Month: July 2010

Remembering a designer who made a difference


Touring the soon-to-open greenway along Little Sugar Creek on Wednesday “Long-ignored creek debuts in starring role,” (slideshow here) my guides pointed me to some carved inscriptions in the pavement at each end of the pedestrian bridge that allows people to walk from Harding Place over the creek to the greenway. They were put there by the folks at LandDesign, in memory of the late Brad Davis.

Brad was a champion for parks, as well as good design. I met him shortly after I started writing my columns on city matters, and I respected the care he put into his work and designs. He was a long-time member of the county’s Park and Recreation Commission and helped found its nonprofit Partners for Parks. He died of cancer in 2007.

His colleagues at LandDesign, where he was a partner, donated money for a small memorial to him at the greenway. If you walk across the bridge you’ll see his words. I particularly liked those on the Harding Place side:
“Attaining good design is a real struggle between the idea of creating great spaces and meeting the regulations for public health, safety and welfare. When in doubt, do great design.”

Remembering a designer who made a difference


Touring the soon-to-open greenway along Little Sugar Creek on Wednesday “Long-ignored creek debuts in starring role,” (slideshow here) my guides pointed me to some carved inscriptions in the pavement at each end of the pedestrian bridge that allows people to walk from Harding Place over the creek to the greenway. They were put there by the folks at LandDesign, in memory of the late Brad Davis.

Brad was a champion for parks, as well as good design. I met him shortly after I started writing my columns on city matters, and I respected the care he put into his work and designs. He was a long-time member of the county’s Park and Recreation Commission and helped found its nonprofit Partners for Parks. He died of cancer in 2007.

His colleagues at LandDesign, where he was a partner, donated money for a small memorial to him at the greenway. If you walk across the bridge you’ll see his words. I particularly liked those on the Harding Place side:
“Attaining good design is a real struggle between the idea of creating great spaces and meeting the regulations for public health, safety and welfare. When in doubt, do great design.”

Why conservatives should love streetcars

“‘For cities, conservatives’ banner should read, ‘Bring Back the Streetcars!’ ”

Read on. It’s from an article in The American Conservative, “What’s so conservative about federal highways?” by William S. Lind, director of The American Conservative Center for Public Transportation and coauthor of Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation. Reader Mason Hicks, who grew up in Lancaster County, S.C., but now lives in Paris (France) shared it with me recently.

Lind’s piece talks about the folly of a national transportation system that requires us to depend on foreign oil, and on only one transportation mode, and points out how it was government intervention in the marketplace (via billions spent on highways) that helped kill the passenger rail business.

And here’s another provocative excerpt: “The greatest threat to a revival of attractive public transportation is not the libertarian transit critics. It is an unnecessary escalation of construction costs, usually driven by consultants who know nothing of rail and traction history, are often in cahoots with the suppliers, and gold-plate everything.”

He writes of the importance of “avoiding the foxfire allure of high technology,” and says, “All the technology needed to run electric railways, and run them fast, was in place 100 years ago. It was simple, rugged, dependable, and relatively cheap. In the 1930s, many of America’s passenger trains, running behind steam locomotives, were faster than they are now. (After World War II, the federal government slapped speed limits on them.)”

It’s a provocative piece, especially in light of the Charlotte debate over whether the city should accept a $25 million Federal Transit Administration grant to help it start building a proposed streetcar line. Here’s what the Charlotte Observer’s editorial board said in today’s newspaper:
“Think streetcar vote was hard? Just wait.”

Why conservatives should love streetcars

“‘For cities, conservatives’ banner should read, ‘Bring Back the Streetcars!’ ”

Read on. It’s from an article in The American Conservative, “What’s so conservative about federal highways?” by William S. Lind, director of The American Conservative Center for Public Transportation and coauthor of Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation. Reader Mason Hicks, who grew up in Lancaster County, S.C., but now lives in Paris (France) shared it with me recently.

Lind’s piece talks about the folly of a national transportation system that requires us to depend on foreign oil, and on only one transportation mode, and points out how it was government intervention in the marketplace (via billions spent on highways) that helped kill the passenger rail business.

And here’s another provocative excerpt: “The greatest threat to a revival of attractive public transportation is not the libertarian transit critics. It is an unnecessary escalation of construction costs, usually driven by consultants who know nothing of rail and traction history, are often in cahoots with the suppliers, and gold-plate everything.”

He writes of the importance of “avoiding the foxfire allure of high technology,” and says, “All the technology needed to run electric railways, and run them fast, was in place 100 years ago. It was simple, rugged, dependable, and relatively cheap. In the 1930s, many of America’s passenger trains, running behind steam locomotives, were faster than they are now. (After World War II, the federal government slapped speed limits on them.)”

