http://cnu.org/sites/files/Schools2007FINAL.pdf
School Choice: A Remedy for Sprawl
The core function of schools is, obviously, to educate our children. Schools serve additional functions as centers of culture and community. And at the regional scale, they have great influence over where people choose to live.
Over just a few generations, the role of schools in their communities has changed visibly. Schools have gone from being fixtures of traditional neighborhoods - the stately brick building down the street or around the block - to institutions found a driving distance away in settings indistinguishable from business or industrial parks.
And while school quality has always been a factor in determining where people choose to live, the pattern of middle- and upper-class families avoiding less affluent communities and choosing more affluent ones in order to access preferred public schools is a force that's making commuties less diverse and regions more segregated . . .
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Incorporating Green Design Elements to Enhance Multifamily Communities
http://www.multi-housingnews.com/multihousing/reports_analysis/feature_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003596132
Incorporating Green Design Elements to Enhance Multifamily Communities
The American Institute of Architects' (AIA) National Convention and Design Expo in San Antonio observed the theme of "Growing Beyond Green" last month, in recognition of its 150th anniversary. Architects focused on their past achievements and future endeavors to incorporate environmentally friendly concepts fully into their designs, including those of multifamily developments . . .
Rapidly evolving from a niche topic just three to four years ago, green affordable housing has become incorporated into the mainstream. Sustainable low-market housing reduces energy bills by up to 30 percent, eliminates the presence of toxic building materials, provides improved ventilation, and creates a link between housing developments and their surrounding communities. Top green building researchers and architects concurred that sustainable design for affordable housing can indeed revitalize communities throughout the U.S.
"Developers are hungry to know how green can work for them," observed Bill Roschen, AIA, co-principal of Los Angeles-based Roschen Van Cleve Architects, at the "Greening Affordable Housing: New Innovations from the Field" seminar. "We need to find more innovative ways to push the creative envelope on sustainable affordable housing to encourage more developers." . . .
Through continued implementation of Smart Growth design principles, mixed-use developments in various cities have been providing health-conscious communities in major metropolitan areas, according to David Dixon, FAIA, co-principal of Boston-based Goody Clancy Architects. Establishing mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly developments in dense, urban environments has proven to be the best alternative for city dwellers.
"There's been a higher demand for condos than for single-family homes," said Dixon at the "Turning Cities Green: Reinventing the American Neighborhood" seminar. "Americans want walkable, sprawling communities. They would prefer a shorter commute than a backyard. All the pieces are coming together. We must be advocates for green planning." . . .
Incorporating Green Design Elements to Enhance Multifamily Communities
The American Institute of Architects' (AIA) National Convention and Design Expo in San Antonio observed the theme of "Growing Beyond Green" last month, in recognition of its 150th anniversary. Architects focused on their past achievements and future endeavors to incorporate environmentally friendly concepts fully into their designs, including those of multifamily developments . . .
Rapidly evolving from a niche topic just three to four years ago, green affordable housing has become incorporated into the mainstream. Sustainable low-market housing reduces energy bills by up to 30 percent, eliminates the presence of toxic building materials, provides improved ventilation, and creates a link between housing developments and their surrounding communities. Top green building researchers and architects concurred that sustainable design for affordable housing can indeed revitalize communities throughout the U.S.
"Developers are hungry to know how green can work for them," observed Bill Roschen, AIA, co-principal of Los Angeles-based Roschen Van Cleve Architects, at the "Greening Affordable Housing: New Innovations from the Field" seminar. "We need to find more innovative ways to push the creative envelope on sustainable affordable housing to encourage more developers." . . .
Through continued implementation of Smart Growth design principles, mixed-use developments in various cities have been providing health-conscious communities in major metropolitan areas, according to David Dixon, FAIA, co-principal of Boston-based Goody Clancy Architects. Establishing mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly developments in dense, urban environments has proven to be the best alternative for city dwellers.
"There's been a higher demand for condos than for single-family homes," said Dixon at the "Turning Cities Green: Reinventing the American Neighborhood" seminar. "Americans want walkable, sprawling communities. They would prefer a shorter commute than a backyard. All the pieces are coming together. We must be advocates for green planning." . . .
July 25 this webcast will showcase
https://www.eventbuilder.com/event_desc.asp?p_event=3k7c89n7
Balancing Water Quality and Smart Growth Goals
On July 25 this webcast will showcase how two very different communities-San Jose, California and Barnstable, Massachusetts-have taken action to protect water quality while maintaining smart growth goals for density and redevelopment. Speakers from both communities will provide background and discuss the political, economic, and regulatory aspects of their program.
Balancing Water Quality and Smart Growth Goals
On July 25 this webcast will showcase how two very different communities-San Jose, California and Barnstable, Massachusetts-have taken action to protect water quality while maintaining smart growth goals for density and redevelopment. Speakers from both communities will provide background and discuss the political, economic, and regulatory aspects of their program.
