Approching Urban Development - Two Views

When I posted Living Like New York City in Cow Country - Bring on the Trains and Delis, which argued that when confronted with the basic choice of sprawl versus density, we should choose density, Rich posted a comment which appears below.

It covers a range of issues from bottled water to urban design, none of which dissuade me from the central point  - the Edgewater Hotel proposal makes sense. 

What I find troublesome about his arguments are these:

• He does not recognize the dilemma of locating the core of a city on an isthmus, which was handled by planners remarkably well -- Madison is one of the few large American cities  that does not have an expressway or freeway running through the core. Demands on streets like Williamson, Johnson-Gorham, Monroe and Regent are challenging but Madison does not have a massive concrete ten lane divide.
• A lack of recognition as to the 'greeness' of Madison. Since the days of the Park and Pleasure Drive a century ago, Madison leaders thought of open accessible green space, and the city now has over 6000 acres of parkland, much of it in conservancy.
• If there was a failure in planning Madison, it was the lack of public access to the lakes. If memory serves me correctly, excluding the University of Wisconsin and Mendota State, less than 7% of Lake Mendota is open to the public. Despite this lack of foresight, efforts were made to provide greater access to the lakes through the expansion of James Madison Park, the requirements that new developments provide public lake shore easements, and the redesign of street ends at the lakes. Those efforts continue today.
• I do not know what his problem is with Madison's tree policy, but over the decades the city was demanding in terms of populating the 'urban forest.'  Madison aggressively replaced diseased elms in the 1960's and 1970's. The parking lot ordinance and the requirements for new developments is one of the most stringent in the country in terms of requiring new trees.

There are valid questions of design for the new Edgewater project. Those will be raised and addressed in a public process that will probably run over six months. 

There are two approaches to this project. Make it happen in the best way possible or kill it. That is the point.

As a community we must decide how we respond to new development. Either we welcome it with the attitude of making it the best design possible, or we summarily reject it, clouded in the notion that our own aesthetics and standards are culturally, politically, and morally superior.

Rich makes it clear where he stands on second homes, bottled water, and green design. He agrees cities are efficient (not the core point), but disagrees on how to welcome new urban development (the core point):

Up to a point.

I agree with the core point here: cities are efficient; they're efficiency tools. But the fiscal, carbon & energy measures are not enough to self-aggrandize in a green image that's only half the package. Without designing cities that people actually want to live in, density is meaningless. We need highly vegetated, ecologically sound cities with unique and interesting civic spaces woven into the classic mixed-use urban landscape Soglin cites. Because without those attractors, cities as conventionally conceived won't do the job --- and won't attract enough people. Cities will not become the kind of resource-rich environments capable of resolving our current slate of challenges.

Density is not enough: and Soglin's knee-jerk support for the bloodless, business-as-usual Edgewater Hotel redesign doesn't so much help cities & the environment, as it sets back both.

Shoreline sites such as the Edgewater on Lake Mendota or the UW-M's possible Lake Michigan siting of its water sciences facility are a huge opportunity to do world-class, cutting edge sustainable design.

Instead, nominally progressive and supposedly environmentally aware mayors, past and present, are setting us back decades, squandering the future, and settling for business-as-usual practices and second-rate outcomes.

Yes--real, functional cities are a requirement. But a 'green' that settles for dense and urban without ensuring a livable and highly vegetated city landscape is pointless, and self-defeating in a way that takes us right back to the kind of cities, circa 1940, that everybody ran away from.

Can New York City really term itself 'green'? By happenstance, yes, but not really by intention until very recently.

Walk down any street, and you see Chilean Sea Bass on the window menus of restaurant after restaurant. The self-advertisment as a 'green' city enables a level of self-satisfaction that precludes vast numbers of NYC residents from adopting green lifestyles. The bottled water problem is only visible -- consumption of tasty ortolans and the absentee ownership and exploitation of natural resources far removed from NYC is not only standard, it's admired. Why settle for an apartment in SoHo, when a second home in suburbia can double your ecological & carbon footprint.

NYC off-shores its waste & out-sources its environmental impact, whether its dumping garbage or strip-mining coal: Jeffrey Sachs, of all people, has been advocating for coal --- seems mountaintop removal and violations of the Clean Water Act in West Virginia are A-OK with that fine upstanding New Yorker, as long as he doesn't have to face the consequences of his profligate intellect.

