Rail-Volution Recap Part Two: The Importance of Coordinated Planning

The very fact that Rail-Volution exists shows there is a growing understanding among transit advocates and agencies that the large investments in transit systems should leverage private enterprise to advance a community’s economic, social, and environmental agendas. This awareness between agencies of the need to coordinate policies is key to the successful Transit Oriented Development (TOD) around the Capitol Hill (Seattle) light rail station, and is in evidence by the unprecedented collaboration between Capitol Hill residents, advocacy groups, non-profits, and governmental organizations. Although such linkages seem obvious to many of us, the coordination of transportation and land use planning has been absent for quite some time. There is abundant evidence, however, that such coordination has a history. On a national scale, the construction of railroads was an imperative of the Federal Government's during the nineteenth century. Railroads were the mechanism used to secure the unpopulated western states and territories within the foundling republic. The Federal government gave away millions of acres, in the form of rights-of-way, to rail pioneers with the expectation that the commercial development that followed and its subsequent population growth would create not only wealth, but also population centers, peopling and thereby securing the American west against foreign intrigues and interference. In the 20^th Century, the U.S. Interstate System was built and stands as the world’s largest construction enterprise. Expediting its execution were cold war polices centered on national defense, as well as the Federal Government's desire to stimulate post war development. One need only to look at the growth of the post war suburbs with its ubiquitous shopping malls –centered along interstate corridors -- to see the role transportation plays on land use, and the (unfortunate) consequences of a lack of coordination of transportation and land use planning.

Patton Park Apartments, Portland (image courtesy of REACH, Portland)

The urban sprawl resulting from the Interstate highway system had its social origins in the 19th Century and the industrialization of the country. During this time, a critical re-appraisal of the city occurred, due at least in part to the city’s often crowded and unsanitary living conditions. The physical (and social) reform of cities was championed by architects, planners, and sociologists and was centered around lessening congestion and pollution, as well as a romantic’s notion that a return to nature was the cure for the damaging effects of industrial progress. Beginning with the extensive commuter railroad suburbs of Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles, and culminating in the postwar boom in automobile use, the de-urbanization of the United States reflected changing social attitudes of how one ought to live. Instead of crowded and filthy cities, the notion held, one should move to so-called Garden Suburbs, a term associated with the English born thinker, Ebenezer Howard. The 20^th century diaspora to the suburbs would not have been possible without the government financing of roads, whose construction was in turn exploited by private enterprise in the form of land speculation, road construction contracts, and automobile manufacturing. Unaware of the impacts of its action, government largess resulted in a myriad of unplanned consequences, including the need to seek additional revenues in order to increase capacity for such necessities as utilities, emergency services, and public institutions including libraries and schools. And though these services had been previously provided, insufficient (or no-existent) land use policies did not account for the ever longer networks of service needed for an increasingly less dense population. Public investment resulted in private investment that created a demand for greater (and less efficient) public investment, and in a self-sustaining (and unsustainable) cycle.

Today, our culture places greater value on social equity, environmental stewardship, and fiscal responsibility than previously held. Instead of fleeing to the suburbs, Americans are rediscovering the benefits of urban living, and the many lifestyle enhancements and financial benefits it provides. Most of the transit advocates at Rail-Volution understand this fundamental relationship between land use and transportation planning, and its impact on social constructs. Unfortunately, too many transit and planning agencies are still only beginning to make the connection between their respective actions. Even metro Portland, and its deservedly acclaimed MAX light rail, at first did not grasp this union in all its nuances. Witness its first light rail alignment (along Interstate 84, and built in the 1980s) which is spatially isolated from the neighborhoods it serves, therefore only tangential to those communities. Fortunately a quick study, Tri Met’s (Portland’s metropolitan transit agency) subsequent alignments have been strategically placed in order to foster community development and greater efficiencies by going through neighborhoods instead of around (or merely adjacent to) them. Success has lead to greater experimentation, with subsequent lines (such as Interstate) being used to pioneer re-development of economically distressed areas, with promising results.

Patton Park Apartments, Portland (Sally Painter Photography, courtesy of REACH, Portland)

The second of my field sessions at Rail-Volution bore witness to advances in Portland’s thinking. A coordinated effort between Tri-Met and the Portland Development Commission (PDC, the city’s increment financed public development and planning authority) led to the strategic investment of urban renewal funds and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) dollars to replace a notorious hotel with low-income housing, as well as to enhance a dying city park. The development of Patton Park Apartments’ was made possible in part by FTA dollars: because Tri-Met came in under budget on the new transit line, the FTA allowed Tri-Met to apply surplus contingency funds to write down the hotel’s property value making possible its purchase by REACH, a Portland non-profit housing developer. This allotment of transportation funding for housing aligned with the FTA’s policy of supporting “Highest and Best Transit Use”, a policy of theirs adopted in the late 1990s,  reflecting the evolving policy of leveraging private development opportunities presented by transit development. Concurrent to the housing construction was the dedication of urban renewal funds by PDC to the adjacent Patton Park, with its rejuvenation resulting in a neighborhood asset, providing recreation space for the new families of the new apartments.