A Place for Granny: The Case for Accessory Dwelling Units
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/speakout/2007/06/a_place_for_granny_the_case_fo.html
A Place for Granny: The Case for Accessory Dwelling Units
. . . There are clear financial and social benefits for both owner and rental households at all socioeconomic levels. Accessory dwelling units also provide benefits to neighborhoods by enhancing safety through more eyes on the street, revitalizing aging structures and preserving character by serving as a "green" alternative to excessive scrape-off activity. At the city level, they provide a way to comfortably add more people, promote a greater diversity of housing opportunities, and add affordable housing stock at virtually no cost to local government or the nonprofit sector.
Common concerns expressed about their reintroduction in existing neighborhoods center on parking, traffic, appropriate design, and fears about blight caused by absentee landowners. All of these matters can be adequately addressed through appropriate zoning standards and a process that ensures that at least one of the units always be owner-occupied.
Santa Cruz, Calif., has done just that with award winning standards and design guidelines. Closer to home, Longmont has standards that apply to both new developments and established neighborhoods . . .
Should accessory units be legalized in Denver, results in other communities suggest the creation of 500 to 1,000 units per year, depending on the level of promotion and the ease of permitting. Metrowide, there is the potential for several times that figure.
It is time to take a fresh look and modernize our aging single-family housing stock in a way that recognizes our changing social and economic needs . . .
A Place for Granny: The Case for Accessory Dwelling Units
. . . There are clear financial and social benefits for both owner and rental households at all socioeconomic levels. Accessory dwelling units also provide benefits to neighborhoods by enhancing safety through more eyes on the street, revitalizing aging structures and preserving character by serving as a "green" alternative to excessive scrape-off activity. At the city level, they provide a way to comfortably add more people, promote a greater diversity of housing opportunities, and add affordable housing stock at virtually no cost to local government or the nonprofit sector.
Common concerns expressed about their reintroduction in existing neighborhoods center on parking, traffic, appropriate design, and fears about blight caused by absentee landowners. All of these matters can be adequately addressed through appropriate zoning standards and a process that ensures that at least one of the units always be owner-occupied.
Santa Cruz, Calif., has done just that with award winning standards and design guidelines. Closer to home, Longmont has standards that apply to both new developments and established neighborhoods . . .
Should accessory units be legalized in Denver, results in other communities suggest the creation of 500 to 1,000 units per year, depending on the level of promotion and the ease of permitting. Metrowide, there is the potential for several times that figure.
It is time to take a fresh look and modernize our aging single-family housing stock in a way that recognizes our changing social and economic needs . . .
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Bank of America Presentation
You may now download
Robert Kee's Presentation
from this LINK.
The PowerPoint has been converted to
an Adobe Acrobat Reader document.
Robert Kee's Presentation
from this LINK.
The PowerPoint has been converted to
an Adobe Acrobat Reader document.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Audio Recordings
Following are audio recordings of a few of the presentations.
1. Bob Kee - this recording begins a few minutes after he started his presentation.
2. Bob Kee - this is the Q & A session following his presentation. It is difficult to hear the questions from the audience.
3. Jack Cecil, Gordon Small, and Scott Dedman - the actual recording begins 21 minutes and 31 seconds into the recording. I had placed the recorder on the podium and started it before the actual presentations.
1. Bob Kee - this recording begins a few minutes after he started his presentation.
2. Bob Kee - this is the Q & A session following his presentation. It is difficult to hear the questions from the audience.
3. Jack Cecil, Gordon Small, and Scott Dedman - the actual recording begins 21 minutes and 31 seconds into the recording. I had placed the recorder on the podium and started it before the actual presentations.
If You Build It They Will Come
http://www.nrdc.org/buildinggreen/factsheets/smartgrowth.pdf
If You Build It They Will Come -- Americans want smart growth alternatives to conventional transportation
Longer commutes, clogged streets, endless traffic delays-Americans want alternatives to the daily transportation grind. Smart growth land-use strategies, also known as location-efficient development or "new urbanism," place a premium on what Americans value: shorter trips to and from the office and other destinations, opportunities to travel conveniently without having to drive, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, and amenities like restaurants, shops, and libraries within walking distance of their homes. These options can save people thousands of dollars a year by cutting the cost of transportation-the second-biggest household expense. Even better, these quality of life improvements have significant benefits for the environment.
Unfortunately, the traditional methods of computer modeling currently used to guide land-management and transportation project development decisions are keeping communities locked into sprawl by severely under-predicting the value of these safer, healthier smart growth alternatives. NRDC has identified several critical problems with the current modeling system, as well as a set of recommendations for correcting the inaccuracies-and creating more livable communities . . .
If You Build It They Will Come -- Americans want smart growth alternatives to conventional transportation
Longer commutes, clogged streets, endless traffic delays-Americans want alternatives to the daily transportation grind. Smart growth land-use strategies, also known as location-efficient development or "new urbanism," place a premium on what Americans value: shorter trips to and from the office and other destinations, opportunities to travel conveniently without having to drive, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, and amenities like restaurants, shops, and libraries within walking distance of their homes. These options can save people thousands of dollars a year by cutting the cost of transportation-the second-biggest household expense. Even better, these quality of life improvements have significant benefits for the environment.
