A couple of our recent posts and comment threads have alluded to walkability, pedestrian-friendliness and multi-modal transportation in Northfield. I just found a nifty new site that utilizes the power of Google to rate how walkable different cities (and neighborhoods) are. It's a cool example of the kind of mutation that can happen when cross planning geeks with web developers and cross-pollinate with a few eco-Nazis. I like it.

According to the authors, some features that make an area walkable are:

• A center: Walkable neighborhoods have a discernable center, whether it's a shopping district, a main street, or a public space.
• Mixed income, mixed use: Housing is provided for everyone who works in the neighborhood: young and old, singles and families, rich and poor. Businesses and residences are located near each other.
• Parks and public space: There are plenty of public places to gather and play.
• Well connected, speed controlled streets: Streets form a connected grid that improves traffic by providing many routes to any destination. Streets are narrow to control speed, and shaded by trees to protect pedestrians.
• Pedestrian-centric design: Buildings are placed close to the street to cater to foot traffic, with parking lots relegated to the back.
• Close schools and workplaces: Schools and workplaces are close enough that most residents can walk from their homes.

I played around with the walk score and came up with the following results. As expected my downtown office location scored highly (94 out of 100). My house wasn't so bad either, scoring 72. My previous residence was slightly lower at 63. I tried a couple of friends' addresses, one near Sibley Swale and the other on Mayflower Hill; those didn't do so well (scores of 8 and 3, respectively). My mother's old address in Apple Valley scored 43. I guess it just shows that Apple Valley really does kick Northfield's butt.

Caveat: I don't believe the mashup takes true connectivity into account (i.e., sidewalks, pathways, etc.) so it's basing its scores purely on distance away from certain features or amenties that are cataloged by Google (grocery stores, parks, movie houses...) I blogged this mostly for fun.

Plus I wanted to show that I know how to handle its and it's.

Posted by Tracy Davis on August 8, 2007 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm experimenting with my newest gadget. Since my preferred learning modality is so overwhelmingly visual, it's taken me awhile to get into this audio thing; but having purchased a digital audio recorder for other, non-blogging reasons, I thought I'd take it with me to yesterday's Planning Commission meeting with the consultants from ACP to test it out. In addition to being a relatively successful test of the recorder's technical abilities in being able to pick up a roomful of discussion, I'm able to share some interesting material which was presented at the meeting.

As a teaser, here's a two-minute clip of consultant Randy Gross of Randall Gross/Development Economics talking about some of his findings related to the housing market in the Northfield area. This got my attention because it was an economic development argument I hadn't really considered before.

Our Nielson ratings indicate that the Planning Commission meetings on NTV have quite a following, but I like having options, and some may prefer the ability to listen to the meetings while doing something else that's actually productive at the same time. If you're a masochist, you can download and listen to the whole darned almost-three-hour thing here.

Posted by Tracy Davis on June 14, 2007 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Planning Commission and City staff have a big week ahead of us. The consultants from ACP Visioning and Planning will be in town most of the week, and some of us are involved in meetings Monday night, Tuesday morning, Tuesday night, Wednesday night, and Thursday morning (whew!). Check out the official schedule on NorthfieldPlan.org.

Note: The photo above is of planning commissioner Alice Thomas, taken today in Oman. She may be jet-lagged for next week's series of meetings, but she appears to have a good shot at being relaxed and happy.

Posted by Tracy Davis on March 31, 2007 06:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My posts to different blogs (here, LocallyGrown.org, NorthfieldPlan.org) are scattering me all over the web, and I may have to strategize about exactly what I post where in order to retain some consistency. But, in conjunction with my belief that it's not possible to overcommunicate about local government issues, I'm posting the timeline for the Comprehensive Plan review and revision process put out by our consultants, ACP Visioning and Planning, even though the timeline is also posted on the NorthfieldPlan.org site. Please post any questions or comments to NorthfieldPlan.org.

Continue reading "More on the Comprehensive Plan" »

Posted by the Webmaster on January 13, 2007 11:05 AM | Permalink

This coming Tuesday, Nov. 14, a presentation on Low-Impact Development will be given by Jay Michels, Coordinator of the Twin Cities Project NEMO (Nonpoint source pollution Education for Municipal Officials).

