More on art at TTA Stations [Archive]

View Full Version : More on art at TTA Stations

Brent

11-10-2003, 11:43 AM

John, I take it all back: Although I still don't think anyone will ride it, I'm now all for the TTA train, because I've finally realized:

how preferred artwork might reflect an "artistic ribbon" between the 16 rail stations

Don't know how we all missed that before. Don't know about you, but "artistic ribbons" between [sic, among] rail stations are what it's always been all about for me. And this part of the aesthetics is costing us only $800K, so it's a bargain.

Excuse me while I gag.

---------------

TRIANGLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY

TTA HOLDS FINAL ROUND OF "ART IN TRANSIT" MEETINGS TO PRESENT FINDINGS TO REGIONAL RAIL STATION COMMUNITIES

Research Triangle Park, N.C. – The Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) will hold its final round of Station Cluster Planning meetings on the “Art in Transit” program in Durham, Cary, Research Triangle Park (RTP), and Raleigh beginning Monday, November 10, 2003. At the upcoming meetings, TTA will report on station elements and artistic impressions preferred by neighborhoods near the system’s planned regional rail stations and the ways those elements may be used.
TTA held its first two rounds of Station Cluster Planning meetings on the TTA “Art in Transit” Program in September and October. Over 250 Triangle residents attended the meetings to share their reflections on neighborhood characteristics and how those unique qualities and history could be reflected.

In addition, this month’s meetings will develop further the system’s common themes and how preferred artwork might reflect an "artistic ribbon" between the 16 rail stations. Participants can view a 40-second animated “virtual tour” from the perspective of a TTA rider, highlighting the various ways artwork may be integrated into each rail station.

Since a light meal will be available, TTA asks that people RSVP for the cluster meetings at
(919) 485-7519. People who attended any of the previous “Art in Transit” meetings are encouraged to participate. The TTA Board will receive a full report on all “Art in Transit” meetings at a later date.

Durham #1 @ 5:00 – 8:00 p.m., Nov. 11th
Durham #2 @ 5:00 – 8:00 p.m., Nov. 13th
RTP cluster @ 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m., Nov. 10th
Cary cluster @ 5:00 – 8:00 p.m., Nov. 12th
Raleigh #1 @ 5:00 – 8:00 p.m., Nov. 19th
Raleigh #2 @ 5:00 – 8:00 p.m., Nov. 20th
Raleigh #3 @ 5:00 – 8:00 p.m., Nov. 18th

Clusters Stations/Meeting Locations

Durham #1 Duke Medical Center & 9th Street Stations – cluster meetings at Duke Center for Documentary Studies, 1317 Pettigrew St., just east of Swift Avenue intersection, Durham. Park in far back lot, follow signs.

Durham #2 Downtown Durham & Alston Avenue/NCCU Stations – cluster meetings at Hayti Heritage Center, 804 Old Fayetteville St., corner Fayetteville St. & Lakewood Ave., Durham. Park on street or shopping center lots.

RTP Cluster North RTP & Triangle Metro Center Stations – cluster meetings at IBM Employee Fitness Center, 9 Davis Dr., 1st drive on right after crossing Cornwallis Rd., make immediate left at first drive into parking lot.

Cary Cluster Northwest Cary & Downtown Cary Stations – cluster meetings at Page-Walker Arts and History Center 119 Ambassador Loop, next to Town Hall, Cary. Parking in Town Hall lots.

Raleigh #1 West Raleigh, State Fairgrounds & NC State University Stations – cluster meetings at Jane McKimmon Center, enter off Gorman St. just south of Western Blvd., Raleigh. Ample parking is available at site.

Raleigh #2 Downtown Raleigh & Government Center Stations – cluster meetings at Raleigh Urban Design Center, 133 Fayetteville St. Mall, First Floor Alexander Bldg., corner of Hargett St. & Fayetteville St. Mall, Raleigh. Use on street parking.

Raleigh #3 Highwoods, New Hope Church Road & Spring Forest stations – cluster meetings at Millbrook Exchange Community Center, 1905 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh. Ample parking on site.

In late 2002, the TTA Board of Trustees approved a TTA “Art in Transit” Program and authorized a budget of up to $800,000, already in the rail project budget, for art for the Regional Rail System. Planning for the TTA Regional Rail Project has been underway for more than a decade. To date, the TTA Board has approved the development of a Regional Rail system supported by shuttle and local bus service. This service, planned to be operational by 2007, would use self-propelled, bi-directional, diesel rail cars using the existing railroad rights-of-way to connect Durham, RTP, Cary, Raleigh and North Raleigh. The costs for construction are approximately $724 million (2002 dollars). This service is expected to carry about 28,000 daily riders by 2025. The Final Environmental Impact Statement has been approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the project is in the final design stage.

