New Urbanism Presentation by Jeff Speck

[Double Edge]

sodastream

To heck with sodastream. You can make your own equipment similar to this site: http://www.truetex.com/carbonation.htm

I ordered a #502033 in the ball lock version, which is a pre-assembled regulator, hose, shut-off valve and ball lock valve lock assembly http://www.beverageequipmentco.com/B...ors__parts.htm

and a carbonator cap the above assembly will snap onto: #11560

http://www.weekendbrewer.com/carbonatorcap.htm

Then bought a tank from ebay.

My set up looks almost identical to this except I use two liter bottles:



But I don't live in a tiny urban apartment. Oh, you can snap the ball lock onto a beer keg and use the set up that way too.

[CaptDave]

If you are looking for another documentary for your summer viewing check out Urbanized on NetFlix. Throughout the entire movie from subject to subject I kept saying to myself - OKC is dealing with this exact same issue right now. It is available on instant queue. The first 10 to 15 minutes had me a little worried but exactly what kind of urban development they were promoting but then it got on track. It was sad to see several third world cities making the Pruitt-Igoe mistake though.

http://urbanizedfilm.com/

Watched it last night. It is also available on Amazon for about $14. I still like discs so I got it. It was very good at demonstrating how different issues with modern city life and some creative solutions. I am going to watch it a few times over the next couple of weeks. Thanks for the recommendation.

[jedicurt]

Watched it last night too. Was good but was a little sad that it took the environmental angle so hard. In fact, Ellen specifically said that due to environmental concerns, the suburbs might have to start "paying more" (paraphrasing). I think this is unfortunate because it creates a new battlefield where one already exists and the economics are on our side. The suburbs are already more expensive to the taxpayer. Those costs should simply be better exposed. We don't need another "excuse" or reason. Adding the environmental approach to this discussion only turns it political and to be blunt, anti-Republican.

I have actually had decent success arguing against 'sprawl' because of how unconservative it can be economically for a community.

Just my .02

+1 this!!!

I have the same type arguments with my parents when discussing the future of this city and this state... and try to take out the issues that immediately sound anti-republican and try to explain how what we are doing isn't conservative...

[Just the facts]

I found the New Urbanism stricktley through the tax liablity suburbia created. If it is better for the environment then that is just icing on the cake. Personally I prefer to stick to the economics of it as well. As for the documentary, I have watched it 4 times and it is amazing what you pick up on after the newness wears off and you can focus on what is being said and the ideas presented. I really like the progression of cities and their place on the urbanism timeline. Did anyone else find it strange to do the Detroit peoplemover ride along and not see any people or cars on the street below?

[Snowman]

Watched it last night too. Was good but was a little sad that it took the environmental angle so hard. In fact, Ellen specifically said that due to environmental concerns, the suburbs might have to start "paying more" (paraphrasing). I think this is unfortunate because it creates a new battlefield where one already exists and the economics are on our side. The suburbs are already more expensive to the taxpayer. Those costs should simply be better exposed. We don't need another "excuse" or reason. Adding the environmental approach to this discussion only turns it political and to be blunt, anti-Republican.

I have actually had decent success arguing against 'sprawl' because of how unconservative it can be economically for a community.

Just my .02

I was guessing the environmental angle was probably more to the region politics or a focus point of the group it was presented to

[Just the facts]

I don't fault the film, just wish we had something very similar that took the economic approach.

Anyone want to make a movie?

[CaptDave]

The economic benefits of New Urbanism alone should be enough to get most non-ideologues to consider it. If viewed purely in light of the best use of limited tax revenue, it is a compelling argument against further government sponsored sprawl.

If a developer wants to build a subdivision 20 miles in the country, let them pay for the infrastructure to support it and pass those costs on to those who wish to live in a walled enclave. Point out the costs - local, state, and national - of needing to secure foreign sources of oil due to our dependence on cars for everything. Talk about the opportunity costs of having to defend shipping lanes and maintain a presence in parts of the world by force. What might we have been able to do with the fortune we have dumped into the Middle East over the last 10 years?

If articulated clearly and logically, this truly should be the most bipartisan approach to development. All the ancillary issues can then be used to further draw support from other specific groups.

[Just the facts]

My aha moment came a couple years ago when they had to cut the budget here in Jax. One of the items cut was mowing along the freeway. They were going to mow it one less time per year and save over $3 million. $3 million for a single mowing? Yes, time to rethink how we live.

