A New Mobility Plan for a Changed World

The Uptown, North Park, and Golden Hill Community Plans are currently being updated. The Mobility Section of these plans will be especially challenging, because everything has changed since these plans were last written. What has changed?

Growth In a Fix Environment:
In the past our mobility plans were focused on private automobiles. As communities grew, roads were widened and more roads built to accommodate the additional cars.  That cannot happen in these older, streetcar neighborhoods. Why?

1) The street layout has been set for decades.
2) Properties fronting the street are nearly 100% built out.
Unless we start tearing down homes to widen roads or make new streets (not going to happen) these two realities won’t change. Whose homes and businesses are we willing to seize and tear down for wider streets? Who decides?

Hillcrest Streets cannot be widened

Climate Change:
Regardless of one’s position on climate change, the State of California, and The City of San Diego has mandated that we do something about it. That includes reducing car trips and increasing walking, bicycling, and transit. 

SB743: If you haven’t heard of this bill that passed last year, you soon will. It completely changes the way transportation efficiency and transportation’s environmental impact is measure. It changes CEQA, California’s environmental quality law. Cars will no longer be the focus of transportation and environmental planning.

A New Way: Because of the above three reasons, and many more, the Mobility Plans of the updated Community Plans must be very, very different than they have been in the past. 

Uptown 21C: In response, Great Streets San Diego has created a proposal that meets the transportation needs of the 21st Century called Uptown 21C. It’s nothing really new … it’s adapted from policies and plans in Vancouver, Portland, and other progressive cities. And it is working in those cities. Read it for yourself, and let GSSD know what you think. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 -Walter Chambers
GSSD 
 
 
 
 
Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

Does Highway Expansion Relieve Congestion?

Apparently not. Yet another study is out showing that widening and building more roads in metropolitan areas does nothing to relieve congestion or reduce delay. This is called “induced traffic”. In other words, if you build it, more cars will come. The result is also an increase in fuel consumption (and one must assume pollution).

DELAY PER CAPITA (Mean Person Hours)

 

So one must wonder, why is the public continually told that projects that widen and expand highways will reduce congestion? 

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

The $433,000.00 Crosswalk

Construction is now underway at the intersection of Park Blvd. and Cypress Street for a new crosswalk. Total cost: $433,000.00. No, that is not a misplaced comma.

Some would say that this new crosswalk, with flashing lights and signs is a good thing because it helps pedestrians. To that I say, a Stop Sign would have achieved the same result, would have cost a lot less, and would have been better for the neighborhood in general.

The problem is that Park Blvd is designed like a freeway with straight, wide travel lanes that go uninterrupted for blocks. By the time cars reach the Cypress Street intersection, cars can, and do, travel at 40-50 mph. The street is designed to be unsafe for people walking and bicycling.

So San Diego’s solution to an over-engineered street that kills pedestrians is an over-engineered crosswalk. It’s a freeway style solution to a freeway-like problem. Unfortunately, it does nothing to improve the street, calm traffic, or make the rest of the street safer for people walking or biking.

Flashing Crosswalk

Worse yet, with its strobe-like flashing yellow lights and flashing signs, the visual pollution to this quiet residential section of Park Blvd is horrendous. 

A Stop Sign would have achieved better results, at a much lower cost to install and maintain. However, if the City was still hell-bent on spending 1/2 Million dollars to make Park Blvd safe, it would have better spent the money on traffic calming, narrowing lanes, protected bike lanes, and … a stop sign. 

Posted in Updates | 3 Comments

The right to live in the suburbs

I was honored and happy that Voice of San Diego published an op-ed that I wrote about density. I was also pleased to see the comments section light up with arguments for and against density. It’s a conversation that needs to happen.

There is one argument that I find interesting, although ill-informed. It is essentially, “ I have the right to live in the suburbs, and government policy should accommodate everyone wherever they choose to live.”

To that I say, yes – you do have a right to choose wherever you live — as long as you are willing to pay for it.

Low density developments are essentially government subsidizes. Land Use in low density areas is so financially unproductive that it is impossible to build and maintain the infrastructure needed for them to exist. Not only do the streets, sewers, water, utilities, etc cost more to initially install, suburbs do not generate the tax revenue required to maintain them. The suburbs are draining city government coffers at an alarming rate. Is it any wonder San Diego has $3 billion dollar infrastructure deficit?

