[Vision2020] Housing Density, et al. (was: Climate Protection)

[Craine Kit]

Ken,

Good points. Thanks for throwing them into the discussion.

To carry this forward, let's consider building up rather than out.  
There are a number of questions we need to ask. Here are a few:

1) Current code limits residential structures to a maximum of 40 feet  
and commercial structures to 65 feet (some zones allow residential in  
with the commercial). If one assumes ten feet per story, that means  
four and six stories. If we go up, how much higher? Should the limit  
be ten stories? A hundred? However high the fire ladders reach?

2) How should the tall buildings be grouped? Perhaps shoulder to  
shoulder along streets, like in most urban cores? Perhaps as  
occasional structures reminiscent of the grain elevators?

3) Should they be surrounded by asphalt or green space (imagine a  
spire emerging from a park)?

4) and so forth.

Given that there is a large area near the University that is changing  
uses, the idea of going up is one worth discussing and incorporating  
into the revision of the Comp Plan.

There are more visions out there. Let's hear them. Then, figure out  
how make them a reality (i.e. get them into the Comp Plan.


Kit Craine

On Aug 7, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Kenneth Marcy wrote:

> On Monday 07 August 2006 11:40 am, Craine Kit wrote:
>
>> Which is better for the overall environment:
>>
>> 1)  having small houses sit in large yards that are filled with
>> vegatation (e.g. the older areas of Moscow)
>>
>> OR
>>
>> 2)  large apartment buildings on small lots, which are paved over and
>> have "landscaping" that consists primarily of bark chips and/or river
>> rock (e.g. recent construction)?
>
> The answer needs more facets to be considered. For example, where  
> is the
> property located? To what use(s) is(are) the property to be put?  
> How many
> people will be involved with this property use(s)? What will be the  
> aggregate
> pattern of those peoples' activities traveling to and from this  
> property and
> its use(s)? Is a particular property, or are group of properties  
> together, to
> be devoted to one use, or is a variety of uses proposed for a  
> single or a
> contiguous group of properties? And so on . . .
>
> To return to your example, when considering housing growth related to
> increased University enrollment, one or more multiple-use, high-rise
> buildings adjacent to (or on an expanded) campus would be  
> preferable to
> various sprawls of apartments two or three or four miles from  
> campus. Yes, a
> new complex of "Towers" might be "paved and barked," but if it  
> saved several
> hundred vehicle trips per day, the net environmental impact may be  
> positive
> relative to commuting from and to apartment sprawl.
>
> If the local economic demand for housing is more related to  
> students here for
> a half-decade rather than to residents here for a quarter century,  
> then the
> environment is benefited by planning for construction that more  
> precisely
> meets this specific as well as the other demands rather than  
> building many
> units of a few generic types.
>
>
> Ken Marcy