Sunday, November 6, 2011
TIF redevelopment projects
An interesting little article on one city's experience with Tax Increment Financing (TIFs)(Madison, Wisconsin) http://bit.ly/vM8NDo (Sourced from: Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space Blog http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/)
Dublin’s failed Design Capital Bid - The Pivot.
So Dublin failed in its bid to be called World Design Capital 2014. Its a shame for those people who put a lot of hard work into the proposal (and the long list of the great and the good who endorsed the effort), and as with any tender submission its pretty hard to take when you don’t come up trumps. Its also a normal human reaction to say to yourself that you put the best bid together possible, and you’re proud of what you achieved. And this reaction is evident post the failure of the Pivot (www.pivotdublin.com). They say "PIVOT Dublin intends forging ahead with its plans to implement its strategy".
However, now is the time to ask some hard questions about the Pivot bid (this was not done by the Irish Times or any other media).
Clearly what Dubliners should now be asking is: Did we do the right thing? How much was spent on this World Design Capital bid? (was it too much or too little) Did we spend the money in the best way we could? Were the right people involved? Should it be Council led or designer led?
When you think of cities and design, there is always a strong association with traditions, and skill sets. Milanese fashion, Turin cars, Copenhagen furnishings, Glasgow Macintosh, Birmingham motor engineering, Paris... everything. In Dublin are we any the wiser?
For me the Pivot was unbalanced by too much emphasis on architecture and development, too much talk of the future and visions, and not enough digging for the design culture in the city as it is experienced now. Contemporary design is always a reflection of what the city is and where it has come from and who is there. A design culture is the sum of a multitude of art, craft and creativity (which I believe the Pivot recognises). Its also about a sense of pride and care in the city and what it stands for. Its also about wider society, and the design that it uses and appreciates every day.
Its a similar scenario to Dublin’s recent bid for the Georgian core to be designated a World Heritage Site? Who held up their hand and said this is why we failed and this is why we got it wrong and why our proposal never stood a chance with UNESCO. Did anyone even point a finger?? Why not! Its very important.
Dublin should be a design capital; the talent is here and it is a wonderful city (present tense). But if we got it wrong once.......
However, now is the time to ask some hard questions about the Pivot bid (this was not done by the Irish Times or any other media).
Clearly what Dubliners should now be asking is: Did we do the right thing? How much was spent on this World Design Capital bid? (was it too much or too little) Did we spend the money in the best way we could? Were the right people involved? Should it be Council led or designer led?
When you think of cities and design, there is always a strong association with traditions, and skill sets. Milanese fashion, Turin cars, Copenhagen furnishings, Glasgow Macintosh, Birmingham motor engineering, Paris... everything. In Dublin are we any the wiser?
For me the Pivot was unbalanced by too much emphasis on architecture and development, too much talk of the future and visions, and not enough digging for the design culture in the city as it is experienced now. Contemporary design is always a reflection of what the city is and where it has come from and who is there. A design culture is the sum of a multitude of art, craft and creativity (which I believe the Pivot recognises). Its also about a sense of pride and care in the city and what it stands for. Its also about wider society, and the design that it uses and appreciates every day.
Its a similar scenario to Dublin’s recent bid for the Georgian core to be designated a World Heritage Site? Who held up their hand and said this is why we failed and this is why we got it wrong and why our proposal never stood a chance with UNESCO. Did anyone even point a finger?? Why not! Its very important.
Dublin should be a design capital; the talent is here and it is a wonderful city (present tense). But if we got it wrong once.......
First Impressions: Dublin
Came home last night to Dublin through the Airport. First Impression on the walk to passport check? The modern and efficient Pier D, the Impressive Terminal 2? Nope, it was a long series of Vodafone adverts.. showing people with placards welcoming home their friends and siblings with various 'hilarious' jibes about their holiday sexcapades. So this is how we welcome and encourage business- how was the holiday shag? Are there any serious people in Dublin Tourism, Failte Ireland, IDA or Enterprise Ireland who spend millions on investment in this country managing the message? This is not a question of morality, prudishness or sense of humour - its a question of 'is this a serious city or not'?
Sunday, October 16, 2011
An Ode to the City
Design and Cities symposium to celebrate award of RIAI Hon Membership to Pasqual Maragall
Congratulations to the RIAI for putting together a very interesting seminar with stimulating speakers, and a stellar performance from Colm Toibin, in his tribute to Barcelona and Pascal Maragall in his Ode to the City. A writer and orator of Colm Toibin’s talent provided an eloquence and passion to the topic of urbanism I haven’t come across since reading Jane Jacobs.
However, this seminar certainly didn’t go to plan. The Dublin City Council executives turned up to bask in Barcelona’s reflected glory, and instead got a right pasting.
