Last week I commented on how many of our city streets suffer from the excess of pavement dedicated to cars moving quickly. This is especially true in older urban areas that have seen decades of street “improvements” which loosely translate into removing people from streets and adding space for fast-moving cars.

The sad reality is that in many of the neighborhoods that fit this description, they have the double-whammy of reduced economic activity (more jobs and such have moved to outlying areas) and wider streets for fast traffic. The combination is not only one that creates deadly dull urbanity, but also is sometimes literally deadly to pedestrians, cyclists and transit users.

And, more importantly for the purpose of this post, these overly-wide streets (often with little or no curbside parking) are hostile to the success of businesses. As the previous post discussed, it’s absolutely fundamental for the success of businesses in walkable areas that on-street parking be provided and maximized. In fact, I’d go so far as to say the starting point for any planning effort should be to allow for the maximum amount of such parking on *every* street. Of course there will be exceptions where compromises are made. But again, I’d suggest that for the overwhelming majority of our communities that it’s a basic right and necessity.

Here in Kansas City, a group of us with the Urban Society of Kansas City undertook a project to show just how easy and beneficial it is to modify one section of such an urban street. Baltimore Avenue, in the Crossroads area just south of downtown, was a four lane road with very light traffic and parallel parking on both sides. Our group discussed with the property owners the idea of changing the configuration into one lane in each direction plus angled parking. The curb to curb width is 52 feet.

As is often the case in such matters, the first couple of answers from the city engineers were “no” and “there’s not enough room”. We disagreed, and in fact parked our own cars in the suggested configuration to test it (photo attached). After a couple of years of discussion, the changes we proposed were approved.

But here’s the real beauty of this: it only required a few thousand dollars in paint to re-strip the street and a few signs to clarify the parking situation.

The result over the last few years has been as expected. First off, there has been no increase in accidents or injuries in the area. Second, cars move a lot more slowly on the street. Third, several new businesses have sprung up and take advantage of the additional street parking. In fact, this simple employment of a few thousand bucks added nearly 100 spaces (double the previous amount) in a six block stretch. Run those numbers compared to the cost of building off-street structured parking and I think you’ll begin to see the wisdom of this approach.

The sad thing is – there are literally thousands of streets and blocks like this all over our communities that are oversized for traffic and undersized for doing business. Next time a plan calls for more parking garages, ask yourself first “are we using our existing street pavement to full advantage?”

Before… notice the demonstration of how cars would fit:

After… and now you can see how well everything fits:

A common refrain of this series is the notion that an awful lot of our existing paved street area is over-dedicated to fast through traffic. That is, we have too many lanes on most of our roads that are set aside for cars moving really fast through our neighborhoods. The consequences of this are important to consider:

1. It gives priority to people who live a remote distance instead of people who live in a neighborhood. 
2. The trade-off always involves less comfort and safety for pedestrians, cyclists or transit users.
3. Giving the nod to fast-moving traffic harms storefront businesses along those streets.

The final point is an important one to consider when looking at rush-hour parking restrictions. In many communities, the idea of not allowing parking from 7-9 AM or 4-6 PM is perceived as a good compromise. During high-traffic times, all lanes are dedicated to moving cars, and during slower times people can park on the street. Sounds like a win-win, right?

Except, it’s actually more of a lose, lose in most situations.

Any business that actually sits up on the street, as we aim to do in walkable neighborhoods, relies extensively on on-street parking for its customer base, (this is to temporarily put to the side the other benefits of on-street parking, which will be discussed in a separate piece). That space is the most valuable to a business, and ultimately to a city, as it is convenient and accessible especially for impulse buying. To some folks that may sound trivial, but to a business owner impulse buying and a convenient way to access their customers are fundamental to survival. Some retail consultants in fact have stated that each curbside space is worth $300,000 annually in retail sales.

And so, it’s clear that these spaces mean a lot. So why then can’t we just compromise and allow traffic to move quickly in rush hour? Because that’s precisely when those business need access to the curbside spots. Rush hour is the exact time when the most people will drive by a business, notice it and potentially stop to buy something. If the curbside spots are made unavailable, our human nature will kick in and we will just drive by.

The trade-off will mean slower commutes, especially for those traveling a long distance. Beyond the philosophical question of why some neighborhoods should have their quality of life sacrificed for those that are more distant, the bigger question is don’t we want to encourage thriving commerce in our walkable areas? If the answer is yes (I certainly hope so), then we need to look to maximize the opportunities for their business success, and job #1 in that regard is to enable on-street parking at all hours. And in many cases, this can be done simply by removing a sign.