Unfortunately, the traditional methods of computer modeling currently used to guide land-management and transportation project development decisions are keeping communities locked into sprawl by severely under-predicting the value of these safer, healthier smart growth alternatives. NRDC has identified several critical problems with the current modeling system, as well as a set of recommendations for correcting the inaccuracies-and creating more livable communities . . .
Tearing down history
http://www.charlotte.com/292/story/144570.html
Eve of destruction looming for historic areas?
Solutions are out there, if city officials cared enough to look for some
On Sunday, another one bites the dust. The implosion of the old Charlotte Coliseum will add to the body count of memory-laden Charlotte buildings that got scraped away.
In some ways it's understandable why the Coliseum, only 19 years old, is expendable. It was designed for a city with no NBA team, built before pricey luxury seats were seen as essential.
Even so, it adds to a continuing Charlotte mystery: Why do we tear down so much?
I don't have easy or complete answers. Some of the factors are specific policies: A state building code that until a few years ago made renovations expensive. Yet there's also a civic habit: a uniquely Charlotte striving to be always bigger, always bolder.
But as I've watched development here, I've also noticed that many other growing cities haven't seen demolition derbies like Charlotte's.
So why has uptown Charlotte -- unlike, say, Raleigh, Greensboro or Asheville -- lost almost all of its smaller, older buildings? Why is Dilworth, a local historic district, threatened with tear-downs and high-density condos, when historic districts in other N.C. cities aren't?
I have some theories. I don't claim to be a land planning expert. I wish people who are would take this issue seriously, because I'm afraid Dilworth, South End, NoDa and Myers Park face serious destruction . . .
For a time, that had an unintended side effect of chilling some development. Property owners acted like raffle ticket holders. "People would hold out for 60-story office buildings," says Keith MacVean, the planning department's land development program manager.
With every tower built, land values rose. That encouraged the raffle mentality and discouraged owners from spending to fix up and lease smaller, older buildings. It fed an economic climate that encouraged demolishing, not keeping, a building.
UMUD wasn't the sole factor. The building code and property tax system played roles, for instance. But build-to-the-heavens zoning left planners with little leverage over height or intensity, thus no way to cool demolition-inducing land values. "Once you've created a standard of `no standard,' it's hard to reel it back in," says MacVean . . .
The effects fall on unknown industrial buildings and beloved icons alike. Consider the MUDD-zoned Coffee Cup restaurant, or Dilworth's historic bungalows snuggled next to intense, TOD development.
Is anyone at the city noticing this? Trying to stop it? No.
Why not explore tools other cities use to try to protect some older buildings without squelching development? Raleigh has provisions that serve as height limits in parts of its downtown, yet it's still seeing downtown condo and office buildings rising.
It's too late for uptown to retain much historic flavor. But it isn't too late to protect NoDa, Dilworth, Myers Park and other treasured neighborhoods.
I'm tired of City Council members talking about protecting neighborhoods, over and over, but changing nothing.
Other cities found regulatory tools. Find some for Charlotte. Adopt them. How hard is that?
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/606926.html
The lowdown on teardowns
RALEIGH - The teardown trend in Raleigh is bad for the environment -- and bad for Raleigh's residents. When global warming, water conservation needs, landfill shortages and the need for additional electric power generation fill the newspaper on a daily basis, tearing down a perfectly habitable house (even if it's "dowdy") to make way for an oversized replacement is environmentally irresponsible . . .
Contrary to building industry rhetoric, teardowns do not financially benefit the existing property owners in a neighborhood. After oversized houses are built, neighboring property values actually drop in many cases. The quality of life is diminished, living next door to a monster house (with the issues of increased runoff, and loss of sunlight, view and neighborhood tree canopy) and the streetscape loses its charm.
The remaining small houses are valued only for their land. Though their land value may marginally increase, often their total market value is reduced. According to a study at the University of Illinois at Chicago, existing properties in close proximity to teardowns in Arlington Heights have lost as much as 24 percent of their value due to the construction of larger and more expensive houses nearby.
Our older neighborhoods in Raleigh are generally places that feature a variety of sizes and housing types. Size is one of the biggest components of affordability. The diversity of our older neighborhoods will be lost when homes that could comfortably accommodate a small family are replaced with expensive behemoths. After all, the majority of American households have only one or two persons.
Not everyone needs or wants a huge house. Sarah Susanka of Raleigh has published a wonderful series of bestselling books on the "The Not So Big House." She has eloquently demonstrated that larger does not necessarily mean more livable.
Other cities (Austin, Atlanta, Salt Lake City, Dallas, to name a few) are addressing this problem. Raleigh needs to do so -- and quickly. One of Raleigh's National Register historic districts is rapidly losing its historic character, and several other neighborhoods that are now eligible for the National Register are being torn apart . . .
Eve of destruction looming for historic areas?
Solutions are out there, if city officials cared enough to look for some
On Sunday, another one bites the dust. The implosion of the old Charlotte Coliseum will add to the body count of memory-laden Charlotte buildings that got scraped away.