Patton Park, Portland

Another low-income housing project visited that day was Humboldt Gardens, which is ½ mile from rail transit and surrounded on three sides by bus transit. The Housing Authority of Portland developed the project. Designed in a traditional style, its appearance is not as forward thinking as Patton Park, but it is without question a vast improvement to what was there, a fact not lost by the families it serves. As was the case with Patton Park, proximity to rail and bus transit was important for the development of this project.

Humboldt Gardens, Portland

Humboldt Gardens Resident, Portland

In both Patton Park and Humboldt Gardens, the positive impacts of  coordinated transportation and land use planning  achieved many community goals, ones that if pursued separately would be impossible or much more difficult.

For more information:

For further information on Patton Park Apartments: http://www.reachcdc.org/community/development/info/C112/ http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/04/14/focus2.html?jst=s_cn_hl

For Further information on Patton Park: http://www.pdc.us:80/ura/interstate/crownmotel.asp

For further information on Humboldt Gardens: http://www.hapdx.org/humboldtgardens/pdfs/HG-projectsummarysheets.pdf

Next: Developing Trends in Transit Oriented Development and FTA Financing

Capitol Hill Building Analysis Examples 11 and 12

Well, here we are, at the end of this particular folly. With clouds a gatherin', and temperature droppin', venturing forth into the grays of our winter to document the building facades of our lovely neighborhood seems unlikely, at least until the spring thaw. This has been a great diversion, and was helpful for me to not only better understand our neighborhood, but understand why the buildings documented give me pleasure. I hope the few that have followed have profited as well. Until sunny skies return, I will delve into the inner world  . . . .

All Images and Text Copyright Schemata Wrokshop Inc 2010

Rail-Volution 2010 Recap Part One

I am not much of a conference attendee. Preferring to immerse myself in books and lectures, conferences have seemed to me to be more about preaching to the converted, venues for vendors to hawk there wares, and a plethora of examples of how not to use PowerPoint; all coming at the expense of being a really useful way to become educated on a topic. Sloganeering and well rehearsed positions abound, unfortunately at the expense seeing a provocateur or hearing contrarian thinking. That being said, however, conference tours are usually a highlight, and, should one be fortunate enough, attending a presentation with an impassioned malcontent can add spice to otherwise banal fare. I must admit, however, that after attending Rail-Volution 2010 in Portland last week, my cynicism has abated; or, perhaps I am gaining a critical eye and am better at divining what the  larger lessons are.

The sessions I attended seemed to be predominantly peopled by land use and transportation planners, transit agency staff and directors, and transit advocates – architects (and urban designers) - were in the minority. Regardless of background, all attendees shared a passion for transit and transit oriented development (TOD), with presentations sharing strategies on how to best plan, design, and finance transit to increase our quality of life, be that reducing CO2 emissions or lessening our reliance on the automobile and its negative impacts on the public realm. To achieve these goals, the sessions approached transit from a compelling number of perspectives, including public health and safety, the role grant writing effects route planning, and just which parameters really should define a transit overlay district. Although most of the positions taken were safe, the sum total of them (the gestalt, as it were) represents progress in urban policy. More of this in future post, for today I wish to focus on first of two field sessions I attended.