It’s a provocative piece, especially in light of the Charlotte debate over whether the city should accept a $25 million Federal Transit Administration grant to help it start building a proposed streetcar line. Here’s what the Charlotte Observer’s editorial board said in today’s newspaper:
“Think streetcar vote was hard? Just wait.”

Weak mayor? Pat McCrory opines. In California.

Hmm. Ex-Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, a Republican who’s almost certainly running for governor again in 2012, has written an opinion piece for, of all things, the Sacramento Bee:
“Strong mayor or not, it’s still the bully pulpit.”

It seems Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson is pushing to turn the office, in California’s capital city, into a full-time, strong mayor form of government. And the local paper there (a McClatchy Co. sister paper to the Obs) requested the opinion of another non-fulltime mayor.

For those of you not deeply into local politics, here’s a primer on strong/weak mayor systems: In cities such as Charlotte that have a “council-manager” form of government, the mayor’s doesn’t hire or fire anyone or run any city departments. A professional city manager does that. The council makes the decisions such as policy, and hiring/firing the city manager. In Charlotte the mayor doesn’t even have a vote on the council, except in a few instances (ties, rezonings with protest petitions, etc.) Charleston’s Joe Riley, Boston’s Tom Menino, Chicago’s Richard Daley are all “strong mayors,” – they function as the chief city administrator.

McCrory concludes: “Regardless of the powers to the mayor’s office it will be the mayor who will get the blame or the credit for what happens in a city. Deserved or not.”

There are pros and cons to each type of government. Strong mayors can be more effective in changing city policy – witness Daley’s success at and worldwide acclaim for repositioning Chicago as a “green” city. City managers tend not to want to be strong enough leaders to get out in front of those who hire/fire them, which can lead to a sense that no one is leading the city – which was a recurring criticism during McCrory’s tenure. And with the job being a (wink-wink) “part-time” one, the post is only going to attract people who are wealthy, retired, self-employed, have very understanding bosses or have a job or whose pay is so low the mayor’s pay is a step up.

On the other hand, strong mayors can use their power to reward political allies and punish foes, even to a greater extent than “weak mayors.” (They can all do that, believe me.) And an inept or crooked strong mayor can do a lot more damage than an inept or crooked weak mayor.

My conclusion is that I’d like a strong mayor system if we had a mayor I liked and I’d hate it if we had a mayor I didn’t. And that’s not really all that helpful.

Weak mayor? Pat McCrory opines. In California.

Hmm. Ex-Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, a Republican who’s almost certainly running for governor again in 2012, has written an opinion piece for, of all things, the Sacramento Bee:
“Strong mayor or not, it’s still the bully pulpit.”

It seems Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson is pushing to turn the office, in California’s capital city, into a full-time, strong mayor form of government. And the local paper there (a McClatchy Co. sister paper to the Obs) requested the opinion of another non-fulltime mayor.

For those of you not deeply into local politics, here’s a primer on strong/weak mayor systems: In cities such as Charlotte that have a “council-manager” form of government, the mayor’s doesn’t hire or fire anyone or run any city departments. A professional city manager does that. The council makes the decisions such as policy, and hiring/firing the city manager. In Charlotte the mayor doesn’t even have a vote on the council, except in a few instances (ties, rezonings with protest petitions, etc.) Charleston’s Joe Riley, Boston’s Tom Menino, Chicago’s Richard Daley are all “strong mayors,” – they function as the chief city administrator.

McCrory concludes: “Regardless of the powers to the mayor’s office it will be the mayor who will get the blame or the credit for what happens in a city. Deserved or not.”

There are pros and cons to each type of government. Strong mayors can be more effective in changing city policy – witness Daley’s success at and worldwide acclaim for repositioning Chicago as a “green” city. City managers tend not to want to be strong enough leaders to get out in front of those who hire/fire them, which can lead to a sense that no one is leading the city – which was a recurring criticism during McCrory’s tenure. And with the job being a (wink-wink) “part-time” one, the post is only going to attract people who are wealthy, retired, self-employed, have very understanding bosses or have a job or whose pay is so low the mayor’s pay is a step up.

On the other hand, strong mayors can use their power to reward political allies and punish foes, even to a greater extent than “weak mayors.” (They can all do that, believe me.) And an inept or crooked strong mayor can do a lot more damage than an inept or crooked weak mayor.

My conclusion is that I’d like a strong mayor system if we had a mayor I liked and I’d hate it if we had a mayor I didn’t. And that’s not really all that helpful.

Streetcar, more tree protection before City Council today

City Council members today get to deal with some controversial stuff. At tonight’s 6:30 p.m. meeting they’re to vote on whether to accept the $25 million federal grant to start building a streetcar line. At their 5 p.m. dinner meeting they’ll hear a briefing on the controversial tree ordinance revisions, five years in the making. And at a 3:30 p.m. committee meeting, the panel will hear about the controversial urban street design guidelines, which have been in the works for eight years. (Memo to government staff: If you have the temerity to propose something developers don’t like, be prepared to spend many, many years on it.)