Its incredible how paradigms change. 10 years ago, such an assembly of Ireland’s senior architects –would have been dominated by talk of critical mass, iconic architecture, building height studies, the parts of the city that could accommodate towers, contemporary architecture and zeitgeist. Through all presentations, the word ‘architecture’ was mentioned once. We heard no talk of buildings, but of politics, citizenship, trust in people (not architects). Was this the twilight zone?
David Mackay (MBM Arquitectes) told a story of a bus trip through urban Barcelona, and the children who lived in the city. Fine, but for someone who built his reputation on Barcelona, he certainly wasn’t letting any secrets out of the bag. Or has he forgotten how it was all accomplished? He talked about the need to bring identity to the suburbs. Streets that bring you to, and through places... and the importance of politics. He didn’t talk about his architecture, a design or a plan. The man talks good urbanism, but he is also responsible for designing of one of Dublin’s worst buildings, which I consider an insult to the city, right beside Dublin Castle and City Hall. It was interesting how little he had to say.
Andrew Montague, Lord Mayor of Dublin (Labour Councillor) was a revelation. An intelligent & articulate local politician and proud Dubliner. He is the person behind Dublin’s Bike scheme, and with huge success after 2 years, and only 2 bikes damaged (and returned) in that whole time, It was great to hear a hint of vindication in his assertion that Dubliners can be trusted. He made me think how Scousers will bore you to death with their love of Liverpool, something missing with the Dubs.
He set in train a big argument that we need a Mayor for the Dublin Region. He has 1 year compared to the 15 Pasqual Maragall had to work with in Barcelona. He said he has no mandate for change or vision. The Council is therefore very localised. He highlighted we need a thriving city centre. Local Authorities on edge of the city pursuing rates and sucking the lifeblood out of the city (ie. Dundrum) What counts are Small initiatives – trusting people. Urban Markets – like those in the heart of Barcelona are lacking (like English Market, Cork). And quote of the afternoon; “If I wasn’t wearing this chain, nobody would recognise me”.
Manuel Diez Garrido highlighted his experience of as a Spaniard who had lived and in Barcelona, and now as an adopted Dubliner. He talked about the “pulse” of the city. A theme well embellished by 5pm. Barcelona has a tangible and instant pulse and Dublin does not. This is because of the poor quality of the urban area. But in Dublin, the pulse seeps through by the character of the city and its people.
H e was critical of Development Plan process – statements and intentions that don’t mean anything. The Council worked to serve departments rather than projects. Politicians were protecting people from their own council. The need to make the city attractive, and get people & families living there was paramount. He wondered what Dublin City did with budget of €800m clearly to the City Managers (later) bristling resentment.
Ali Grehan, Dublin City Architect is her own person and architect; a refreshing change from her predecessor. She has taken on the challenge of making Dublin a World design capital, with a challenge to translate our incredible cultural heritage and talent into physical pride. She talked about design translated to the making of beautiful things, and crafts being part of that. This is a revolution for the city! She highlighted the new Irish have made the city and the old Irish have fossilised view of the city is. She supported the straight talking Spaniard.
Dick Gleeson, City Planner said that Instead of complaining about the rain we should be designing for it. He highlighted that Barcelona has 16,000 people per sq.km.; a different world from Dublin. He spoke about Collaborative urbanism and faith in people. A serious paradigm shift, but lets take him on his word and embrace the positive message.
Colm Toibin left everyone open mouthed in admiration, and RIAI president Paul Keogh summed it up with “wow”. He told a tale in Catalan initially how the major’s poet grandfather had handed down an “Ode to the city” to the future major. It was about how post-fascist Barcelona had through open arms, embrace modernity. Through political skill and ingenuity, the Secular, Modern & articulate had risen, and Cataluyna had pride in its capital city. This was a central part of Catalan heritage. Pascal Maragall was Planner + Politician, Visionary + Pragmatist. Tobin cited that “How we live in the city is how we live”. Patriotism is open, not about blood or country, but supported equality. Tobin brought out the impact of the personality of Maragall, the moustache and the gravely voice. The clarity. “You hate the sea” he told the city; and they did something about it. They facilitated the idea of shared space.
Tobin squarely placed our urban failures on Fianna Fail’s shoulders, with little faith that this government would be different. For change to happen, he said the City must be socialist;- Politics first based on Citizenship. Socialist is not a word used often in Ireland.
Pasqual Maragall smiled and enjoyed the occasion, said little other than such transformative years can kill you, and probably would have done if not for his wife.
Looking around the audience I wondered are there any architects under 40 left? Most were over 50. Is this where the new thinking is to come from?
Congratulations to the RIAI for putting together a very interesting seminar with stimulating speakers, and a stellar performance from Colm Toibin, in his tribute to Barcelona and Pascal Maragall in his Ode to the City. A writer and orator of Colm Toibin’s talent provided an eloquence and passion to the topic of urbanism I haven’t come across since reading Jane Jacobs.
