Height Restrictions

In a recent article on Market Urbanism, writer Stephen Smith addresses the issue of Washington, D.C.'s up-and-coming neighborhood of NoMa and the city's height restrictions. He states due to the height restrictions outlined in the city's zoning ordinance forces developers to "fill every inch of space...Lift the height restrictions, and I think you’d see some more experimentation with taller towers and more green space."  Though I realize height restrictions can be too strict in some intensely-developed commercial areas, I have a hard time believe they're the reason behind the lack of green space in our cities.  I believe it's entirely plausible to restrict buildings from being taller than 85 feet and still have an adequate, ample supply of parks/public space.


Some of my personal favorite cities are those with more strict height restrictions.  Grand Rapids, for example, does not allow anything taller than 45 feet outside of its central business district and even inside of it, it's very difficult to get anything approved over 85 feet.  Author Alan Jacobs has also always been in favor of height restrictions which preserve the human-scale of cities and their streets.  I've griped about this in terms of downtown Chicago all the time with friends.  Many of the buildings are so tall they almost entirely block your vision of the sky above you, and with the "L", holy shit--you've suddenly found yourself in an outdoor cave.  City streets need to be open and free yet with a strong definition.  A one-to-four ratio between street width to  building height is ideal according to Mr. Jacobs; however, I think even a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio accomplishes this same goal.  In the case of Grand Rapids, the development is spread out in several 3-10 story mixed-use office/retail/apartments structures for several blocks in the downtown.  Many people make the claim that high-rises decrease sprawl by concentrating development and height restrictions encourage sprawl.  However high-rise structures, like in the case of Indianapolis, simply end up being these inhuman monstrosities conglomerated together in about a half square mile that ends up being surrounded by a sea of parking lots.  Now which would you rather have? This (as well as this)--both taken in Grand Rapids where you can see the few tall structures but also the pedestrian-scale development on each side of the road forming a nice urban "wall"--or this Bing Maps bird's eye view of Indianapolis. I'm not trying to say Grand Rapids is better or throw Indy under the bus, but one city has a massive disparity between the high-rises in the core and the parking lots that surround it while the other city has a more smooth, even pattern.


Many European cities have preserved this design.  When I studied abroad in London, I learned one of the more controversial issues with the development of the city was the allowance of high-rise skyscrapers being built in the Canary Wharf district near the historic city center.  London preserved its old law that no building shall obstruct anyone's view of the nearest church steeple.  Finally market forces invoked the relaxation of this law.


I'm still a strong proponent of height restrictions.  Large high-rises are simply inhumane and do not contribute to the overall ambience of the street.  Mentioned earlier, Grand Rapids still has very tall structures over 85 feet such as the Varnum Building and the J.W. Marriott Hotel.   There are certainly instances when they are appropriate or where the economic benefit derived from the building is very great. 

True Housing Cost

There is a certain aspect many people do not directly factor into their choice when purchasing a home or renting an apartment.  Of course, every college student knows the process of trying to find an apartment all too well.  In undergrad I noticed many of my friends would look for apartments usually by sorting their choices from lowest monthly rent to highest.  Some had larger budgets than others, but a cheap place always got consideration.  Next, it the cost of utilities makes its way into the conversation.  Some places would incorporate water or electricity into the rent cost to sweeten the deal.  However, it was not until a geography nerd like me chimed in with a question such as, "Well, how far is this from campus?" or "Is there a bus that runs nearby?"

An organization called CNT has done numerous studies and has put together a very cool mapping program that allows users to visually see the true cost of housing as the element of geography is incorporated.

http://htaindex.cnt.org/mapping_tool.php#region=Muncie%2C%20IN&theme_menu=0&layer1=23&layer2=24

This link takes you to Muncie, IN--the home of my graduate college, Ball State University.  It's obvious the least expensive places to live are downtown as this is where most amenities are located. You can zoom out to places like Chicago and see exactly where the train lines run as these locationally efficient housing units will require much less in transportation costs as a percentage of one's income.  Very cool site; enjoy!

Detroit: America's Paris

I have many mixed feelings on the once-great city of Detroit, Michigan.  For one, I really dislike how it seems to represent the entire state as a whole.  I get really sick of having to explain to people how there is a whole other part of Michigan outside the metro Detroit area (and let's not forget the U.P.).  Also, I get pretty damn sick of Detroit being used as examples of 'what not to do' or 'your city could end up like this!'

When it comes to planning, sure.  Maybe Detroit is as close to the worst case scenario we've been confronted with.  Maybe Detroit was ultimately killed by the automobile that created it.  Every highway ever planned in the City of Detroit ended up being built.  Unfortunately, that same dedication to transportation infrastructure didn't carry over to the light rail proposed in the 1970's to link downtown Detroit and its inner-ring suburbs.  All that's left of that plan is the three mile People Mover (sounds like the name of a public transit system in a futuristic dystopian novel).  Despite the poor decisions and carelessness of decades gone by, let's put the criticisms away now.  Let's start pointing fingers less and start uncovering the truths.  Detroit is a city with the infrastructure to support upward of 3 million.  All the roads, sewers, utilities, neighborhoods, and sheer amount of land can adequately provide for what would be America's third largest city (and very close to Los Angeles in second).  Yet despite Detroit's meager current population of just over 900,000, it still has a very strong sentiment of survival, renewal, and recreation.  Detroit has no choice but to complete reinvent itself.

The documentary titled Detroit Lives really changed my opinions on suffering cities a lot.  A link to the first part of the documentary can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMysMDHdb4

The citizens of Detroit are working even harder to revitalize their neighborhoods and provide themselves better communities to live.  I completely believe in the adage that if Chicago had half the heart Detroit has, it would be New York City by now.