This week we’re undertaking a design charrette in Ottawa, KS as a master plan for Ottawa University. OU is a small, but growing, college, and this plan is being done anticipating growth to about 1,500 students over the next decade. We’re on a team with Gould Evans Associates. We’ll try and post some images from the charrette later this week.

The project is an update to a master plan we completed for the university in 2003. At that time, however, the university anticipated a size of about 750 students as a maximum student population. Now, with a new president and strategic plan in place, the campus is poised to grow to 1,500 students. This puts the previous master plan in a completely different perspective, as the facilities will have to grow well beyond the current capacity. So, we will be looking at long-term (and some short-term) solutions for residential space, academic space, parking/circulation, campus open space and more.

Gould Evans is developing a detailed residential program as well as a program for the Learning Commons (union, library and more combined). The effort this week is to coalesce most of the work into a long-term physical vision for the campus, and we’ll then work out the details over the next month. The near-term goal is to start a first phase residential building in the next few months.

There’s one aspect of Anthony Bourdain’s television show “No Reservations” that I always connect with – I’m a big fan of street food. And not just for the obvious reasons of quick, cheap and sometimes really tasty meals.

More than anything, I like street food because, well, it gets people out on the street. And if we step back from all the beautiful renderings of attractive buildings and street scenes in our development plans, isn’t that the bottom line for what we want – life on the street?

It seems we have a constant tension in our communities between doing the things that actually create life and vibrancy and a desire to “tame” that, or at least pretty it up. In most cases, I’d urge us to let loose the reigns a bit, and allow more spontaneity in the street scene. Food carts, mobile trucks, etc. all fall into this category. I remember in my own city that at least one city councilman wanted to essentially eliminate most sidewalk operations downtown or corral them into a few designated areas. But good cities, (and by good I mean places where people actually walk) are not sterile mall food courts. The best places encourage these sorts of start-up operations as a means to encouraging other forms of business and to add local color and flavor.

In these times of tighter money, it’s also good to consider the other benefits of street food operations – they are cheap to start up (entrepreneurial), they can hide ugly parking lots in the short-term (aesthetic), they get people outside and visible (seeds the urban market), they are small enough that a few in a row can relieve monotony (creates pedestrian interest).

So, as you think about ways to take first steps in your walkable areas, please consider the value of street food operations. Review your ordinances and procedures to see what kind of burdens are placed on these operations. Remember the golden rule of community planning – make the good stuff easy to do.

Admittedly it’s a working title, but as we have worked in communities all across the U.S., it’s clear that what so many places are seeking is simple economic development. And why is that – why the relentless search for more growth, more revenue, more employment?

The simple answer is – most of our places simply cannot afford to maintain the infrastructure we have built and need new revenue sources to keep up the illusion.

Over the last 30 years there have literally been countless studies showing that our typical built pattern of low-density suburban sprawl does not pay for itself. In other words, this pattern is too inefficient to generate enough revenue to cover the municipal services that people expect. And so, cities and other government agencies tend to pursue a variety of actions:

1. Zoning out lower and middle-income development in favor of high-end only (increased property taxes)
2. Reducing citizen services
3. Increasing taxes and fees
4. Chasing every new development that can generate revenue, regardless of long-term plans

All of these are earnest attempts to try and balance short-term needs with the current development pattern. The problem, though, is how destructive these approaches are to long-term sustainability. We need to change the pattern.

And so, this series will focus in 2 primary areas: how we can focus on the long-term health of our communities, and some short-term techniques we can try now to take steps in the right direction. Long-term strategic thinking and short-term actions is another way to say it.

It’s certainly our opinion that the primary way back to prosperity for many of our communities is to change the development pattern. Compact, mixed use, walkable neighborhoods are not just a lifestyle choice – they are inherently more stable over the long term, and far more efficient to serve. By no means does this imply that every neighborhood has to become high-rise. In fact, some of our best examples are the normal, “boring” neighborhoods from the late 19th century through the early 20th century. You probably know an example or two in your own community – they mix single family homes with apartments, narrow streets, neighborhood shops and community buildings.

So in the coming weeks we’ll share examples, thoughts, techniques and more to hopefully provoke some thinking. Please feel free to give us feedback on anything that is shared – we’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences.

Here’s a look at the vibrant downtown of Traverse City, Michigan.