However, this seminar certainly didn’t go to plan. The Dublin City Council executives turned up to bask in Barcelona’s reflected glory, and instead got a right pasting.
Its incredible how paradigms change. 10 years ago, such an assembly of Ireland’s senior architects –would have been dominated by talk of critical mass, iconic architecture, building height studies, the parts of the city that could accommodate towers, contemporary architecture and zeitgeist. Through all presentations, the word ‘architecture’ was mentioned once. We heard no talk of buildings, but of politics, citizenship, trust in people (not architects). Was this the twilight zone?
David Mackay (MBM Arquitectes) told a story of a bus trip through urban Barcelona, and the children who lived in the city. Fine, but for someone who built his reputation on Barcelona, he certainly wasn’t letting any secrets out of the bag. Or has he forgotten how it was all accomplished? He talked about the need to bring identity to the suburbs. Streets that bring you to, and through places... and the importance of politics. He didn’t talk about his architecture, a design or a plan. The man talks good urbanism, but he is also responsible for designing of one of Dublin’s worst buildings, which I consider an insult to the city, right beside Dublin Castle and City Hall. It was interesting how little he had to say.
Andrew Montague, Lord Mayor of Dublin (Labour Councillor) was a revelation. An intelligent & articulate local politician and proud Dubliner. He is the person behind Dublin’s Bike scheme, and with huge success after 2 years, and only 2 bikes damaged (and returned) in that whole time, It was great to hear a hint of vindication in his assertion that Dubliners can be trusted. He made me think how Scousers will bore you to death with their love of Liverpool, something missing with the Dubs.
He set in train a big argument that we need a Mayor for the Dublin Region. He has 1 year compared to the 15 Pasqual Maragall had to work with in Barcelona. He said he has no mandate for change or vision. The Council is therefore very localised. He highlighted we need a thriving city centre. Local Authorities on edge of the city pursuing rates and sucking the lifeblood out of the city (ie. Dundrum) What counts are Small initiatives – trusting people. Urban Markets – like those in the heart of Barcelona are lacking (like English Market, Cork). And quote of the afternoon; “If I wasn’t wearing this chain, nobody would recognise me”.
Manuel Diez Garrido highlighted his experience of as a Spaniard who had lived and in Barcelona, and now as an adopted Dubliner. He talked about the “pulse” of the city. A theme well embellished by 5pm. Barcelona has a tangible and instant pulse and Dublin does not. This is because of the poor quality of the urban area. But in Dublin, the pulse seeps through by the character of the city and its people.
H e was critical of Development Plan process – statements and intentions that don’t mean anything. The Council worked to serve departments rather than projects. Politicians were protecting people from their own council. The need to make the city attractive, and get people & families living there was paramount. He wondered what Dublin City did with budget of €800m clearly to the City Managers (later) bristling resentment.
Ali Grehan, Dublin City Architect is her own person and architect; a refreshing change from her predecessor. She has taken on the challenge of making Dublin a World design capital, with a challenge to translate our incredible cultural heritage and talent into physical pride. She talked about design translated to the making of beautiful things, and crafts being part of that. This is a revolution for the city! She highlighted the new Irish have made the city and the old Irish have fossilised view of the city is. She supported the straight talking Spaniard.
Dick Gleeson, City Planner said that Instead of complaining about the rain we should be designing for it. He highlighted that Barcelona has 16,000 people per sq.km.; a different world from Dublin. He spoke about Collaborative urbanism and faith in people. A serious paradigm shift, but lets take him on his word and embrace the positive message.
Colm Toibin left everyone open mouthed in admiration, and RIAI president Paul Keogh summed it up with “wow”. He told a tale in Catalan initially how the major’s poet grandfather had handed down an “Ode to the city” to the future major. It was about how post-fascist Barcelona had through open arms, embrace modernity. Through political skill and ingenuity, the Secular, Modern & articulate had risen, and Cataluyna had pride in its capital city. This was a central part of Catalan heritage. Pascal Maragall was Planner + Politician, Visionary + Pragmatist. Tobin cited that “How we live in the city is how we live”. Patriotism is open, not about blood or country, but supported equality. Tobin brought out the impact of the personality of Maragall, the moustache and the gravely voice. The clarity. “You hate the sea” he told the city; and they did something about it. They facilitated the idea of shared space.
Tobin squarely placed our urban failures on Fianna Fail’s shoulders, with little faith that this government would be different. For change to happen, he said the City must be socialist;- Politics first based on Citizenship. Socialist is not a word used often in Ireland.
Pasqual Maragall smiled and enjoyed the occasion, said little other than such transformative years can kill you, and probably would have done if not for his wife.
Looking around the audience I wondered are there any architects under 40 left? Most were over 50. Is this where the new thinking is to come from?
Monday, September 26, 2011
So What Should Planing Do?
