LJWorld.com / New Urbanism movement gains following in Lawrence

Archive for Sunday, August 14, 2005

Concept emphasizes diverse, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods

August 14, 2005

Try finding this scenario in Lawrence: In a new neighborhood, a four-plex apartment building gets built right next door to a $400,000 home.

It’s the type of scenario for planners and neighbors that produces more red flags than the Arrowhead Stadium parking lot on game day. In Lawrence, the long-standing rule is that homes and apartments mix about as well as oil and water.

That may be changing.

The concept of New Urbanism — a new way of designing old-style neighborhoods and communities — is beginning to seep its way into City Hall. City Commissioner Sue Hack has seen the vision.

“Imagine if you could design a neighborhood so a young married couple could come into the neighborhood and buy a home, and then when they have a family, there will be a larger house in the same neighborhood that they can move up to,” Hack said. “And when the kids are gone and they are retired, there will be a condo or some type of retirement home for them in the same neighborhood.

“You could really sustain a neighborhood that way. Think how wonderful that would be.”

Everything old is new again

Sustaining neighborhoods, making communities more pedestrian-friendly and fostering diversity are all common themes in the New Urbanism movement.

The blueprint that New Urbanists use is one largely from years gone by. Michael Treanor, a Lawrence architect who is a fan of the concept, said areas like East Lawrence, Old West Lawrence and downtown already have many New Urbanism elements.

Special to the Journal-World

The above sketch by Treanor Architects incorporates some themes of New Urbanism: mixed uses, neighborhood shopping, traditional streets and strict design standards.

“What we did 150 years ago, making Mass Street 100 feet wide, side streets 80 feet wide and having a mix of uses ... is a pretty tried and true method. That is how all of our cities used to develop,” he said.

Not even New Urbanists entirely agree on what elements give a neighborhood the title of New Urbanism, but there are several common themes. Among them:

• Mixed uses. There wouldn’t be block after block of duplexes that then turn into block after block of starter homes that then turn into block after block of estate-style homes. Instead, duplexes, single-family homes and even some small-scale apartments or condos would be interspersed throughout a neighborhood.

• Neighborhood shopping. Most homes would be within walking distance of a small retail center that would have typical neighborhood services ranging from a deli to dry cleaners.

• Traditional streets. Cul-de-sacs aren’t usually part of a New Urbanism development. Instead, a traditional square grid of streets are often the norm. Many times, streets are narrower and on-street parking also is utilized.

• Design standards. Buildings often must meet strict design guidelines to ensure the mix of uses are compatible. For residential buildings, alleys often are used to access parking that is in the rear of the property. Many times, detached garages with small “mother-in law suites” located above them are used. For commercial buildings, they typically have more of a downtown building feel with an emphasis on pedestrian access and parking lots located behind buildings.

Only an option

Hack has been intensely studying New Urbanism ever since the city hosted a conference on the subject in February. She went to a national New Urbanism conference in June in Pasadena, Calif. This week, she traveled to St. Charles, Mo., to see how that town has used New Urbanism in its development. She plans a trip next month to a New Urbanism development at the former Stapleton Airport in Denver.

Proposal may set city’s look for future (08-08-05)

The idea has been discussed by other community leaders, too. Mayor Boog Highberger has frequently mentioned the benefits that New Urbanism development could have for the community.

All the talk in City Hall may lead to action. Hack is part of a group that includes planning commissioners, developers and neighborhood representatives who have been meeting twice a month to discuss how New Urbanism might be included in Lawrence’s future.

Hack said in the next couple of months she would like the city to hire a consultant that could help the city craft a set of codes to allow New Urbanism development. Hack said she ultimately would like the city to find a private developer who would agree to develop a large chunk of land — more than 100 acres — in a New Urbanism style.

But Hack said the planning group isn’t trying to force the concept on the community. She said a set of New Urbanism codes would be in addition to more standard development codes that allow for traditional, suburban-style neighborhoods and shopping centers.

Photo by Richard Gwin

Michael Treanor, a Lawrence architect who is a fan of the New Urbanism concept, said areas like East Lawrence, Old West Lawrence and downtown already have many New Urbanism elements. Treanor is pictured behind Owens Flower Shop, 836 Ind.