[Just the facts]

That is one of the things the struck me about the film The Pruitt-Igoe Myth. The 1949 housing act created government owned slums, forced fathers out of the household (thus destroying the nuclear black family), and then subsidized white flight to the suburbs via low interest loans and interstate freeway construction. It makes me wonder if they did it on purpose.

[Just the facts]

Just passing on some more. I started watching TED Talks on Netflix but they are also available on line.

http://www.ted.com/

Some of them have an enviornmental angle but when they say carbon, fossil fuels, or emmissions I think of the dollars it cost to buy those things BEFORE we set them on fire. Anyhow, there is something here for everyone. Here is on of my favorites.

Warning: This does contain the f-word several times.

[CaptDave]

We need to think before complaining. There is nothing wrong with this development and is actually an example of smart development despite being out in the 'burbs.

Smaller homes approved in north Edmond | NewsOK.com

[Plutonic Panda]

We need to think before complaining. There is nothing wrong with this development and is actually an example of smart development despite being out in the 'burbs.

Smaller homes approved in north Edmond | NewsOK.com

I live in Asheforde Oaks and as long as this is quality development I really don't care. I just don't want a bunch of lower-class trash housing being built right next to nicer developments like Asheforde Oaks, Faircloud, Fairfax ext.

[CaptDave]

I don't blame you at all. I think the assumption it will be bad simply because of the density is a mistake and my main disagreement with the HOA sentiment.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah I hear you. Like I said, as long as they build it with good taste, I don't care how dense it is. Heck, they could even build something like the new apartments/condos that are going in on 2nd & Vista Ln. and it wouldn't really bother me much. BTW Do they have any idea when this might break ground?

[Just the facts]

We need to think before complaining. There is nothing wrong with this development and is actually an example of smart development despite being out in the 'burbs.

Smaller homes approved in north Edmond | NewsOK.com

I don't know CaptDave. This is going to be 62 homes and all of them are still going to have to drive everywhere for every need. If built at surrounding density it would only be 38 homes. As proposed it is a 163% increase in traffic. Plus, it is still going to have a dendritic road network feeding into a collector street with no integration into neighboring subdivisions (in fact - they will build a wall that will even keep animals from passing through).This would be a much better project if it was closer to downtown Edmond, say near Kelly and Edmond Rd.

The rural/urban transect doesn't work if there is high density housing on the suburban fringe.

[CaptDave]

I agree the location would be better if it were closer to the town center. I view it as an opportunity for people to see a neighborhood that is more dense than the typical subdivision. I think it could be a small step in the right direction.

[Just the facts]

I agree the location would be better if it were closer to the town center. I view it as an opportunity for people to see a neighborhood that is more dense than the typical subdivision. I think it could be a small step in the right direction.

If they included a neighborhood corner store that residents could easily walk to they might have something, but the nearest place to buy milk is still 2 miles away and narray a sidewalk or bike lane. This area should have minimum 10 acre home sites.

Of course, this is Edmomd who thought it would be a good idea to locate their new convention center and best hotel at I-35 and Covell Road so they can, and get this, show off their city. What a bunch of dolts.

http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x1376...ut-25M-project

Eighty percent of the Oklahoma Society of Executives and the Society of Government Leaders live in Edmond, Weeman said.

“What do most association executives want to do? They want to showcase their hometown,” he explained.

Anyhow - you think I would have better things to do at 11:30PM on a Friday night.

[CaptDave]

I agree that is the ideal - but we know we have a long way to go in this part of the country. I think people that move there will ask the exact question you have answered. I think many people will look at it and think it would be perfect in town and hopefully this will create demand for a follow on development in a better location.

[Just the facts]

A quick reminder for those that are interested - The New Urbanism certificate program at the University of Miami will start registration on Oct 9 for the course that begins in November. The program is open to anyone and is affordable for most budgets. More details can be found here.

New Urbanism Online

2012-C Session:
Course and Exam Registration: October 9 - November 6, 2012
Login information distributed via email: November 8, 2012
Course begins: November 8, 2012
Exam access begins: January 24, 2013
Course and exam access concludes: February 7, 2013

[Just the facts]

I came across this and thought it was pretty funny so thought I would share.



Then we have reality

[CaptDave]

The incoherence of place and politics | Better! Cities & Towns Online

This article provides a much needed reality check on the urban vs. suburban debate. Thanks to Sidewalk Sid for introducing me to Mr Marohn.