Must be OK -- if you're a New Yorker.

Cities are efficient -- but you can walk the street in NYC and get a real load of the incredible waste occuring day-in & day-out.

Cities are efficient -- but they need a vast overhaul, and the antiquated thinking of Dave Ciezlewicz is being rapidly outpaced by visionary leaders around the country.

Cities are efficient, but that's no excuse for defaulting to business-as-usual.

That includes Madison's street reconstruction, tree policy, backwards shoreline zoning attitude, the privatization of public space at the Edgewater, and in particular the utter inability to move on greener architectural design.

Cities are great. Dense, compact, mixed-use urban environments are necessary --- but do not trump the obligation to build a more ecologically sound city that people actually want to live in.

If the new Edgewater's design precludes public access by an unmistakably unwelcoming design --- or if it has so few ecologically-sound features built into it --- it along with those projects coming after it will kill the 4 Lakes that laid Madison's golden eggs.

Live in the past and die soon; or catch up with the rest of the country in the quality of urban design & architectural quality, and thrive economically. An easy choice. But it really is just that simple.

Comments

[The Sconz]

Interesting, although Rich doesn't really explain a lot of his assertions. For instance, why are Mayor Dave's policies backward etc. But I have to agree with him on the issue of vegetation. That's one of my chief complaints about NYC – besides Central Park there aren't that many nice places to sit down. The city could use some smaller parks, little patches of green here and there where you can drink your coffee and get away from the crushing industrialism of Manhattan. When I was in France this past semester there were big discussions about "Paris in 2030," and there was a huge emphasis on greenery. Roof gardens, etc. You need some stuff to suck up that CO2.

As somebody who's spent quite a bit of time in the Big Apple, I must say it would be hard for a New Yorker who breathes that air everyday to believe that his city is the greenest in the country.

[Jon]

You know, none of this would be an issue if MATC hadn't built their Truax campus!

(sorry, just kidding, it's fine to throw matches into gas cans every once in a while....)

[rich]

Hi Paul,

While I think we have points of agreement, including on the points you "find troublesome, I dont' believe you've successfully captured or accurately characterized my position.

For example, though you assert that I "disagree on how to welcome new urban development (the core point)," that's not the case. I do agree that we need to welcome new, denser urban development. That should not imply that you, me or the city should fail to ask, urge or incentivize cutting edge development that integrates ecological design that keeps pace with state-of-the-art architecture and site design now prevalent around the country.

There's no reason that welcoming new urban development must include privatizing public spaces or capitulating on other aspects of the public interest. Right? Good design isn't limited to density for the sake of desnity; density does not justify caving to bad design that short-changes publicly owned space or public access.

In fact, I'd argue for MORE density on the site --- in exchange for specific design methods that optimize neighborhood continuity and ecological function.

I also agree that past administrations have had good success in building a greener Madison by the standards of those times. We salute those accomplishments.

I think my response, Paul, was clearly predicated on your argument that a real city --- NYC, with dense mixed-use, etc. --- justifies visiting status-quo, less-than-green, average architecture and site design on the city. Plopping a concrete block at the end of Wisconsin isn't going to enhance the civic realm, but blockade that path to the lake. Not terribly creative. Not particularly innovative or interesting, nor does it contribute especially much to the overall fabric of the urbanizing downtown.

It's fairly basic and at this stage inarguable that density alone is not sufficient to build a fully functional and attractive city.

Lots of good stuff has been done in the past, Paul. But it's long past time to amp up our game on this specific issue. Yes, that includes welcoming new development --- try not to put words in my mouth on that score --- but it also includes being open to more interesting, more ecologically sound design that adheres to a true urbanism --- and actually contributes to the civic sphere in a way that includes residents on the back end of the building. A 'grand staircase' that does not communicate / invite the presence of public space, does not in point of fact provide public access. It appropriates and privatizes public space. There are better ways of designing the site, and it shouldn't be an ordeal to figure that out. Nor can that very obvious insight be termed as somehow being 'unwelcoming' to new urban development. Raise your game.

[paul]

Rich, the Sconz made this observation about your first comment: "Interesting, although Rich doesn't really explain a lot of his assertions. For instance, why are Mayor Dave's policies backward..."