For all you local government aficionados, here’s a link to what the council will be asked to vote on for the streetcar. And here’s a link to two pro-con pieces that ran Saturday on the Observer’s op-ed page, from council members Edwin Peacock III (he’s voting no, he says) and David Howard (why he’ll vote yes). And here’s what the Observer’s editorial board said about the streetcar on July 18, in “Streetcar is sound strategy, not silly frill.”

Tree ordinance: At its 5 p.m. dinner meeting the council’s to be briefed on the proposed strengthening of the city’s tree ordinance – the part of the ordinance that applies to commercial development, including multifamily housing, but not the part for single-family subdivisions. Just to show you how things work, here’s a list of the members of the stakeholder committee that has been hashing out the tree ordinance for FIVE YEARS.

I’ve put in red the members who represent developers or businesses whose major clients are developers. (Granted, just because you get paid by developers, or are one, it doesn’t mean you’re not sometimes environmentally minded. But I’m just saying.) I’m not sure how to categorize Henry Wallace from Duke Power, a utility company. It’s a subsidiary of Duke Energy, which also co-owns Crescent Resources, which was a major developer around here until it had to file for bankruptcy.

I’ve put in blue the members who are government staff, and therefore are expected to be responsive to ALL members of the public, i.e. not say things that may tick off developers.

In green are the stakeholder members who aren’t affiliated with the real estate and development industry and aren’t local government staff.

Don McSween (City Arborist), Mary Stauble (Mecklenburg County Solid Waste), Lisa Hagood (ESP Associates, Designer), Lee McLaren (DPR Associates, Subdivision Steering Committee), Henry Wallace (Duke Power, Utilities), Tim Morgan/Andy Munn (REBIC, Home Builders Association), Bob Miller (Camas Associates, Architect), John Porter (Charter Properties, Developer/ Charlotte Apartment Association), Chris Buchanan (Moore & Van Allen, Tree Advisory Committee), Rick Roti (Sierra Club), Christa Rodgers (Parks and Recreation).

Even more revealing is to check out the cost-benefit analysis subgroup, whose mission was to apply the proposed changes to some development sites to see how much they might add to the cost of development. (It’s amazing anyone was left at the Crosland or Childress Klein offices while this group was meeting):

Jon Morris (Beacon Partners), Clifton Coble(Bissell Development), Chris Kirby (Carlson Real Estate), Tom Lannin(Chestnut Consulting), Tricia Noble (Childress Klein), Sue Freyler(Cole Jenest & Stone), Bill Daleure (Crosland), Mike Wiggins(Crosland),Scott Henson (Crosland), Steve Mauldin(Crosland), Ju-Ian Shen (Design Resource Group), Al Harris (LSG), Debra Glennon (LSG), Jay Banks(Kimley-Horn), Ed Schweitzer (Land Design), Jeff Orsborn (OSG), Kavita Gupta (Perkins and Will) ,Brandon Plunkett(The John R. McAdams Co), Brian Crutchfield (Timmons Group), Terry Brennan (Trinity Partners), Paul Devine (Childress Klein), Landon Wyatt (Childress Klein), David Haggart (Childress Klein),Chris Daly (Childress Klein),
Trey Dempsey (Lincoln Harris).

Does it make sense to have plenty of site-plan, run-the-numbers expertise on a cost-benefit analysis group? Of course. But if you’ve ever wondered why run-of-the-mill Charlotteans think the city’s government processes are dominated by developers, that’s why.

Street designs: At 3:30 p.m. today the council’s Transportation and Planning Committee (David Howard, Patsy Kinsey, Warren Cooksey and Michael Barnes) hears presentations on the Urban Street Design Guidelines, and the Centers Corridors & Wedges Growth Framework. The committee is being asked to make a recommendation to the full council on the CC&W Framework. If you haven’t heard much about it, you’re not alone. It’s not been getting many headlines. Probably because it doesn’t really change things very much. Or if it does, I haven’t been able to find that section in it.

The street design guidelines have been controversial. Developers (who’ll have to pay to put more streets and sidewalks into their developments, which takes away from developable land) contend the street requirement will raise costs. They’ve also acquired a sudden concern for storm water runoff (a concern they didn’t seem to feel very powerfully when the city and county were trying to adopt watershed protections and floodplain regulations in the 1990s) and they’re noting that all those sidewalks and extra streets will create more impervious surfaces. As if all the rooftops and driveways and surface parking lots they’re building don’t.

