Category: city planning

‘Do not try to design neighborhoods through a computer screen’


The photo at right arrived about 10 days ago from Davidson-based transportation planner John Cock.
Cock and I were among a group of fans of the late Warren Burgess, who died at age 56 in May 2005.
The plaque was installed a few weeks ago beside a bald cypress tree that had been planted in his honor in Davidson’s Roosevelt Wilson Park shortly after Burgess died.
Burgess – or Warren, as I’m more comfortable saying – was for more than 20 years an urban designer on the staff of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission. He was Davidson town planner from 2000 to 2003. To this day, he has a fan club of sorts, people like Cock and former Davidson planner Meredith Judy whom Warren mentored, as well as other urban designers and planners in the area, like David Walters, the just-retired head of UNC Charlotte’s Master of Urban Design program.
You may have noticed over the years that there are some occupations that lend themselves to memorial plaques,
statues, road-namings and the like. City planner is not typically one of them. But Warren was cut from a different bolt of cloth, and gave so much of his heart to Charlotte and Davidson that it’s only appropriate that it be noted somewhere.
After seeing the plaque photo, I looked back at two columns I wrote about Warren when I worked at the Charlotte Observer.  The first was in 2000, when he left Charlotte city hall for Davidson. I noticed something unusual at the sheetcake-and-punch ceremony for him at the government center. As I wrote then:
“Among the people saying nice things were Dottie Coplon, a relentless neighborhood activist who has battled both planners and developers, and Bailey Patrick Jr., lawyer and lobbyist for some of Charlotte’s most successful developers. It’s not often those two are singing from the same song sheet. But getting people together is one of the things Burgess does best.
“… The Thursday event symbolized something important about him. …  When you think about it, Warren is really just a bureaucrat, but he’s a bureaucrat with a difference: He wears his heart on his sleeve. … Sometimes, when people talk about “fighting City Hall,” it’s planners and zoning laws that they’re fighting. Burgess , who works at City Hall, understands that, but he still tries to help.” 
 He always walked over and over through neighborhoods where he was doing a plan, to get to know its terrain, its history and its residents. He sketched relentlessly, making drawings at meetings to supplement his notes. He cared – as the plaque notes – about trees, but also about creeks, front porches, sidewalks, plazas and parks, all the things that make up a city. He had these words of advice to other planners:
“A city is made up of people,” he told the farewell party. “Do not try to design neighborhoods through a computer screen.” 
When Warren died in 2005, I wrote: 
“Burgess left his fingerprints all over this city, in the plans he drew, the enduring vision he had for his city and the people and places he touched.
“Cities need catalysts, and Warren was a catalyst. He was always putting one person in touch with just the right other person, and dropping a good idea in just the right place, and in doing so altering the course of the planet.”
He spoke for the trees. But just as important, he spoke for the people who plant the trees, for the people who make up a city.

Challenges for 2020 Uptown

Let’s get down to it. The Center City 2020 Vision Plan launches this month. There will be a public workshop Oct. 21, 5:30 p.m. at the Charlotte Convention Center.

The nonprofit Charlotte Center City Partners, the city and the county held a media event on Sept. 30, including a tour of neighborhoods in and around uptown that will be part of this study. The Observer’s April Bethea wrote an article, and on Sunday the editorial board opined, with “New uptown plan to look beyond ‘uptown.’ “

CCCP, in particular, deserves credit for pushing this idea. Some of my sources tell me it’s CCCP – not the city or county – providing the energy behind the 2020 Plan. CCCP President Michael Smith and his senior vice president of planning and development, Cheryl Myers, have a good grasp of the many issues involved.

So here’s my two-cents worth on what I hope the 2020 Plan looks at:

• What’s wrong with the sidewalk experience uptown? How can it be improved? What needs to change (UMUD standards, for instance) to ensure that we don’t keep replicating the errors?
By “sidewalk experience” I don’t mean just cracked pavers or crosswalks or utility poles blocking sidewalks on lesser streets. I mean whether it’s interesting to walk down the sidewalk. Can you look into store windows? (We know the sad answer to that one, alas.)