I reviewed all of your comments and I concur. There are waves of generalities. We can all agree on the need for more vegetation and less concrete. We can agree on the use of more natural building products and less plastic. We can agree that consturction like the state office buildings (GEF I, II, and III) or the demolished Ogg Hall are inhumane and frightfully imposing. But when you make vast generalization about "...long past time to amp up our game on this specific issue..." or "Madison's street reconstruction, tree policy, backwards shoreline zoning attitude, the privatization of public space at the Edgewater, and in particular the utter inability to move on greener architectural design" I find your comments very long on generalizations and short on specific concepts.

There is also one more reality: economics.

What is the tree policy and what improvements are needed? (

As I travel Madison every time I see a vacant expanse of terrace more than 20 feet long I ask myself, "How many trees do we need to plug that hole?"--there is cost to planting those trees -- the first year they need extensive attention and watering which is labor intensive -- a price by my standards that is very reasonable.)

what is the shoreline policy and what is the fix? (does it have anything to do with Lincoln School?)

What privatization of public space at the Edgewater shore? The space was always private until we obtained the easements in the 1970's. Is your argument that the design of the space makes it virtually private since the public has limited knowledge or ability to access it?

[rfel]

Paul,
It was a quick, general comment, and the subject was your post, not my specific proposals --- there was no intent to provide details. So for that reason your criticism is off-point. Madison’s accomplished much, that’s obvious; it’s also quite risk-averse, and could do much better.

Basically, you used the efficiencies of classic NYC urbanism to argue for a more welcoming approach to dense urban development. So when you say:

"Rich ... agrees cities are efficient (not the core point), but disagrees on how to welcome new urban development (the core point),"

you appear disappointed that I identified your attempt to use the former to leverage the latter. My point went to your core method and core point: it does not follow that the desirability of dense urbanism justifies or is an argument for approving any kind of development anywhere, nor for capitulating eagerly to projects that short-change the public interest. Simply moving towards major city goals doesn't have to be an ordeal.

This is not about aesthetics. It is certainly not about politically or morally superior standards. Aesthetically, the design of the Edgewater retrofit is not half bad, better than expected really; functionally, it might be less than I’d like. Contrary to your assumption, I wouldn’t reject it outright.

So Paul, when you write:

“There are two approaches to this project. Make it happen in the best way possible or kill it.”

--- you identify MY position. Make it happen the best way possible. Or, you could attack those seeking with a positive attitude to make it the best design possible, alienating potential supporters and placing blame on others as you go, lowering quality of outcome in the process and sparking resistance to boot. In going down that road, your approach kills projects. You write:

“As a community we must decide how we respond to new development. Either we welcome it . . . or we summarily reject it, clouded in the notion that our own aesthetics and standards are culturally, politically, and morally superior.”

Your view that skeptics or discussants would summarily reject a proposal is incorrect. No one is “clouded in the notion that our own aesthetics … are … [somehow] superior. Morality and culture have nothing to do with it. Rather, economically, ecologically, and in terms of pure urbanism, the science supports a more visionary, less conventional approach --- one that practices a more responsive politics.

____________

I don't yield to anyone in welcoming new development to Madison. We may differ in how to do that, but I find it tendentious that you'd attempt to assign me a position somehow less welcoming than the approach you seem to hold. I gladly welcome dense, urban development--far more so than anyone you know. Speaking as an urban planner, I don't believe we should be lagging national trends in green design. It's that simple. Yet in many respects, that's where we find ourselves. There's no question that Madison's gotten some things right, at a standard level.

Your cite of the work to stop the isthmus highway project is a case in point: good move, right decision. It made Madison, with SanFran, one of the few cities to escape evisceration by highway. But it was not so much of an environmental move as a common-sense, city-defending decision: the basic insanity of bulldozing neighborhoods & businesses for the sake of a highway presumably intended to serve that city just had to be opposed. The project made no sense in and of itself; doesn't matter whether it paved a city or filled a wetland. It wasn't an environmental feat, despite knowledge of the environmental impacts.

It was about what you were against, not what you were for. In that sense it was a no-brainer as a decision. And it was made 40 years ago.