The first of two field sessions I attended was a tour of the emerging South Waterfront/North Macadam District (it goes by either name), just southeast of Portland’s downtown. Zoned the same as the city’s central business district, this neighborhood is an example of how a city’s direct investment in transit was instrumental in developing an entirely new neighborhood, one where only vacant industrial land existed until less than 10 years ago. Built on former steel and ship building sites (a small barge building operation still exists), this brown-field is the area where Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) will (and has) expand their current land-locked campus. OHSU is the anchor for the re-development of over two dozen acres, and the school’s decision to expand in this area is attributable to the city’s building and financing of two forms of transit: an aerial tram connecting the new campus to the existing (located on Marquam Hill, about a mile west and 500 feet up), as well as a new streetcar line, connecting the OHSU campus to Portland State University and downtown. The city, university, and developers entered into an agreement that bound each party to a scope of work. Essentially, the city paid for the transit improvements, and private developers paid for a good portion of the development of the streets and the new buildings (which, in addition to OHSU include mainly luxury housing). Each party’s commitment was essential for this area to be developed, with the most crucial being the construction of an 80 person aerial tram. Beyond its aesthetic triumphs and novelty, the tram delivers a highly efficient form of transit, for instead of a 15 to 30 minute commute time that a bus would have entailed (Marquam Hill is too steep for rail), connections between the OHSU South Waterfront and Marquam Hill campuses is only three minutes for doctors, patients, students, and staff. Of almost equal importance in creating the backbone for the emerging neighborhood with the tram, was the extension of the city’s streetcar line, which provides a clear and direct connection through a maze of streets and changing topography from South Waterfront to Portland State University and downtown. Unlike connecting to Marquam Hill, a bus line may have worked made the connection, but a bus would not have had the same deliberative action and financial, aesthetic, and operational commitment rail transit provides in order for this nascent neighborhood to develop.

Given the state of our economy, assessment as to the success of South Waterfront needs to be made in the future. Portland, as is the case nationwide, is in an economic slump that has curtailed the previously rapid pace of development at South Waterfront. Still, the transit aspects are impressive -- if not down right exciting (nail biting?) -- and robust applause to all party's involved in creating South Waterfront's vision is in order. Taking derelict land, and reviving it with groundbreaking (air-breaking) transit solutions, will doubtlessly reap huge dividends for many years to come.

Next: Developing Trends in Transit Oriented Development, FTA Financing, and Low Income Housing

For Further Information on South Waterfront:                    http://www.pdc.us/ura/sowa_n-macadam.asp http://www.southwaterfront.com http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/about/facts/history.cfm

What does affordable housing look like?

[caption id="attachment_541" align="aligncenter" width="700" caption="Petaluma Avenue Homes"][/caption] When I was in architecture school at Washington State University, architect Michael Pyatok came to do a lecture on affordable housing and mentioned that he had experienced comments in public hearings that his proposed project "didn't look like affordable housing" - and this was perceived as a bad thing by the commenter.  That's a poor reflection on our society - when design for poor people (the people who have the least means and face the most social inequity) should be inferior.  Luckily that was almost 20 years ago and a lot has changed in the arena of affordable housing.

I'm proud to be a participant in Washington State's affordable housing industry during a period of time when HUD is making significant structural changes through it's Sustainable Communities Initiative.  Finally, the silos of our federal government are being dismantled to recognize the synergies between housing, the environment, and transportation systems.  And the possibility for education and food (nutrition) to be added to that mix is even more revolutionary (for government, not reality).

Washington State is home/host to an amazing annual conference called Housing Washington.  It brings together 700-800 people that work to create and manage affordable housing in the state - bankers, developers, social service providers, housing authorities, attorneys, government entities, and of course a handful of architects. (I'm sure I missed someone in there).  http://www.wshfc.org/conf/

And cohousing can be a part of that solution.  As a board member for the Cohousing Association of the United States, I have been chairing the Affordable Cohousing Task Group.  We are developing/implementing an advocacy plan that will reach out to allied organizations and policy makers to share how cohousing can be a solution to creating healthy mixed-income neighborhoods that provide moderate income families with positive role models for achieving financial independence. 

The photo pictured above is a Petaluma Avenue Homes, a 45 unit cohousing-inspired community developed by Affordable Housing Associates in Sebastapol, CA.  The rental community was designed by McCamant & Durrett Architects - the architects who coined the term cohousing and introduced cohousing to North America after extensively researching it Denmark.  Petaluma Avenue Homes is a great example of how cohousing principles can inform the physical design to be an armature for building community.  It doesn't hurt that the architects convinced the developer to provide funding for a community facilitator to help develop community norms and structure during the first 2 years of occupancy. 

This will be one of many examples Mike and I will share during our presentation tomorrow at the 2010 Housing Washington Conference entitled Affordable Cohousing - Making it Work for Low Income Families.  Please come by and say hi!  To see what other sessions are being offered, visit http://www.wshfc.org/conf/HW2010.Glance.pdf.