In some ways it's understandable why the Coliseum, only 19 years old, is expendable. It was designed for a city with no NBA team, built before pricey luxury seats were seen as essential.
Even so, it adds to a continuing Charlotte mystery: Why do we tear down so much?
I don't have easy or complete answers. Some of the factors are specific policies: A state building code that until a few years ago made renovations expensive. Yet there's also a civic habit: a uniquely Charlotte striving to be always bigger, always bolder.
But as I've watched development here, I've also noticed that many other growing cities haven't seen demolition derbies like Charlotte's.
So why has uptown Charlotte -- unlike, say, Raleigh, Greensboro or Asheville -- lost almost all of its smaller, older buildings? Why is Dilworth, a local historic district, threatened with tear-downs and high-density condos, when historic districts in other N.C. cities aren't?
I have some theories. I don't claim to be a land planning expert. I wish people who are would take this issue seriously, because I'm afraid Dilworth, South End, NoDa and Myers Park face serious destruction . . .
For a time, that had an unintended side effect of chilling some development. Property owners acted like raffle ticket holders. "People would hold out for 60-story office buildings," says Keith MacVean, the planning department's land development program manager.
With every tower built, land values rose. That encouraged the raffle mentality and discouraged owners from spending to fix up and lease smaller, older buildings. It fed an economic climate that encouraged demolishing, not keeping, a building.
UMUD wasn't the sole factor. The building code and property tax system played roles, for instance. But build-to-the-heavens zoning left planners with little leverage over height or intensity, thus no way to cool demolition-inducing land values. "Once you've created a standard of `no standard,' it's hard to reel it back in," says MacVean . . .
The effects fall on unknown industrial buildings and beloved icons alike. Consider the MUDD-zoned Coffee Cup restaurant, or Dilworth's historic bungalows snuggled next to intense, TOD development.
Is anyone at the city noticing this? Trying to stop it? No.
Why not explore tools other cities use to try to protect some older buildings without squelching development? Raleigh has provisions that serve as height limits in parts of its downtown, yet it's still seeing downtown condo and office buildings rising.
It's too late for uptown to retain much historic flavor. But it isn't too late to protect NoDa, Dilworth, Myers Park and other treasured neighborhoods.
I'm tired of City Council members talking about protecting neighborhoods, over and over, but changing nothing.
Other cities found regulatory tools. Find some for Charlotte. Adopt them. How hard is that?
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/606926.html
The lowdown on teardowns
RALEIGH - The teardown trend in Raleigh is bad for the environment -- and bad for Raleigh's residents. When global warming, water conservation needs, landfill shortages and the need for additional electric power generation fill the newspaper on a daily basis, tearing down a perfectly habitable house (even if it's "dowdy") to make way for an oversized replacement is environmentally irresponsible . . .
Contrary to building industry rhetoric, teardowns do not financially benefit the existing property owners in a neighborhood. After oversized houses are built, neighboring property values actually drop in many cases. The quality of life is diminished, living next door to a monster house (with the issues of increased runoff, and loss of sunlight, view and neighborhood tree canopy) and the streetscape loses its charm.
The remaining small houses are valued only for their land. Though their land value may marginally increase, often their total market value is reduced. According to a study at the University of Illinois at Chicago, existing properties in close proximity to teardowns in Arlington Heights have lost as much as 24 percent of their value due to the construction of larger and more expensive houses nearby.
Our older neighborhoods in Raleigh are generally places that feature a variety of sizes and housing types. Size is one of the biggest components of affordability. The diversity of our older neighborhoods will be lost when homes that could comfortably accommodate a small family are replaced with expensive behemoths. After all, the majority of American households have only one or two persons.
Not everyone needs or wants a huge house. Sarah Susanka of Raleigh has published a wonderful series of bestselling books on the "The Not So Big House." She has eloquently demonstrated that larger does not necessarily mean more livable.
Other cities (Austin, Atlanta, Salt Lake City, Dallas, to name a few) are addressing this problem. Raleigh needs to do so -- and quickly. One of Raleigh's National Register historic districts is rapidly losing its historic character, and several other neighborhoods that are now eligible for the National Register are being torn apart . . .
Calling It `Smart Growth' Doesn't Make It So
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-plccondon0617.artjun17,0,4492441.story?coll=hc-headlines-commentary
Calling It `Smart Growth' Doesn't Make It So
Remember the 1970s, when the nascent environmental movement spawned an interest in "natural food"? This initially referred to vittles that contained no artificial ingredients and were minimally processed. But soon the corporate food industry co-opted the term and started calling everything "natural," whether or not it was laden with preservatives, fillers, taste-enhancing chemicals and God knows what else.
Thus the term "natural food" lost much of its meaning. The same fate threatens "smart growth." Across the country, developers are starting to use "smart growth" to define whatever it is they happen to be building . . .
According to the Smart Growth Network, a public-private partnership that promotes smart growth (www.smartgrowth.org), the movement is about "restoring community and vitality to center cities and older suburbs," usually by the careful adding of density in town centers and transit corridors. The term can also apply to new development that is "more town-centered, transit- and pedestrian-oriented, and has a greater mix of housing, commercial and retail uses." . . .