Short block lengths are a huge help to people trying to get around the city on foot. The city’s attempt to shrink the allowable block lengths in its new development is admirable. Further, the USDG policy that was adopted in 2007 already compromised the transportation experts’ earlier proposal, after developers complained. Here’s hoping the City Council, as it deals with the staff’s current project to codify the policy into the local ordinances, doesn’t force yet another “compromise” of the already compromised guidelines.

Here’s a link to the PowerPoint presentations that show the Centers Corridors & Wedges Growth Framework, and to the Urban Street Design Guidelines.

Art, Avett Brothers and “Freemore West”

A quick update on last week’s posting about the arts grants to Winston-Salem and Greensboro, “Winston-Salem gets artsy on its interstate.” I wondered whether Charlotte had tried for any similar arts grants. I heard back from Robert Bush at the Arts & Science Council: “ASC applied to the NEA but didn’t make the cut.”

He said the UNCC School of Art & Architecture was a partner along with Charlotte Center City Partners in the application. “Our application,” Bush said in an e-mail, “was to support the Cultural Action Plan that we will be launching and specifically to support an international design competition for the Main Library/Spirit Square Block and the block immediately north on Tryon as a mixed use redevelopment project focused on innovation and creativity. ”

Another public art tidbit: I’m just back from a couple of days of student/parent orientation at the University of Tar Heel, and I noticed on the wall in the Frank Porter Graham Student Union building, some clay disks that had a familiar look to them. Sure nuff, they’re the work of Raleigh-based and UNC-educated artist Thomas Sayre, whose red-clay-colored disks on South Boulevard (“Furrow”) have drawn plenty of attention (a lot of it negative). He’s also the artist who crafted the so-called Onion Rings (“Grandiflora”) at Wendover and Randolph, a work I have confessed to feeling fond of.

The Gaston Gazette tells us that the Gaston Parkway is likely to be delayed until 2015, because so many roads projects in the area are keeping contractors too busy to work on the parkway, too. Hmmm.

And a press release from the city of Charlotte’s Neighborhood and business Services Department, about a celebration 10 a.m.-1 p.m. on Thursday at Wesley Village apartments (2715 Wet Stone Way, Charlotte, NC 28208), tells me that part o town has been “newly named and branded” as “Freemore West.”

And if you’re with me this far, here’s a link to a cool video that NPR has posted to go with the Avett Brothers’ Head Full of Doubt/Road Full of Promise.” It features an animated painting by Jason Ryan Mitcham. “The video shows the rise, fall and inevitable decay of rampant urban development,” says NPR. Let’s just say it’s an artist’s view, not a planner’s.

And commuter rail for North Mecklenburg lives?

Here’s a business-focused wrap-up of reasons no one should count the proposed commuter rail line to North Mecklenburg as dead. Business Today online writes “Economic Development Prospects Put North Line Rail Back on Track.” Although there’s not much new news in it, it’s a good wrap-up of why the North Line (a.k.a. the Red Line) remains an excellent plan, and one that the business community should get behind.

Now if they could just wire up some of that federal money for commuter rail …. That’s been the sticky wicket all along. The Bush administration’s transit-funding rules were written in such a way as to rule out virtually all proposed commuter rail transit, including this project. Those rules are changing. Stay tuned.

Winston-Salem gets artsy on its interstate

Cheers to our fellow N.C. cities, Wintson-Salem and Greensboro. Each won a six-figure grant from the Mayor’s Institute on City Design.

The most exciting project is the one in Winston-Salem, which received $200,000. The Arts Council of Winston-Salem created a coalition among the N.C. Department of Transportation, the city, and the Chamber of Commerce to make sure urban designers and artists have a role in the NCDOT replacement of 11 bridges along Business I-40. The goal: Assemble artists and urban designers to create a master plan that provides guidelines for design, lighting, sound walls, and bridge abutments, as well as water features, public art, and festival space adjacent to the rights-of-way.

It would be great if Charlotte’s Center City 2020 Vision Plan came up with a similar coalition, and went after similar money.

Greensboro’s $100,000 grant to this project. The grant foes to Action Greensboro, a not-for-profit organization in the N.C. Piedmont that coordinates citizen initiatives on enhancing the Greensboro. Action Greensboro is funding public art for a renovation of an abandoned railroad. The art will include 12 decorative iron , through which will be seen two 60-foot graphic panels depicting parts of Greensboro’s history.

The greenway encircling downtown Greensboro sounds like some Charlotte plans (remember the uptown loop greenway from the 2010 Uptown Plan, or the John Nolen greenway plan from early in the 20th century?) – as yet unfinished. Note the photo with the Greensboro plan, shows work by artist Jim Gallucci. Want to see some of his work in Charlotte? Visit the bridge over Briar Creek on Central Avenue.