Comments for the good city

Comment on Come, let us rezone together by Richard Layman

Richard Layman — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:49:51 +0000

All the more reason for zoning. I can’t imagine that the newspaper columnist wants to read _Planning the Capitalist City_ but it discusses the property contradiction — that to maximize property values owners need predictable actions from others, and that without some regulation they won’t have it — and the democracy contradiction — that with regulation comes public involvement, and they don’t want too much of that either.

Check out Cleveland’s Business Revitalization Overlay zoning category. It allows for an additional level of design review in revitalizing areas, to ensure that design coincides with other objectives, and maximizes positive investment.

If Subway needs a parking lot and drive in and you want to create a different type of urban form then they just get zoned out — meaning no drive ins, no parking fronted places.

Let’s just say that in thriving traditional commercial districts in cities, you don’t find parking fronted buildings and drive throughs (for the most part).

Comment on Come, let us rezone together by blackwasp19

blackwasp19 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:14:16 +0000

The issue with Subway seemed to be much more about the drive-through than the sub-urban vs. urban design. I don’t understand why the city couldn’t accommodate and even possibly offer a grant - perhaps of a lesser amount - for Subway to move its building up against the road, thus putting the parking lot in the back.

I have seen several restaurants that have and Urban design, but that have also integrated a drive through that is on the side of the building.

On another note, I haven’t seen many Subways with a drive-through. I know they exists, but my assumption is that Subway would gets most of its customers from those that actually go in the store (mainly so they can choose what they want on their sub). I was surprised by the fact that Subway turned down the other location and grant.

This seems to be a condition of the city not being walkable at the time Subway took on this endeavor. If the city/downtown was walkable they could easily argue that Subway would get plenty of business from walking traffic, which would have eliminated Subways desire for a drive-through.

I am somewhat confused though. Correct me if I am wrong, but this Subway is supposedly close to Harrison Square. Wouldn’t there be a mass of walkers in that area? I would think that making itself welcoming to walkers would be more in the best interest of Subway.

Comment on Come, let us rezone together by MichaelK

MichaelK — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:43:28 +0000

From the way he puts it in the column, it sounds like Subway gave up a grant by having parking at all. I thought it was the difference between having the parking out front or in back?

I might be confusing this with something else I read, however.

Comment on Today’s rant: Abandon downtown! by $55 million Maplecrest extension approved « the good city

$55 million Maplecrest extension approved « the good city — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:35:26 +0000

[...] honestly want to hear John Kalb’s view on this project: Less than a week after a majority of members expressed serious doubts [...]

Comment on The stubborn neighbor by Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:31:34 +0000

That reminds me of an old Bugs Bunny cartoon when Bugs won’t move from his hole and they have to build the freeway around it.

Comment on Better bike signs by PJ

PJ — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:41:49 +0000

I ride my bicycle to work every day and I would like to thank all of the people who commute to suburbia via Crescent who do look out for me and do give me 2-3 feet.
This whole argument is a difficult one because a year ago there weren’t many of us on bikes. This is something new for a lot of people in automobiles. They are seeing people on Bicycles, riding in the street as if they are a vehicle (which we are) and they are not used to “Sharing the Road”. With time I know that it will improve and hopefully the City will do the things necessary to help with that.

Comment on ‘Is America’s suburban dream collapsing into a nightmare?’ by blackwasp19

blackwasp19 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:49:57 +0000

Thanks for the article.

The most interesting thing was reading the comments that people made. They were all over the spectrum and several on the negative.

I do worry that people here “Urban” and the only think of downtown, or they think of this “super-urban” condo/small apartment Manhattanesque area. People often only think of apartments over retail when they here mixed-use.

With urban design being presented that way of course there are many who are weary. That super high dense environment is great for some (especially young adults and DINKS), but when people have children many what their own home.

What urbanists really need to be pushing is a “traditional neighborhood” design, with corner stores within a walkable distance and/or attached rowhomes that offer something more like a house (Throwing some apartments in there both over stores and freestanding would be an added bonus).

Downtowns are great, but there is only a small segment of people who are going to want to make downtown their home, we have to have more relevant and intelligent urban alternative to suburban sprawl.

Comment on Better bike signs by MichaelK

MichaelK — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:30:52 +0000

Well, Mary, you wait until it is safe to pass. Just like you would wait to pass any other traffic safely.

Yes, some cyclists aren’t perfect drivers either; just like many people driving cars and trucks aren’t. Obviously we haven’t set perfect compliance with the laws as a prerequisite for people driving, doing so for cyclists is a red-herring argument.

(As is the mention of wearing a helmet - it’s not required by law - and not all of us believe the magic piece of styrofoam is going to help.)

Comment on Better bike signs by Mary S.

Mary S. — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:01:47 +0000

So, someone tell me how to share the road safely or allow even 2 feet when the cyclist is on a busy road where I cannot go into the other lane to get by him.

Some enforced rules for the cyclists would be nice, too. Many run red lights, drive erratically, don’t wear helmets, etc. How about some responsibility on their parts, too?

Mary S.

Comment on Better bike signs by MichaelK

MichaelK — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:13:54 +0000

Ah, I thought I remembered there being debate somewhere, it was last year I saw this:

http://bikeportland.org/2007/01/30/safe-passing-law-debate-begins/

then

http://bikeportland.org/2007/06/14/house-passes-safe-passing-legislation/

Which ditched the 3-foot specification.