“All we’re saying is it should be an option,” Hack said. “If someone wanted to try this right now, it would be illegal. Our codes don’t allow it.

“We realize we have to have as much communication upfront as possible. It can’t be a concept that people feel is being shoved down their throats.”

Suburbs still loved

That makes Bryan Hedges, president of Realty Executives/Hedges Real Estate, feel better. He said he didn’t object to the New Urbanism concept as long as city officials didn’t make it mandatory for all new developments. He said individuals still should be allowed to choose the suburban style of life.

“I’m definitely not hearing buyers saying they want to live next to a four-plex or want to live in a mixed-use environment,” Hedges said. “I still hear a lot of people who are looking to live on a cul-de-sac. A family with kids running around and riding bikes and trikes really likes the cul-de-sacs.”

Hack said she was sensitive to those concerns. She said the New Urbanism movement in some communities had turned into a debate that tried to portray one type of neighborhood as being superior to another.

“We have to be careful to make sure that we’re not saying that the only kind of neighborhoods are the ones like Old West Lawrence. That’s not true,” said Hack, who lives in a traditional suburban neighborhood in West Lawrence. “We have cul-de-sacs in my neighborhood, and half the time we’re sitting in the middle of one watching the kids ride their bikes. We know each other.”

But Treanor is confident that there are a significant number of people who would like to leave the suburban lifestyle behind for a more urban feel. In fact, he’s betting on it. Treanor is part of a group planning for a new development on 43 acres north of Sixth Street between Wakarusa Drive and Folks Road.

The development will have many New Urbanism traits, including alleys, homes closer to the street, garages with upstairs apartments and 62,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial space. The project even hopes to have a significant cultural center. The development is working with the Lawrence Community Theatre to locate at the site.

The project currently is trying to work its way through the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department. It will have to receive many variances since the city’s current code doesn’t allow many New Urbanism elements.

But Treanor said he believed the project would be well received, if ever approved. He tells a story about how he visited the former Stapleton Airport in Denver and talked to residents who were loving the New Urbanism development. In one instance, upper-end homes were right across the street from affordable housing units.

“I asked the guy if it bothered him that those guys were right across the street from him,” Treanor recounts. “He said that was what Stapleton was all about. It is about the diversity.

“I think that is what is appealing about these projects. You don’t just get that one strata. You get a mix, and the bigger the mix, the more livelier it is.”

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

14 August 2005 at 6:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

new urbanism = smart growth. i guess 'smart growth' (no growth) has soured with the citizens. look up the definition of 'new urbanism' or smart growth -they are one and the same. perhaps the reporter should look it up.

sue hack must be running for re-election since she seems to be embracing the weirdo vote early.

this thing is more dangerous in killing the downtown than anything wal-mart could do. zona rosa in north K.C. comes to mind. this should wipe out an entire block of the downtown if it comes into being. at least the rent rates will go down, too bad there won't be any relief when it comes to property taxes. the county already has their finger nails dug into that issue downtown.

this new urbanism thing looks cool, even if it will be located on the western fringe of the urban sprawl area. what about the traffic increase?

this is why business leaders need to be elected.

if this thing happens, say goodbye to at least one whole city block of the downtown.
14 August 2005 at 8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tenstring (Anonymous) says…

I think it's a great idea — I'm pretty tired of the cancerous looking subdivisions that sport expensive pieces of crap in sterile neighborhoods. It won't kill downtown, it will make Lawrence all that more livable — which is already about ten notches up from the second-best place to live in Kansas, wherever that is.
14 August 2005 at 9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

If sprawl is a concern we must go up…not out. This type of look kind of reminds me of many east coast neighborhoods
where small grocery stores etc. continue to exist.

