• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

Planning: general šŸŒ‡ Random Planning Thoughts (and Photos) Deserving No Thread Of Their Own

@Wannaplan? @Faust_Motel

I have the enviable(?) experience of actually naming a sub-neighborhood in a former employer's downtown.

They already had 'Uptown' as the colloquialism for most the traditional downtown area in the City, so the southern 3rd of the remaining downtown area was south of that area and at a lower sea-level elevation.

It needed a clear and simple name for differentiation as the community was working to focus on the neighborhood, so in a local Main Street meeting I just stated we need to call it 'Southtown' and we were done and off to the races.

Cost us $0 and will provide as much or most value to that community.

Buzzword time: Intentionality
 
Last edited:
mendelman said:
@Wannaplan? @Faust_Motel

I have the enviable(?) experience of actually naming a sub-neighborhood in a former employer's downtown.

They already has 'Uptown' as the colloquialism for most the traditional downtown area in the City, so the southern 3rd of the remaining downtown area was south of that area and at a lower sea-level elevation.

It needed a clear and simple name to differentiate as the community was working to enliven the neighborhood, so in a local Main Street meeting I just stated we need to call it 'Southtown' and we were done and off to the races.

Cost 'us' $0 and will provide as much or most value to that community.

Buzzword time: Intentionality
Click to expand...
You didn't want to go with "Undertown?"
 
Faust_Motel said:
I think you have to lead with the value of a place
Click to expand...

Well, my point was that, in my imaginary town of Burgertown, no one cares that it's chief Chamberer of Commercing likes their new slogan, instead, people care about what's there, they care about what's innate in a place, whether that be bollards, burgers, and babes.
 
It's been my rule that, if you lack funding to do your whole pedestrian way in bricks/pavers, you should leave the bricks behind and avoid "ribbons" of brick, which only tells folks "we couldn't afford more bricks". Better to use concrete and hand tool joints to give it a true, artisan appearance (as opposed to saw-cutting). Avoid, as you would the plague, stamped concrete trying to pass as some other material.

Our Main Street org has a most unfortunate name. When we tried to alter it at the last minute, we were reminded that certain corporate types are not accustomed to being questioned or second-guessed about their decisions. Yet another example of why government shouldn't be run as a business, IMO.

I often wonder why "learn" isn't added to the "Live, Work, and Play" community descriptor triumvirate. Do they actually want to keep them stupid?
 
FEMA Publications

Marshall Fire MAT: Mitigation Strategies to Address Multi-Hazard Events
This document is intended to help planners, developers, local land management personnel and private property owners identify how wildfires interact with other natural hazards and mitigate the impact of these multi-hazard events. The information in this document can be used to guide the incorporation of site-based wildfire mitigation strategies into planning, community siting and zoning requirements. This document can also guide the adoption of proactive planning, development and maintenance strategies that can minimize future risk of multi-hazard events.

Marshall Fire MAT: Best Practices for Wildfire-Resilient Subdivision Planning
This document provides builders/contractors, planning professionals, HOAs, and local land resource managers with information about wildfire resiliency planning and open-space management policies, best practices, and procedures at subdivision- and neighborhood-scales. The intent is to prevent or limit the risk of wildfire exposures and impacts through various regulatory and policy approaches during planning and entitlement phases (e.g., fire risk assessments, wildfire impact studies, zoning, wildfire-protection planning), such that wildfire hazards and risks are appropriately considered early in the planning-design-construction life cycle of future developments.

Homeownerā€™s Guide to Reducing Wildfire Risk Through Defensible Space
This document provides homeowners with steps they can take now to protect their homes from loss or damage from wildfires due to vulnerabilities introduced by surrounding landscaping and other exterior features (e.g., outbuildings, sheds, furniture, and trash bins) within the homeownerā€™s property. The goal is to increase homeowner awareness of the key mechanisms and characteristics of Wildfire and the Wildland Urban Interface fires that can result in home ignition.
 
All communities (and especially those with 'concerns') should be strategically deregulating (regulations and processes) for their desired positive outcomes.
 
