• 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 🌇 Random Planning Thoughts (and Photos) Deserving No Thread Of Their Own

Doberman said:
The only development patterns that should be allowed are urban, streetcar suburbs, small towns, and rural.
Click to expand...
Sadly, we lost our ability to construct urbanized industry around the time of second-wave suburbanization and are only very slowly re-learning how to do it, never mind the structural barriers we've erected along the way (mostly due to truck-centric logistics) despite the fact industrial uses are far more neighborly now than they were at any prior point in history.
 
1700758065199.png
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
Trying to understand your angle of your post. Those on this site are overwhelmingly pro-planning and support those in the field. Many of us have been in this guys position because some council member got their underoos in a wad and acted as dictator of the community. Your post comes across as mocking this guy, without any of us knowing the backstory, so help me (and others?) understand what you mean. Maybe too early in the AM and my coffee has not kicked in yet.
Click to expand...
I gave the appearance of being too flippant about a person in the planning profession and I thank you for calling me out.

There were specific reasons for the tone that I had, but I've since learned that publicly stating those reasons would be a conflict of interest for me. I'd be happy to PM those reasons to you and any other interested people.
 
Oh gosh, please do not pull a UK and adorn your roundabout with a festive set of traffic lights! The UK experience with that shows that traffic lights and roundabouts do not mix!
 
jumbach said:
Love that one!! Do you have a backstory on how it got to be so skinny like that?
Click to expand...
I don't have the specific story, but given the general history and development form in this part of Chicago this property was probably, by about 1920, a remainder single platted/developed lot with a small mercantile building or house (25'x125' was, I think, the increment of original platting).

Then was developed with this cool 10 story 'skyscraper' probably in the 1920s.
 
Last edited:
mendelman said:
I don't have the specific story, but given the general history and development form in this part of Chicago this property was probably, by about 1920, a remainder single platted/developed lot with a small mercantile building or house (25'x125' was, I think, the increment of original platting).

Then was developed with this cool 10 story 'skyscraper' probably in the 1920s.
Click to expand...
If you really want to know I suppose you could look at Sanborn maps. Not sure how much detail they provide though.
 
jsk1983 said:
If you really want to know I suppose you could look at Sanborn maps. Not sure how much detail they provide though.
Click to expand...
I could, but I have nearly 100% confidence my above presumption is correct given the localized Psychohistory of Downtown Chicago.

:cool: :scotch:
 
Last edited:
I know planners probably think about this kind of thing all the time and talk about it over lunch and stuff but, what about staircases in apartment buildings?
 
Doohickie said:
I know planners probably think about this kind of thing all the time and talk about it over lunch and stuff but, what about staircases in apartment buildings?
Click to expand...
These arguments are often horribly biased and subjectively selective.

The US and Europe have tons of both of those images.
 
mendelman said:
These arguments are often horribly biased and subjectively selective.

The US and Europe have tons of both of those images.
Click to expand...
The single-stair people are pretty rampant around my parts (there’s sort of a local YIMBY group and they are big proponents) but never underestimate the political pull of the Fire Department.
 
Doohickie said:
I know planners probably think about this kind of thing all the time and talk about it over lunch and stuff but, what about staircases in apartment buildings?
Click to expand...
The video, and many of the other single-stair advocates I've encountered, are frankly a bit glib about the issue. First off, the benefits (cross-ventilation and so on) of single-stair, point access designs are achievable under the two-stair constraint (see the 'Fab 'Plex for an example of a two-stair, two-point access apartment building).

Second, and more importantly, even in the case where single-stair reform is considered desirable enough to pursue wholeheartedly, the zoning-reform-like approach single-stair advocates seem to be taking to the problem is wholly inappropriate for pitching a change to the core egress requirements of the building and life safety codes. What they need to be doing instead in order to get the fire folks to sign off is doing their engineering homework in the form of fire modeling and validation/testing, or at the very least finding detailed safety cases from countries that do support taller single-stair buildings.
 