One part of the documentary struck me when they're driving in the car and Johnny Knoxville asks, "This is a big ass road. What is this some kind of highway?"  The two along with Johnny exclaim how "this is how we roll in Detroit."  The New Urbanist would be quick to say, "This road is far too wide and is under-utilized."  Absolutely correct, but what does it matter?  If it's a point of pride of Detroiters, what's so bad in preserving the aspects of their city they love?  My problem with New Urbanism is that it seems to simply be a checklist for a "good" urban space.

"Do we have trees lining our streets with a grassy median? Check.  Mixed-use everywhere? Check."

Look, these aspects of cities are great, and they are tried-and-true urban forms which have existed and prospered since humans began settling in permanent settlements.  However, for a place like Detroit, let it keep some of its cultural heritage.  I feel the vast majority of communities in America are nameless, faceless places anyway.  The city of Grand Rapids is looking to restore its namesake and give the Grand River is rapids back. What a great idea--let's restore some of the unique aspects and characteristics that were so important to the establishment and prosperity of our settlements.

Topic: Land Use classifications

I'm not exactly sure what made me think of this, but the other day as I was pondering my future internship ideas for this summer and thought back to my prior internship experiences.  In the summer of 2008, I found myself working at the MPO (metropolitan planning organization) for the Grand Rapids metro area: an organization called Grand Valley Metropolitan Council.  My first crack at planning was really enjoyable even though the work placed upon me wasn't terribly demanding (it was during my undergrad; they probably didn't trust me with much more).  Either way, when the fall semester of my senior year at Grand Valley State rolled around, it was time to bid farewell and begin work on my thesis to graduate.

Luckily, I must've left a good impression as I was offered a job with a subsidiary organization under Metro Council called REGIS.  They specialized in Geographic Information Systems and performing mapping duties for all the local municipalities in the area who chose to pay for the service.

Enough with the lengthy background.  One of my first projects at REGIS was to make a land use map for the City of Hudsonville, a satellite city a few miles southwest of Grand Rapids that has taken on a largely suburban character since the 1960's.  The project was very interesting and slightly challenging as well.  Selecting an appropriate land use classification code can be difficult as some need to be tailored to a particular geography.

The current land use map used a classification code that seems, well, half-baked at best.  The codes and the numbers didn't seem to make much sense and there was no tiering of the code--all land uses were "equal."  Most classification codes are in levels as to place hierarchy on generality.  For example, "Commercial" or "Residential" may be adequate enough for a particular map when discerning where businesses are or where people live; however, if you need to know where multi-family residential dwellings versus single-family residential dwelling are, you'll need a more detailed, precise classification.

Being a part of an MPO created to coordinate planning and development strategies for a large geographic area, it would make sense to have everyone using the same classification system.  The system I was most used to from my undergrad experience was the State of Michigan's Land Use/Land Cover Classification System which is based off the USGS system.  To use a ubiquitous system which would allow for direct comparisons temporally and spatially would be very advantageous to the MPO.  For instance, a direct comparison could be made between single-family residential in Grand Rapids as Wyoming, Grandville, or any other municipality.  Unfortunately when I made this request to the planning and zoning administrator of Hudsonville, he said since Hudsonville is in Ottawa County (most of the GR metro area is in Kent County), they had to be sympathetic to their efforts and use their classification system.

I'm all for decentralization, but when it comes to an issue such as this, if one area is using a code created by the county, one area is using a code they developed themselves, and everyone else is using the state's code, it just makes for ambiguities and headaches when trying to compare them.  This could lead to poor planning decisions when formulating comprehensive plans for a region.  Land uses need to be clearly defined as to ensure each class or subclass is expressing the same thing.  High-density in Grand Rapids probably means something very different than high-density in Byron Township. This sort of leads into descriptive statistics and being able to use quantitative data to describe the character or changing character of a community.

Hello, my name is...

This blog is meant to serve as an outlet for all my rants, pontifications, and general convoluted ideas that come to light on the topic of urban planning.  Enjoy!

Upon arriving to Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, I have been given healthy doses of planning theory, self-taught principles of real estate development, and descriptive statistics. On top of that, I felt I had a pretty solid basis for planning after a few internships at Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, the MPO for the metro Grand Rapids (MI) region and REGIS (Regional Geographic Information Systems), an agency of GVMC.  However, there is a giant gulf in knowledge of where I'd like to be.  Consequently, I'm hoping this blog helps me sort various issues I encounter during this educational experience of mine.

Here's the disclaimer, I'm a pretty bias person, so I can already imagine most of these posts dealing with planning issues and dilemmas concerned my home state of Michigan.  I'm pretty fond of America's high five, and I feel I can provide much more thorough insight to some issues seeing as I'm familiar with the culture of the area.  As I'm learning more regarding this field of planning, I'm starting to see how crucial public involvement is and how to appease constituents of the area you (a planner) works for.  I can't imagine how receptive people of a community would be to a planner recently hired from several states away coming in and proposing changes or making decisions about a community's future.  I realize planning is a professional expertise, and a planner can go anywhere in the world and work, but how effective can he or she be coming in with an outsider's perspective only.

I realize an outside perspective is always healthy and a probably good idea.  Corporations will typically hire a third party to conduct evaluations on their performance.  Government should be no exception.  A planner coming in with an outside perspective can be very beneficial and this is typically the role of private consultants, but day-to-day operations are best handled the denizens of the area in a more decentralized environment.  Planning, especially it seems in smaller towns and cities, involves a greater amount of personal relationships/politics.  This is where outsiders coming in may not be well received and more likely to be criticized for their efforts.