Yeah, that works.

1688154903136.png
 
1688652020548.png


Round-a-bouts are fun...and then you run a tram through the middle!



1688652115974.png


Or put a round-a-bout in the water just for kicks.
 
Dan said:
"Modular" houses are built offsite, and assembled onsite. They have a permanent foundation, and can't be easily moved after construction is finished. The better models look more like "real" site built houses.

Google Streetview won't let you take a virtual drive down this street, but all of these houses are modular construction.
Click to expand...
From first glance, these houses are really impressive examples of modular construction -- very traditional design -- at least from the exterior! I think these are the nicest modular homes I've seen (at least if I knew they were modular).
 
Faust_Motel said:
Our DPW is so damn tree averse (because mowing/plowing). We have these really nice multi-use paths that are completely shadeless and the ROW to put a shade tree every 30-40 feet along them if we had the will. And don't get me started with site plan review, where DPW comments out street trees from the ROW on the regular.
Click to expand...
Our PW and Engineer depts are strangely ok with trees. It might be because they dont really get too far into the details. The dept I have the most trouble with is Parks and Rec. They hate trees with a passion and actively try to get all of them removed. The reason they don't like them:
  • They drop leaves which get everywhere.
  • They occasionally die.
  • They kill the grass or make it hard to mow with a superwide deck. (Which is a little funny because they also don't like real grass.)
  • They block the lights and security cameras. (I really think at some point our parks are going to have the camera coverage of central London.)
 
bureaucrat#3 said:
The dept I have the most trouble with is Parks and Rec. They hate trees with a passion and actively try to get all of them removed. The reason they don't like them:
  • They drop leaves which get everywhere.
  • They occasionally die.
  • They kill the grass or make it hard to mow with a superwide deck. (Which is a little funny because they also don't like real grass.)
  • They block the lights and security cameras. (I really think at some point our parks are going to have the camera coverage of central London.)
Click to expand...
Aaron Paul What GIF by Breaking Bad
 
bureaucrat#3 said:
Our PW and Engineer depts are strangely ok with trees. It might be because they dont really get too far into the details. The dept I have the most trouble with is Parks and Rec. They hate trees with a passion and actively try to get all of them removed. The reason they don't like them:
  • They drop leaves which get everywhere.
  • They occasionally die.
  • They kill the grass or make it hard to mow with a superwide deck. (Which is a little funny because they also don't like real grass.)
  • They block the lights and security cameras. (I really think at some point our parks are going to have the camera coverage of central London.)
Click to expand...
Ugh. I'm trying to push for trees on a climate change argument at this point, starting with the comp plan. Summer heat is rendering these places near unusable and the difference between shade and direct sun is huge. Also, to both PW and P&R- news flash- not every blade of grass needs to be mowed- pollinator gardens are super low maintenance.
 
Faust_Motel said:
Ugh. I'm trying to push for trees on a climate change argument at this point, starting with the comp plan. Summer heat is rendering these places near unusable and the difference between shade and direct sun is huge. Also, to both PW and P&R- news flash- not every blade of grass needs to be mowed- pollinator gardens are super low maintenance.
Click to expand...
I feel ya.

My advice: don't lead with the climate change argument. Lead with the pedestrian comfort argument and traffic calming argument. I always get bites on those before I get bites on climate change.

I have found "prairie landscaping" gets good traction on the reduced O&M argument, plus people like it! At my prior job, we built a new city hall and featured a prairie landscaping approach using natives/adapted plants. An Eagle Scout popped through afterward to add interpretive signs, various recommended combinations & species marketing materials, etc. When I left, the city hall despite being new had the lowest cost to maintain per 10,000 square feet for the parks department.
 
mendelman said:
Aaron Paul What GIF by Breaking Bad
Click to expand...
oh no you have to actually do work! gasp not clean up leaves in the park!? what is this world coming to! fun tangentially related fact this mentality of omg all the maintenance is why the dude who advocated for the planting of trees in the 50s (ish) only advocated for male trees to be planted. He thought having male and female trees would leave to fruit dropping everywhere which would increase maintenance budgets. and that is part of the reason why pollen and allergies get so bad every year.
 