The Regional Rail System is 35 miles long and includes 16 stations from Duke Medical Center in Durham to Spring Forest Road in north Raleigh. The Regional Rail system will run in the existing railroad rights-of-way primarily on its own exclusive new tracks. The first 12 stations are expected to open in late 2007, with the final four stations projected to open in 2011.

TTA is a regional public transportation provider, offering a wide variety of transit and vanpool services to North Carolina's greater Triangle Region and outlying counties. Bus service is available to Apex, Cary, Chapel Hill, Durham, Garner, RDU International Airport, RTP and Raleigh. The Triangle Transit Authority also provides commuter resources and hosts GoTriangle.org, the new on-line resource for the public transportation information in the Triangle. TTA plans to implement a 35-mile rail transit system with 16 stations connecting Durham, RTP, Cary and Raleigh, with shuttles linking RDU International Airport and RTP. The rail transit system is expected to be operational in late 2007. For more information, visit www.rideTTA.org or call (919)549-9999.

kellyc

11-10-2003, 11:52 AM

Can you imagine how cool it would be to do finger painting art for this.

kelly

Brent

11-10-2003, 12:21 PM

Can you imagine how cool it would be to do finger painting art for this.

kelly

Which finger? (sorry, couldn't resist)

johnb

11-10-2003, 04:36 PM

The sick thing about this is won't matter how many of us protest this gross waste of money.

They are gonna give the cash to some maggot "artists" regardless of public will in the matter.

SteveG

11-10-2003, 05:11 PM

The cost of this art project seems very high, but I am curious how it compares to the cost of other public art projects in terms of the price per person-hour of public viewing.

If thousands of commuters are (supposedly) going to be staring at a wall for 15 minutes a day to ride the TTA system over a the lifetime of the surface to which the art is applied, how does that compare to the viewing hours of other art projects?

I guess I would personally prefer to see the space planned to accommodate art installation, but for that art installation to come later after the major challenges faced by the TTA system are met.

-Steve (who cannot spare the time to focus his eyes on the "plop art" installed at Cary's 45 mph arterial intersections for fear of neglecting his obligations as a driver)

kellyc

11-10-2003, 05:27 PM

You mean the swirly one at the intersection of Academy and Kildaire. My Hubby and I still look at it, saying I sure hope we didnt pay too much for that.

Kelly

Don

11-10-2003, 05:55 PM

You mean the swirly one at the intersection of Academy and Kildaire. My Hubby and I still look at it, saying I sure hope we didnt pay too much for that.

Kelly

You didn't pay anything for it, It was handled by Cary Visual Arts.
My favorite is the mummy by the drive thru Fidelity bank Building on Harrison and Chatham.

kellyc

11-10-2003, 05:58 PM

Future resting home of Don Frantz?

Kelly

Don

11-10-2003, 06:02 PM

If thousands of commuters are (supposedly) going to be staring at a wall for 15 minutes a day to ride the TTA system over a the lifetime of the surface to which the art is applied, how does that compare to the viewing hours of other art projects?

* What other art projects have spent this much money on?

I guess I would personally prefer to see the space planned to accommodate art installation, but for that art installation to come later after the major challenges faced by the TTA system are met.

* Agree 100% (I just dont agree the challenges will ever be met)

Brent

11-10-2003, 07:41 PM

If thousands of commuters are (supposedly) going to be staring at a wall for 15 minutes a day to ride the TTA system over a the lifetime of the surface to which the art is applied, how does that compare to the viewing hours of other art projects?

This is a really good question. It depends heavily on how many people actually end up staring at the walls.

I guess I would personally prefer to see the space planned to accommodate art installation, but for that art installation to come later after the major challenges faced by the TTA system are met.

How eminently reasonable and sane. No wonder you're on the other board, not the TTA art board. :)

johnb

11-10-2003, 11:56 PM

Frankly, we should save all the money and shut the TTA down.

IT is a waste of cash.

SteveG

11-11-2003, 11:34 AM

How eminently reasonable and sane.

Uh-oh, now I've been called "eminently reasonable" twice in one week by different people on this board. I'd better start looking for something truly controversial to talk about here.

In other less sophisticated (yes, less sophisticated) fora, I get called a wacko militant yankee bike-nazi just because I sometimes commute by bike.

-Steve (whose employment location is nowhere near a planned TTA rail stop)

Brent

11-11-2003, 12:12 PM

How eminently reasonable and sane.

Uh-oh, now I've been called "eminently reasonable" twice in one week by different people on this board.