If we can get beyond the trendy obfuscation of terms like "low impact", "nonpoint source pollution", etc., this simply means finding responsible accommodation between land use and natural resource protection. The "Low-Impact Development" concept has specifically to do with stormwater management in an environmentally sensitive and cost-effective way.

Stormwater management doesn't sound very sexy, but it's very much to the point when so much of our land use involves paved roads and ginormous parking lots. The Planning Commission is considering some LID language in our updated Comprehensive Plan and land use ordinances. Anyone concerned with growth, land use, and environmental issues would probably find this presentation interesting.

Part of the regular Planning Commission meeting at City Hall, which begins at 7:00p on Tuesday evening, the presentation is free and open to the public.

Posted by the Webmaster on November 12, 2006 02:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(See Planning Commission Chair Ross Currier's post on the Locally Grown blog for the antecedent.)

Posted by the Webmaster on October 29, 2006 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Northfield.org editor Anne Bretts confronted me on the ISSUES list regarding my extremely undiplomatic comment about certain new residential developments around town. Someday I’ll have to demonstrate that I can actually be tactful, but that doesn’t make for very interesting reading, and if we didn’t have interesting reading, readership would fall off, sponsors would lose interest, and we couldn’t continue to build Northfield.org into the terrific resource it’s become. So really, Anne, I’m helping! And I welcome the opportunity to clarify my position.

Most of the examples in your post have to do with architectural design features, and that’s not really a big concern of mine (except in the historic district). I personally don’t like the building trend for big-ass garages right in front of the house, but as you say, that’s personal taste. My real concern is with urban design and urban planning, which have to do with how buildings relate to each other and how they relate to the street, how they fit in with existing buildings, and most importantly, how they relate to the people who live there.

Northfield simply has not done a very good job of self-determination when it comes to directing or shaping (a/k/a planning) the growth of the community. Growth is a good thing, and I’m in no way opposed to it. I also don’t object to new construction. But as you’ve probably noticed, I have a big issue with what many of the developers are building in Northfield. As a group they are, shall we say, not the most creative and imaginative bunch, and contrary to their claims, they really aren’t interested in providing choice, either residential or commercial. They predetermine the choices available based on their understanding of what “the market” wants, which basically means, whatever they were able to sell on their last project up in Maplewood or wherever. There are developers and builders who are exceptions, but unfortunately there aren’t enough of them around here. (As an aside - one of my suggestions to the EDA is to look regionally and nationally for cutting-edge creative developers as a target industry for Northfield.)

This is where planning comes in. Some people think that planning itself is bad, because it’s “the government” telling people what they can or can’t do with their own property. But when it comes down to a local level, where the idea of government by the people for the people actually has a chance to work, planning is more akin to organization, like arranging your furniture or landscaping your yard – just on a slightly larger scale.

So the questions being asked shouldn’t be simplistic ones like “Should we build new houses?” or “Do we want a multiplex movie theater?” The real questions are along the lines of,

How much land do we have available for new development? Where is it?

What is the ideal balance between residential and non-residential development, what are the tax and cost implications of each, and how should that impact land use planning?

Where is the best place for new developments of varying types?

How should these things relate to and connect with the existing community?

To sum up, I’m not anti-growth. Growth, like change, is inevitable. Nor am I trying to keep Northfield in some idealized time in the past. But how things grow is a concern to me, and I’d much prefer the measured, incremental growth exhibited by a child than the growth demonstrated by a cancer cell. Which is part of the reason why I’d like to see our ordinances dictate a little more about how things are done here, so that we can plan and grow in healthy, effective, efficient and sustainable ways for the benefit of both current and future residents.

Posted by the Webmaster on September 1, 2006 01:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

There’s been discussion on the ISSUES list recently about balancing development and farm preservation. Obviously, like any complex issue, there are many angles from which this may be approached, and it’s particularly relevant to Northfield, with its strong agricultural base and its history as an essentially rural community.

The summer issue of the Planning Commissioners Journal had an interesting article about the growing interest in farmland protection, and the steps some municipalities have taken to create a solution that balances competing needs and tries to accommodate as many as possible. It isn’t too early for us to be pondering what we citizens want our community to be, and to look like, as far as the surrounding greenbelt is concerned. If we want to keep it as a resource and a part of our community identity, steps need to be taken and plans laid.

If we don’t want to preserve this resource, or we simply don't care one way or another, the good news is: we don’t have to do a thing! The mindless “free market” will make all the decisions for us.