https://www.planetizen.com/features/124594-100-most-influential-urbanists-past-and-present (The 100 Most Influential Urbanists, Past and Present) Yall seen this? I am so disappointed that a lot of the old white men are included on this list and NOTHING about their racist applications of design and planning are mentioned under their brief bios. yeah robert moses is the "father" of modern planning but he also was virulently racist and directed highways through minority neighborhoods for example.
 
tnt1ne said:
https://www.planetizen.com/features/124594-100-most-influential-urbanists-past-and-present (The 100 Most Influential Urbanists, Past and Present) Yall seen this? I am so disappointed that a lot of the old white men are included on this list and NOTHING about their racist applications of design and planning are mentioned under their brief bios. yeah robert moses is the "father" of modern planning but he also was virulently racist and directed highways through minority neighborhoods for example.
Click to expand...
The list really suffers from lack of historical perspective. There are too many big names now that won't be remembered well in 20 years. I think it prioritized en vogue ideas vs innovative thought that is ingrained in our urban fabric.

I don't have a problem with Moses (well I have a problem with Moses, but not where he's listed.) He was insanely influential, not always good. Moses shaped New York more than Sadik-Khan who is ahead of him. I think putting Speck and Duany above Burnham is silly. Rosa Parks is an inspiring figure and a face of a movement, but I can think of a few civil rights leaders that I would say had more to do with urbanism. I think Muir and Davidoff should be higher. I think Marohn, Toderian, and Minicozzi are too high. I like their work, but its too soon to gauge impact.
The poll recognizes that it skews to the US and men. I would say that most of their readers are US or North American. Finally, old white men through systematic racism have been the ones to wield power. Which means they have historically, and still today, an out of proportion influence on American and European urbanism. That's changing as it should, but who knows how long its going to take. The earlier people had it easier in some regards. Social reformers or early planners/arch only had to make basic plans that yes people need light, air, and access to transportation. An urbanist in the last 20 years is making much more nuanced physical planning arguments. In the area of racial justice, environmental justice, and inclusion there is still a lot influence needed.

At the end of the day, I think Moses will be on these lists for a long time. His impact is both the insane amount of parks, roads, and playgrounds and the horrible ways he accomplished them by displacing minorities, prioritizing vehicles, and being a foil for Jacobs. Influential, in my mind, doesn't always mean good. Truthfully, I'm surprised Ford didn't make the list and he's got all sorts of issues.
 
bureaucrat#3 said:
The list really suffers from lack of historical perspective. There are too many big names now that won't be remembered well in 20 years. I think it prioritized en vogue ideas vs innovative thought that is ingrained in our urban fabric.

I don't have a problem with Moses (well I have a problem with Moses, but not where he's listed.) He was insanely influential, not always good. Moses shaped New York more than Sadik-Khan who is ahead of him. I think putting Speck and Duany above Burnham is silly. Rosa Parks is an inspiring figure and a face of a movement, but I can think of a few civil rights leaders that I would say had more to do with urbanism. I think Muir and Davidoff should be higher. I think Marohn, Toderian, and Minicozzi are too high. I like their work, but its too soon to gauge impact.
The poll recognizes that it skews to the US and men. I would say that most of their readers are US or North American. Finally, old white men through systematic racism have been the ones to wield power. Which means they have historically, and still today, an out of proportion influence on American and European urbanism. That's changing as it should, but who knows how long its going to take. The earlier people had it easier in some regards. Social reformers or early planners/arch only had to make basic plans that yes people need light, air, and access to transportation. An urbanist in the last 20 years is making much more nuanced physical planning arguments. In the area of racial justice, environmental justice, and inclusion there is still a lot influence needed.