Steve, sorry to so unfairly characterize you. Believe me, I think you're just as much of a wacko militant yankee bike-nazi as the next guy! :lol:

I'd better start looking for something truly controversial to talk about here.

I don't really know if this will do the trick, but it's worth a try: "Anyone who doesn't think that we need some major public art between the aquatics palace and the dog park, with wider lanes for bikes but separate lanes for kayaks, with full connectivity, including to the Raleigh convention center and every TTA station, plus a 6-story skate park and self-adjusting impact fees so that growth will pay for itself, especially growth in Chatham Co. in the Lake Jordan watershed, not to mention the fact that Frantz/Roseland/Dorrel/Weinbrecht/Joyce/Lang/Robison/McAlister and don't forget Dawson all ran shameful campaigns, must be a wacko militant yankee forum-nazi clone of Hyatt". Nah, probably still too sophisticated and non-controversial. :)

Brent

11-11-2003, 12:18 PM

johnb

11-11-2003, 12:35 PM

-In other less sophisticated (yes, less sophisticated) fora, I get called a -wacko militant yankee bike-nazi just because I sometimes commute by -bike.

What has the bike to do with that?

By the way, you used the term incorrectly....wack and militant are fine...but it's DAMNYANKEE, one word....

The bike nazi would actually be a pretty good radio parody....there are some pretty good take offs of some uptight and irrational bicyclists laying there waiting to be used. :)

Cathy

11-11-2003, 05:14 PM

Brent

11-11-2003, 06:39 PM

Don't get me started on the "Build forward" design guidelines.

And a public art easement is also the rage these days. And that tends to equate to a mass of stainless steel.

Don

11-12-2003, 08:33 AM

My favorite is the mummy by the drive thru Fidelity bank Building on Harrison and Chatham.

We got us a brand new mass of stainless steel at Maynard & Harrison. This one really speaks to me. It says "We put this piece of public art here so that you'd have something to look at other than the backs of these shops that comply with the new design guidelines, although you haven't the foggiest idea of what's in this shopping center"

What's wrong Brent? You don't like Cary's new "Build it Backwards" design guidelines? :wink: :wink: :wink:

Personally, I think looking at a wall of service doors is much more attractive than the nasty old front of some grocery store or other business don't you? :wink:

I have driven by the development on Maynard and Harrison numerous times and still can't tell you what's there. (except for the art) I am sure this mystery of what's there helps these businesses to succeed. Just look how successful Waverly Place is. :wink: :wink:

johnb

11-12-2003, 09:30 AM

What horses *** was it that compelled the developer to build that strip mall thing at harrison and maynard that way? who is responsible for that bit of regulation? Hyatt needs a "Horse's *** of the Week" award, given to the local or state politician who best demonstrates that not all humans should be allowed to procreate.

This politician should be outed, and we know how Hyatt loves to out them...YIKES!

Karen

11-12-2003, 10:01 AM

Is there really a "build it backwards" design guideline in place? And who's brilliant idea was this? Please enlighten me, I'm still on a learning curve!!! :D

The strip mall at Harrison/Maynard IS just awful as pointed out in previous posts...

And the mummy artwork...My own mother asked me "what the F#@& is THAT???" during a recent visit. No kidding either... 8O

Karen

kellyc

11-12-2003, 10:08 AM

Gosh I kind of feel like a loner, cause I kind of like it. However I think the Arboretrium or whatever its called on Harrison and Weston is by far the neatest shopping center in Cary.

Kelly

Don

11-12-2003, 10:30 AM

Gosh I kind of feel like a loner, cause I kind of like it. However I think the Arboretrium or whatever its called on Harrison and Weston is by far the neatest shopping center in Cary.

Kelly

The Arboretum is the nicest "looking" shopping center. But consider what it cost build it, and consider what it costs the businesses that simply sell film or coffee to be there.

"Some" of the problems with Cary's new design guidelines is that they are so "cost heavy", that once built, nothing moves in, and nothing succeeds. How about the nice new building at the corner of 54 and Academy? No one has leased any space there as of yet. Why? Too expensive. Much of this is due to Cary's fee structure in regards to commercial.

The town hasn't figured out that if you require the development to look "nice" - or at least nicer than the average retail development (which obviously raises the cost), you must offset this high building cost with lower fees to encourage businesses to move in. If they have to pay an outrageous rent due to excessive building costs AND fees, they will go to Morrisville or Apex instead. I really wonder what Wolf's Camera's profits are for that location once they pay the bills.

If we were to lease most of our available space that currently is vacant, we would generate far more revenue in taxes than we ever would in fees.

Brent

11-12-2003, 10:38 AM

The new "build forward" (aka "build it backward") design guidelines are, as I understand it, part of "new urban" design in which the buildings are built right up next to the street, with the theory being that you see the buildings rather than a sea of cars in a parking lot.