Low density land use

It not just suburban infrastructure that cost the rest of us. Required services like fire, police, garbage, libraries and schools also must be subsidized. We even pay to bus suburban kids to school because it is usually too far for them walk. 

In the USA, citizens have generally agreed that subsidizing freeway construction is worthwhile because it helps increase the movement of goods and services – and therefore increases the GDP. However a 2-3 hour commute to work is not productive. Not only do the extra cars on the road cause congestion and slow the movement of goods, but they cause wear on the freeway, and damage the environment. Gas taxes and tolls (user fees) only cover about one-half the cost of highways – the rest comes from the general fund.

Sure, you can live in low density areas – IF you will pay extra to maintain your infrastructure, bus your kids to school, pay a carbon tax to offset your car dependency, and pay tolls for highway maintenance … along with many other hidden costs.

If the government subsidizes anything, I would prefer we, as a society, subsidize housing for the poor and homeless, instead of subsidizing housing for a middle class fantasy of living the “good life.”

If you can afford to live the life of the “landed gentry”, good for you!  Congratulations. Just don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it.

Posted in Updates | 4 Comments

Squeezing into those old, outgrown jeans

I haven’t worn a size 32 waist since college. Yet it doesn’t stop me from trying to squeeze into an old pair of  jeans I keep around “just in case”. The fact is, I’ll never be a 32 again, no matter how good of shape I am in.  I suppose we can all dream, though.

Soon, the traffic in Uptown won’t be able squeeze into its existing street system, based on projected growth. For that matter, neither will the traffic in Downtown, North Park, or Golden Hill.

The Dream

As Uptown, North Park and Golden Hill consider Mobility Plans for their Community Plan Updates, it’s important to ask, “How will we grown without becoming overwhelmed and chocked by car traffic?” 

If they do nothing, or even the same thing, these communities will face a future of congestion, gridlock, and declining quality of life. 

There is a solution. By simply adopting policies that emphasize and prioritize walkable, livable, bike friendly communities – outcomes most people say they want – these urban San Diego neighborhoods can emerge as better and healthier places to live. Sound impossible? Read Uptown 21C and then decide.

Posted in Updates | 2 Comments

Growing a City

Cities are organisms like people. So, “Urban Planning” has always seemed to be an odd thing to me. It’s akin to attempting “Child Planning”.

As every parent know, there is no such thing as planing a child’s life for the next 25 years. The best “Child Planning” anyone can do is provide a set of fundamental values and priorities, set a good foundation, and then stand back and let them grow up. Too heavy a hand, and they grow up to be dysfunctional.  Too loose and they can be a mess too.

Yet, Planning departments too often use a heavy hand, trying to dictate every little bit of growth, every lot use, every car, every building, everything. Not surprisingly, it never turns out the way they wanted, and the heavy hand usually begets some form of dysfunction. 

The best thing a City’s Planning Department can do is to set fundamental priorities, values, and goals, create a good foundation, and then stand back and let the city grow. Use a gentle hand in making sure the values and priorities remain in focus. But just like a Parent, letting go is the hardest, but most important part of growing up.

Ease up Planners. 

Walter Chambers
GSSD 

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

Right Sizing Uptown

The hot topic in Uptown is the Community Plan Update (CPU), with special emphasis on building heights. Is there a right size building height for Uptown? Yes there is – and No there isn’t. 

The streets of Uptown are about as diverse as its populace. There are narrow streets, there are medium width streets, and then there are the behemoths like University, Washington, and Park Blvd.

So when talking about building heights, how could one size fit all? It can’t. There is no “one size fits all” for Uptown. A 65 foot tall building isn’t going to look or feel the same on a narrow street as it is on a 100 foot wide street. That is impossible.

However, there is a right size building height for Uptown. 

What does Uptown Want?
Listen to Uptown residents and most are saying they want a human scaled, walkable, neighborhood that is somewhere between the high-rises of downtown, and the  low-rise no-place of suburbia. Can that desired outcome be translated into building heights?

Too Tall

Too Small

There is a lot of evidence, knowledge and studies on how building heights effect the feel and perception of a neighborhood and the street. The secret (not very well kept) is the ratio of the building height to the width of the street (called HWP). 