I remember as a undergrad in college, a grumpy lecturer responding to the question "are there any trick questions", with a caustic quip; "we'll keep asking the same questions until the students get the answers right".
I published these ideas on the ‘Life after Roundabouts’ Blog between 15th and 28th June 2010.
1. Deal with the present
-‘Now is the time to plan for the future’ (or words to such effect) is a well-worn motto of many a planning consultancy at the moment. How fortunate for these experts to have such foresight, and know what lies ahead! (credit to David Engwicht here) Planners (‘the profession’) can’t be blamed for looking toward the next economic upturn, because the previous period has been so kind. However, those halcyon days are gone, and we need fresh approaches to deal with the crisis.
-What development plan faces the challenges of the next 1 to 5 years, not the next 20? Development Plans are increasingly becoming monolithic documents, conceived in red tape, where any life support for innovation or creativity, is sucked out in the course of the arduous process of getting them adopted. So, what are we doing now ... about now? How do we encourage investment, innovation, improvements, autonomy + the economy.
-We have to stop pretending this can be put on the long-finger. We have to take responsibility for making things happen, and make the system work – not work the system.
2. Be proactive
Local Authorities and in particular County Managers need to set the tone for planning and development. We're not talking about the fancy introduction to the development plan; but the things they say and do - corporate strategies - and strategic messages that affect every action of the institution. Most thinking is about 20 years out of date, and when they do talk about sustainability or the latest buzz – ‘smart planning’ , its linguistic delusion but little else. An organisation doesn't become 'smart' by giving a new label to the things it does and always has done. What County Manager has come out and said they want to have the most cycle lanes per person in the EU in their town, or that they want to dedicate their town centre to pedestrians, or that they won’t consider any new hypermarkets or business parks on the edge of town? Who is saying we must take the lead in reassembling the town? We need to raise the bar, be ahead of the curve, and lead!
3. Manage the town as a priority
Planning Authorities’ primary task is 'development management' or development control as it used to be called. However, this is only managing the changes that other people want to make. Town management should be the priority, and resources reallocated to this task. This is not necessarily making local plans or master plans but focuses on implementation and making things happen. If it is the vision of a local authority to make a town better (vitality, viability etc) then they have to do things to make it happen. Approaches include Town Centre Management Partnerships, Business Improvement Districts, Tax Incentive Financing, Local Development Vehicles etc, extraordinary temporal rate increases, or just shaking up budgets to redirect expenditure.
4. Stop using mono-use zoning
The first schedule of the 2000 Planning Act contains a host of regulatory instruments that can be used as objectives in a development plan. This includes layout of areas or structures, design, colour materials, floor areas, coverage, set-back and height. All the tools are there, but too many authorities don’t attempt to utilise them. Too often parking-space requirements and open space are used as controls. Plans should be used as opportunities design streets, perimeter blocks, and use design codes to guide the appearance of buildings. Great care needs to be given to the smallest detail, and zoning doesn’t fit the bill.
5. Make towns more attractive than suburbs/rural living
People must want to live in towns; unloved & dismantled by modernist planning, architecture and engineering. We’ve taken out the retail, housing and businesses, and flung them out to the suburbs in their own little pods. We’re a suburban nation, every bit as much as the US (Duany et al). We need to reassemble the town, and fundamental to that is to keep people living there, and re-populating the centres. For this to happen the centre has to be more attractive, and present better and wider opportunities than the suburban equivalent.
Sustainable urbanism must be at the heart of urban renewal, adaption and innovation. The historic fabric is an asset that denotes identity and character, just as established communities represent continuity and social fabric and local economies. During the tiger years continuity and respect for the fabric, was replaced with faith in the zeitgeist. The economics of development of individual plots can stand up again. The only situation where comprehensive redevelopment can be justified is when the public gain through new streets and parks can be achieved.
Local authorities need to undertake thorough reviews of their budgets to examine geographically where they are spending public money and who is benefiting. Look at most main-streets - is there a cent being spent? Quality housing + attractive residential streets, business districts (not parks) and retail streets = walkable towns + neighbourhoods = good towns = sustainable urbanism
6. Plant street trees
This is so important and fundamental to successful urban places, but it seems to have been forgotten about, or only ever addressed in expensive urban landscaping schemes or as part of road schemes (under Pt. 8 of Planning Regulations). Street trees are easy and cheap to achieve and can have a transformative effect on places. They are also much more beautiful than expensive steel street furniture. It should be an objective of every authority to have an ongoing programme of planting and replacing of trees. Street trees also serve the purpose of segregating traffic from pedestrian and parked cars, and no street is too wide if broken up by boulevard planting (see the wonderful Boulevard Book by Allan B. Jacobs et al).
7. Only set objectives in a plan that can be followed by direct action
The core objective of a plan should be clearly understood, and achievable through a set of direct actions or measures - it should not be a result of trickle-down effect.