In practice, this has achieved or will achieve:
- the nondescript building backs at the Maynard & Harrison shopping center...they block the view of cars, but provide mystery about what shops are doing business there, although I suppose they provide a nice backdrop for the symmetric stainless steel art;
- the new Lowe's, which will be built right up next to Chapel Hill Rd., and because the back of a building there would look odd, the plan is to paint fake windows on the wall, and no, I am not making this up, and yes, there is a public art easement at the corner of this site too; and
- the new building to go next-door to Goodberry's will build forward, leaving its two next-door neighbors set back from the street, something those neighbors are none too happy about.

Build forward, look backward.

kellyc

11-12-2003, 10:55 AM

I gotta admit, I do kind of like seeing the stores instead of the sea of parking lots. Its just my own personal preference. I like the row of parking in front and then a whole lot in the back. That way the stores face up front, but there isnt a whole lot of pavement to look at. The folks at the arboretum have GOT to be raking in the profits because of their location. Its just a personal preference. I think painting in windows is dumb. I think putting a murial on the walls would be tolerable.

Brent

11-12-2003, 11:02 AM

I gotta admit, I do kind of like seeing the stores instead of the sea of parking lots. Its just my own personal preference. I like the row of parking in front and then a whole lot in the back. That way the stores face up front, but there isnt a whole lot of pavement to look at.

That is indeed the theory. But if you hadn't driven through the parking lot, would you know what businesses were located there?

SteveG

11-12-2003, 11:07 AM

Is there really a "build it backwards" design guideline in place? And who's brilliant idea was this? Please enlighten me, I'm still on a learning curve!!!

As a member of the Cary P&Z board, this sort of thing has been frustrating to me.

It is my view that aethetics is the perception of a thing's predicted performance, be this perception subconscious or conscious. If we perceive that something is or will be pleasant or efficient, we have a positive aesthetic experience. If we perceive it to be unpleasant or inefficient in its performance, we have a negative aesthetic experience.

The Cary Design Guidelines were originally intended to identify design principles that have been associated with better performance for people, and are consequently considered aesthetically positive. Designing for better performance and a more pleasant experience is, I think, a good thing.

Unfortunately, it is all too easy for people to forget the relationship between design features and their intended performance. If the design feature is employed for aesthetics motives but does not deliver the performance implied by the superficial appearance, then what one has instead is disappointment and realization of irony. Irony and disappointment are not aesthetically positive things.

Case in point: People who travel on foot like buildings with entrances that are close to the street sidewalk because this configuration reduces their walking distance, especially in inclement weather. This observation leads to the design guideline that buildings be placed near the street. But now the parking lots ends up in the rear, and so the designer puts the entrance on the opposite side from the street to accommodate most of the shoppers who will park in the lot. Now the street side of the building looks like a building back side, which is unwelcoming. No problem, say the building-forward proponents, we'll just decorate the back side to LOOK like a building front! Aesthetics problem solved. But not so! Instead, the pedestrian is merely tricked into thinking he may enter from the street side, but upon trying to do so for the first time realizes he must walk all the way around the building, just as all of the motorists must now drive around the building, oftentimes a longer distance than if parking-forward design had been used. Thus a design principle that was intended to improve performance has actually worsened performance for everyone, and once people discover that the design delivers the opposite of its superficial promise, the resulting irony negates any aesthetic positive conveyed to the unknowing site-virgins.

I believe that a stronger focus on functional performance and less on superficial appearances will result in better interpretation of the Cary Design Guidelines.

Steve Goodridge

Brent

11-12-2003, 11:16 AM

Steve,

Well said. Dare I applaud your eminent reasonableness again? :)

To compound the problem (and/or irony), I know of at least two commercial activity centers, one of which is the new one at Maynard & Harrison, that have added explicit pedestrian-friendly "features" WITHIN the center itself. I've visited both at prime activity time, and not a soul was to be seen making use of these features. Most likely a consequence of losing focus on the utility of the guidelines, as you've pointed out.

Brent

11-12-2003, 11:20 AM

Of course now, I'm sure you've spawned a whole new side-discussion about "site virgins" :lol:

kellyc

11-12-2003, 11:35 AM

Well I guess the theory is that I do all my grocery shopping there anyway. So I drive thru the parking lot. I guess the area is designed to be a neighborhood shopping center and people are going to be driving thru the parking lot. Word about the shops (if they are good) can spread thru word of mouth. Im not a planner, its just a preference.

Kelly

Cathy

11-12-2003, 11:45 AM

Brent

11-12-2003, 11:57 AM

Indeed, Cathy.

