<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>Kit,</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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), </FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Mark</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> <IMG style="WIDTH: 99px; HEIGHT: 75px" height=83 alt="" hspace=0
src="cid:421470803@09082006-15af" width=101 border=0><BR><FONT size=-2><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: agency fb">mark r. seman, architect</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=-2><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: agency fb">v=928.925.7617
f=928.776.9107</SPAN></FONT><FONT size=2><BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com<BR>[<A
href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</A>]On
Behalf Of Craine Kit<BR>Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 3:10 PM<BR>To: Kenneth
Marcy; Vision 2020<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Housing Density, et al. (was:
Climate<BR>Protection)<BR><BR><BR>Ken,<BR><BR>Good points. Thanks for throwing
them into the discussion.<BR><BR>To carry this forward, let's consider building
up rather than out. <BR>There are a number of questions we need to ask.
Here are a few:<BR><BR>1) Current code limits residential structures to a
maximum of 40 feet <BR>and commercial structures to 65 feet (some zones
allow residential in <BR>with the commercial). If one assumes ten feet per
story, that means <BR>four and six stories. If we go up, how much higher?
Should the limit <BR>be ten stories? A hundred? However high the fire
ladders reach?<BR><BR>2) How should the tall buildings be grouped? Perhaps
shoulder to <BR>shoulder along streets, like in most urban cores? Perhaps
as <BR>occasional structures reminiscent of the grain elevators?<BR><BR>3)
Should they be surrounded by asphalt or green space (imagine a <BR>spire
emerging from a park)?<BR><BR>4) and so forth.<BR><BR>Given that there is a
large area near the University that is changing <BR>uses, the idea of going
up is one worth discussing and incorporating <BR>into the revision of the
Comp Plan.<BR><BR>There are more visions out there. Let's hear them. Then,
figure out <BR>how make them a reality (i.e. get them into the Comp
Plan.<BR><BR><BR>Kit Craine<BR><BR>On Aug 7, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Kenneth Marcy
wrote:<BR><BR>> On Monday 07 August 2006 11:40 am, Craine Kit
wrote:<BR>><BR>>> Which is better for the overall
environment:<BR>>><BR>>> 1) having small houses sit in large
yards that are filled with<BR>>> vegatation (e.g. the older areas of
Moscow)<BR>>><BR>>> OR<BR>>><BR>>> 2) large
apartment buildings on small lots, which are paved over and<BR>>> have
"landscaping" that consists primarily of bark chips and/or river<BR>>>
rock (e.g. recent construction)?<BR>><BR>> The answer needs more facets to
be considered. For example, where <BR>> is the<BR>> property located?
To what use(s) is(are) the property to be put? <BR>> How many<BR>>
people will be involved with this property use(s)? What will be
the <BR>> aggregate<BR>> pattern of those peoples' activities
traveling to and from this <BR>> property and<BR>> its use(s)? Is a
particular property, or are group of properties <BR>> together,
to<BR>> be devoted to one use, or is a variety of uses proposed for
a <BR>> single or a<BR>> contiguous group of properties? And so on .
. .<BR>><BR>> To return to your example, when considering housing growth
related to<BR>> increased University enrollment, one or more multiple-use,
high-rise<BR>> buildings adjacent to (or on an expanded) campus would
be <BR>> preferable to<BR>> various sprawls of apartments two or
three or four miles from <BR>> campus. Yes, a<BR>> new complex of
"Towers" might be "paved and barked," but if it <BR>> saved
several<BR>> hundred vehicle trips per day, the net environmental impact may
be <BR>> positive<BR>> relative to commuting from and to apartment
sprawl.<BR>><BR>> If the local economic demand for housing is more related
to <BR>> students here for<BR>> a half-decade rather than to
residents here for a quarter century, <BR>> then the<BR>> environment
is benefited by planning for construction that more <BR>>
precisely<BR>> meets this specific as well as the other demands rather
than <BR>> building many<BR>> units of a few generic
types.<BR>><BR>><BR>> Ken
Marcy<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR> serving the communities
of the Palouse since
1994. <BR>
<A target=_blank
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A> <BR>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>