This type of design would require some real architecture…hmmm
14 August 2005 at 9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lawrencechick (Anonymous) says…

The city better do something to fix the disastrous zoning they have going on right now. All you have to do is look at the Prarie Meadows neighborhood for an example. What was once a nice family neighborhood now looks like a college duplex ghetto. Paint peeling off the cheap cookie cutter duplexes with couches on the front porch. How could the city let developers get that rich off ruining a neighborhood !
14 August 2005 at 9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

“hire a consultant,” again! I have an idea, take that damned consultant fee and just fix some sidewalks! most of lawrence either has no functional sidewalks, or what is there is pathetic! while they are at it, how about fixing some of the brick streets in east lawrence and old west! yeah. you want a pedestrian friendly environment? really.
14 August 2005 at 11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

tenstring, it WILL spell disaster for the downtown because downtown businesses will be the tenants. zona rosa is basically a smaller version of the lawrence downtown but in the middle of a cornfield. which reminds me of the cornfield mall concept. this could be its replacement.

here is a link to zona rosa. it is a heck of a lot nicer than OUR downtown, that is why i think something like this on the fringe of town in the sprawl will have a major negative impact on the downtown. why stay with the old when you can go with the new? i bet this 'zona rosa' west lawrence will NOT have the homeless. this will also be a determining factor in killing off a portion of the downtown.

http://www.zonarosa.com/pages/phototour/…

but the smart growthers think they got it all figured out. this will be disasterous to the downtown.
14 August 2005 at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blakus (Anonymous) says…

Do people actually read the articles they comment on here? Hack states that new urbanism is an option, something she is looking at to limit dreary, stagnant neighborhood designs. Such blind statements that have been made in this forum only lead to blind actions. I applaud Hack and the commission for looking at other ideas when it comes to development, which is something that can make or break a city like Lawrence. They hire consultants so that they can make informed decisions which is a responsible action. I read over and over in these forums people blasting the city commission for embracing new ideas in a responsible manor. Ask yourself, how has Lawrence been able to thrive economically while the rest of Kansas struggles? It definetly is not the commission alone, but they are an integral part to the success of Lawrence.
14 August 2005 at 12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

Never mind the money, in this case. This concern is whether we want to see sufficient neighborhoods or sprawling subdevelopments. We've all heard about how it's not like the good old days when we knew our neighbors. Most of us have probably SAID it's not like the good old days.

New Urbanism appeals to me because it recreates the neighborhoods. It creates opportunities for small, independent neighborhood businesses. It decreases the sense of isolation that we hear modern American culture promotes. It decreases crime because people are looking out for each other. Sounds like it's worth studying!
14 August 2005 at 6:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

take a look at zona rosa….wilbur. it doesn't have ANY mom and pop businesses because they can't afford to operate there.

if you are looking for utopia, forget it. also, don't you think people want a back yard with their new home?
14 August 2005 at 8:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

lunacydetector, I'd rather have a citizen-government than a business-government, as you advocate in your first post. Working from the assumption that we all (generally) look after our own self-interests, business leaders are less likely to create a livable community than are a more representative collection of citizens. I'll be in KC later this week, and I'll spend 2 or 3 hours around Zona Rosa to check it out, as you suggest. Meanwhile, you should spend an equal amount of time in Quality Hill.

Who said anything about Utopia? I said that a close-knit neighborhood is better than one where residents never get to know each other.
14 August 2005 at 9:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

This concept could fit in most all older Lawrence neighborhoods. There is a lot of potential. If we want to rein in sprawl then going up not out will be the order of the day.

LD: I did not get from Sue Hack that this Zona Rosa concept is what's on her mind. The Zona Rosa area is busy, busy, busy…a madhouse. Talk about congestion. It is primarily shopping/entertainment with lofts added. Zona Rosa is not a neighborhood per se.

Again it is the business people who bring conflicts of interest problems to elected positions. Business people dominated our city,county and planning commissions for 15 years which is why we have high taxes and screwy routed new streets. They did not prove to be good city planners as most were in the business of real estate,building contractors and/or supply. Some had immediate family members in real estate/construction and home insurance.
Some of these builders are building poorly constructed homes so I've been hearing. There are not enough good inspectors as some are learning on the job. Some show up and don't know enough
and require explanations from the builders. So how do they know if a builder is on the right track?

Now I think we have at least two people on the planning commission educated in planning who have no interest in real estate. Yes there are at least 4 with very real conflicts of interest still sitting.
14 August 2005 at 10:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

i am a strong advocate of NOT subsidizing the downtown for upkeep because i don't think it is fair to every other business in town who has to pay their fair share.