UrbanUnPlanner said:
The video, and many of the other single-stair advocates I've encountered, are frankly a bit glib about the issue. First off, the benefits (cross-ventilation and so on) of single-stair, point access designs are achievable under the two-stair constraint (see the 'Fab 'Plex for an example of a two-stair, two-point access apartment building).

Second, and more importantly, even in the case where single-stair reform is considered desirable enough to pursue wholeheartedly, the zoning-reform-like approach single-stair advocates seem to be taking to the problem is wholly inappropriate for pitching a change to the core egress requirements of the building and life safety codes. What they need to be doing instead in order to get the fire folks to sign off is doing their engineering homework in the form of fire modeling and validation/testing, or at the very least finding detailed safety cases from countries that do support taller single-stair buildings.
Click to expand...
The Truth.
 
UrbanUnPlanner said:
at the very least finding detailed safety cases from countries that do support taller single-stair buildings.
Click to expand...
You mean data like this, but MOAR?
1703532239619.png


It's funny because he mentions this, and he mentions construction techniques and notes that Europe uses masonry construction versus building with lumber in the U.S. I don't see that changing any time soon, since masonry construction is more expensive.

I see the point made that this is really a safety standards issue rather than a zoning issue.
 
Doohickie said:
You mean data like this, but MOAR?
Click to expand...
It's an issue on two fronts: one, comparing overall fire death statistics between North America and much of the rest of the world is a bit apples-and-oranges, since the bulk of residential fire deaths in North America happen in single-family homes. This renders them irrelevant to the discussion of stairs in apartments as North American codes are loathe to subject SFR to the same standard of fire protection as other uses. (For an example of this, see the extreme pushback at the state and local level against the adoption of fire sprinklers in single family housing despite their highly successful track record and long-standing model Code requirements.)

As a result of that, I would like to see statistical comparisons that are apples-to-apples, with North American apartments pitted against their counterparts in other countries, and high-rise buildings excluded from the discussion as well. This isn't the main issue, though: what I see as necessary to justify this isn't merely better-broken-out epidemiological data.

Instead, it is the kind of first-principles construction of fire engineering safety cases, with supporting fire modeling and burn testing, that is required in the performance-based life safety world and also for core model Code amendments in North America. (An example of this can be found in the safety cases that were built up for the tall mass timber amendments that were recently made to the IBC. While there are still some questions as to how tall mass timber buildings would perform under an extreme, "towering inferno" scenario, I know of no such widespread fire happening in a building with a functioning sprinkler system.)

The exercise of constructing such a thing will give us a far better idea of what compensating controls are called for than what we know so far, where the existing amendments either predate modern life-safety concepts (NYC) or have not seen battle yet (Seattle). It won't be a cheap exercise, but with an appropriate type testing mentality, it's something we only need to go through once, as there won't be a second chance to get these amendments right.
 
One of the recommendations in a recent housing study here in Reno was that the building code be changed to allow for single-staircase apartment buildings, which would allow for more units . . . but I have real concerns with that for fire reasons, as discussed above. If there is only one staircase, and it's blocked, well, that's an issue.

One of the WTC design failures is that all the staircases were lumped in the central part of the building. I believe the 9/11 attacks resulted in a change that no longer allows for this in tall buildings.