Walk down East Trade Street from College to the Transportation Center and you’ll see what I mean. Surely we can do better than EpiCentre loading docks and Ritz-Carlton driveways for what should be one of uptown’s premier streets.

Or walk along the “new” Brevard Street between the backside of the Convention Center and the backside of the NASCAR Hall of Fame complex. You’ll see that from an urban design standpoint, “backside” is a most polite term. Can I say that the new buildings have created a sidewalk experience that sucks? How did that happen, with the city government’s deep involvement in those projects? We do, in fact, employ urban designers. Were they listened to? Whatever happened to requiring street-level retail? This is not a block anyone should be proud of creating.

• Grapple with the pre-existing and outdated zoning categories. They’re what bring us new, suburban-style branch banks right across the street from the urban Metropolitan development in Midtown. They bring us the new, suburban-style Bojangles at Third and Charlottetowne Avenue, and the new, suburban-style Family Dollar at Five Points next to Johnson C. Smith University. It’s fine to allow old, nonconforming buildings. But for heaven’s sake, if new buildings are going up, can’t you ensure that they’re not the same old suburbia-in-the-wrong-place?
Two years ago, the city’s planners were drowning in rezonings and didn’t have time for this. Guess what? Now they do. And they aren’t looking at this?
This is where Planning Director Debra Campbell could play an important leadership role.

• Related to the previous: How can the city help create true “centers” for neighborhoods – neighborhood centers where you can easily walk to stores, restaurants and offices? It’s hard to explain this concept to people whose only frame of reference is shopping centers and subdivisions, but in older cities different neighborhoods have small “downtown”-like clusters of stores and other businesses. In Boston, the Brighton, Jamaica Plain and North End neighborhoods are good examples. Almost all that’s left of what Charlotte used to have are the Plaza-Central and NoDa commercial areas, both compact and walkable.
The city is committed to a “centers and corridors” strategy. But so far it’s concentrating on “corridors.”
Some of the newer, mixed-use projects (e.g. the Metropolitan) are too much reminiscent of shopping centers rather than neighborhood centers. Part of it is weak project design, part of it is how developers have to put projects together to get financing (including locally owned retail makes it well nigh impossible for developers to get financing), and part of it, I fear, is that the idea of incremental, small-scale buildings owned by different owners has gone the way of the Edsel. Can we bring it back?

• Engage Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in this conversation. I mean, really engage. Few things can hurt a neighborhood on the brink faster than being assigned to a low-performing school – or revive one quicker than being reassigned to a popular, high-performing school. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools needs to be a full participant in this plan. Yes, school assignment can be nasty and politically radioactive. That’s why they call it leadership.

• Why 2020? I want a plan that looks well beyond 10 years. This should be the 2050 Vision Plan. We’ve had more than enough short-term thinking. The quest for short-term profits at the expense of long-term financial stability is one of the things that drove the global economy into this horrible economic slump. Charlotte’s center city planning should rise above that.

(A note of disclosure: Observer publisher Ann Caulkins is a co-chair of the CCCP planning effort. She hasn’t told me to write this, or told me what to write. As of this moment she doesn’t even know I’m writing this, much less know what I’m saying.)

Ahem, Charlotte: REDUCE, reuse, recycle?

Got an interesting e-mail from local architect Stephen Overcash of Overcash-Demmitt Architects, responding to my Saturday op-ed on Charlotte and recycling. He points out that there are other ways in which, in his opinion, the city’s operations could be far “greener.” Take, for instance, the dozens of very large paper plans you have to submit multiple times for every rezoning.

His note:

Hi, Mary:I enjoyed your article last weekend about the City of Charlotte not really being very green and I agree. I am an architect and am appalled at all the waste in the governmental system. There was a discussion over a year ago if the City should hire a Green Guru to help make recommendations, but the Mayor stated that he thought it wouldn’t be prudent to incur that expense in the midst of a downturn in the economy. First of all, a good Guru will save the taxpayer his salary many times over in reduced costs. Second, I think with all the professionals that are unemployed, it would be a good time to “get a bargain.”

