Transit Malls?

Denver’s 1.2 mile 16th St. Transit Mall generates a whopping 63,000 daily riders and 6% of Denver’s sales tax revenue (tell that to SF merchants who will try to kill a project over a single parking space).  A car-free Market Street with a free shuttle/free transit zone would do wonders for mobility in Downtown San Francisco, and a SoMa and perhaps a Chinatown/Union Square Transit Mall could save the city billions of dollars.  Rather than the 2 billion dollar Central Subway, a SoMa Transit Mall provide a good connection betwen Caltrain and Downtown while encouraging more economic investment at as much as 1/8th of the cost.  If extended to Chinatown and North Beach, San Francisco could have 100,000 people riding on the mall daily.  Obviously, there would be a lot of street access issues that would have to be dealt with, but when the alternative is 2 billion dollars, Denver’s option looks pretty good.

View Larger Map

Lesson 3: Activity is Contagious

Colorado’s culture of activity is a self-propagating phenomenon that is drawing more and more people toward biking and walking in their daily lives.  Coloradoans have come to expect walkable, bikeable neighborhoods with nice street trees and plenty of recreational opportunities, and the “if you build it, they will come” effect holds true when you look at the enormous ridership return experienced by Boulder, Fort Collins, and Denver after their moderate investments in bicycle infrastructure.  Bay Area cities need to pursue comprehensive bicycle networks that at least makes every non-arterial street attractive for bicycling.  This means 90% of the streets in Berkeley should have Fort Collins’ “bicycle friendly street” signs, and Oakland should look to turn excess road capacity in Downtown and the entire city into new wide bike lanes.

Lesson 4: Redevelopment Needs a Holistic Approach

The reinvestment and redevelopment of LoDo, Central Platte Valley, and other areas in Denver have been great succeses because of the comprehensive approach taken by the city of Denver and developers.  These areas are truly pedestrian oriented, creating a true sense of place that is essential for any good neighborhood.  If you give people a reason to walk around and enjoy their neighborhood, they will walk around and enjoy it.  If you use the bottom floor for a parking garage, as is the common practice in many new Oakland, Emeryville, and San Francisco developments, then people will not be as active, neighborhoods will not be as safe, and cities will not be as vibrant.

Lesson 5: Be Bold

Bay Area cities are very conservative when it comes to urban planning, balking at any large-scale proposal which would create transit-oriented and pedestrian-oriented streets.  30 years ago, Denver and Oakland would have looked one in the same, but Denver’s ability (as well as Fort Collins’ and Boulder’s abilities) to revitalize its downtown in the last 30 years has push it far ahead.  What makes Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins successful is the bold choices they’ve made (and continue to make) when it comes to reclaiming streets from cars and pursuing projects which put the neighborhood before the driver.   This is not a matter of advocating change for the sake of change–there are real issues at stake and our decisions to stick to the status quo costing us billions and billions of dollars.  Bart to San Jose (7+ billion), the Central Subway (almost 2 billion), the Oakland Airport Connector (half a billion), and a multitude of other projects of questionable merit could be done for a fraction of the cost if we made innovative choices to use more cost-effective technology (such as a functional light rail or commuter rail system) or dedicate a small amount of streetspace to transit.

Lastly, consider this:

For 6.2 billion dollars, Denver will revolutionize its transit system with 140 miles of new light rail, commuter rail, and BRT by 2015.  In comparison, Bart will spend more money on its 16 mile San Jose extension alone, which will not be completed until after 2025.  Something has to change in Bay Area transit planning.  We are being ripped off.

Conclusion:

Colorado today is a truly unique laboratory for innovative policies in urban planning.  While Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins tend to not get much credit for their urbanism, I hope that this series has given their efforts a little justice.  I strongly recommend visiting these cities to see the potential of bicycling, pedestrian malls, nature, and redevelopment can have.

Also See:

Urbanism in Colorado: An Introduction

Pedestrian Malls as a Vital Element of Colorado’s Cities

Colorado’s Culture of Activity

Incorperating Nature into Colorado’s Cities

Denver’s Urban Design Masterpiece

Colorado’s Urbanist Future

And more pictures at the new 21st Century Urban Solutions Flickr

Colorado’s Urbanist Future

[Part of a series on urban design in Colorado]

Now that this series is beginning to come to a close (one more post left), it’s time to take a step back at look at the big picture in Colorado.  Over the past five posts I’ve discussed some of Colorado’s sensible and innovative policies to create more vibrant cities that deemphasize the automobile and encourage a healthy, active lifestyle.  One thing that I haven’t really mentioned up to this point is the massive amounts of sprawl occurring in Colorado today.