In a way, the exploitation of the term is an indication of the movement's success, Goldberg said. On the other hand, if the term is being misused to attract interest and investment to projects that increase sprawl and otherwise defeat the purposes of smart growth, as Zahniser suggests is happening in California, that is not a good thing.
So, maybe the smart growth people - and the New Urbanism folks as well - need to do what the foodies did. They changed the term to "organic" and created certification standards. That's worked reasonably well.
Calling It `Smart Growth' Doesn't Make It So
Remember the 1970s, when the nascent environmental movement spawned an interest in "natural food"? This initially referred to vittles that contained no artificial ingredients and were minimally processed. But soon the corporate food industry co-opted the term and started calling everything "natural," whether or not it was laden with preservatives, fillers, taste-enhancing chemicals and God knows what else.
Thus the term "natural food" lost much of its meaning. The same fate threatens "smart growth." Across the country, developers are starting to use "smart growth" to define whatever it is they happen to be building . . .
According to the Smart Growth Network, a public-private partnership that promotes smart growth (www.smartgrowth.org), the movement is about "restoring community and vitality to center cities and older suburbs," usually by the careful adding of density in town centers and transit corridors. The term can also apply to new development that is "more town-centered, transit- and pedestrian-oriented, and has a greater mix of housing, commercial and retail uses." . . .
In a way, the exploitation of the term is an indication of the movement's success, Goldberg said. On the other hand, if the term is being misused to attract interest and investment to projects that increase sprawl and otherwise defeat the purposes of smart growth, as Zahniser suggests is happening in California, that is not a good thing.
So, maybe the smart growth people - and the New Urbanism folks as well - need to do what the foodies did. They changed the term to "organic" and created certification standards. That's worked reasonably well.
Peddling Smart Growth
http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/peddling-smart-growth/16508/?page=1
Peddling Smart Growth
Call your project "smart" - even when it isn't - and get millions in public funds
. . . In just a short decade, smart growth has become the chameleon of urban planning, changing its appearance depending on the need of the lobbyist, real estate developer or investor. Politicians use the phrase to quiet angry neighborhood leaders, even arguing that new development will fight congestion, not increase it. Developers insist they are pursuing smart growth simply by adding stores and restaurants to residential projects.
Smart growth is not just being used to secure public support for mega-projects. It is also helping investment-fund managers to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in public-pension money - funds invested on behalf of retired California teachers, police officers, firefighters and thousands of other retired government workers.
Smart growth is supposed to help make neighborhoods walkable, put jobs and homes close together, and deliver new housing for a wide range of income levels, not just the rich. But some of the public-pension funds - entities with the words "smart growth" in the name - are investing in projects that perpetuate rather than limit the sprawl.
"There's kind of an 'ooh and ahh' factor about smart growth," says Michael Milroy, a planning consultant who scrutinized the Las Lomas project as a volunteer with the Sierra Club. "It's a desirable image for developers to have associated with their projects. Whether the image matches the reality . . . that's another question." . . .
Peddling Smart Growth
Call your project "smart" - even when it isn't - and get millions in public funds
. . . In just a short decade, smart growth has become the chameleon of urban planning, changing its appearance depending on the need of the lobbyist, real estate developer or investor. Politicians use the phrase to quiet angry neighborhood leaders, even arguing that new development will fight congestion, not increase it. Developers insist they are pursuing smart growth simply by adding stores and restaurants to residential projects.
Smart growth is not just being used to secure public support for mega-projects. It is also helping investment-fund managers to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in public-pension money - funds invested on behalf of retired California teachers, police officers, firefighters and thousands of other retired government workers.
Smart growth is supposed to help make neighborhoods walkable, put jobs and homes close together, and deliver new housing for a wide range of income levels, not just the rich. But some of the public-pension funds - entities with the words "smart growth" in the name - are investing in projects that perpetuate rather than limit the sprawl.
"There's kind of an 'ooh and ahh' factor about smart growth," says Michael Milroy, a planning consultant who scrutinized the Las Lomas project as a volunteer with the Sierra Club. "It's a desirable image for developers to have associated with their projects. Whether the image matches the reality . . . that's another question." . . .
Civic Participation and Smarter Growth
http://www.fundersnetwork.org/usr_doc/Civic_Participation_and_Smarter_Growth.pdf
Civic Participation and Smarter Growth: Improving How Communities and Places Grow and Change
Civic participation is vital to democracy. It takes many forms: individual voluntarism, involvement with neighborhood and other nonprofit organizations, and participation in elections and governmental processes. Everywhere in the country, local decisions are currently being made about land use, transportation, zoning, and public investment. These decisions-about what, where, and how to grow-are opportunities to increase civic participation and decrease social isolation, for the public at large and especially for populations traditionally excluded from decision-making.
The quality of civic life and public participation is closely linked to growth and development in two ways: process and results. Land use decisions involve public resources and formally require public participation. Consequently, organized, engaged residents can have an enormous influence on political outcomes. When residents are actively involved, the decisions themselves are more likely to reflect and serve the needs of the community. And the built environment that results from public decisions made to benefit the community as a whole will decrease isolation and increase the vitality of civic life . . .
