One-size-fits-all

We have all heard the criticism for the old zoning code in Denver that it was “one-size-fits-all” approach. Particularly negative review received residential zone R2 that allowed single and two-family dwellings as well as row houses. The new code promised a diverse approach, one that will consider all the nuances and unique qualities of different parts of town and specially focus on the diversity in urban neighborhoods. That was an ambitious plan requiring an extensive study of existing inventory and lots of intricate planning to accommodate the variety of forms and patterns.

Today, as I look at the Fourth and Final draft of the zoning code I can’t help but be disappointed. The majority of urban neighborhoods are light yellow indicating a SU (Single Unit) zone designation. It seems like we have a new size to fit all our needs again. The first and obvious problem here is that we have missed the opportunity to recognize formal diversity of our urban heritage. The even bigger problem is that the new size is smaller than the old one.

Our population is growing and so is the City of Denver. The new smaller size will not fit (accommodate) all. As a matter of fact the new zoning will allow for very little growth in already established urban neighborhoods. The consequences can be pretty nasty. We will see excess spilling over the edges. In the fashion world we lovingly call it “love handles”. In the city planning jargon the name is “urban sprawl”.

So after five years and millions of dollars that Denver spent to develop this new code, if we have to (again) settle for one size to fit all, can we at least allow for some room to grow?

Historic Preservation and Urban Density

Things got confused very early on. Somebody said: Those multi-family developments destroy character of historic neighborhoods. Developers scrape old homes to erect duplexes. We need to stop multiplex developments to preserve urban communities. Somebody said: Density is the enemy of our lifestyle. And others nodded in agreement.

Things got confused because what we are discussing here are two separate issues: historic preservation and density. Historic preservation makes a distinction between structures that are historically significant and need to be preserved and the ones that have outlived their utilitarian lifespan and should be replaced with new buildings. Density adds value to the urban lifestyle by creating walkable communities supported by public transportation.

The two issues are separate but not mutually exclusive. We need both historic preservation and density to ensure health of our neighborhoods. Limiting density will not protect historic homes. We can’t treat a headache by putting both legs in a cast.

Social Aspect of City Planning

This is the edited version of an earlier post.

I will start on a personal note. I was born and grew up in Krakow, Poland. This historic city in central Europe shaped my understanding of what a city is and how it works. During my high school and collage years my daily routine consisted of 30 minute bus and light rail trip to the downtown. Waiting at the local bus stop was an opportunity to chat with the neighbors about the latest score of the town’s soccer team. There was always a group of friends on a light rail ready to discuss homework problems and share the gossip. Public transportation was so common and available I never learned how to drive, but instead I have always felt like a part of the community I lived in. After school, on a nice day, I would stroll through the city’s main square. There never was an instance that I did not run into an old friend or acquaintance.

When I first moved to the US I first lived in Knoxville, TN for a while. Inadequate city planning allowed that town to stretch along I-40 in a completely uncontrolled manner. The city’s downtown (located on the East end of the stretch) was neglected and forgotten while all development rushed to the West (hoping one day to reach Nashville?). The lack of a street grid forced all traffic onto the highway turning my 5 mile daily commute into a 45 minutes nightmare. Forced into a car, stuck in traffic I missed human interaction and grew frustrated.

After Knoxville Denver was like a breath of fresh air. The city has all the “good bones” of a perfect place to live. Well defined, vibrant downtown surrounded by beautiful historic residential neighborhoods, grid of streets and arterial transportation. With the right city planning and development of public transportation Denver has a potential to surpass San Francisco, Portland and Boston in terms of quality of life.

It is important to note that a city is more than just a collection of streets and buildings. Just like Jane Jacobs says, in “Death and Life of Great American Cities”, cities are compilation of social experiences. As human beings there is nothing more interesting to us than watching other human beings. And when the times are rough we long for closeness and interaction with family members, friends and neighbors.

The economy of the last few years has forced us to refocus our lifestyle. More and more people talk about going back to basics and recognize family and social values. The wave of foreclosures redefined housing market. Home buyers are asking for quality, efficiency and simplicity, not the square footage. Kitchen tables re-gained their popularity as people stay in and cook more. Neighborhood schools are important centers of community life. And everybody is tired of highway traffic.

City planning is a powerful tool in the hands of politicians. It can shape a city by shifting development opportunities from one end to the other like a kid playing in the sand with a shovel. It can also promote or discourage human interaction. It can allow us to walk to a corner store and mingle on a light rail or force us into our cars for hours at a time. During these times of “CHANGE” and shift in social priorities we came to a point when we should stop designing our cities for the cars and focus on people instead.

Problem with Cars

The problem with cars is that we need them.

We need them to go to work, go to school, go to a store, visit a friend and hang out at the coffee shop. The cars allow us to get where we need to go. They give us freedom to move about. Or do they? Have you ever been stuck in traffic?

Traffic jam on a highway. Miserable. Cars bumper to bumper crawling at 5 MPH. We need to widen the highway! More room for the cars! Five years and millions of dollars later two more lanes have been added. And… traffic jam, bumper to bumper. Can a highway ever get wide enough? How many lanes would it take to eliminate traffic congestion?

Not enough parking in the downtown. We need to create more parking! Let’s tear down some buildings to make room for the cars! How many buildings do we need to tear down to accommodate all the parking that we need?

A concerned citizen is asking questions in the North Denver Tribune. “How is density going to contribute to increased quality of life? Don’t we already have too many cars on the narrow streets in our neighborhoods?” Let’s limit the density in urban areas! People can live somewhere else and… drive to work. How is sprawl going to contribute to our problem with cars?

Widening the streets, creating more parking and limiting density only treats the symptoms of the problem and, in the long run, contributes to its exacerbation.

The problem with cars is that we need them.

What if we eliminated the need? Providing people with alternate options? Convenient, accessible public transportation can drastically reduce the need for driving. We should treat the cause, not the symptoms of the problem.

Density contributes to increased ridership of public transportation. In dense comminutes more people chose to hop on a bus rather than deal with the traffic and fight for parking. In turn, seeing increased ridership, city dedicates more buses and creates more routes to support the trend. Gradually cars get demoted to the weekend use only.

No more need for cars. No more problems with cars.