If a planning authority has a core objective to improve a town centre, there are measures to achieve this i.e. town centre management, environmental improvements, increase population, promote business districts.. and then stopping things happening in suburbs in competition to this.
What has tended to happen, particularly in the tiger years, is that these improvements are expected to happen by osmosis. By this logic a new shopping centre on the edge of town, or even in the town centre, will improve everything else around it, simply because it is there. A new business park will be good for the town .... if because it brings people/business to the general vicinity of the town.. suburban populations will support the town centre. It hasn't turned out like that.
Its the same for tax incentive sites - the hope that the redevelopment of one site is going to solve all the other problems. This is great for a developer, as they can promise a town the earth to get an uber scheme through, but it also makes a place dependent on the something that may not be the right solution. So if a town is to be made a better place (and if anybody cares) by creating a new pocket park – well, make that the first priority to make it happen, not the last. Investment is a follower not an instigator... retail follows footfall... people want to go to nice places... nice places need to be created, realised, enhanced & cared for..
This was all highlighted in the paper yesterday again, concerning regeneration projects in Limerick. The fact that they want to demolish and rebuild a failed suburb, is hailed as being good for Limerick City. Its not! Limerick City centre is emptying at a rate of knots - the regeneration project is a hopeless waste of money for the city. If they are serious about doing anything for Limerick, they would bring the people back to the city - away from social, physical and economic segregation.
As highlighted in recent ECTP awards, the European Planning tradition is particularly good as setting key objectives as the vision for the plan - where everything else follows - i.e. addressing the river, building bridges, the sustainable town.. They don't do the business school vision statement, brought to Ireland by the UK consultants i.e. "this is a vibrant, safe, clean place that people love to spend their time drinking coffee outdoors in". One is a plan - the other is symptom!
8. Don’t plan to solve traffic congestion
Cities and towns have a certain amount of space, and we make choices as to who gets to use that space. Wider pavements means more space for pedestrians, street cafes/vendors. Buses want bus lanes, cyclists want cycle lanes, and people want to be able to drive their car from beside their bed to their destination (paraphrasing M. Garrido). Traffic congestion is a symptom of this competition for space, and trying to solve traffic is a one way ticket to nowhere-suburbs, designed by road engineers. So priorities have to be set for that ‘space’ between buildings (the ‘ways’ and ‘interways’ as Cerda called them). Its not something that can be solved by segregating or bypassing the town, because that deprives users other than the cars of the new ‘urban ways’. Rather, expand the network of streets, and reduce the blockages (L. Krier) so that everyone can benefit from the investment, and good streets can be created.
9. Manage the message
The towns that will succeed are the ones where businesses understand that they are collectively dependent on the place they make their living from. A business makes money because of the qualities of a town, and vice versa. Towns need to managed autonomously and collectively to sell and promote the place. Most traditional towns have inherent qualities, so it doesn’t need to be made up, but they do need to step up.
Managing the message means that you can't let a single retailer, business or a mall take ownership of marketing the town. It also means controlling the hyperbole/delusion. Its not enough to say great things about a place - without taking real steps or investments that make the statements reality. It happens too often that the stuff on websites and in corporate documents fall apart the minute you drive into town, or walk down its main street.
10. Make infrastructure happen.
This last entry on the list, goes under the sub-heading of 'blindingly obvious - Mr. Stupid'. I also thought of titling this entry 'Build Infrastructure'. But given I have a great wonder for how any building remains standing, I believe that planners are the last people to be entrusted with the actual building bit. However, moving from a position where we understand we need infrastructure (roads, water, public transport) to providing it, is the part planners do get involved in, and should be more proactive at.
Any local authority in Ireland is now strapped for cash and not in the building business. Developers can't get the cash from banks to develop. So are there any alternatives?
Utilities provide a reliable return on investment over time... because you can charge people for it over time, and get your money back with a predictable return on the investment. So what is to stop local authorities or communities progressing water treatment works etc that they can invest in, or perhaps raise bonds/shares and get on with the project?
Who would have thought 10 years ago that collecting bins could be huge business? Well, from the bills I got from 'Panda' you would guess barristers were emptying wheelie bins. Look at National Toll Roads. Communities and local authorities should be able to make money on infrastructure development - after it’s built (not before which is the basis of section 38 of Planning Act).
NAMA should be looking around the country for where they can maximise investment into locations that would collectively support new infrastructure. Particularly water supply, and waste water. Infrastructure of this nature, and the capacities available, ultimately dictate where investment should go. This investment needs to be aligned with planning strategies, so that infrastructure goes where it is needed, and the pipes follow the strategic plan and not the other way around.
I published these ideas on the ‘Life after Roundabouts’ Blog between 15th and 28th June 2010.