Jim
 
Why doesn't the suburban dwelling public want to see that Land Use is a kind of ecology? If they refuse to allow density where it can be served by transit and close services then the population will simply spread out - it won't just magically not increase because you refuse to allow us to incentivize it where it can be served. If people are given an option to live in more dense areas close to services and employment and transit - even if YOU don't - your air still gets cleaner because they are not driving as much. The urban center you live near - but not in - gets better services as it grows, like entertainment options and restaurants, and you get access to them even though you didn't want that urban center to grow. World class health care comes in, the ballet, the symphony, huge national employers and incredible niche businesses that can thrive on the sheer volume of activity make your MSA rival the best places to live in the world. And all this happens while you still get to live in your suburban house, with a yard and a driveway and an SUV. In fact, your suburb is NICER because people in your larger area are thriving. All anybody is asking you to do is stop being in the way. Stop ranting in public meetings about what things were like downtown when you moved here in 1965. Good god, how do you not see how irrelevant that is? How do you make that comment and think that you sound like the voice of reason? Nothing about your life will change. No one is trying to force you to live differently; in fact, I would argue that the things we planners are trying to do with land use that you hate so much will also preserve the suburbs as nice places to live. We aren't trying to take away your suburbs, but they can't be the only choice. They can't be sustained for the growing population. They will become horrible wastelands full of all the things you fear - those things will just happen with 25 foot setbacks on 8,000 square foot lots. God save us. It's an ecology. What you are trying to save - no, mandate the spread of - will kill us all. We don't hate the suburbs, and they won't go extinct. Stay home. Watch TV. Call your grand kids. Volunteer at the library. Just stop coming to my public meetings. I'm begging you.

Sorry for the rant. I needed to write.
 
ursus said:
Why doesn't the suburban dwelling public want to see that Land Use is a kind of ecology? If they refuse to allow density where it can be served by transit and close services then the population will simply spread out - it won't just magically not increase because you refuse to allow us to incentivize it where it can be served. If people are given an option to live in more dense areas close to services and employment and transit - even if YOU don't - your air still gets cleaner because they are not driving as much. The urban center you live near - but not in - gets better services as it grows, like entertainment options and restaurants, and you get access to them even though you didn't want that urban center to grow. World class health care comes in, the ballet, the symphony, huge national employers and incredible niche businesses that can thrive on the sheer volume of activity make your MSA rival the best places to live in the world. And all this happens while you still get to live in your suburban house, with a yard and a driveway and an SUV. In fact, your suburb is NICER because people in your larger area are thriving. All anybody is asking you to do is stop being in the way. Stop ranting in public meetings about what things were like downtown when you moved here in 1965. Good god, how do you not see how irrelevant that is? How do you make that comment and think that you sound like the voice of reason? Nothing about your life will change. No one is trying to force you to live differently; in fact, I would argue that the things we planners are trying to do with land use that you hate so much will also preserve the suburbs as nice places to live. We aren't trying to take away your suburbs, but they can't be the only choice. They can't be sustained for the growing population. They will become horrible wastelands full of all the things you fear - those things will just happen with 25 foot setbacks on 8,000 square foot lots. God save us. It's an ecology. What you are trying to save - no, mandate the spread of - will kill us all. We don't hate the suburbs, and they won't go extinct. Stay home. Watch TV. Call your grand kids. Volunteer at the library. Just stop coming to my public meetings. I'm begging you.

Sorry for the rant. I needed to write.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly the argument I make for why even people without kids should pay school taxes. The entire populace benefits from an educated population (not to get started on the state of public education, but that's another thread), so everyone should pay. Just like, even if you don't use a park, it benefits everyone that it's there.
 
Bubba said:
I get no added benefit from the person taking my order at McDonald's having a high school diploma.
Click to expand...
I don't go to McDonald's regularly, but the last time I went an employee pointed to a kiosk in the front to put in my order.

I know a few years ago they were also experimenting with outsourcing their drive-thru ordering to call centers. It won't be long before there just an AI taking my order for a quarter-pounder with cheese hold the onions.
 
A rare work from home day today after we got 8” overnight. That’s a lot for us, even if Minnesotans scoff.

I don’t like working from home, but at least I have a window view.
 
I got re-elected as Chair of the Storey Co. Planning Commission last night. This will be my third year.

I'm flattered that my fellow members think so highly of me, but I was ready to pass the virtual gavel on.

We still have one vacancy to fill; supposedly the County Commission has three names in mind and will appoint one. I am remaining neutral in public.