Civic Participation and Smarter Growth: Improving How Communities and Places Grow and Change
Civic participation is vital to democracy. It takes many forms: individual voluntarism, involvement with neighborhood and other nonprofit organizations, and participation in elections and governmental processes. Everywhere in the country, local decisions are currently being made about land use, transportation, zoning, and public investment. These decisions-about what, where, and how to grow-are opportunities to increase civic participation and decrease social isolation, for the public at large and especially for populations traditionally excluded from decision-making.
The quality of civic life and public participation is closely linked to growth and development in two ways: process and results. Land use decisions involve public resources and formally require public participation. Consequently, organized, engaged residents can have an enormous influence on political outcomes. When residents are actively involved, the decisions themselves are more likely to reflect and serve the needs of the community. And the built environment that results from public decisions made to benefit the community as a whole will decrease isolation and increase the vitality of civic life . . .
Preserving the Land
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/realestate/greathomes/20gh-home.html?ex=1339992000&en=553d14bee94396c2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Preserving the Land
Housing developments, subdivisions and strip malls are the antithesis of a setting for a vacation retreat. And to prevent this sort of growth, many second homeowners are taking an active role in ensuring that their refuge in the country stays sprawl free.
Donations of conservation easements - essentially, promises to limit development on the "donated" land - are up 148 percent since 2000, according to the Land Trust Alliance, a national organization that represents some 1,700 local and state land trusts . . .
Preserving the Land
Housing developments, subdivisions and strip malls are the antithesis of a setting for a vacation retreat. And to prevent this sort of growth, many second homeowners are taking an active role in ensuring that their refuge in the country stays sprawl free.
Donations of conservation easements - essentially, promises to limit development on the "donated" land - are up 148 percent since 2000, according to the Land Trust Alliance, a national organization that represents some 1,700 local and state land trusts . . .
Minneapolis taking a bite out of McMansions?
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1261366.html
Minneapolis taking a bite out of McMansions?
Minneapolis is on the verge of reining in the super-size houses that some call McMansions . . .
The action responds to increasing concern among some residents, especially in southwest Minneapolis, over lot-filling homes that tower over their neighbors.
The zoning code change generally would lower the height limit from 35 to 30 feet or 2½ stories, whichever is lower. In addition:
. A house's floor area would be limited to half of the square footage of the lot, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is more.
. The footprint of the house and other structures couldn't exceed 50 percent of the lot.
. The hard surface of a lot, which includes sidewalks and driveways, would be held to 65 percent of lot area.
. Features such as open porches, many basements and attics, and detached garages wouldn't count in the floor-area-to-lot-size calculations . . .
Southwest area Council Member Betsy Hodges, who proposed the changes with Gary Schiff, said they strike "a balance between the modern desire for larger homes with the desire to keep what we love so much about our city and its neighborhoods." . . .
Minneapolis taking a bite out of McMansions?
Minneapolis is on the verge of reining in the super-size houses that some call McMansions . . .
The action responds to increasing concern among some residents, especially in southwest Minneapolis, over lot-filling homes that tower over their neighbors.
The zoning code change generally would lower the height limit from 35 to 30 feet or 2½ stories, whichever is lower. In addition:
. A house's floor area would be limited to half of the square footage of the lot, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is more.
. The footprint of the house and other structures couldn't exceed 50 percent of the lot.
. The hard surface of a lot, which includes sidewalks and driveways, would be held to 65 percent of lot area.
. Features such as open porches, many basements and attics, and detached garages wouldn't count in the floor-area-to-lot-size calculations . . .
Southwest area Council Member Betsy Hodges, who proposed the changes with Gary Schiff, said they strike "a balance between the modern desire for larger homes with the desire to keep what we love so much about our city and its neighborhoods." . . .
Schools for the Future (Sustainable)
This is a GREAT report that contains ideas for construction and engagement of youth. - Phillip
http://www.p4s.org.uk/documents/SustainableschoolsCasestudies.pdf
Schools for the Future
We need new buildings, yet construction is one of the least sustainable industries in the world. How can school buildings play their part in addressing the challenges of issues surrounding sustainability?
Design of sustainable schools - case studies aims to provide schools and design teams with real-world examples of places that have embraced these challenges . . .
The case studies in this book show just what can be done. These sustainable schools are the pioneers and it is important that we learn from their achievements - and their mistakes. The schools have allowed free and open reporting and I commend them for that. Their courage is helping us all to realise the vision of a transformed and sustainable educational system. Read the case studies, learn the lessons and apply them to your school today. And in turn pass on your experiences to others.
http://www.p4s.org.uk/documents/SustainableschoolsCasestudies.pdf
Schools for the Future
We need new buildings, yet construction is one of the least sustainable industries in the world. How can school buildings play their part in addressing the challenges of issues surrounding sustainability?
Design of sustainable schools - case studies aims to provide schools and design teams with real-world examples of places that have embraced these challenges . . .