At the end of the day, I think Moses will be on these lists for a long time. His impact is both the insane amount of parks, roads, and playgrounds and the horrible ways he accomplished them by displacing minorities, prioritizing vehicles, and being a foil for Jacobs. Influential, in my mind, doesn't always mean good. Truthfully, I'm surprised Ford didn't make the list and he's got all sorts of issues.
Click to expand...
well Rosa Parks actually did more than be the face of the Civil Rights act, she was a stuanch activist before and after her refusal to stand. She did a ton of work to advance the civil rights movement, and urbansim for black americans. Sadly its not widely taught.

In this historical moment when Civil Rights are being actively attacked via all angles (antisemitism is on the rise, book bans, elimination of affirmation action and so on) it is so important that we tell the full story of anything. Disney was staunch anti Semitic.

I am not saying to discount their contributions to society and the profession, nor am I saying take moses off the list, instead I saying that we tell the full story.

You are right, he who wields the pen (and power) tells the story, that's why people like me must speak up and continue to loudly demand that the full and correct story be told.
 
Am I the only one that hates dealing in FAR? It's great when it's just a numbers game like doing traffic studies, but when you say you're doing an FAR of 0.2 and I look around and measure more like 0.8 (granted my measurements are off because it's arial imaging and guessing) I think I need good samples of what different FARs really look like so I can say I think this is what the market will develop on your land and spare you the full entitled development impact style traffic study.
 
DVD said:
Am I the only one that hates dealing in FAR? It's great when it's just a numbers game like doing traffic studies, but when you say you're doing an FAR of 0.2 and I look around and measure more like 0.8 (granted my measurements are off because it's arial imaging and guessing) I think I need good samples of what different FARs really look like so I can say I think this is what the market will develop on your land and spare you the full entitled development impact style traffic study.
Click to expand...
FAR is too vague and 3D for anyone to assume/envision a narrow outcome in the real world...but maybe this would help?

far.jpg

1200px-FAR_vs_BCR.svg.png
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but I need real world examples. That just shows the math. I don't know about your city, but in my city building don't conveniently take up 25% of the lot by placing the building in the corner. What kind of FAR does a 5 story office complex have or an industrial campus?
 
DVD said:
Yeah, but I need real world examples. That just shows the math. I don't know about your city, but in my city building don't conveniently take up 25% of the lot by placing the building in the corner. What kind of FAR does a 5 story office complex have or an industrial campus?
Click to expand...
But that's the point.

FAR is a terrible metric for...anything other than allowing massing design flexibility.

The only setting in which I think FAR is useful is in a dense urban setting (like downtown Chicago, etc) to allow for massing flexibility instead of strict building height maximums.

I especially am not a fan of FAR for 'typical' single-family dwellings/districts. It's an arcane, esoteric and, really, opaque regulation for most people to understand or 'see' (aka perceive).

For small scale residential buildings, setbacks and height are all that's really necessary, in my professional opinion.
 
Last edited:
The problem is we're trying to use it to get decent numbers for a traffic impact in the area. The developer is saying they'll get an FAR of 0.2 with a bunch of medical office type uses. I'm looking at what's building around the area and seeing 5 story office parks that would get a 0.5-0.8 FAR plus I think their land use range is very limited, but that's another story. I'm just going to measure a few examples around the city so I can show people this is what a 0.5 FAR would look like. I believe 0.2 looks like a Walmart, but I could be wrong.
 
DVD said:
The problem is we're trying to use it to get decent numbers for a traffic impact in the area. The developer is saying they'll get an FAR of 0.2 with a bunch of medical office type uses. I'm looking at what's building around the area and seeing 5 story office parks that would get a 0.5-0.8 FAR plus I think their land use range is very limited, but that's another story. I'm just going to measure a few examples around the city so I can show people this is what a 0.5 FAR would look like. I believe 0.2 looks like a Walmart, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Wait...you use FAR for estimating traffic generation?

FAR is purely bulk massing orientation metric in my experience. I'm not really seeing how FAR could be a useful metric for traffice impact. It's too obscure a metric for this purpose.

For traffic generation projecting, I'd want to simply use 'net occupiable building sqft for a specific use type' or something similar.

A self-storage facility could be 200,000 sqft (or 0.5 FAR) and will always generate much less traffic impact than a 200,000 sqft professional or medical office building.