Sprawl has been a major problem in Colorado since the early Postwar era, and Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins are no exception.  In spite of the cutting-edge policies toward pedestrian/transit malls, bicycling, and other urban design feats, these cities continue to rely on bland tract-style automobile-oriented suburban development.

Whereas sprawl in Fort Collins in the 1960s-1980s still generated a degree of urban form with open neighborhoods and an interconnected street grid, sprawl in the 1990s-present has been mostly walled in, cut off subdivisions which rely on a few major arterial streets.  Old sprawl managed to still foster a strong bicycling culture, due to the wide, slow streets which were built across the city parallel to the fast arterial streets.  However, new sprawl has eliminated these slow side streets, creating mega-blocks of subdivisions and strip malls in which major arterial streets are the only way to get around.  So, while Fort Collins’ transportation policy is working toward becoming more bicycle-friendly, it’s development policy is heading in the opposite direction toward more automobile-oriented suburbs.

View Larger Map

Above: Old sprawl in Fort Collins.  The street network remains interconnected and slower, non-arterial streets still connect between neighborhoods

Below: New sprawl in Fort Collins.  Not even Google Maps can keep up with the subdivisions and strip malls sprouting up on what used to be farmland.  Notice the lack of connectivity in the street grid and the reliance on a few major arterial streets.

View Larger Map

Boulder has met a similar fate, and recently instituted growth limits to reign in sprawl.  However, the city has not been able to keep up with housing demand through infill development, leading housing prices to increase and more people commuting from neighboring cities.

Fort Collins, on the other hand, has continued to allow sprawl and consequently has remained affordable.  It is important to note that sprawl in Fort Collins is still not nearly as bad compared to sprawl in the Bay Area’s outer rim (Antioch, Livermore, Fairfield, etc.) from an energy and environmental perspective–it’s almost impossible to make a trip in Fort Collins that’s greater than 5 miles, so the overall vehicle miles traveled is very low for the majority of its residents.  Yet, while Fort Collins has not installed growth limits, concerns over traffic, consumption of farmland and open space, and loss of city character has driven the city to alter its development policy with the creation of the Mason Street Corridor.

Following a general trend across Colorado of improving transportation infrastructure, Fort Collins is set to turn its abandoned rail corridor into a new BRT line and multi-use trail.  The $80 million dollar project will tie together Downtown, Colorado State University, and the southern commercial and business districts while at the same time serving as a guide for future growth (to see a corny video, click here).  While this idea has been around for 30 years now, Fort Collins’ committment to opening the corridor by 2011 puts it way ahead of many similar BRT projects across the country.

While Fort Collins’ project might seem small, Denver’s ambitious $6.2 billion FasTracks program will fundamentally transform the region.  In 11 seperate projects, Denver will add 140 miles of new light rail, commuter rail, and BRT in the next 7 years in an aggressive program that will give Denver the largest light rail system in the U.S. and one of the first DMU/EMU commuter rail systems.

Denver's 6.2 billion dollar FasTracks program will add a whopping 140 miles of light rail, commuter rail, and BRT over the next 7 years. See current map here. Map courtesy of Steve Boland at SFCityscape

FasTracks will also bring a rail connection to Denver’s new Stapleton development.  A Calthorpe project, the redevelopment of the former airport is the largest redevelopment project in the U.S., expected to add 13,000 new housing units (which is equivalent to probably 30,000 people).  I unfortuneatly didn’t get the chance to visit Stapleton, but you can learn more about it here.

In true New Urbanist fashion, Stapleton offers a mix of housing, shops, and offices.

The last major project that will transform Colorado is intercity rail.  Currently, the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority is studying the potential of a rail network spanning across the Front Range Urban Corridor and along the I-70 corridor to connect with major recreational destinations in the Rockies.  The Fort Collins-Boulder-Denver-Colorado Springs corridor could potentially be high-speed (meaning at least 110mph+).  Either way, a good intercity rail network in Colorado is badly needed, and would further aid Colorado in better managing its growth in the coming decades and developing more sustainable and livable cities in the future.

Areas under study for an intercity rail network in Colorado.

In spite of its continuing struggle against sprawl, Colorado is well on its way to becoming a leader in Smart Growth and transportation planning.  In the next post, which will be the last of this series, we’ll look at what lessons the Bay Area and California as a whole can take away from Colorado.