This stuff can work well in "contrived" situations -- Southpoint mall, Downtown Disney, Boulder's Pearl St. Mall -- and note that all of those use the model of "if you're not already staying across the street, then drive there, park on the periphery and enter the pedestrian-only mixed-use area for a relatively long while, then drive back home".

But in real-life communities with mixed auto & pedestrians, bad things result, as you point out.

In other words, in pretend places it can really work; in real places, we can pretend that it works.

SteveG

11-12-2003, 12:02 PM

The design guidelines in Cary are trying to emulate, to the best of their ability, given the impractical and auto hostile characteristics of it, the "New Urbanist" style recommended by Smart Growth. The APA was approached by Smart Growth America (a.k.a. EPA) to recommend an Urban Design Style that would be most compatible to a high density, public transit oriented lifestyle. The New Urbanists looked backwards in time to the late 19th century urban living and are trying to recreate this type of urban living everywhere.

What bothers me is that the interests of real-world pedestrians who already walk in suburban places end up neglected in the pursuit of many new would-be pedestrians that planners hope will be generated by new-urbanist planning intended to discourage automobile use.

I'm not convinced that new urbanist planning in a place like Cary, NC is ever going to convert a substantial number of automobile trips to other modes, given so many factors including the state policies such as those that segregate office parks in RTP from other land uses. I therefore believe that pedestrian-related design should be approached with the objective of better accommodating the pedestrians who already walk, including young people, old people, and low-income people. If conditions for existing pedestrians improve in those places where pedestrians walk, then it is likely that the number of pedestrians will increase. This approach is entirely different from an anti-car approach intended to discourage motoring. An anti-car approach runs the risk of just encouraging auto users to go elsewhere, starving the destination for business.

There is an underserved market for people in the Triangle who want to live in pedestrian oriented and transit-efficient new-urbanist development, and for this reason I support some such developments. However, I care much more about the performance of such places for those who live in and visit them than I do about the number of motorists who convert to other travel modes.

-Steve

Brent

11-12-2003, 12:44 PM

That does it, Steve, this eminently reasonable stuff has GOT to stop! You've worked too long and hard to build a reputation as a wacko radical yankee bike-nazi to lose it all now! :lol:

Seriously, I believe that the NW Maynard/Chapel Hill new land use plan that will come before the P&Z board on Monday is a case in point. I have been told that there are scads of would-be pedestrians in the surrounding neighborhoods who would love to be freed from their dependence on their cars. And yet, if you go measure (I did), there are MAYBE a couple existing residences within a short walking distance of the site, and only a handful within 1/2 mile. I just don't see more than one or two foregone auto trips per day, even on a nice day, if we build the proposed commercial space there.

Which is NOT necessarily to say that pedesrian-friendly shops & restaurants wouldn't be appropriate there -- they could serve the other components of the proposed mixed-use development for the area, namely the O/I and residential. They could also serve the surrounding neighborhoods, but I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that all those people will all of a sudden start walking to the new shops.

That's why I think the new commercial space should be about half of what is proposed and should explicitly state the pedestrian-friendly vision, if that is indeed the vision. As it now stands, it allows another strip mall, which could, I suppose, serve the surrounding neighborhoods...but it would probably result in more auto trips, not fewer. If the strip mall is allowed in the plan, then that is just what we might end up with, even if there is some alternative vision of a mini-arboretum.

Cathy

11-12-2003, 01:02 PM

What bothers me is that the interests of real-world pedestrians who already walk in suburban places end up neglected in the pursuit of many new would-be pedestrians that planners hope will be generated by new-urbanist planning intended to discourage automobile use.

Many Southern cities did not develop from a grid pattern, they developed along former rural roads, and they did not include sidewalks very often in the suburban growth like many Northern cities did. I agree that we should include some retrofitting of selected areas with sidewalks where they will be useful.

An anti-car approach runs the risk of just encouraging auto users to go elsewhere, starving the destination for business.

This is what has been happening in other areas. Some have tried restricting this with Urban Growth Boundaries, Greenbelts, and severe down zoning.

There is an underserved market for people in the Triangle who want to live in pedestrian oriented and transit-efficient new-urbanist development, and for this reason I support some such developments. However, I care much more about the performance of such places for those who live in and visit them than I do about the number of motorists who convert to other travel modes.