Interesting.
 
We're dealing with a giant property of several 1,000 acres. We need to know how much development will be there and what type of land use might be there so we can do some preliminary traffic modeling...actually the developer will do that, we just need to be able to say this amount of development sounds reasonable for this giant area. More detailed traffic studies will come later.
 
To give you the scale, we're looking at all the dirt south of the freeway between the major streets. That size of development will create just a few turn lanes and traffic lights and assorted changes to the entire street network in the area and we would like to hit the ground running instead of getting a little piece out of each individual development. Our street team will do the actual math and figure it out, I just want to be able to say this looks like a reasonable level of development on paper based on what we think will happen in the future.

www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
 
DVD said:
We're dealing with a giant property of several 1,000 acres. We need to know how much development will be there and what type of land use might be there so we can do some preliminary traffic modeling...actually the developer will do that, we just need to be able to say this amount of development sounds reasonable for this giant area. More detailed traffic studies will come later.
Click to expand...
Have you all decided on intended zoning/land use districts for the private land?

Maybe just use a ~75th percentile land use intensity buildout metric for the projection? Land development is usually, in my experience, 20% for public land/ROW, ~50% private non-traffic generating accessory land use (parking lots, landscaping, detention, etc), and 30% actual traffic generating land uses sqft.

Like how 85% parking occupancy is generally considered 'full'.

tl;dr - Good luck. :halo:

DVD said:
To give you the scale, we're looking at all the dirt south of the freeway between the major streets. That size of development will create just a few turn lanes and traffic lights and assorted changes to the entire street network in the area and we would like to hit the ground running instead of getting a little piece out of each individual development. Our street team will do the actual math and figure it out, I just want to be able to say this looks like a reasonable level of development on paper based on what we think will happen in the future.

www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...
yeah...definitely good luck.

Oh No Facepalm GIF
 
Last edited:
mendelman said:
yeah...definitely good luck.

Oh No Facepalm GIF
Click to expand...
Have I mentioned all this land is currently owned by the state land trust and being auctioned off to a major employer in the area who wants to develop accessory office to their campus and so far has offered a hotel and some apartments both of which aren't on their land use matrix of bulk land use estimates. Also this is some of the highest value land in the area. No stress.
 
I've said this before on another thread but cannot remember which one so I'll just say it again...why are attached units or small lots considered acceptable next to commercial? Each type of dwelling is HOME and should considered the same. A condo is just as much as a home as a SFD on 1/2 acre.
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
I've said this before on another thread but cannot remember which one so I'll just say it again...why are attached units or small lots considered acceptable next to commercial? Each type of dwelling is HOME and should considered the same. A condo is just as much as a home as a SFD on 1/2 acre.
Click to expand...
Correction: why do we as a society insist on making commercial uses auto-oriented (through parking minimums and such) then go all surprised_pikachu.gif when people NIMBY them? Or in other words: cutting down on the car-orientation of your retail makes putting your rooftops next door to your retail a much more neighborly proposition.

As to why you want to put dense housing close to commercial to begin with -- putting your density next to your commercial areas makes the commercial areas more viable, as they can draw more on foot and bicycle traffic vs. having to rely purely on cars to pull shoppers in. It also can reduce the VMT for the housing occupants, since they can walk over to go shopping instead of having to get behind the steering wheel and sit in traffic.
 
DVD said:
We're dealing with a giant property of several 1,000 acres. We need to know how much development will be there and what type of land use might be there so we can do some preliminary traffic modeling...actually the developer will do that, we just need to be able to say this amount of development sounds reasonable for this giant area. More detailed traffic studies will come later.
Click to expand...

Kind of like Walsh Ranch here in Fort Worth. 7,000+ acres and it's just getting started.

0170-PMB-Bubble-Plan_Update2022.04.05_copy-1-scaled.jpg
 
Doohickie said:
Kind of like Walsh Ranch here in Fort Worth. 7,000+ acres and it's just getting started.