Also See:

Urbanism in Colorado: An Introduction

Pedestrian Malls as a Vital Element of Colorado’s Cities

Colorado’s Culture of Activity

Incorperating Nature into Colorado’s Cities

Denver’s Urban Design Masterpiece

Last Lessons from the Centennial State

And more pictures at the new 21st Century Urban Solutions Flickr

Denver’s Urban Design Masterpiece

Denver's new Central Platte Valley District is nothing short of an urban design masterpiece

[Part of a series on urban design in Colorado]

So far in this series I have examined three elements of Colorado’s cities–pedestrian malls, an active populace, and nature.  Really, these elements are not separate at all and tie into one-another: great pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure with plenty of trees and streams will make people want to get outside and take advantage of such a pleasant setting.  Therefore, it’s no coincidence that Colorado has such a strong culture of activity and such a low obesity rate.  But up until now I’ve mostly looked at Downtowns and suburban areas, rather than urban neighborhoods.  Why?  Because I had to save the best for last.

10 years ago, Denver’s Central Platte Valley district was nothing more than a blighted wasteland that served as an eyesore to the rest of the Downtown area.  While the area boasted a great location immediately adjacent to the trendy LoDo and Highland districts, Coors Field, the Pepsi Center, and Downtown, any redevelopment faced the enormous challenge of dealing with four barriers which fragmented the district and isolated it from adjacent neighborhoods: two rail lines, a river, and a freeway.

View Larger Map

In spite of these challenges, Denver set the ambitious goal of adding 3,000 new housing units, four parks, a new light rail transit center, and more than 3 million square feet of commercial and office space in this area of less than one square mile.  How has Denver accomplished this goal without creating a traffic disaster?  By making the area almost entirely pedestrian and bicycle oriented.

The fragmented pieces of land in Central Platte Valley are joined together by three brand-new pedestrian bridges which connect the district to the LoDo and Highland districts and line up with the 16th Street Transit Mall.  Not only are the bridges beautifully designed and conducive of walking by themselves, they serves as the fastest and most-direct link to downtown and between neighborhoods.  Development is centered along the pedestrian mall created by the trio of bridges, making walking and bicycling truly the modes of choice in the area.

Commons Park, with the Mellenium Bridge in the background.

The Platte River Bridge, with the Highland Bridge in the background.

The Highland Bridge

Central Platte Valley is also oriented around the natural assets of the South Platte River and Cherry Creek.  Apart from the great riverfront bike trails which I already discussed, Central Platte Valley has an absolute gem in Confluence Park, a new beach right in the middle of Central Platte Valley at the site of Denver’s founding 151 years ago:

Nothing beats a trip to the "beach" on a hot summer day in Denver.

The last piece in the transformation of Central Platte Valley is the redevelopment of Union Station, which will become its own district in itself.  Just behind the actual train station is a giant piece of land that will soon house the new transit center, another pedestrian bridge, and the remaining 1,000 new housing units along with lots of commercial space and a new hotel.  Once complete, the are will have much-improved transit facilities seamless connection to LoDo and Downtown.

This giant chunk of land behind Union Station will be the final piece in redevelopment...

...Which will become a new pedestrian and transit-oriented neighborhood

UPDATE: Construction on the new Union Station area just began September 7th.  Check out the project’s new website here.

While the planning process for redevelopment began back in the 1980s, the magnitude of what Denver has accomplished in the last 10 years is simply amazing.  Central Platte Valley had a sense of cohesiveness and vibrancy to it that few other large-scale redevelopment projects have, and it is one of the best examples in the country of how to create a lively new neighborhood from scratch.

If you’re interested in Denver’s redevelopment, I strongly recommend you check out www.denverinfill.com, which provides an excellent summary of every major redevelopment project happening in Denver.

Also See:

Urbanism in Colorado: An Introduction

Pedestrian Malls as a Vital Element of Colorado’s Cities

Colorado’s Culture of Activity

Incorperating Nature into Colorado’s Cities

Colorado’s Urbanist Future

Last Lessons from the Centennial State

And more pictures at the new 21st Century Urban Solutions Flickr

Incorperating Nature into Colorado’s Cities

Right in the middle of Boulder, Growing Gardens is one of the largest urban community gardens in the country.

[Part of a series on urban design in Colorado]

The last unique piece of urban design that I noticed in Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins is the seamless integration of nature throught these cities.  In spite of the beautiful surrounding scenery, in Bay Area cities, we’re used to a limited presence of nature at best–with undergrounded streams, parks and community gardens every now and then, and trees only when they don’t interfere with telephone wires.  Colorado’s cities do things a little bit differently.

The most obvious difference between Colorado and California cities is the trees.  Colorado state law requires that all utilities in urban areas must be undergrounded to prevent power outages during winter snowstorms, so telephone poles and telephone wires don’t exist.  Without this giant consumer of street space, trees can be planted freely without having to be mangled or removed to avoid interfering with telephone wires.  This simple detail makes all the difference in producing beautiful streets.

