A Return To The Way Cities Used To Be Built.

I'm not prone to use this platform much to pontificate but I thought that I'd write a little about a general view that I've been forming. I sense that this perspective is the type that you begin to make fundamental to your outlook. This view is directly in regards to city planning. And its development has been slow. Very slow, in fact. But I've seen more and more evidence supporting this theory and I find myself viewing City business with these factors more and more. For that reason, I thought that I'd blog about it on here.

Smart growth. New urbanism. Modern planning. Call it what you'd like. The ideas are fundamentally the same - the construction of the urban environment. Even that phrase sounds trendy. But in reality the concept is a return to our roots. It's about building cities like they used to be built many decades ago. So let me describe events briefly for you.

Cities didn't use to have zoning regulations. Everyone used to just understand how to build a city. There was a main street where people would stroll and shops were built right to the sidewalk. Homes were built on the traditional street grid pattern. The lot sizes were small. The streets were fairly narrow.

After World War II, things changed dramatically. GIs returned accustomed to a military planning style. Automobiles became the prime consideration in city planning. Consequently, lot sizes were increased, roads were widened and the look and feel of our traditional cities changed dramatically.

Malls replaced our Downtown. The trend of wider streets and larger lots is still popular today. But it's interesting to note the early 80's trend of malls. I believe that malls provided us with the downtown that we wanted. Malls replaced the traditional downtown. They provided lots of stores with opportunities to stroll. As compared to our normal land use patterns, malls provide incredible density. If you were to consider the stores as lot sizes, the lots are also very, very small. Yet, this is what we enjoy. So even though our attraction with the automobile increased, our desire for traditional land use patterns did not waiver. Malls effectively sought to replace the traditional downtown but with a twist- large parking lots for our cars.

Now I don't believe that the automobile is evil. I use mine all the time and it's a great tool. However, I don't think that we should be afraid of some of these traditional land use patterns. So what I take from malls and historical downtowns is that small lot sizes are potentially good and density is appealing to people.

While I think that we might prefer the look and feel of traditional downtowns with small lot sizes, density and lots of walking, I don't think that we should necessarily mandate all of those things. We should just be working to encourage them for the benefit of our downtown. However, more and more I am realizing the importance of traditional land use patterns as a cost measure.

Traditional Land Use Patterns Cut Costs Let me just be clear here so that you understand what I mean by traditional land use patterns. I mean smaller lot sizes, higher density, smaller streets, traditional street grid pattern development (as opposed to cul-de-sacs). So let me take each of these and tell you why I think they're important.

1. Smaller lot sizes are critical for affordable housing. The cost of construction rises with supply and demand but in Sandpoint, the largest cost of any housing project is typically the land. By allowing smaller lot sizes such as we traditionally did, land costs are less and housing costs are less.

2. Density is important for affordability as well. For the past several decades we have built one building with one use per lot. Now as our land and construction costs have increased we need to be more efficient with how we use our land. This means placing multiple buildings with multiple uses on a lot. Ideally, these uses should even each other out. For example, by placing a house over a business you can share resources and minimize the impact of both uses. Businesses primarily operate from 9-5. During this time, a typical homeowner is away from their residence. However when a resident returns home, the business users are typically gone. It has been shown that sharing uses like this decreases crime and is a great benefit for the economy.

3. Smaller streets are a difficult issue. I think that the size of streets should be balanced with safety concerns. However, too often I believe that we build streets not for the majority of vehicles but to accommodate a minority of large vehicles. Smaller streets are more secure structurally and cost much less. In addition, smaller streets provide a sense of neighborhood to an area. Have you ever visited downtown Boise? There are two four-lane highways running through the downtown. Despite the City's best attempts, it doesn't have the look and feel of a downtown. Instead it feels like you're by the side of a freeway.

4. Traditional street grid pattern development is perhaps one of the most important things that we can do in a city. For the last several years, cul-de-sac neighborhoods have become popular. These are a terrible long-term decision for a couple of reasons:

Cul-de-sac neighborhoods increase traffic be decreasing connectivity. Have you ever wanted to avoid Pine cutting through a side street? This is connectivity. However, cul-de-sacs push all traffic to arterial routes thereby increasing traffic.

Cul-de-sac neighborhoods increase costs. It costs six times as much to snow plow a cul-de-sac than it does to plow a neighborhood. Six times!

Smart growth is cheaper. Finally this brings me to the most important and ultimately the most influential factor in my adoption of smart growth principles - it is cheaper. Not just slightly but dramatically.

As stated before, traditional street grid patterns cost less to maintain. But there is more to it than that. It is estimated in the City of Sandpoint that the City breaks even on sewer and water hookups when there are four units per acre. This means that for less than four units per acre, those units are actually subsidized by the other rate payers. It costs more to install and maintain half acre lots than the City will ever recover.

Secondly, density is cheaper. It costs almost twice as much to serve homes with sewer and water 5 - 10 miles away from the sewer and water plants than 1-4 miles away. So for a single family residence home on a one acre lot, the City is dramatically subsidizing that use. But sadly, that's not the use that we want to be subsidizing as a city. Those types of uses have a heavy reliance on automobiles which break down the roads more quickly. They have higher costs for public safety service with lower response times.

Conclusion. I don't believe that anyone should be prevented from living on a one acre lot in the country! I loved growing up in the country and I would consider raising my own kids there (if I ever have any). However, the fact is that for decades, we have been underestimating the costs of service for these uses. We consider these uses to be low-impact when in reality they are the most expensive and highest impact in terms of municipal costs.

It's time that we start correcting this imbalance. We should move to charge what the services cost for low-density developments. We should also find ways to encourage lower cost of service developments (i.e. high-density mixed use). These are going to keep our taxes lower. Finally, I will note that these are generally the areas that we naturally enjoy anyway. Take 6th Avenue for example. It has very small lot sizes on a traditional street grid pattern. Yet, it's one of my favorite neighborhoods in Sandpoint. I would also suggest South Sandpoint which actually has a surprising number of multi-family houses combined with traditional neighborhoods. These uses aren't inherently incompatible. They just need to be carefully implemented so that we encourage quality design and density that fits with a neighborhood.

November 2009 Council Mtg.

I was absent for the November 2009 Council meeting due to the fact that I was attending a conference in New Orleans, LA for the entire week. It is the first Council meeting that I have missed in approximately two years.

October 2009 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: Whether to approve payment for the tree booklet.

Rule 1: The Council must approve payments for all bills monthly.

Analysis 1: Each budget year, the Council approves a budget for each department. As part of the urban forestry budget, the Council approved last year more than $4,000 for urban forestry education.

Near the end of the fiscal year, the Tree Committee decided to create and order a tree booklet from the urban forestry educational line item. These tree booklets cost more than $4,000. Further, it appears that some members or family members of the Tree Committee were paid nominal amounts for their work on the booklet.

This is a terrible situation and I was initially angry. In a year when the Council worked extremely hard to pare down the budget, it is incomprehensible to me that the City would spend $4,000 on a tree booklet to be given away. Further the process was riddled with errors. Payments were made to members of the committee - something which should not have occurred. Secondly, delivery of the booklets was made on the last day of the fiscal year meaning that it must be paid for with the past fiscal year's funds.

My anger at this situation was squelched by the department head's response. It was handled quickly and appropriately in my opinion. Mistakes happen. On this matter, I am satisfied that sufficient controls are in place to prevent this situation from occurring again. For that reason, I voted to approve the bills without further discussion.