I agree that we need better receptacles for recycling, but out of the three: reduce, reuse and recycle….recycling is a good, but distant third choice. The City of Charlotte should be striving to reduce…..

One example of my frustration: Every time I apply for a rezoning, I am told to submit 26 full-size sheets (sometimes the submittal is 2-3 sheets). Supposedly these are distributed around the various agencies that review them, but we only get comments from about 8 agencies. When I have repeatedly asked the Planning Department (and Debra Campbell directly), I am given some version of an answer that “that’s the way it is,” “that’s the way it’s always been done,” etc.

When I asked her where the additional 20 sets go, she informed me that many departments, such as DOT, have several reviewers and they all need their own set. Planning is not amenable to a couple of sets to share and a PDF to review on the screen … or better yet, just an electronic file where I don’t have to drive the hard sets down. Once we receive comments, they request another 26 sets, for the second review. Once we are approved, they request a final 15 sets. Where is all this paper going? Why can’t the City come into the 20th Century and only request an electronic file that would save storage space, additional files, air conditioning, on and on? (I pray that all the old sets of drawings are at least being recycled behind the scenes, but have been afraid to ask.)

I appreciate your articles trying to keep a little pressure on the Government.

Disgusted in Charlotte,
Stephen Overcash

The Central Avenue challenge

Wonderful discussion about retrofitting suburbia. If you haven’t read the comments, I recommend them.

Retrofitting can be expensive for taxpayers, when a city has to build sidewalks, add storm drains and so on. The city’s changes in recent years — requiring sidewalks, better street designs, etc. — help with new construction only. Even the city’s admirable, if slow-moving, sidewalk-building gets at only part of the problem.

Most of the potential retrofitting happens as part of the natural economic evolution of a city: A business closes, another business buys the building and renovates it, or tears it down and build again. Or a business expands its building.

The city’s passivity is hurting those small-scale opportunities all over town. Here are two examples, both a couple of years old, are the Bank of America branch at Kings Drive and Charlottetowne Avenue (a.k.a. the old Independence Boulevard), and the Bojangles at Third Street and Charlottetowne. Plenty of other examples abound all over the city, especially along the so-called International corridor of Central Avenue, between Eastway Drive and Eastland Mall.

That branch bank and the Bojangles are welcome businesses. I just spent a year in Massachusetts, suffering withdrawal from good fried chicken and biscuits, so believe me, I value Bojangles. The bank replaced one that was demolished for the Little Sugar Creek Greenway and was needed in the neighborhood.

BUT … The two buildings — not the businesses within, but the buildings and lot designs — are awful for the location. They’re suburban in design — one-story buildings with deep setbacks from the street and huge parking lots out front. They’re unsuitable for an in-town location, especially an area where other developers are trying to build more urban patterns. Those two small buildings should have helped with the urban retrofit of Midtown area, yet they didn’t. Why not?

The city’s old-fashioned zoning codes are to blame. Although I often praise the city’s planners for devising a variety of urban codes in the past 10 or 15 years (MUDD, PED, TOD, etc.) those standards apply only to property that holds that zoning. If your property has the older, suburban-style business zoning (B-1 or B-2) you can build suburbia with no trouble from the city. You’re virtually required to, in fact, because of the required setbacks and buffers. You have an economic incentive as well, because going through a rezoning costs money. Keeping your old zoning doesn’t.

Plenty of other examples abound along Central Avenue. Small owners, small buildings, and old zoning codes add up to lost opportunities for small retrofitting steps over time.

If you’re one of the hundreds of people deeply wishing to see a Central Avenue revitalization, you should push the city to change its B-1 zoning standards. I’m getting tired of visionary plans that don’t address this issue. Central Avenue still looks like bedraggled suburbia because the underlying rules that govern building designs haven’t changed under the old zoning that exists along Central Avenue. To change the way things look, change the rules that govern how things look.

(UPDATE as of 7:30 p.m.: Got an e-mail this afternoon that said the city had adopted a PED overlay for Central Avenue. If that’s the case it would do exactly what I’m hoping for — require more urban-style development. But I can’t find it listed on the planning department’s web page. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but means I can’t, tonight, confirm or deny it.)