1. Deal with the present
-‘Now is the time to plan for the future’ (or words to such effect) is a well-worn motto of many a planning consultancy at the moment. How fortunate for these experts to have such foresight, and know what lies ahead! (credit to David Engwicht here) Planners (‘the profession’) can’t be blamed for looking toward the next economic upturn, because the previous period has been so kind. However, those halcyon days are gone, and we need fresh approaches to deal with the crisis.
-What development plan faces the challenges of the next 1 to 5 years, not the next 20? Development Plans are increasingly becoming monolithic documents, conceived in red tape, where any life support for innovation or creativity, is sucked out in the course of the arduous process of getting them adopted. So, what are we doing now ... about now? How do we encourage investment, innovation, improvements, autonomy + the economy.
-We have to stop pretending this can be put on the long-finger. We have to take responsibility for making things happen, and make the system work – not work the system.
2. Be proactive
Local Authorities and in particular County Managers need to set the tone for planning and development. We're not talking about the fancy introduction to the development plan; but the things they say and do - corporate strategies - and strategic messages that affect every action of the institution. Most thinking is about 20 years out of date, and when they do talk about sustainability or the latest buzz – ‘smart planning’ , its linguistic delusion but little else. An organisation doesn't become 'smart' by giving a new label to the things it does and always has done. What County Manager has come out and said they want to have the most cycle lanes per person in the EU in their town, or that they want to dedicate their town centre to pedestrians, or that they won’t consider any new hypermarkets or business parks on the edge of town? Who is saying we must take the lead in reassembling the town? We need to raise the bar, be ahead of the curve, and lead!
3. Manage the town as a priority
Planning Authorities’ primary task is 'development management' or development control as it used to be called. However, this is only managing the changes that other people want to make. Town management should be the priority, and resources reallocated to this task. This is not necessarily making local plans or master plans but focuses on implementation and making things happen. If it is the vision of a local authority to make a town better (vitality, viability etc) then they have to do things to make it happen. Approaches include Town Centre Management Partnerships, Business Improvement Districts, Tax Incentive Financing, Local Development Vehicles etc, extraordinary temporal rate increases, or just shaking up budgets to redirect expenditure.
4. Stop using mono-use zoning
The first schedule of the 2000 Planning Act contains a host of regulatory instruments that can be used as objectives in a development plan. This includes layout of areas or structures, design, colour materials, floor areas, coverage, set-back and height. All the tools are there, but too many authorities don’t attempt to utilise them. Too often parking-space requirements and open space are used as controls. Plans should be used as opportunities design streets, perimeter blocks, and use design codes to guide the appearance of buildings. Great care needs to be given to the smallest detail, and zoning doesn’t fit the bill.
5. Make towns more attractive than suburbs/rural living
People must want to live in towns; unloved & dismantled by modernist planning, architecture and engineering. We’ve taken out the retail, housing and businesses, and flung them out to the suburbs in their own little pods. We’re a suburban nation, every bit as much as the US (Duany et al). We need to reassemble the town, and fundamental to that is to keep people living there, and re-populating the centres. For this to happen the centre has to be more attractive, and present better and wider opportunities than the suburban equivalent.
Sustainable urbanism must be at the heart of urban renewal, adaption and innovation. The historic fabric is an asset that denotes identity and character, just as established communities represent continuity and social fabric and local economies. During the tiger years continuity and respect for the fabric, was replaced with faith in the zeitgeist. The economics of development of individual plots can stand up again. The only situation where comprehensive redevelopment can be justified is when the public gain through new streets and parks can be achieved.
Local authorities need to undertake thorough reviews of their budgets to examine geographically where they are spending public money and who is benefiting. Look at most main-streets - is there a cent being spent? Quality housing + attractive residential streets, business districts (not parks) and retail streets = walkable towns + neighbourhoods = good towns = sustainable urbanism
6. Plant street trees
This is so important and fundamental to successful urban places, but it seems to have been forgotten about, or only ever addressed in expensive urban landscaping schemes or as part of road schemes (under Pt. 8 of Planning Regulations). Street trees are easy and cheap to achieve and can have a transformative effect on places. They are also much more beautiful than expensive steel street furniture. It should be an objective of every authority to have an ongoing programme of planting and replacing of trees. Street trees also serve the purpose of segregating traffic from pedestrian and parked cars, and no street is too wide if broken up by boulevard planting (see the wonderful Boulevard Book by Allan B. Jacobs et al).
7. Only set objectives in a plan that can be followed by direct action
The core objective of a plan should be clearly understood, and achievable through a set of direct actions or measures - it should not be a result of trickle-down effect.
If a planning authority has a core objective to improve a town centre, there are measures to achieve this i.e. town centre management, environmental improvements, increase population, promote business districts.. and then stopping things happening in suburbs in competition to this.