[Dubya61]

CaptDave, read it. Interesting. Sometimes I feel like the straight man setting some of you (guys -- not just CaptDave, JTF, Sid et.al.) up for the punchline, but here's my question: How can we solve this? Here's the set-up (and like all my posts, feel free to correct and (lightly) chastize): Suburbanism (ironic and/or fitting that the prefix "sub-" would indicate "less than") left unchecked will bankrupt the urban core and -- like a Ponzi scheme -- will become it's own new distant core to be bankrupted by further sprawl. More set-up: Choctaw Town Center, Moore Central Park, MAPS for MWC, etc. Are all of these suburbs and their new projects a disappointment to y'all because it's only setting up this civic entity (that some view as a parasite on the denser urban core of a larger metropolis) up for perpetuation of the problem as it develops into something that itself will become a vicitm to the same parasite? Isn't that the problem? OKC can't REALLY solve the problem, as it's already surrounded (more or less) by the parasites, but these parasites can choose to become new urban centers and put a halt to it, if they choose. Sure, OKC has plenty of work to do, but there is other action that can be taken in smaller more actionable projects by the suburbs.
Not trying to set up an us/them debate. That's exactly something Mr. Marohn (correctly, in my opinion) says shouldn't happen. As a willing, intentional inhabitant of the rural fringe, I don't want to live in an urban environment (yet), but it seems that the small-towns and suburbs that I do have the most interaction with have the most to gain from becoming a "new" urban center where non-rural is desired.

[CaptDave]

Dubya61 - I appreciate the exchange of ideas on this topic. You and Rover are often the pragmatic voices that remind me of things I hadn't thought of as I attempt to articulate why I think this is important.

You hit the $10000 question - how the heck do we fix this "mess" we willfully (blindly maybe?) created over the last 60+ years. I agree 10000% this should not become an us vs them debate. I think there needs to be a variety of choices offered to people and they decide what is best for them and their family.
If someone wants to live out in the country, no problem, but we should not continue to build infrastructure we cannot afford to maintain. Those that wish to live outside the downtown, urban core will simply have to pay their own way.

OKC can provide the only true urban/city experience in the metro for all the obvious reasons. All the other small towns you mentioned are merely being swallowed up by the suburban sprawl as it radiates from the urban center. They are simply doing what most small towns would do - take advantage of the economic opportunity presented to them lest another small town in "the ring" take it first. So I suppose in a way you could say these new projects are disappointing for the reason you stated. They further erode the viability of the urban center at the cost of very inefficient development and infrastructure requirements.

If OKC "re-evolves" to the more urban city it once was only with modern amenities, retail, residential developments for all socioeconomic groups, and more places of employment; I think we will see a migration reversing the sprawl trend. It will be similar to dropping a rock into a puddle causing the ripples to radiate away from the center until it hits a solid object and a reverse wave moves back toward the center. I think the solid object that is most likely to cause the return wave of city residents is energy - gasoline and operating costs of automobiles primarily. It will take reaching a perfect storm/critical mass/paradigm shift of a huge magnitude to end the Ponzi development habits we are accustomed to.

So back to the $10000 question - we start small and change our expectations for new development and redevelopment of "blighted" areas over time. We need to make citizens voluntarily reduce the amount of land required for all of us to live, work, and play in OKC. Tonight I was at a meeting that could be the beginning of this trend. It was pertaining to infrastructure investment in a popular district that will bring together the three most important city departments to work collaboratively in the project. Public Works, Planning, and Transit will all be represented on a cross functional team tasked with coming up with a comprehensive plan for this corridor. This would represent a huge shift in how OKC goes about infrastructure planning, investment, and prioritization. I am hopeful this will become the norm; and if it does I believe OKC will gain even more momentum in recreating itself as a desirable downtown/city in which to live. This is the only thing that will solve the dilemma.

Another HUGE part of the problem is how to make OKC Public Schools desirable in the way Edmond has become. I live where I do simply because of Edmond Public Schools - I live in far north OKC, but is zoned for Edmond Schools. People have got to believe their kids will get not just an adequate, but an excellent education in a public school district or they will do what I did and move where they can if they can afford it. The outmigration/white flight/sprawl or whatever you want to call it left basically four groups living in downtown OKC - the poor who are stuck there, the wealthy who can afford private schools, home schooled kids, and those without school age kids. That is a broad generality but not far from truth. But this is critical to downtown OKC's revitalization - to make the OKCPS education's perception improve in the minds of prospective residents, OKCPS needs the revenue from higher and more plentiful property tax collections. How the heck do we solve this one? I don't know honestly and think about it a lot. There certainly isn't a silver bullet solution.