0170-PMB-Bubble-Plan_Update2022.04.05_copy-1-scaled.jpg
Click to expand...
I just realized the road at the north end of the large tract and along the south side of the smaller tract is a favorite cycling route that currently is very lightly traveled. That will obviously be changing.
 
UrbanUnPlanner said:
Correction: why do we as a society insist on making commercial uses auto-oriented (through parking minimums and such) then go all surprised_pikachu.gif when people NIMBY them? Or in other words: cutting down on the car-orientation of your retail makes putting your rooftops next door to your retail a much more neighborly proposition.

As to why you want to put dense housing close to commercial to begin with -- putting your density next to your commercial areas makes the commercial areas more viable, as they can draw more on foot and bicycle traffic vs. having to rely purely on cars to pull shoppers in. It also can reduce the VMT for the housing occupants, since they can walk over to go shopping instead of having to get behind the steering wheel and sit in traffic.
Click to expand...
Your mileage may vary but in the communities I frequent and work in, the sale of "walkable" is used in the review process to give feel goods to the legislative bodies. Walkable may be for those within a few blocks. Commercial rarely is used in these parts to cater to a neighborhood. Commercial wants customers from all over. Put in a grocery store or wal mart, and it will not be just for the neighborhood. I live near a "neighborhood" grocery store at 30,000 s.f. of accessible area while the larger version is 2.5 miles down the road. Mom and pops struggle to survive without traffic from outside a neighborhood. Building the notion of walkable commercial is great for those who live nearby and will truly walk, but that number will be minimal. For a commercial business to survive, the car must be considered. High density urban developments (which I do not work in or live in) are a different animal.
 
Doohickie said:
Kind of like Walsh Ranch here in Fort Worth. 7,000+ acres and it's just getting started.

0170-PMB-Bubble-Plan_Update2022.04.05_copy-1-scaled.jpg
Click to expand...
This is typical development in the Phoenix metro. A lot of the land on the edges is held by a state trust. They decide, it seems randomly, when and how much land to auction off and then whatever city gets to react to having a new 7,000+ acre development coming in. We have our ways of handling it.
 
It's surprising how easy it is to read and understand a zoning code written in French, even though my French skills are very rusty.

Consider this.

Chapitre II Les usages

Section 1 Dispositions applicables aux usages

Article 26 Objet
Les dispositions du prƩsent chapitre Ʃtablissent la classification des usages permis sur le territoire.

Article 27 HiĆ©rarchie et codification des usages en Ā« groupes Ā» et en Ā« classes Ā» dā€™usages
La classification des usages se divise en quatre (4) Ā« groupes Ā» :

Groupe dā€™usage Lettre au plan de zonage
Habitation H
Commerce C
Public P
Conservation CO
Click to expand...

I think reading a foreign language planning document might be a great way to learn a foreign language, or perfect your skills, as long as it's analogous to a planning document or set of regulations we'd have in the US or Anglophone Canada.
 
Dan said:
It's surprising how easy it is to read and understand a zoning code written in French, even though my French skills are very rusty.
Click to expand...
This is because modern English has many word and syntax origins as modern French, since English is an amalgam of Old English and Old French from the Norman invasion 1000 years ago.

I bet you could generally understand a German zoning code too in the same way.
 
Last edited:
mendelman said:
This because modern English has many word and syntax origins as modern French, since English is an amalgam of Old English and Old French from the Norman invasion 1000 years ago.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I was having a conversation with my wife about taking a road trip to Montreal some day. "But what about all the French signage?" I said "Think of it like Latinate form English, but with adjectives after nouns. Something like 30% of modern English comes from French." Besides, the majority of Montreal residents speak fluent English." I struggle to comprehend spoken Joual, though.
 
Dan said:
Absolutely. I was having a conversation with my wife about taking a road trip to Montreal some day. "But what about all the French signage?" I said "Think of it like Latinate form English, but with adjectives after nouns. Something like 30% of modern English comes from French." Besides, the majority of Montreal residents speak fluent English." I struggle to comprehend spoken Joual, though.
Click to expand...
And if all else fails, you can bring The Terminator with you.







;)
 
Back
Top