And before you go off about how the city shouldn’t set design standards, let me just open your eyes to the reality that B-1 zoning, which requires deep setbacks, is less favorable to property owners than a zoning that would allow them to build closer to the property line and cover more of the land with buildings and less with setbacks and buffers. If you’re required to keep 35 feet of property vacant in front, you can’t build as much income-producing square-footage as if you’re required to keep only 15 feet of property vacant in front. I’m not proposing ADDING a lot of design controls, only altering the ones that already exist.

Walkable rating – We’re not last!

Walkscore.com, a cool site I plugged a year ago, looked at 2,508 neighborhoods in 40 cities. Charlotte didn’t do too well. That’s a euphemism. Charlotte was in the basement: No. 38 out of 40. (Cherry, Fourth Ward and Downtown Charlotte were rated our most walkable neighborhoods.)

The site measures walkability with a walkability checklist which assesses stuff such as whether a neighborhood has a discernible center, mixed-use development, sidewalks, traffic that doesn’t go too fast, narrow streets (calmer traffic), parks and public spaces, etc. The software used for measuring is based on Google maps, U.S. Census data, Zillow neighborhood boundaries and Yellow Page information, and it assigns values to locations such as schools, workplaces, supermarkets, parks and public spaces based on how near they are to an address. (Based on some comments I saw elsewhere, the software has some glitches.)

USA Today had a piece on the list, noting the bottom three: Charlotte, Nashville and Jacksonville, and the Huffington Post had a short blurb on the Bottom 10 as well.

Why is Charlotte so un-walkable? It’s hard to find just one villain; there are several. The part of the city built before World War II (as in Cherry, Fourth Ward, and downtown) is much more pedestrian-friendly. After WWII, traffic engineers and planners embraced some theories, based on the ideals of Modernist architects such as Le Corbusier, that have proven to be ill-suited for urban life. The federal government was in thrall to the automakers and began subsidizing auto travel with vast new highways while shrinking subsidies and passing laws that hurt rail transportation.

Single-use zoning was considered modern and progressive — yet another reason not to let yourself be blinded by an idea just because it’s labeled “progressive.” The traffic engineering profession promoted neighborhood layouts that didn’t have connecting streets.

In addition, elected leaders in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County rarely did anything that developers didn’t like, such as require sidewalks to be built or require subdivisions with lots of connecting streets, or require subdivisions to connect to the subdivision next door. Neighborhood activists fought street connections — witness the silly closure of East Kingston in Dilworth. After all, if you live on a street that doesn’t connect you understandably prefer the lack of traffic to what you’d have with through streets. Private comfort for a few trumped street networks that would have benefited the greater community.

The city’s transportation department in recent years has pushed admirably for more pedestrian amenities, and it’s making progress, although the rate is slow. Retrofitting the mistakes of 50 years will take money and time — lots of it.

The candy bar approach to city planning

Thank you, anonymous commenter from 5:20 p.m. Tuesday. I am not against density or height. I am against height in the wrong place. You can make a case that next door to the Arlington is an appropriate spot for density, and I won’t get in your face about it, although I think the proximity to the Dilworth Historic District makes it problematic, for reasons I’ve mentioned before. Overall, I tend to agree with Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, who says that six five-story buildings are better than one 30-story building.

But here’s the crux of my objections to the South End rezoning: The whole point of a small station area plan is to plan what heights and densities are appropriate on which spots. If the planners who wrote the South End Station Area Plan and the City Council who adopted it in 2005 believed that site was appropriate for buildings twice the height of the rest of the area’s height limit, why not have the plan say that? Why limit the appropriate height there, in the plan, to 120 feet? Those kinds of issues are precisely why your tax money pays for planners and why your elected representatives adopt small area plans.

Why even bother with any plan if it’s routinely disregarded?

It reminds me of taking a kid to the grocery store. You say before you go, “I’m not buying you candy in the check-out line.” If you then buy the kid a Snickers in the check-out line, that kid will cry for candy on every visit to the store for the next 20 years. And you will have undermined any credibility your authority might have had.