So here is a plausible scenario - OKC continues its renaissance started by MAPS and makes a conscious decision to design an urban core that will be a desirable place to live. Those that can afford the private schools and "new" empty nesters like I will be in a few years will be the next wave joining the "urban pioneers" and singles living down there now. Core to Shore development could be where this starts, or maybe MidTown explodes with residential development. These people will provide the increased tax revenues that will allow OKCPS to start its turnaround. Developers sense the trend and get ahead for once and begin building at a wide range of price points (maybe required by city ordinance) as OKCPS become a real option for younger families who will join the pioneers, singles, and second wave. By then large retailers should be more likely to be encouraged to seriously look at investing in downtown OKC - grocery stores and maybe something like Target combined with smaller retailers will be needed. In conjunction with all this, we need to continue integrating transit into all these plans. If people are coming back to downtown because of energy costs, they will also be likely to use a functional transit system as long as it reliably takes them where they need to go to work, shop, etc. At this point, this is like a snowball rolling downhill and it should become self sustaining and this reversal of sprawl may even let those small towns go back to being the places that originally attracted people to them.

This oversimplified paragraph is probably a 20-30 + year period - I may not see this happen but I hope so. I would like to "age in place" and still be able to go get groceries, etc if I ever lose the ability to safely operate an automobile. (This is another huge reason I think we need to rethink development) I know I don't have all the answers, I just kind of know it is the right thing to do for my kids and their kids; but this is what I came up with at this late hour.

[Dubya61]

CaptDave, please excuse me while I cut and paste your post (and create a Readers Digest of a few others). I believe I’m not distorting your comments – please rail against me if I do.

If someone wants to live out in the country, no problem, but we should not continue to build infrastructure we cannot afford to maintain. Those that wish to live outside the downtown, urban core will simply have to pay their own way.

Agree completely.

OKC can provide the only true urban/city experience in the metro for all the obvious reasons. All the other small towns you mentioned are merely being swallowed up by the suburban sprawl as it radiates from the urban center.

Understand and mostly agree – but I don’t know if I see the suburbs or small towns as being helpless. They certainly can attempt to either be the premier suburb that isn’t suburban, or strike out with an identity that isn’t just OKC. I know I’m going to contradict myself somewhat, but what if these small towns decided that they weren’t going to be just another OKC suburb? Well, first and foremost they would have to reconcile the fact that location makes them partners with OKC (see RTA and ACOG, but I don’t want to derail my own comment). So (cannibalizing other threads), what if Choctaw decided it wasn’t going to be a subset of OKC? and did it right? Here are some snippets from the Choctaw Town Square thread.

I'm not against Choctaw having this development. You say it's better than nothing, but why start out on the wrong foot with poor planning.

Choctaw is the perfect place to start walkability discussions. Clearly they are already thinking along those lines because they already put in two roundabouts and have a decent foundation started along Main St. Then they screwed that up and approved this project. I'm not saying, don't build the project, I am saying move it 3,500 feet east.

Yes. If you don't want to live in "Urban" don't move to the "City". The City of Choctaw, needs to recognize that it is harder to maintain City level of services when properties are used so poorly. Low-density is just more expensive. Dramatically so.

This is an urban sprawl thread. Once again, no one is saying don't grow. Just grow in an efficient and economically affordable way that limits the future tax exposure of the people of Choctaw.

Because that is urban design; what else do you think it's referred to as? There is no such thing as small town design, just urban design on a smaller scale (nothing to do with the population or geographic size).
Towns were built along a general principal of concentration of goods and people from the beginning of civilization until the late 40's. I think you'd be surprised how many small towns emulated the layout of larger cities because they recognized what made them "civilized" and that's what they were trying to create here on the frontier: a new civilized region.

The notion that small towns are not urban is false.

– what if Moore decided that they were going to be the best place to live in the metro? Look at Sid’s post in the “New Central Park for Moore” thread. It’s huge and I won’t quote it all here, but if I’ve created the quote correctly, you can link to it.

The solution isn't huge grand projects, one at a time. It is proper use of the grid in Moore, one block at a time. Which is precisely why I would try to develop this land as follows:
1) Add trees staggered with bollard lighting …

– what if Norman were able to do University North Park right? and create a lifestyle center the way it was envisioned?
– what if MWC were to pass a MAPS tax and tackle JTF’s vision for it?