For Uptown, a building height to street width ratio between 1:2 to 1:1 is perfect for the desired place-making outcome of a comfortable, pedestrian oriented, human scaled, yet urban environment. A maximum building height in Uptown of 1:1 HWP, and minimum building heights of 1:2 can easily be added to the Community Plan Update.

Confused? Don’t be. It is simple. Here are some examples:

University Ave between 5th and 1st Streets:
Street width = 62 feet
Max. Bldg. Height = 62 feet
Min. Bldg. Height = 31 feet

East of highway 163, University Avenue becomes much wider.
Street width = 100 feet
Max. Bldg. Height – 100 feet
Min. Bldg. Height = 50 feet

A maximum height of 1:1, and minimum height of 1:2 gives Uptown a variety of building heights that fit each neighborhood. It is nuanced, yet simple. Pairing these ratios with architectural design guidelines such as building setbacks after 3 stories, windows and doors to the street, and interesting materials, Uptown would have the foundation for good urban design and great place-making. Click here is a more detailed proposal from Great Streets. Also, see the Great Streets St Louis website for an explanation of HWP with graphics and pictures.

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

Documenting Hillcrest’s Parking Problem

Parking is a contentious issue in Hillcrest, – or at least the perceived lack of parking. Lately the issue has threatened to delay, dumb-down, or even derail the construction of really great, protected bike lanes on University Avenue.

University Avenue from 10th to Center Street

I thought I would check into the parking problem along University Avenue in Hillcrest. I photographed on-street parking from 10th Avenue to Center Street, at approximately 1o:oo am, 12:00 noon, 3:oo pm, and 5:00 pm. This area is home to shops, restaurants, and small professional businesses.

The findings: There is no parking problem. There was plenty of available on-street parking, in each block, at each time of the day I photographed the street.

The problem, at best, is a parking management problem. At the worst, Hillcrest has been conned by a small group that is spending tens of thousands of public dollars to “fix” a parking “problem”, instead of improving our streets with better sidewalks, street trees, bike facilities, and managing the existing parking.

As you can see in the photographs, plenty of on-street parking was available at each time of the day in each block.

10:00 AM

Parking is nearly completely empty with very little traffic

 

12:00 Noon

One might expect more parking issues at the lunch hour, but there were still plenty of open parking spaces on each block.

 

3:00 PM

Available parking at 3:00 PM is similar to 10:00 AM

 

5:00 PM

5:00 PM had the busiest traffic, and most full parking, especially from Normal to Richmond. However, the parking spots on Normal Street were still nearly completely empty.

Hillcrest should demand accountability from the Hillcrest Parking District before the District is allowed to spend more public money on creating additional parking, (especially free parking), and before the District tries to negatively influence the SANDAG Regional Bike Plan.

Walter Chambers
GSSD 

 

Posted in Updates | 1 Comment

Re-Imagine

Recently, we were asked to “Imagine”. Now it’s time to really imagine, San Diego - to Re-Imagine.

What is Re-Imagine Urban San Diego? It is a vision for a truly high quality, urban life in the heart of San Diego. It is a vision that says we can no longer plan for San Diego’s future in the same way we have done in the past.

Part reality check (no, we are not yet a world-class city), and part dream, Re-Imagine Urban San Diego dares and challenges San Diego to imagine beyond our self-imposed limitations. 

“San Diego doesn’t suffer from a lack of imagination, or a failure of imagination, as much as it suffers from a timidity of imagination.” 

The ideas may seem radical to some, and common sense to others. In this world, sometimes common sense is radical. However, in order to change, we must start dreaming, thinking, and acting differently, now.

“It’s our generation’s duty to dream big, think differently, and act urgently. Doing the same thing is no longer an option. The dream needs to be big, and it needs to start happening now.”

GSSD challenges San Diego to really imagine. We can make San Diego a world class city for the 21st century. Let’s start now, and Re-Imagine Urban San Diego. 

Walter Chambers
GSSD 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment

Why the IHO is a #FAIL for Uptown, Todd Gloria, and Everyone in Between

The third Interim Height Ordinances (IHO) was passed by City Council yesterday. As passed, the IHO represents a complete failure for Uptown and for everyone involved.