IF this zona rosa west lawrence happens, it will mean more businesses will fail or move from the downtown AND the city (the taxpayers) will be forking out more money to subsidize the downtown to make it competitive again.

remember topeka after they built their mall on the western edge of town. their downtown died.

the article says something about a 100 acre areas as well as this smaller area to be developed.

whatever happened to the “study” that k.u. professor did that said lawrence had more retail per capita than any other city in the united states? i guess that doesn't matter anymore.
14 August 2005 at 11:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Find that study so we can read it. I've not heard of such a claim. Lawrence is surrounded by retail competition so our city leaders need to be cautious. The downtown beautification project is awesome. I think downtown will be around for awhile as the students like to shop downtown and so do many of us old folks.

LD: Do you live in Lawrence?
15 August 2005 at 2:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TruthSeeker (Anonymous) says…

I applaud merrill.
As always merrill you are the only poster who has any untainted logical argument.
If we stop to look at “New Urbanism” it promotes a peaceful “good for the community good for visionary developers” resolution.
Just think, instead of the sprawling “cookie cutter” housing and mini malls we could have many small businesses setting up shops in a confined area that is safe from congested traffic. We could have police walking the beat again. We could get to know our neighbors and dissolve our fears of those from different classes or cultures.
We'd be healthier because we'd walk to the grocery store or to the park at a moment's notice instead of having to plan out of our way to drive there (not to mention decreasing our reliance on gasoline).
“New Urbanism” if used to its potential is good for all and we would be arguing less about whether or not the developers are defacing Lawrence to make another inflated fast buck. What a brand new avenue it could be for developers to make new fast bucks.
15 August 2005 at 2:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

merrill, that study was done by some croney of the commission candidates. there was something about it in the newspaper a few years ago.

as for the small grocer locating in one of these places, it reminds me of a guy who opened up shop on mass. many years ago. he closed down just a few months later. a grocer will not go into one of these places, regardless of what you dream. grocers are high volume low profit margin businesses - so they need large space and low rent. i know from personal experience.

…and truthseeker, i am telling you the truth. open your eyes - the truth shall set you free. with dillons across the street, hyvee down the road and the new wal-mart selling groceries across the street (because they will win their court case), why would a small operator pay exhorbitant rent for a small grocery with so much big time competition (even if you discount wal-mart from the equation)? they more likely would be a convenience store instead -but they'd need to sell gasoline to make it (i know this from personal experience as well).

but my harping doesn't matter anyway, boog is all for this concept. this thing WILL be pushed through. i will however save this page for future reference, so i can pull an 'i told you so,' when the downtown starts to struggle (as long as the jw doesn't delete or do away with this forum concept).

60,000 square feet would encompass a lot of small downtown shops, easily a whole block, but this thing would most likely hold the high end nationals who can afford it. so lawrence would have one downtown with struggling small shops, and zona rosa west lawrence would be filled with national companies who can afford it.

so in essence, you have the big money boys out west and the small time strugglers downtown. who do you think would win the contest? the big boys, of course. they got the deep pockets. the mom and pop stores don't.
15 August 2005 at 5:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

The architecture for living spaces could go in without the retail. A pharmacy could make it. This could fit in at the Old East Lawrence warehouse district that's being rehabilitated.

Every city takes care of it's downtown because it is an existing resource. Kansas City in is the process of restoring it's downtown and Baltimore did a major rehab job about 20 years ago and it's thriving.
15 August 2005 at 8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TruthSeeker (Anonymous) says…

L.D. if you could just follow your own advice and open your eyes then your own lunacydetecting would not sound so much like a learning disability. Please take the time to follow Pasadena, Denver, etc. and see the truth in that. (Somehow I get the feeling that even if the truth were slapping you in the face you likely will turn around, close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and yell duh-duh- duh-duh-duh! until mom gave you a cookie) But on a kinder note I do appreciate your side and I am glad you care enough to state your side on this forum.
15 August 2005 at 12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

i know the truth and i can handle it. i realize that it is fruitless for me to complain because ignorance will win, over my objections.

i spent over 25 years of my life as an executive in the retail industry. i know what i am talking about. the development on the west side of town will hurt the downtown much more than a new wal-mart. i consider myself more of an expert than most folks. if you wish to have your eyes covered with wool, so be it.

this thing out west will not be good for lawrence's downtown and neither will a 100 acre development with -i assume- an even larger area for retail.