Jim

I hate that kiosk. Too high of a screw-up potential. Sadly, most McD's around here don't have a human option.

I wonder how long it is before the entire McD's chain is nothing but robots taking orders, making food, and cleaning up, with nary a human in sight. :-(

Jim
bureaucrat#3 said:
I don't go to McDonald's regularly, but the last time I went an employee pointed to a kiosk in the front to put in my order.

I know a few years ago they were also experimenting with outsourcing their drive-thru ordering to call centers. It won't be long before there just an AI taking my order for a quarter-pounder with cheese hold the onions
Click to expand...
 
jumbach said:
I hate that kiosk. Too high of a screw-up potential. Sadly, most McD's around here don't have a human option.

I wonder how long it is before the entire McD's chain is nothing but robots taking orders, making food, and cleaning up, with nary a human in sight. :-(

Jim
Click to expand...
I've been to McDonald's in France, Germany, and Netherlands, and all have self-order kiosks. I would like to add that McDs in Germany has a tasty fry sauce.

1705086572611.png
 
So while working on some stuff I found the neighborhood I would not buy a new house in. The houses are fine in the typical homebuilder box with windows kind of way, but 1st, it's waaaaay north of anything. 2nd, to get to even the local things like a school or grocery store you have to drive north a way then head south because there is no bridge across the river and there won't be one for a long long time. Also, there is just one little playground for a park and it's not even centrally located in the subdivision. Hope you don't have bored kids.

www.bing.com

Bing Maps

Map multiple locations, get transit/walking/driving directions, view live traffic conditions, plan trips, view satellite, aerial and street side imagery. Do more with Bing Maps.
www.bing.com www.bing.com
 
DVD said:
So while working on some stuff I found the neighborhood I would not buy a new house in. The houses are fine in the typical homebuilder box with windows kind of way, but 1st, it's waaaaay north of anything. 2nd, to get to even the local things like a school or grocery store you have to drive north a way then head south because there is no bridge across the river and there won't be one for a long long time. Also, there is just one little playground for a park and it's not even centrally located in the subdivision. Hope you don't have bored kids.

www.bing.com

Bing Maps

Map multiple locations, get transit/walking/driving directions, view live traffic conditions, plan trips, view satellite, aerial and street side imagery. Do more with Bing Maps.
www.bing.com www.bing.com
Click to expand...
I suspect terrain makes a road into the main part of town unfeasible. I agree that's horrible planning.
 
That area started to develop when some home builder decided the edge of town wasn't far enough and started building a few miles outside of town along the freeway. Since the DOT can't keep up that area is now just a giant traffic jam in the morning.
 
^^^
Not to mention extending / providing utility & emergency services
Busing kids to school too

Royal PITA to just run to the store.
 
If you live in Whataburger territory, you may have seen this ad. I thought the forum might enjoy.
  • Guy who is clearly not up with the times
  • NIMBY-esque passion
  • The bicycle helment :D
They subtly nailed so many tropes in this ad. Classic.

(That would be me if I ever spoke before a council meeting. :D )
 
Doohickie said:
If you live in Whataburger territory, you may have seen this ad. I thought the forum might enjoy.
  • Guy who is clearly not up with the times
  • NIMBY-esque passion
  • The bicycle helment :D
They subtly nailed so many tropes in this ad. Classic.

(That would be me if I ever spoke before a council meeting. :D )
Click to expand...
Are they riffing on this classic?
 
Sometimes you get crap jobs like the finance department telling you it's your job to create a budget for this special district, but they want to know what the parameters of the budget are and I have no clue WTF the finance department is talking about. Sometimes you get cool jobs like create several funding scenarios for all the streets in the north part of town knowing that what you do really does plan the future of the city and sometimes you get emails from the boss that confuse the crap out of you and everyone on the project about who will actually be briefing the council about tomorrows agenda item.
 
Back
Top