When the 'market' is allowed to provide what the consumer wants, more choices become available. New Urbanism should have equal ability to provide this lifestyle for those that want it. New Urbanism should not be mandated or it won't work. There are elements of Smart Growth that are a good thing, like more attention to pedestrian safety, brownfield development, re-use of older abandoned structures, concern for the environment, and a revival of some form of public transit if there is a real market for it.
It's when a "one size fits all" total package of "Smart Growth" attempts to become the law of the land, and is implemented in such a way as to trample property rights, ignore citizen input, eliminate alternatives, and force taxpayers to fund transit boondoggles at the expense of road improvement, then I have a problem with it and will oppose it.
Cathy

SteveG

11-12-2003, 01:58 PM

When the 'market' is allowed to provide what the consumer wants, more choices become available. New Urbanism should have equal ability to provide this lifestyle for those that want it. New Urbanism should not be mandated or it won't work. There are elements of Smart Growth that are a good thing, like more attention to pedestrian safety, brownfield development, re-use of older abandoned structures, concern for the environment, and a revival of some form of public transit if there is a real market for it.

I found it interesting that a lot of Cary's regulations once prohibited New Urbanism and anything like it. It was against Cary ordinance to have residential and commercial nearby without putting a 100' buffer of trees between them. That made it difficult to develop communities with minimal walking distances between residences and a grocery, and impossible to build residential over non-residential.

Cary had to make a lot of legal changes to allow easily walkable communities to be built, and in many cases it was the developers who wanted to build these things to meet market demand. However, I think somewhere along the process of educating the public why New Urbanism should be acceptable, the planners oversold the benefits and gave the impression that it was better than good suburbanism. I like many good new urbanism projects, and dislike many poor suburban projects, but I would take well-implemented suburbia over badly implemented New Urbanism any day. What's worrisome to me is that a lot of developments seem to get built with the superficial aesthetic of New Urbanism, and sometimes at the density of New Urbanism, without the function.

-Steve (who has a shelfload of books on New Urbanism at home)

Karen

11-12-2003, 03:05 PM

Is there really a "build it backwards" design guideline in place? And who's brilliant idea was this? Please enlighten me, I'm still on a learning curve!!! :D

Thanks to all for your information, and back and forth posts on this. Much appreciated...

Karen

johnb

11-12-2003, 03:08 PM

The problem here is as Don points out, costs are driven up.

In this case these regulations are created by folks who aren't going to pay the bill since they don't own the property. These theories seem a flimsy reason to justify ordering the owner of the harrison/maynard strip mall to build the way they did. Driving construction costs up drives up grocery costs. That is no mystery, it is a direct cause-effect relationship. Is that goofy looking strip mall with the "pedestrian friendly" features no one will ever use worth the higher costs passed on to consumers?

If so, perhaps the people fiddling with these theories/regulations should pay them themselves and spare the rest of the costs of humoring their fads.

SteveG

11-12-2003, 03:35 PM

Driving construction costs up drives up grocery costs. That is no mystery, it is a direct cause-effect relationship. Is that goofy looking strip mall with the "pedestrian friendly" features no one will ever use worth the higher costs passed on to consumers?

If so, perhaps the people fiddling with these theories/regulations should pay them themselves and spare the rest of the costs of humoring their fads.

In my opinion, making a commercial destination perform reasonably well for pedestrians doesn't add significantly to the cost. Making it LOOK pedestrian-oriented, however, may add to the cost and complexity. I think this is where things got carried away, especially where the land use patterns increase distances beyond what most people are willing to walk.

Steve

Cathy

11-12-2003, 03:54 PM

I found it interesting that a lot of Cary's regulations once prohibited New Urbanism and anything like it. It was against Cary ordinance to have residential and commercial nearby without putting a 100' buffer of trees between them. That made it difficult to develop communities with minimal walking distances between residences and a grocery, and impossible to build residential over non-residential.

Cary had to make a lot of legal changes to allow easily walkable communities to be built, and in many cases it was the developers who wanted to build these things to meet market demand. However, I think somewhere along the process of educating the public why New Urbanism should be acceptable, the planners oversold the benefits and gave the impression that it was better than good suburbanism. I like many good new urbanism projects, and dislike many poor suburban projects, but I would take well-implemented suburbia over badly implemented New Urbanism any day. What's worrisome to me is that a lot of developments seem to get built with the superficial aesthetic of New Urbanism, and sometimes at the density of New Urbanism, without the function.
-Steve (who has a shelfload of books on New Urbanism at home)

I agree with your assessment of how New Urbanism has been translated at the grass roots level. This has been one of my arguments against Smart Growth's "package" being handed down from the Federal level. You can't force it, when you do the results are bad, and I think the New Urbanist have made a mistake by hitching their wagon to Smart Growth. Andres Duany seems to have come to that realization, and he is getting somewhat ostracized for it.