What has tended to happen, particularly in the tiger years, is that these improvements are expected to happen by osmosis. By this logic a new shopping centre on the edge of town, or even in the town centre, will improve everything else around it, simply because it is there. A new business park will be good for the town .... if because it brings people/business to the general vicinity of the town.. suburban populations will support the town centre. It hasn't turned out like that.
Its the same for tax incentive sites - the hope that the redevelopment of one site is going to solve all the other problems. This is great for a developer, as they can promise a town the earth to get an uber scheme through, but it also makes a place dependent on the something that may not be the right solution. So if a town is to be made a better place (and if anybody cares) by creating a new pocket park – well, make that the first priority to make it happen, not the last. Investment is a follower not an instigator... retail follows footfall... people want to go to nice places... nice places need to be created, realised, enhanced & cared for..
This was all highlighted in the paper yesterday again, concerning regeneration projects in Limerick. The fact that they want to demolish and rebuild a failed suburb, is hailed as being good for Limerick City. Its not! Limerick City centre is emptying at a rate of knots - the regeneration project is a hopeless waste of money for the city. If they are serious about doing anything for Limerick, they would bring the people back to the city - away from social, physical and economic segregation.
As highlighted in recent ECTP awards, the European Planning tradition is particularly good as setting key objectives as the vision for the plan - where everything else follows - i.e. addressing the river, building bridges, the sustainable town.. They don't do the business school vision statement, brought to Ireland by the UK consultants i.e. "this is a vibrant, safe, clean place that people love to spend their time drinking coffee outdoors in". One is a plan - the other is symptom!
8. Don’t plan to solve traffic congestion
Cities and towns have a certain amount of space, and we make choices as to who gets to use that space. Wider pavements means more space for pedestrians, street cafes/vendors. Buses want bus lanes, cyclists want cycle lanes, and people want to be able to drive their car from beside their bed to their destination (paraphrasing M. Garrido). Traffic congestion is a symptom of this competition for space, and trying to solve traffic is a one way ticket to nowhere-suburbs, designed by road engineers. So priorities have to be set for that ‘space’ between buildings (the ‘ways’ and ‘interways’ as Cerda called them). Its not something that can be solved by segregating or bypassing the town, because that deprives users other than the cars of the new ‘urban ways’. Rather, expand the network of streets, and reduce the blockages (L. Krier) so that everyone can benefit from the investment, and good streets can be created.
9. Manage the message
The towns that will succeed are the ones where businesses understand that they are collectively dependent on the place they make their living from. A business makes money because of the qualities of a town, and vice versa. Towns need to managed autonomously and collectively to sell and promote the place. Most traditional towns have inherent qualities, so it doesn’t need to be made up, but they do need to step up.
Managing the message means that you can't let a single retailer, business or a mall take ownership of marketing the town. It also means controlling the hyperbole/delusion. Its not enough to say great things about a place - without taking real steps or investments that make the statements reality. It happens too often that the stuff on websites and in corporate documents fall apart the minute you drive into town, or walk down its main street.
10. Make infrastructure happen.
This last entry on the list, goes under the sub-heading of 'blindingly obvious - Mr. Stupid'. I also thought of titling this entry 'Build Infrastructure'. But given I have a great wonder for how any building remains standing, I believe that planners are the last people to be entrusted with the actual building bit. However, moving from a position where we understand we need infrastructure (roads, water, public transport) to providing it, is the part planners do get involved in, and should be more proactive at.
Any local authority in Ireland is now strapped for cash and not in the building business. Developers can't get the cash from banks to develop. So are there any alternatives?
Utilities provide a reliable return on investment over time... because you can charge people for it over time, and get your money back with a predictable return on the investment. So what is to stop local authorities or communities progressing water treatment works etc that they can invest in, or perhaps raise bonds/shares and get on with the project?
Who would have thought 10 years ago that collecting bins could be huge business? Well, from the bills I got from 'Panda' you would guess barristers were emptying wheelie bins. Look at National Toll Roads. Communities and local authorities should be able to make money on infrastructure development - after it’s built (not before which is the basis of section 38 of Planning Act).
NAMA should be looking around the country for where they can maximise investment into locations that would collectively support new infrastructure. Particularly water supply, and waste water. Infrastructure of this nature, and the capacities available, ultimately dictate where investment should go. This investment needs to be aligned with planning strategies, so that infrastructure goes where it is needed, and the pipes follow the strategic plan and not the other way around.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Council to de-zone 500 hectares?
Last week Sligo Borough and County Council considered de-zoning 500 hectares of lands zoned for development as reported in the Sligo Champion http://tinyurl.com/3uqrk2y This is a hugely significant move in a national context, made in the context of the 2010 Planning Act's requirement for Development Plan's to follow core strategies. There has been remarkably little comment about this outside of local media.