One last thing, responding to a commenter on the post about the Piedmont Town Center project: I LOVE Filene’s Basement. Offer one of those up and I’ll be out there with my chainsaw. (Joke, people, joke.)

South End tower wins swift OK

Reporting live, from City Council:
(See previous post, also from council meeting, about a first — a developer urging council to reject his own rezoning petition.)

The City Council launched the vote-on-rezonings part of its meeting at roughly 6:25 p.m. By 6:39 p.m. it had finished its rezoning decisions. They ripped through 18 rezonings, all except one of them approved unanimously with no discussion on any, except for about 30 seconds on the one that was approved 7-2 (for a day care center at The Plaza and Barrington Drive).

That proposal to allow a 250-foot high-rise tower in South End? The one that was in violation of the South End Transit Station Area Plan, which set a 120-foot height maximum? I didn’t have a stopwatch, so I couldn’t tell you whether it was 5 seconds or 10, but there was no discussion, nothing. Unanimous approval, and on to the next agenda item.

Sure, the council’s rezoning meetings can drag. The public hearing part of the meeting tends to bring out developers and neighborhood opponents. It’s 7:34 p.m. and they’re just on No. 6 in a 15-item public hearing agenda. And council member Michael Barnes just pointed out that there have been numerous violations of the Northeast District Plan in recent years. So why didn’t he — or anyone else — think it was worth maybe a little public discussion about why they were violating the South End station area plan, adopted in 2005?

Maybe there were good reasons. Maybe the 120-foot maximum height limit adopted as part of the Transit Station Area Principles isn’t a good idea after all. You, the voting public, have no way to know why the council members decided to treat their own adopted plans as virtually irrelevant.

They’re on auto-pilot. The biggest issue facing the city for decades has been growth and how to deal with it and pay for its impacts. You’d like to think your elected officials are thoughtfully debating the pros and cons of different growth proposals. Guess what. I’m watching them tonight, and it’s pretty hard not to conclude they’ve abdicated that responsibility.

Developer wants own project nixed

Reporting live from City Council:

This has got to be a first. Bailey Patrick, the dean of local developers’ lobbyists, just got up and urged the City Council to vote against his own rezoning petition.

It’s a rezoning proposal from Crescent Resources, a subsidiary of Duke Energy, which wanted to change its plans, approved in 2005, for the Piedmont Town Center development near SouthPark. They wanted to change approvals for retail and office space into residential space.

The planning staff opposed it. Neighbors opposed it and signed a protest petition against it which means it would need a super-majority vote from the City Council.

The proposal would have wiped out a stand of immense old trees. During the 2004 rezoning — after some publicity from yours truly — the developer agreed to leave a large wooded buffer, giving the trees a reprieve. I visited those trees — immense white oaks along a small stream. The new development would have cut them all down to form a retention pond along the creek.

The real crime here is that it would have been perfectly legal. If you think the city’s tree ordinance protects trees, may I suggest you probably also believe that the U.S. found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11.

It appears Crescent decided to cut its losses. Council member Andy Dulin, generally a good friend to developers, made a motion to deny the petition even before the public hearing opened. Which would have been illegal. “I gotta have a public hearing,” Mayor Pat McCrory reminded him.

At which point Bailey Patrick got up and urged the council to reject the rezoning. His client, Crescent, would have withdrawn it, he said, but because the protest petition wasn’t withdrawn it couldn’t legally do that.

Surely it was a first. I happened to be sitting next to 23-year Keith MacVean — who has, as the joke goes, gone to the dark side and now works for developers (one of his new clients made that joke so I figure it’s OK) — who couldn’t remember it happening before.

He also confirmed that the rejection by council means the developer can’t come back with another proposal for two years — unless it seeks a more intense zoning, such as UMUD.

At 9:27 p.m., after hearing a negative recommendation from the zoning committee of the planning commission, which met quickly after the regular council meeting, the council did as Patrick asked — they voted down the rezoning.