SteveG

11-12-2003, 04:11 PM

kellyc

11-12-2003, 04:56 PM

That's why I think the new commercial space should be about half of what is proposed and should explicitly state the pedestrian-friendly vision, if that is indeed the vision. As it now stands, it allows another strip mall, which could, I suppose, serve the surrounding neighborhoods...but it would probably result in more auto trips, not fewer. If the strip mall is allowed in the plan, then that is just what we might end up with, even if there is some alternative vision of a mini-arboretum.

No one I know would walk up to that intersection. As it is now it does not scream pedestrian. Very few people I know will walk to any shopping area because if they are going there, they are going there to buy something and arent goint to carry it home.

By the way this has certainly been an educational thread for me.

Kelly

SteveG

11-12-2003, 05:17 PM

No one I know would walk up to that intersection. As it is now it does not scream pedestrian. Very few people I know will walk to any shopping area because if they are going there, they are going there to buy something and arent goint to carry it home.
Kelly

Here's who I think the pedestrians at the Evans/Maynard/Chapel Hill Road junction will be in the future:

1. Recreational pedestrians. There was a substantial number of joggers passing through that area before the new sidewalks were built; now I see even more people walking for exercise and some pushing baby strollers. Kids who live off Evans are walking/skating to the skate park. These groups may stop by the future shopping center for food/drink and minor errands that do not require carrying anything.

2. Carless pedestrians. A significant number of apparently low-income or unlicensed pedestrians travel through that area, often headed downtown, I think. These pedestrians may be likely to stop at the shopping center.

3. Residents of new residential housing to be built at the site. The proposed plan includes proposed residential that will probably attract people who are interested in walking to the proximate commercial destinations.

The above groups are not enough volume to create a significant reduction in automobile trips, but they are important enough to go ahead and design the streets and development to be reasonably safe and comfortable for pedestrians, in my opinion.

-Steve Goodridge (who notes that the intersection of Chapel Hill Road and Harrison attracts substantial pedestrian volumes even though it lacks sidewalks on most of the streets from which the pedestrians come. I suspect that the lack of sidewalks there has more to do with the lack of political power of those particular pedestrians than any effort of the town to save money...)

kellyc

11-12-2003, 05:24 PM

Intresting, I travel thru there way more than I want to really, and I rarely see anyone on the streets. I can see the park users using it. I can see if there was a dog park there, some kind of dog cafe doing well...maybe a vet clinic...but it's going to be mainly cars. Us Weston Pkwy folks are desperate for more food places where we can make it out, eat, and be back in an hour. I also feel that what ever happens there happens further down Maynard at the Reedy Creek Intersection.

Kelly

Cathy

11-12-2003, 05:26 PM

I think the New Urbanist have made a mistake by hitching their wagon to Smart Growth. Andres Duany seems to have come to that realization, and he is getting somewhat ostracized for it.

Where might I read more about Duany facing this situation?

Here is one link to Innovation Briefs. I attended the Conference where he spoke.
Cathy

http://www.innobriefs.com/editor/20030423smartgrowth.html
The "Smart Growth" Debate Continues
(Innovation Briefs, Vol. 14, No. 3, May/Jun 2003)

The debate about managing metropolitan growth shows no sign of subsiding.

Cathy

11-12-2003, 05:29 PM

No one I know would walk up to that intersection. As it is now it does not scream pedestrian. Very few people I know will walk to any shopping area because if they are going there, they are going there to buy something and arent goint to carry it home.

By the way this has certainly been an educational thread for me.

Kelly

This is exactly one of the points that Smart Growth chooses to ignore. They end up having to force people to do things they don't want to do.

Cathy

Don

11-12-2003, 05:31 PM

The above groups are not enough volume to create a significant reduction in automobile trips, but they are important enough to go ahead and design the streets and development to be reasonably safe and comfortable for pedestrians, in my opinion.

Agree 100%. My only "beef" is the hoops council makes businesses jump through regarding appearance. The added costs involved with building a "premier" facility, compounded with the extremely high commercial fees makes it darn near impossible for a small business to succeed. In the end, we sometimes end up with a real pretty vacant building.

In regards to the "Build Backwards" design standards, I would have hoped that the town would have learned from Waverly. If you hide the business, it will fail. Plain and simple. I don't care how pretty it is (Waverly does look nice) If I can't see it or know it's even there, I probably won't patronize it.

kellyc

11-12-2003, 05:32 PM

I dont think they will ever convince people to do that. Not in this area. Maybe if this was the coast...

Kelly

Brent

11-12-2003, 06:55 PM

Wow, I think this is the first post to go to 4 pages!

Steve, in principle I agree with your "pedestrian assessment", although I don't see a lot of kids/people "living off Evans Rd." walking in that area myself. I agree with Kelly that the intersection is largely pedestrian-unfriendly. And the place that they intend to put the Maynard fancy crosswalk is too far away from everything to be useful.