If you are not familiar with the IHO, here is a brief synopsis:  The IHO caps building heights at 65 feet in Hillcrest, and 50 feet in Mission Hills without discretionary review. Buildings Heights in Bankers Hill (Park West) are limited to 65 feet, but in Bankers Hill discretionary review is allowed for taller structures. The two Interim Height Ordinances have been in effect for nearly 6 years, and look to be in effect for a full decade before (if) the Uptown Community Plan is completed.

#FAIL for the Uptown Community:
When talking about the IHO, activists in Uptown almost always talked about Outcomes such as “community character” “human scale development”, “walkable neighborhoods”, etc. Somehow, building height came to represent these outcomes, when in reality building height has little to do with them. Just look around; There are a already plenty of examples of buildings under 65 feet in Uptown that harm community character, are not human scaled, and are auto-centric. Sadly, there is nothing in the IHO that requires or encourages buildings under 65 feet to produce the outcomes that the community wants. Tragically, the IHO, by eliminating discretionary review, removes any input the community might have had on the design of buildings.

#FAIL for the Planning Department:  
Why, over the past 6 years, was the Planning Department unable to come up with a building form proposal that addressed the communities concerns and which could have been seamlessly rolled into a future, completed Uptown Community Plan? It was supposed to. In fact, the first two IHOs were passed with a sunset provision for the specific purpose of putting pressure on the Planning Department to do just that, and they still failed. Instead, 6 years – soon to be nearly a decade – will have been wasted on an ordinance that, as admitted by department staff, has no basis in urban design or urban planning principles.

But the real #FAIL of the Planning Department is that it did not listen the community. Instead of proposing a solution that would address the real concerns of community character, walkability, and human scale, the Department lazily latched onto the public’s misperceptions about building heights, and completely ignored what the community was really saying. They turned a deaf ear to what the community was saying and ignored their needs.

#FAIL for the Uptown Community Planning Group (CPG):
Instead of working with the Community and the City to create a working ordinance that would encourage good development in Uptown, the Uptown CPG voted to do just the opposite. Because the IHO does not allow for discretionary review, the Uptown CPG willfully gave up its own voice, and forfeited the voice of the community. Until the completed Community Plan is in place, the CPG and the community has no say in the design of buildings in Hillcrest and Mission Hills. In other words, they cut off their nose to spite their face.

#FAIL for The City of San Diego:
The City of San Diego has created commissions, committees, and teams, comprised of citizens and professionals that are not politically motivated, to act in an advisory capacity on complex issues. The Planning Commission and the Code Monitoring Team are two such advisory boards. In the case of the IHO, both the Planning Commission and the Code Monitoring Team emphatically recommended against the IHO and offered recommendations to improve the ordinance and address the community’s desires. However, the City Council chose to ignore the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Code Monitoring Team. Which begs the question, why go through all the effort of getting professional, non-political advise if it is repeatedly ignored?

#FAIL for Todd Gloria, Interim Mayor, and District 3 Council Representative (including Uptown):
As early as late spring 2013, word on the street was that Councilmember Gloria would support the IHO as written. If true, that means that his mind was made up prior to the Code Monitoring Team review, prior to the Planning Commission review, and prior to City Council discussion. True or not, Gloria failed the Uptown Community in many ways:

By allowing a small group of activists set the agenda (and the law) for Uptown, Gloria ignored the voices of the entire community, including the 1,300 members of the Hillcrest Business Association who opposed the IHO. To add insult to injury, those voices have now been silenced due to the lack of discretionary review in the IHO. They have no more say.

Building Heights became a political issue, not a planning issue. As discussed above, the Outcomes that the community desired were ignored by Gloria in favor of political expediency. The Planning Commission and the Code Monitoring Team both recognized this issue, but Gloria chose, on more than one occasion, to ignore their recommendations. Had he listened to the Commission and the community, the desired outcomes could have been address with a much better solution.

Needless to say, 10 years of an interim planning ordinance has spooked developers, and nearly halted economic development in Uptown. Now Uptown can only sit by and watch as new development goes up in North Park, Little Italy, Golden Hill, Downtown, and Bankers Hill.

Mr. Gloria was in the perfect position to find a solution that worked for all parties. Instead he took the easy and politically expedient route. That is a major failure of Leadership.

Walter Chambers
GSSD 

Posted in Updates | Leave a comment