Away from the specific case of Sligo, this in many ways it shows the planning system following the market yet again i.e. theres no volume house building at the moment so we'll just dezone all their land. However, there was no equivalent attempt to look at rural housing guidance, while choking land supply in urban areas. There is no attempt to look at how to facilitate cheap build your-own solutions within urban areas, or serving self-build plots, and shared services.
There is a wider issue where the macro-scale interests of NAMA are preventing micro-scale developments for ordinary people, because NAMA assumes the national interest is recovery of land/development values and pretending current values are not real values (delusion on a Mao level). But more on NAMA another time.....
Away from the specific case of Sligo, this in many ways it shows the planning system following the market yet again i.e. theres no volume house building at the moment so we'll just dezone all their land. However, there was no equivalent attempt to look at rural housing guidance, while choking land supply in urban areas. There is no attempt to look at how to facilitate cheap build your-own solutions within urban areas, or serving self-build plots, and shared services.
There is a wider issue where the macro-scale interests of NAMA are preventing micro-scale developments for ordinary people, because NAMA assumes the national interest is recovery of land/development values and pretending current values are not real values (delusion on a Mao level). But more on NAMA another time.....
... I just hate the way architects and city planners and everyone else responsible for urban life seems to have lost sight of what cities are for. They are for people. That seems obvious enough, but for almost half a century we have been building cities that are for almost anything else; for cars,for business, for developers, for people with money and bold visions who refuse to see cities from ground level, as places in which people must live and function and get around.
- Bill Bryson (1998) Neither here nor there (Travels in Europe), pp 61-62.
- Bill Bryson (1998) Neither here nor there (Travels in Europe), pp 61-62.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Superquinn Naas Closure
Superquinn have announced the closure of their supermarket on Naas Main Street. (see Irish Times article http://bit.ly/dNGaZ5). This is interesting on a lot of levels.
Firstly, the retail chain has gone seriously awry since Senator Feargal Quinn sold the then family business in 2005 for around n450 million to Select Retail Holdings. Their business model was to ignore the healthy cash business, and cash-in on the [then] valuable sites, for property speculation. As part of their strategy (as reported) Superquinn offloaded six of its properties in 2007, including that at Naas, in a sale-and-leaseback deal that netted its owners €142.5 million from Friends First F&C. That they only leased back for 3 years is extaordinary. However, it also points to serious issues behind the scenes, that Primark (now landlord) would rather take Superquinn to the High Court to get them out, rather than maintain a good cash tenant.
However, the big issue here is Retail Planning Policy, and what it has done to the mainstreet. It is only two months after the Taoiseach opened a new out-of-town Tesco hypermarket on the Monread Road. So 260 jobs created out-of-town, and 100 already lost on main street, while a shopping centre just off main street has been halted mid-construction.
Naas is potentially a fine town, with what should be a good public open space at its core (instead of a car park). It should have benefitted from population growth and investment in boom years. Instead this has gone into the suburban housing estates, and retail parks that circle the town. Retail Planning Policy (at government and regional level) is at the heart of this problem. While there is no evidence of good governance at the local level to improve the towns product and performance, the Retail Parks are part of the Retail Strategy for the county! There has been no attempt by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government to quantify or analyse the impact of their policy on town centres, and yet they continue to prepare draft guidelines that were referred to as a limited review. If Planning Policy proactively supports the unsustainable segregation of retail use from the town core, what hope for the main street?
Firstly, the retail chain has gone seriously awry since Senator Feargal Quinn sold the then family business in 2005 for around n450 million to Select Retail Holdings. Their business model was to ignore the healthy cash business, and cash-in on the [then] valuable sites, for property speculation. As part of their strategy (as reported) Superquinn offloaded six of its properties in 2007, including that at Naas, in a sale-and-leaseback deal that netted its owners €142.5 million from Friends First F&C. That they only leased back for 3 years is extaordinary. However, it also points to serious issues behind the scenes, that Primark (now landlord) would rather take Superquinn to the High Court to get them out, rather than maintain a good cash tenant.
However, the big issue here is Retail Planning Policy, and what it has done to the mainstreet. It is only two months after the Taoiseach opened a new out-of-town Tesco hypermarket on the Monread Road. So 260 jobs created out-of-town, and 100 already lost on main street, while a shopping centre just off main street has been halted mid-construction.
Naas is potentially a fine town, with what should be a good public open space at its core (instead of a car park). It should have benefitted from population growth and investment in boom years. Instead this has gone into the suburban housing estates, and retail parks that circle the town. Retail Planning Policy (at government and regional level) is at the heart of this problem. While there is no evidence of good governance at the local level to improve the towns product and performance, the Retail Parks are part of the Retail Strategy for the county! There has been no attempt by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government to quantify or analyse the impact of their policy on town centres, and yet they continue to prepare draft guidelines that were referred to as a limited review. If Planning Policy proactively supports the unsustainable segregation of retail use from the town core, what hope for the main street?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)