Mature, unaltered trees are common throughout Colorado's cities

Rivers and streams are also an integral part to the ecology of Colorado’s cities.  Rather than burying and ignoring their waterways, nearly every stream and river is daylighted; moreover, each stream has its own multi-use trail and open space surrounding it to forge a strong connection between the city and its natural assets.

Redevelopment around the beautiful Platte River will be the subject of the next post

Finally, parks were very well maintained and often the focus of neighborhood development, which I will discuss more in the next post when we’ll take a look at Denver’s huge redevelpment project in the Downtown-LoDo-Riverfront area and how it incorperates these three elements–pedestrian malls, an active populace, and nature–to create an urban design masterpiece.

Also See:

Urbanism in Colorado: An Introduction

Pedestrian Malls as a Vital Element of Colorado’s Cities

Colorado’s Culture of Activity

Denver’s Urban Design Masterpiece

Colorado’s Urbanist Future

Last Lessons from the Centennial State

And don’t forget the new 21st Century Urban Solutions Flickr!

Colorado’s Culture of Activity

One of many, many bike shops in Fort Collins

[Part of a series on urban design in Colorado]

Another reason why Colorado’s pedestrian malls work so well is that Coloradoans are among the most active people in the nation, creating a ‘culture of activity’ that ingrains walking and bicycling into the daily lives of its citizens.

It’s no coincidence that Colorado has the lowest obesity rate out of all 50 states–the state offers some of the best skiing, rock climbing, mountain biking, and hiking in the nation.  But Coloradoans do not restrict physical activity just to weekend outings.  They carry their active lifestyle into their daily lives.

Colorado cities are built for physical activity, with plenty of parks, trails, bike routes, and walkable downtowns.  In spite of the sprawling nature of Boulder, Fort Collins, and Denver, the three cities have thriving bicycling cultures and some of the most developed systems and highest mode shares in the nation:

City                   Population        Bike Route Miles        Bike Trail Miles     Mode Share

Boulder*                  103,000                   300+                               100+                             9%

Fort Collins*        137,000                    280+                                 30+                              6%

Denver                    599,000                    350+                                100+                             6%

Berkeley*                100,000                    115+                                 <10                              6%

San Francisco      809,000                    200+                                20+                               4%

*Measuring college towns is always tricky, since it only partially takes into account students and their behavior.

These cities really go above and beyond the status quo for bicyclists, including Boulder’s bicycle trip planner and Denver’s award-winning bicycle map, and soon-to-be-launched bike sharing program.  In Fort Collins, where my grandfather founded the city’s first bike shop in 1963, literally every street has a bike lane.  Granted, some of the bike lanes on the ten or so main arterial streets aren’t that great, but what’s really impressive is that even in its suburban sprawl, each street has been designed to be bicycle-friendly, with wide bike lanes/shoulders and clear “bikeway” signs (in comparison to our tiny signs).  It’s no coincidence that Boulder is one of three platinum-rated bicycling cities (the other two being Portland and Davis), and Fort Collins is Gold-rated (Denver didn’t apply, I guess?).

View Larger Map

Stover Street in Fort Collins, one of many slow, wide, bicycle-friendly streets.

One of the most amazing parts about Denver, Fort Collins, and Boulder is that they’re not afraid to spend and experiment on bicycle improvements.  Their networks and amenities keep expanding, and they keep pushing eachother to come up with better infrastructure.

A parking space converted for bike parking in Downtown Fort Collins. One parking space can hold 10 bicycles.

Boulder's innovative contra-flow bike lane

Denver's Platte River Trail, part of an extraordinary network of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in the central-city. More on this in a later post.

The result of Colorado’s investments in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is that Coloradoans are often just as active on weekdays as they are on weekends, and wind up being much healthier than Americans as a whole.  An essential part of reducing healthcare costs and improving public health is regular physical activity, as I just wrote in an article entitled “Redesign Neighborhoods to Reform Healthcare” in this month’s Northern News for the Northern California Chapter of the American Planning Association.  Colorado is well ahead of the curve on creating a culture of activity for a healthy population.

An adaptive reuse of an old parking meter in Boulder. Sometimes it's the little details that lead people to bike more.

Also See:

Urbanism in Colorado: An Introduction

Pedestrian Malls as a Vital Element of Colorado’s Cities

Colorado’s Culture of Activity

Incorperating Nature into Colorado’s Cities

Denver’s Urban Design Masterpiece

Colorado’s Urbanist Future

Last Lessons from the Centennial State

And don’t forget the new 21st Century Urban Solutions Flickr!