The case studies in this book show just what can be done. These sustainable schools are the pioneers and it is important that we learn from their achievements - and their mistakes. The schools have allowed free and open reporting and I commend them for that. Their courage is helping us all to realise the vision of a transformed and sustainable educational system. Read the case studies, learn the lessons and apply them to your school today. And in turn pass on your experiences to others.
"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you"
http://www.planetizen.com/node/25209
"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you"
Local officials are rightfully leery of someone who shows up at their doorstep and proclaims, "I'm from the U.S. Government ... and I'm here to help you." That probably goes double for the Environmental Protection Agency. But when a team arrives from the EPA's Smart Growth office, rather than scrambling to bar the door, local officials greet them with open arms - because they really do provide essential assistance.
Since it began more than ten years ago, EPA's Smart Growth program has advised communities across the country, helping them create and implement plans to embrace growth in a smart and sustainable way. Unlike regulatory programs, the EPA Smart Growth office comes only when invited to share the growing expertise on how to make smarter growth a reality. The program and its high-caliber staff provide a valuable, voluntary service in an age of increasing development challenges across the country.
Alan Greenblatt summed up what separates this program from so many others in April's issue of Governing Magazine: (scroll down) "In contrast to many EPA programs, which concern themselves with regulatory fiats, the smart growth office acts in an advisory role, conducting research, handing out grants, and collating and presenting information to local officials making land-use decisions. The program is popular just about everywhere."
So it may also be surprising that such a popular program would be facing budget cuts from Congress and the Bush administration. With only $3 million in its budget when fully funded, the Smart Growth office is the Little Engine that Could of federal programs. The already-small budget has been proposed for a cut of roughly a third, removing 4 full-time staffers - a priceless loss of practical experience and knowledge - and more than $500,000 in other funding. The $3 million budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the monetary impact and return felt in the communities that have benefited.
The return on investment, as they might say, is high . . .
It has been threatened several times before, but unlikely bedfellows have rallied together to ensure its survival. Environmentalists, planners, private-sector developers, home builders, and Realtors have supported the program, realizing that crafting a sensible plan for growth allows for much more predictability than citizens fighting each individual development piecemeal, armed only with fears of "what they don't want," rather than a shared vision of how to embrace smarter growth for the good of their communities. Kent Jeffreys of the International Council of Shopping Centers told Governing Magazine, "I just find it hard to believe that such a good program was really targeted for budget cuts or elimination."
The federal budget is currently moving through subcommittees and into the Appropriations Committee this week. If you want to express your support for this program, you can contact your Senator and tell them to urge Senate leadership to fully fund the program.
As we seek to create walkable places where we can meet our daily needs without excessive commutes in the car, meeting President Bush's goals of reducing dependence on foreign oil and slashing greenhouse gases, the EPA is helping counties, towns and cities across the country work with their residents to create such places.
"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you"
Local officials are rightfully leery of someone who shows up at their doorstep and proclaims, "I'm from the U.S. Government ... and I'm here to help you." That probably goes double for the Environmental Protection Agency. But when a team arrives from the EPA's Smart Growth office, rather than scrambling to bar the door, local officials greet them with open arms - because they really do provide essential assistance.
Since it began more than ten years ago, EPA's Smart Growth program has advised communities across the country, helping them create and implement plans to embrace growth in a smart and sustainable way. Unlike regulatory programs, the EPA Smart Growth office comes only when invited to share the growing expertise on how to make smarter growth a reality. The program and its high-caliber staff provide a valuable, voluntary service in an age of increasing development challenges across the country.
Alan Greenblatt summed up what separates this program from so many others in April's issue of Governing Magazine: (scroll down) "In contrast to many EPA programs, which concern themselves with regulatory fiats, the smart growth office acts in an advisory role, conducting research, handing out grants, and collating and presenting information to local officials making land-use decisions. The program is popular just about everywhere."
So it may also be surprising that such a popular program would be facing budget cuts from Congress and the Bush administration. With only $3 million in its budget when fully funded, the Smart Growth office is the Little Engine that Could of federal programs. The already-small budget has been proposed for a cut of roughly a third, removing 4 full-time staffers - a priceless loss of practical experience and knowledge - and more than $500,000 in other funding. The $3 million budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the monetary impact and return felt in the communities that have benefited.
The return on investment, as they might say, is high . . .
It has been threatened several times before, but unlikely bedfellows have rallied together to ensure its survival. Environmentalists, planners, private-sector developers, home builders, and Realtors have supported the program, realizing that crafting a sensible plan for growth allows for much more predictability than citizens fighting each individual development piecemeal, armed only with fears of "what they don't want," rather than a shared vision of how to embrace smarter growth for the good of their communities. Kent Jeffreys of the International Council of Shopping Centers told Governing Magazine, "I just find it hard to believe that such a good program was really targeted for budget cuts or elimination."
The federal budget is currently moving through subcommittees and into the Appropriations Committee this week. If you want to express your support for this program, you can contact your Senator and tell them to urge Senate leadership to fully fund the program.