Four things I would like to see MWC do.
1) Redevelop Heritage Park Mall into a real town downtown.
2) Redevelop Air Depot from HPM to Tinker AFB - to include minimum setbacks, on street parking, bike lanes, and landscaped median
3) Build a local transit hub where Air Depot crosses the railroad for integration into the regional rail network
4) Introduce streetcars from the redeveloped HPM site to Tinker AFB along Air Depot (assuming regional rail doesn't go directly to Tinker), in which case it should go from the HPM site to the new local transit hub.

and I can’t wait to see mmonroe’s ideas:

If you guys will give me a month, (this is pushing me to move forward now with it), I have a few proposed ideas for midwest city i've had for a little while and have put it on the back burner of my 20% pile. I'll get these presentable and you can ooh and ahh over them, or hate them. You might see some surprises you've never thought of before.

I think you’re right about OKC, the direction it needs to take and the stuff that’s happening now. Because I think it’s already moving in the right direction, I would focus on the smaller urban sites and push them in the right direction. I know I’d get some resistance

your out of touch here ... this is such a no brainer i don't know where to start ... this will make the City of Choctaw millions and millions of taxes dollars in the next 30 years ... one of the best choices that they have made ..
and as far as land use ... the choice wasn't A or B, it was A or leave the big empty land empty ..

(and that was a civil rebuttal in that thread) but the winning idea behind new urban design, so far as I see it, is efficient use of less space to create the same or greater tax revenue. If I were emperor for a day? month? large enough span of time to see some of these done and done right, I’d sure do it. All of these small towns MUST be able to see OKC’s sprawl failure and want to avoid it, right?

[Just the facts]

I took some time to write a long reponse so here it is.

Urban sprawl is only made possible by 3 things; cheap gasoline, government spending on expensive infrastructure, and an economic incentive for people to live there. All 3 are going away rapidly. People in the near future aren't going to choose high density urbanism because it offers a better living environment, they are going to choose it because it will be all that most people can reasonably afford. The goal of place like OKC should be to make that transition as easy as possible.

Just like the City spent 60 years building roads and freeways all over the countryside to accommodate (and entice) all the people moving out there, they need to start focusing their efforts on making the urban core a nicer place to live. This includes things like public schools, sidewalks, and P180, but it also includes streetcars, regional rail, form-based zoning, bike lanes (maybe even dedicated bike corridors), high frequency bus service, affordable housing (not section 8 for all the knee-jerk reactionaries out there) and lots of other items. The sooner the City gets ahead of these items the better, and they already have made a good start.

It isn't just OKC either. These problems are going effect all of the suburbs as well which is why Choctaw Town Center, Midwest City Town Center, University North Park, Edmond's remote convention center, and Central Moore Park are all based on growth patterns that are rapidly disappearing. Instead of getting ahead of the trend, those developments are sticking with a low density growth model that requires everyone to drive, which isn't sustainable.

Of course, not everyone wants to live in a high density area which is where the urban/rural transect comes in to play. It identifies the decreasing density from the urban core to the rural fringe. Right now too many people are choosing the rural fringe. The City allows this to happen by increasing the number of housing units per acre in these remote places. If you want to live in rural OKC fine, but you have to do it on 10 acres.
There is also the mistaken belief that OKC should only have one high density urban center focused around downtown. While downtown is where all the tall buildings are, it isn't where the highest density of people lives. If you looked at a 3D population map of OKC it would probably be dominated by flat plateaus, meaning that there aren’t pockets of high density but rather an evenly distributed population that only changes from one plateau to another based on the size of the underlying single family home lot. Only places that are dominated by a collection of large apartment complexes would show any peaks and most of them are far removed from the urban core and job centers – meaning everyone in the highest density of housing has to drive everywhere. That needs to be reversed. The highest population density should be dominated by walking, but you can’t accomplish that with segregated zoning.

The City (and suburbs) should direct high density housing to existing commercial/business districts. In OKC this would include Capitol Hill, the Plaza District, Brittany, Paseo/NW 23rd, Western Ave, Stockyard City, etc. In the suburbs high density housing should focus mostly around their downtowns, although Norman could also include Campus Corner. Places like Midwest City which have no downtown would have to make one from scratch. If they don’t they will start seeing their population decrease as people move to more affordable places to live.

To summarize, the 60 year experiment with suburbia is coming to an end and we need to start making plans to return to a development style that has been use by humans for over 10,000 years.