[Vision2020] Housing Density, et al.

[Kenneth Marcy]

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 3:10 pm, Craine Kit wrote:
> Ken,
>
> Good points. Thanks for throwing them into the discussion.

You're welcome.

> 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?

At this moment I don't have a specific number of building stories in mind. 
However, in terms of height, reference points such as the elevations of the 
top of the Kibbie Dome or the top of the Arboretum water tower may be 
informative. The scale of such a project should be at least as capacious as 
the Wallace Complex in terms of resident census, but with larger, and more 
flexible, housing units to allow a wider variety of student and family living 
arrangements.

Planning for this level of capacity enlargement will not only allow the 
University another opportunity to offer convenient student housing, but will 
also facilitate moving groups of students from the Wallace Complex to allow 
remodeling and/or replacement projects for the Wallace Complex facilities.

Planning for this level of capacity enlargement will also encourage the 
private sector housing market to diversify its housing offerings away from 
units specialized for student occupation and toward family-friendly uses. 
Palouse-area employers who have difficulty attracting personnel because 
housing not priced on a per-bedroom basis is unavailable will be more likely 
to find residences appropriate for their new employee's families, and thus be 
better able to continue growing their businesses and our local economy.

> 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?

This is another multi-faceted question the answer to which involves the whole 
of the project design process. What is the size and the configuration of the 
property? What are the scope and scale of the project requirements? Etc . . .

I suspect that the grain elevators were not located as they were merely 
"occasionally," as unmatched chairs in a sun room, but rather with 
consideration to the location of the railroad lines, the property boundaries, 
and the physical structural requirements to contain the masses and volumes of 
grain. Though a high-rise residence complex might not be quite so restricted, 
aesthetic positioning considerations with respect to capturing sunlight and 
affording shade, offering resident views and affording privacy from adjacent 
tower residents, and perhaps even locating the buildings so a combination of 
the buildings, building facades, and indigenous artwork could be indicative 
of natural annual cycles may be possible with thoughtful design choices. 
These details, however interesting, are rather more precise than is required 
of the Comprehensive Plan.

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

The better answer is not one or the other of asphalt or green space, but 
rather is both. "Green space" is not just decorative, it is life-enhancing 
and life-enriching. Even though we who live in the Palouse are not so far 
removed from contact with nature as more urban residents are, it is still 
good to recognize that we are an integral part of nature. Our architecture, 
and the planning processes within which it is developed, should recognize 
that fundamental.

On the other hand, Americans', Idahoans', and students' desires and needs for 
personal transportation are unlikely to diminish soon to a point where 
concentrations of people do not require concentrations of vehicle parking. 
Certainly a large, new housing development would bring demands for vehicle 
parking not only for residential purposes, but also for support staff and 
vendor employees. A question the comprehensive plan should address is: To 
what extent should more concentrated parking, meaning one or more multi-level 
parking structures, be a part of the near future of Moscow's transportation 
system?

This question becomes more interesting if the same parking structure could be 
located so that it is reasonably convenient for both a new, large housing 
complex and for the businesses located downtown, especially in the 
south-western part of the central business core, and have relatively easy 
access to the north-south highway routes.

> 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.

Yes, indeed. Many discussions involving many parties undoubtedly will be 
required for the resolution of these matters, so getting started sooner 
rather than later likely will be beneficial.


Ken Marcy