The Architecture of Commerce on Capitol Hill

Commerce is the foundation upon which urbanism is built. And, as a city is the highest cultural achievement of humankind, commerce is certainly one of humankind’s greatest pursuits. Hannah Arendt defined in her classic book The Human Condition that our existence is defined by our labor, work, and action. Labor are the travails we go through to sustain ourselves in the most fundamental ways: bathing, eating, or the making of shelter. Work is the means we employ to sustain our labors, and can be seen as the physical activities we endure to achieve the security of the former. To the ancient Greeks, action was solely the undertaking of the citizen, the man of means (a landholder) who because if his wealth, had sufficient resources to not engage in work, thereby freeing the intellect to speculate. Action was the time citizens spent exchanging ideas on politics, the arts, and culture; or, more succinctly, time spent on discussing how man ought to live. Action was therefore the noblest undertaking of the citizen, and the place that action was undertaken in ancient Greece was the Agora, the place for citizens to debate. The market place was also in the Agora, however, this was an almost incidental use as it involved work. Centuries after its founding in Greece, the Agora became the model for the Forum of ancient Rome. The key building typology of the Roman Forum was the basilica -- the market hall, and the most important building typology in Western architecture its forms  including the cathedral (St Peter’s Basilica, for example), various houses of governance, as well as the great covered markets of Italy and England (Covent Garden, for example), the nations that during and after the Renaissance founded our modern market economy.

In the British colonies of the New World, urban centers and markets were slow to develop, for settlers were pre-occupied with both labor and work, leaving little time for action. First the town green was established, if only for pasturing livestock or to afford a suitable landscape to front the meetinghouse (the place for action). As life became settled and progressed beyond substance farming, markets and then towns developed, centered about the original town green, hence forth known as the market square. The market square would have buildings of commerce as well as governance defining its boundaries, both being built in an architectural style imported from the Old World. Later, in the second half of the nineteenth century, the first American (domestically generated) ‘school’ of architecture emerged, the Chicago School, whose first practitioners pioneered the use of the iron frame in high-rise construction. Buildings by Louis Sullivan, Burnham and Root, and H. H. Richardson in turn inspired the early modernist architects of Europe, who praised their functional and performance driven design (qualities that were inherent in designing buildings for a speculative office and markets). Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, and Adolph Meyer held as exemplary other commerce-based buildings found in the United States as well, such as the concrete-framed warehouse and grain silo. While some contemporaries derided an architecture whose main drivers were economy, expediency, and capitalism, these first truly American buildings had a profound impact on early modernist practitioners, who at that time were the architectural arbiters of taste for both the Old and New Worlds.

Although not entirely within the Arendtian sense, today commerce falls increasingly within the realm of action, and less so in that of work. Purchasing petroleum for one’s Vespa does not put one on the same plane, as say debating the future form of the Broadway TOD sites, but there is much commerce that engages in the transaction of more than commodities. If the commerce includes a direct transaction of ideas – whether directly through conversation between merchant, or, if the item transacted includes the stuff of ideas, of action, we have made the shift from work to action. And in the case of commerce, the new place where this expanded understanding of action takes is the market. In a (much) more inclusive society than that of the ancient Greek (although by no means one that is free form its own forms of societal exclusion), a society such as our founded on commerce,  an evolution of ancient ideas is taking place by merging work with action, overlaying larger societal pursuits that parallel and advance commerce to a higher level.

At the dawn of the 21^st century, consumers (townsfolk) have (rather belatedly) begun to incorporate cultural values as a metric (along with the traditional price, convenience, value metrics) with which to measure not only an item’s intrinsic value, but also its extrinsic value. Concerns for environmental stewardship and social justice are growing in the consciousness of the market place as witnessed by the so-called Triple Bottom Line, a term coined by John Elkington in his late 20^th Century book Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. With the introduction (into a larger, cultural context, although many had already made this association) of values into commerce, discourse about those values -- while engaged in commerce -- necessarily follows. The formerly traditional marketplace is now not only one of goods and services, but increasingly of ideas, whether spoken of otherwise. And what of that market as place, has it changed to reflect these values, and if it has, what is in evidence of these changes? How have these values informed the design of the place? In addition to aesthetics (of interest to an architect, such as myself), what other values come to bear on the formation of these places for commerce? Collectively, how do these marketplaces define how we do and ought to live our lives on Capitol Hill? How do they reflect our values?

On Capitol Hill evidence abounds in this blending of work and action; or, commerce and values.  How does the present and how will the future urbanism of Capitol Hill be informed as one looks at these places of commerce? I have written of several places where value driven commerce is in evidence, although not necessarily within the framework identified above. As residents of Capitol Hill, many of us doubtlessly engage in a progressive, value based commerce, so this may not be new to you. Even if it is not new, what I hope might be (to both you and me), is speculating about value based commerce, and how the spaces where this activity occurs, spaces of both work and action, blend values and aesthetics, with future posts building upon those already made on Melrose Market, Volunteer Park Café, and Molly Moon’s.