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

Tue Aug 8 21:35:34 PDT 2006

Kit,
In addition to zoning limitations on heights, the building code also sets
height (and area) limitations based on constuction type (level fire
resistive construction & whether or not there's incorporation of fire
suppression systems.)  Generally though, zoning does provide the limits for
construction within its system of controlling density and use.

It is obvious to me the homogenous & wasteful use of land that most of
today's zoning models encourage needs to be re-evaluated.  With this
re-evaluation will be the realization that density will need to increase.  I
trust that as higher-density models get implemented there will also be an
increased community awareness and valuation in the quality of available
"green space."  Vertically is one option for increasing density, clustering
is one, and smaller size is another.  It all takes land.  How land should be
used needs to be better understood.

Land value will drive this phenomenon as shown throughout the US in large
metropolis areas (and some smaller ones.)  As scarcity of land near desired
ammentities increases, so will land costs, and developers (or buyers)
needing to recoup such high costs will push for higher density.  These basic
economic forces are visible most everywhere as land values are on the rise.
One troublesome aspect to me is the common perception (and that perception
is often correct given most current development models), that increased
density-of-life equals decreased quality-of-life.  There does not need to be
such a correlation.  Increased density CAN be more appealing than current
low density, if it is done right.  It CAN be better for the environment, if
it is done right.  Increased density needs to be done right to conserve open
land resources, and it will happen - when the value system is appropriate.

Mixed-use is another issue that current zoning does a poor job of providing
for.  Vast areas of homogenous residential-use sterilizes the environment by
not allowing related and needed functions to co-inhabit.  One has to travel
to a commercial zone to find goods and services.  In residential zones,
pockets or nodes of goods and services are as desired as viral infections.
New visions require new modes of thought and it's difficult for such change
to be accepted.  For example, I have a concept for Moscow's Triangle Park
that could provide housing there as well as provide play space.  It would
not be the same space as it is now, but it COULD be an acceptable
alternative, IF the value system was appropriate.  Will Moscow ever come to
that point?  Probably not, but the concept has the potential for increasing
density AND preserving green space AND in an area close to needed amenities.

What qualities make one development better than another - that is what many
communities don't understand, because the better developments are few.  Many
concepts are floating about (smart growth, green building, sustainable,
energy efficient, etc.), but the public does not know what these experiences
are or even what they might look like.  As property values increase so will
lagging environmental and quality-of-life values.  As these value systems
gain maturity and extraneous factors tip the scale towards environmental and
energy issues.  More "sustainable" projects will reach the public's
experience and alter their knowledge and understanding of what these
concepts really mean.  In a sense, America thinks it wants these, but
mainstream America is not ready for them because they don't know what they
are.  They haven't experienced what these things imply nor what they embody
beyond their obvious intent.

Having visions is good, whether any reaches fruition will depend on the
timing of a shift in values.  Everyone knows where the future is going, the
difficulty is knowing the timing of arrival.  Affordable housing is needed,
but when will it arrive (in a quality that is fitting and appropriate for
any community)?  Efficient construction, sustainable growth and zero energy
consumption have the same issues.  They will eventually arrive, but there
needs to be greater movement to make it happen.  Inceasing density is just
part of the movement needed and communities eventually need to realize that.
When they come to understand, the telling will be the shift in their system
of values.

Mark

mark r. seman, architect
v=928.925.7617   f=928.776.9107

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of Craine Kit
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 3:10 PM
To: Kenneth Marcy; Vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Housing Density, et al. (was: Climate
Protection)

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

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060808/acb4e507/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 39742 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060808/acb4e507/attachment-0001.jpg 