Here's the thing: in reverting to the kind of classic dense urbanism we saw in New York and Chicago twenty years ago, we'll lose the attributes that make Madison great. No one here wants to live in that kind of standard city --- we want one that's better and greener, with functional lakes. Though I’ve greatly enjoyed my years in New York City, the place clearly has significant flaws --- and if that's all you're aiming for, folks'll just move out to Waunakee or Stoughton to avoid the obvious dead-end-result. Which would undercut your stated goal. You could -- rather than rejecting out-of-hand the innovative input that's offered by city residents more knowledgable and more visionary than yourself -- actually make an attempt to listen to what people have to say.

[rfel]

On tree policy, Paul wrote:

"As I travel Madison every time I see a vacant expanse of terrace more than 20 feet long I ask myself, 'How many trees do we need to plug that hole?'--there is cost to planting those trees."

Well, no kidding. And "as [you] travel Madison," I know that's exactly what you ask yourself.

Every $1 invested in street trees returns $7 to a city and to its residents, in the form of lower utility bills, lower stormwater demand, longer asphalt life, cleaner air/lower health care costs, etc., etc.

That's far better than Wall Street ever returned on investment, unless I spose you're a partner at Goldman Sachs this past quarter.

You are either unaware of the 7-to-1 return on investment in trees --- or are curiously willing to omit that fact. Yes, "there is cost to planting those trees," a cost that's far outweighed by the financial return.

The economics of trees [& water] seem lost on you. You also seem unware that across the city it's been a constant battle to maintain high standards rather than default to a 'cut-'em-because-we-lack-the-skill-or-imagination-to-do-anything-else' position. The latest poorly thought-out moves are MG$E's reversal to a 'wrong tree in the right place' policy, and the trees-be-damned approach to work on Spaight Street.

Of course we have a damn good devotion to trees. It's possible that complete streets and /or green streets could take that to the next level. Spaight Street would've been a prime opportunity to see what more could be done. If Madison's leaders and personalities don't know a good idea when they see it, let alone capitalize on it, there's something wrong.

[rfel]

Paul wrote:

"Madison is one of the few large American cities that does not have an expressway or freeway running through the core."

Citing the successful shutdown of the planned isthmus-route highway FORTY years ago is not exactly an effective argument that Madison's on the cutting edge of green urbanism today. Reaching back that far really underscores my point.

We made some good moves in 1920 and ~c. 1970, and in the ensuing years, and they laid the groundwork for us to take it to the next level today. In some cases, we're really not doing that at all.

Maybe the zoning code overhaul will resolve some of these points --- but we don't have reason to believe men of vision will recognize a good idea and run with it. That means Dave, of course.

And I'm a big fan of Brad Murphy and Mark Olinger. But Murphy is at best disingenuous when he objected to Dane County's proposed shoreline zoning codes. Murphy tried to define it as an aesthetic issue --- but knows full well it's a functional question that zoning handles best for all concerned.

Now, if repeating the mistake of Miami Beach may be the intent. Me, I wanted to see Curt Brink's East Wash proposal move forward.

[rfel]

Paul asserts a couple times that I "[f]ail to appreciate the difficulty of building a core city on a lake"; or that I "[do] not recognize the dilemma of locating the core of a city on an isthmus."

Not so, of course. I recognize the challenge, am as well-versed in how city leaders responded as anyone, and see the opportunities provided and the imperatives demanded by our location.

But Madison is not unique. It was simply sited in a window that allowed it to handle the pace of urbanization without paving, shoreline to shoreline, every square inch of every parcel.

Building a core city on a lake hardly makes Madison's challenges special. New York and Milwaukee were built on water-rich systems. New Orleans and Washington, DC, were built--like Madison--on wetlands. The Ho-Chunk built on bluffs overlooking wetland complexes around the state --- and every last Great Lakes city was built on an estuary or river-mouth, and where they weren't, they made one (Chicago).

Madison's lakes define our core city: without them, what's the city got, really? The city-lakes intersection isn't so much a 'difficulty' as it is one helluvan opportunity.

Paul seems to see building ordinary cities--the kind folks left in droves thirty years ago--as the answer to Madison's woes. That business-as-usual is good enough. I say we need a new model that combines ecologically-sound systems with classic urban density, adding in both traditional and improvised civic spaces to effectively marry the two.

[Irish Frog]

Interesting, the developers have targeted this blog as a place where they can get supporters to copy and paste comments in support of the edgewater.

http://www.madison.com/post/blogs/rath/461132