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?
Well evidence from UK and US and at home highlights that utilities are a very attractive financial proposition for investors. Of course it doesn't work very well for consumers under a highly de-regulated system (i.e. California) but it can work. 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' I 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 its 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.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
10 things planning should do: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 drie into town, or walk down its main street.
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 drie into town, or walk down its main street.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Limerick Regeneration smokescreen
Housing Minister Finneran announces Limerick Regeneration to press ahead http://bit.ly/91nDqx, totalling about €336m being devoted to various projects.
However, the first item in the budget http://bit.ly/cb7tP8 is a ring road with a cost of €43m for the Coonagh to Knockalisheen Distributor Road (which is a strategic road for the city), the next item is €7m for an Access Road from the Southern Ring Road (ramps etc.) and then €5m for Childers Road (part of a €10m road project). So thats €55m down on roads - good start for a regeneration project! Enabling works + demolition come to €41.6m. And theres another €10m for land purchases. So a figure of €230m up to Dec 2014 (approx. €58m pa) is a slightly more honest figure. But still a hell of a lot of money. Probably enough to build around 2,500 to 3,000 residential units. They're building/refurbishing something of the order of 735 to 800. But they are building schools & community facilities. A civic hub grouping of buildings is put at €32m
The road building is Dept. of Transport funded, & nothing to do with the regen project, but the job creation, and economic benefit (tax income etc) of building these roads is included in the overall economic analysis. Funding of €6.5m for a sports facility includes PPP and 'scope for philanthropic' contributions. The figures are misleading.
Not sure how CEO Brendan Kenny considers this will be a catalyst for Limerick City and Region, and create a Green Economic Hub. This is a project that does not invest in Limerick city, but seeks to maintain segregated suburbs. It doesn't bring any new population into Limerick city. It builds a ring-road that helps the suburbanites drive around the city. Its re-engineering the social engineering.
The Masterplan for the regeneration of the Limerick periphery doesn't address the obvious. Why are we doing this? The suburbs failed in these situations. Are profesional egos so great to keep experimenting to try and get it right this time around? The current economic depression is an opportunity to shelve the masterplan, and invest the money in the city, supporting its mix of uses, plurality of tenures and economic profiles, and support a truly green city based on sustainable transport.
ARe we not allowed to be critical of this, as its all proosed under the label of regeneration?
However, the first item in the budget http://bit.ly/cb7tP8 is a ring road with a cost of €43m for the Coonagh to Knockalisheen Distributor Road (which is a strategic road for the city), the next item is €7m for an Access Road from the Southern Ring Road (ramps etc.) and then €5m for Childers Road (part of a €10m road project). So thats €55m down on roads - good start for a regeneration project! Enabling works + demolition come to €41.6m. And theres another €10m for land purchases. So a figure of €230m up to Dec 2014 (approx. €58m pa) is a slightly more honest figure. But still a hell of a lot of money. Probably enough to build around 2,500 to 3,000 residential units. They're building/refurbishing something of the order of 735 to 800. But they are building schools & community facilities. A civic hub grouping of buildings is put at €32m
The road building is Dept. of Transport funded, & nothing to do with the regen project, but the job creation, and economic benefit (tax income etc) of building these roads is included in the overall economic analysis. Funding of €6.5m for a sports facility includes PPP and 'scope for philanthropic' contributions. The figures are misleading.
Not sure how CEO Brendan Kenny considers this will be a catalyst for Limerick City and Region, and create a Green Economic Hub. This is a project that does not invest in Limerick city, but seeks to maintain segregated suburbs. It doesn't bring any new population into Limerick city. It builds a ring-road that helps the suburbanites drive around the city. Its re-engineering the social engineering.
The Masterplan for the regeneration of the Limerick periphery doesn't address the obvious. Why are we doing this? The suburbs failed in these situations. Are profesional egos so great to keep experimenting to try and get it right this time around? The current economic depression is an opportunity to shelve the masterplan, and invest the money in the city, supporting its mix of uses, plurality of tenures and economic profiles, and support a truly green city based on sustainable transport.
ARe we not allowed to be critical of this, as its all proosed under the label of regeneration?
10 things planning should do: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-surburbs, 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.
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-surburbs, 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.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
10 Things planning should do: 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 .... because 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!
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 .... because 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!
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
10 things planning should do: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).
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).
Monday, June 21, 2010
10 things planning should do: 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 zeigteist. The economics of development of individual plots can stand up again. The only situation where comphrehensive 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
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 zeigteist. The economics of development of individual plots can stand up again. The only situation where comphrehensive 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)