Cathy

11-12-2003, 07:42 PM

http://www.publicpurpose.com/t8-gbc.pdf

By Wendell Cox
Wendell Cox Consultancy
&
Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers (Paris)

Some of you might find this interesting and on subject.

Cathy

Cathy

11-12-2003, 07:48 PM

SteveG

11-13-2003, 10:07 AM

This is exactly one of the points that Smart Growth chooses to ignore. They end up having to force people to do things they don't want to do.
....
http://www.publicpurpose.com/t8-gbc.pdf
Cathy

A lot of people end up surprised when I tell them that I am not an advocate for walking and bicycling. I describe myself as an advocate for pedestrians and cyclists. I resent the way many transportation advocates who say they support pedestrians and cyclists have hijacked transportation policy and politics with an anti-car agenda; an anti-car agenda does not directly help pedestrians and cyclists, and in some cases hurts them more than anything else. For example, if one closes a street to turn it into a pedestrian mall, and the businesses go away, then the people who were walking for transportation have lost their destinations - their whole purpose for walking!

There have been several studies, including one from the University of Washington which is no longer online, that have shown that pedestrian-related design aspects like sidewalks, intersection layout, block sizes, medians, etc correlate with significant increases in pedestrian volumes at a given development density. The maximum realistic pedestrian volumes in suburbs don't create a major decrease in demand for automobile travel. However, the somewhat more pedestrian-friendly environments do tend to correlate with greater public satisfaction with their community street system and correlate with lower rates of pedestrian injury.

Yet these pedestrian-friendly aspects need not be anti-car at all. People who consider themselves advocates for pedestrians - including suburban pedestrians - can show how some aspects of pedestrian-friendly transportation planning can also be very motorist-friendly. The same is true for advocates for cyclists, especially those cyclists who operate according to vehicular rules and prefer that the road system be well-built and well-maintained. But the anti-car lobby opposes things that are good for motorists, and as a result sometimes end up at odds with those who wish to serve *all* travelers with a safer, more efficient, more pleasant street system.

I've been an advocate for pedestrians and cyclists all my life, but for a time the anti-car lobby had managed to confuse me about what I should be lobbying for. They told me I should lobby for less car use through a variety of infrastructure and societal changes. When I recognized that some of these things were not going to be helpful to pedestrians and cyclists, that others would be directly harmful, and that the rest were undesirable political baggage, I recognized that I needed to develop my own paradigm for pedestrian/cyclist advocacy. That paradigm I named "Universal Access."

-Steve Goodridge

Cathy

11-13-2003, 12:02 PM

[quote="SteveG
A lot of people end up surprised when I tell them that I am not an advocate for walking and bicycling. I describe myself as an advocate for pedestrians and cyclists. I resent the way many transportation advocates who say they support pedestrians and cyclists have hijacked transportation policy and politics with an anti-car agenda; an anti-car agenda does not directly help pedestrians and cyclists, and in some cases hurts them more than anything else. For example, if one closes a street to turn it into a pedestrian mall, and the businesses go away, then the people who were walking for transportation have lost their destinations - their whole purpose for walking!

There have been several studies, including one from the University of Washington which is no longer online, that have shown that pedestrian-related design aspects like sidewalks, intersection layout, block sizes, medians, etc correlate with significant increases in pedestrian volumes at a given development density. The maximum realistic pedestrian volumes in suburbs don't create a major decrease in demand for automobile travel. However, the somewhat more pedestrian-friendly environments do tend to correlate with greater public satisfaction with their community street system and correlate with lower rates of pedestrian injury.

Yet these pedestrian-friendly aspects need not be anti-car at all. People who consider themselves advocates for pedestrians - including suburban pedestrians - can show how some aspects of pedestrian-friendly transportation planning can also be very motorist-friendly. The same is true for advocates for cyclists, especially those cyclists who operate according to vehicular rules and prefer that the road system be well-built and well-maintained. But the anti-car lobby opposes things that are good for motorists, and as a result sometimes end up at odds with those who wish to serve *all* travelers with a safer, more efficient, more pleasant street system.

I've been an advocate for pedestrians and cyclists all my life, but for a time the anti-car lobby had managed to confuse me about what I should be lobbying for. They told me I should lobby for less car use through a variety of infrastructure and societal changes. When I recognized that some of these things were not going to be helpful to pedestrians and cyclists, that others would be directly harmful, and that the rest were undesirable political baggage, I recognized that I needed to develop my own paradigm for pedestrian/cyclist advocacy. That paradigm I named "Universal Access."

-Steve Goodridge[/quote]

How does Brent put it..... "eminently reasonable"
and I so much agree.
(Politicians take note: There are people out there who see through the junk.)

Cathy