As we seek to create walkable places where we can meet our daily needs without excessive commutes in the car, meeting President Bush's goals of reducing dependence on foreign oil and slashing greenhouse gases, the EPA is helping counties, towns and cities across the country work with their residents to create such places.
King County Offers New 'GreenTools'
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/dnrp/press/2007/0619GreenTools.htm
King County offers new 'GreenTools' to help cities design and complete sustainable building projects
Cities now have a customized toolkit to help them "build greener" with King County's new GreenTools program.
"Cities of all sizes have access to a wide range of useful green-building resources through GreenTools," said King County Executive Ron Sims. "We can provide technical assistance, access to potential grant funding sources and hands-on training for cities to create green projects that are good for citizens and the environment."
The GreenTools toolkit provides a portal to useful resources, including green-building strategies, and links to green building and development certification programs.
A product of the King County Solid Waste Division, the toolkit helps cities develop their own green building programs to create sustainable, livable communities that address critical issues such as human health, solid waste reduction, climate change and habitat protection.
"We aren't creating a 'one size fits all' green building program," Sims said. "Instead, we are providing cities with the resources to jump start or enhance their own green building programs in ways that best meet their needs."
For residents considering re-models or developers building in the cities, following the recommendations and guidance provided by GreenTools will mean lower life cycle cost for buildings and developments due to energy and resource efficiency, and healthier, long lasting properties that protect the environment . . .
See http://www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd/greenbuilding/
King County offers new 'GreenTools' to help cities design and complete sustainable building projects
Cities now have a customized toolkit to help them "build greener" with King County's new GreenTools program.
"Cities of all sizes have access to a wide range of useful green-building resources through GreenTools," said King County Executive Ron Sims. "We can provide technical assistance, access to potential grant funding sources and hands-on training for cities to create green projects that are good for citizens and the environment."
The GreenTools toolkit provides a portal to useful resources, including green-building strategies, and links to green building and development certification programs.
A product of the King County Solid Waste Division, the toolkit helps cities develop their own green building programs to create sustainable, livable communities that address critical issues such as human health, solid waste reduction, climate change and habitat protection.
"We aren't creating a 'one size fits all' green building program," Sims said. "Instead, we are providing cities with the resources to jump start or enhance their own green building programs in ways that best meet their needs."
For residents considering re-models or developers building in the cities, following the recommendations and guidance provided by GreenTools will mean lower life cycle cost for buildings and developments due to energy and resource efficiency, and healthier, long lasting properties that protect the environment . . .
See http://www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd/greenbuilding/
Sustainability Initiatives at WWC
A Green Living Guide is available
via the Warren Wilson College website.
Click HERE if you would like to learn more.
via the Warren Wilson College website.
Click HERE if you would like to learn more.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Conference Participant List
Click on the link below for a final list of those attending the
Mountain Green Conference at
Warren Wilson College
June 2007
CONFERENCE LIST
Mountain Green Conference at
Warren Wilson College
June 2007
CONFERENCE LIST
Friday, June 8, 2007
Wheatboard
An element of the Orr Cottage at Warren Wilson College is the use of wheat board for the desks and cabinets. People often ask us for additional information about this item. We encourage you to search the Internet for additional information. However, here is one link to information about this item. WWC in no way recommends the companies mentioned in this or any other material.
Wheat Board
The availability of wheatboard in North America has increased lately, and is used more and more in the display and design industry. The board is made of recycled wheat chaff, with an alternative isocyanate (MDI) binder that uses no formaldehyde, creating an EFB (emission-free board) soaring above industry standards for the highest grade of particle board.
[click on the title for additional information]
Wheat Board
The availability of wheatboard in North America has increased lately, and is used more and more in the display and design industry. The board is made of recycled wheat chaff, with an alternative isocyanate (MDI) binder that uses no formaldehyde, creating an EFB (emission-free board) soaring above industry standards for the highest grade of particle board.
[click on the title for additional information]
Geothermal
One element that will be featured in the field trip to the Orr Cottage is the use of Geothermal. Following are two links to articles printed in the USA Today on the use of Geothermal.
Study: Geothermal energy could meet large part of U.S. power need
There's good reason one of the nation's most promising renewable energies is the industry's best-kept secret: It's buried miles under the surface of the Earth.
Yet geothermal energy, which taps the Earth's natural heat to generate electricity, is making a big comeback after a decade-long lull. And a recent MIT-led report says geothermal could supply at least 10% of U.S. power by 2050, rivaling nuclear and hydropower, if afforded a $1 billion research investment over the next 15 years. [click on the title to read the entire article]
Study: Geothermal energy could meet large part of U.S. power need
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — The nation could generate a large part of the electricity it will need in the future by tapping the enormous amounts of heat energy locked up in hard rock below the earth's surface, a new Massachusetts Institute of Technology-led study indicated Monday.
Heat mining could supply energy at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact, according to the 400-page report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy to assess the value of continuing to fund geothermal energy study. [click on the title to read the entire article]
How Water Furnace Home Cooling System Works
http://www.waterfurnace.ca/Howitworks/cooling_system.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)