And I'm sure the free market has our best interest at heart.

Posted by the Webmaster on August 30, 2006 05:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Real Estate section of Sunday’s New York Times featured an article about urban planning issues and the controversy surrounding the use (or misuse) of the cul-de-sac by developers. Northfield was cited as an example of the controversy. (If you can't view the article with the link, you can download the article in PDF format here.)

Being “against” cul-de-sacs seems positively un-American. But rather than being viewed as against cul-de-sacs, I’d prefer to be seen as for multiple means of mobility and pedestrian-scaled planning. It’s my way of resisting unsustainable automobile-dependent development styles which are 1) a historical and cultural anomaly, 2) not well suited to a geographically compact community like Northfield and 3) a stupid idea whose time is long past, especially in view of rising fuel prices and greenhouse gas emissions.

Planning commission chair Ross Currier said, “I love the fact that what gets Northfield in the New York Times is our planning debates...”

Posted by the Webmaster on August 29, 2006 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

As you may or may not be aware, the City Council voted last night to re-zone 22 acres of land from LI ("light industrial") to C-3 ("gateway commercial", a/k/a sprawl). A lot of the hoopla was due to the fact that the current landowner is negotiating with a developer who's interested in putting a multiplex cinema on the site, and the discussion of whether and where to build a theater is obscuring what, to me, is the real issue:

Our zoning ordinances suck.

This is very relevant to the property in question, because while the LI designation is nothing to write home about, C-3 is worse. The land development regulations governing the C-3 designation have precious little in the way of either urban design or architectural design standards, which means that C-3 property owners are pretty much free to build whatever crap they want on the land and cover the rest with impermeable surfaces, regardless of the long-term cost and consequences to the community as a whole.

Try this little exercise. First, close your eyes and picture the ugliest buildings and land use in Northfield. Then locate those areas on our current zoning map. I'll give you a hint: They're in the red areas, designated "C-1 gateway commercial". Coincidence?

Northfield is incredibly passive about this kind of thing. For a community that prides itself on creativity and intellect, it's ridiculous that we ask nothing of developers beyond money and a willingness to build stuff. Somehow we think that theater complexes and shopping malls are "economic development". No, they're a consumer convenience, but that's not the same thing.

I'd like to take a page from the books of more progressive areas of the country that have adopted and implemented strategies of "Community Preservation", which Northfield desperately needs. Massachusetts describes this approach in part by saying,

"Most communities often find themselves in a corner; they desire economic development, but are also concerned that the financial, environmental and social costs of sprawl will outweigh the benefits of that growth. With careful planning, however, economic growth can flourish while preserving the character of our communities. Community Preservation is not a "no growth" policy. Instead, Community Preservation promotes pro-active and careful decision-making to direct future development to the most suitable locations. The goal of Community Preservation is to empower communities to develop a unique vision and plan for a future that compliments rather than conflicts with their environment, history culture and quality of life."

The whole point of PLANNING recognizes that self-interest and market incentives alone do not a good community make. We have a good Comprehensive Plan for Northfield; what we don't have is land use regulations that support it. And until we do, we're going to keep getting proposals for generic development by people who simply don't know how to do anything else. Needless to say, I'm disappointed that the Council ignored the recommendation of the City's own Planning Commission and City staff in proceeding with this rezoning. But even more, I'm dismayed that this community apparently just doesn't have the balls to articulate a vision--and stick to it. If that continues to be the case, then the future will probably look a lot like the photo above, because it's the path of least resistance.

Doesn't that just make you proud to be a Northfielder?

Posted by the Webmaster on June 6, 2006 07:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

This week, the Planning Commission is reviewing the Transportation chapter of Northfield's Comprehensive Plan. In addition to revising the language to include more references to multiple means of mobility (not just automobiles), we need to consider exactly how bike and pedestrian trails fit into the picture. Dundas Planning Commission chair Bruce Morlan had a piece in the StarTribune last week in response to the Strib's nice but rather uninsightful article about Dundas development on May 16.

In our upcoming Locally Grown audio show, we've invited former City councilwoman Peg Prowe to talk about the MIll Towns Trail project, which just received $1M from the State. We’ll be doing our recording session downtown in the new James Gang Hideaway at 421 Division Street, Friday at 2:30 PM, in case anyone wants to be in the “studio audience.” We might even take questions/comments “live”. Please join us!

Posted by the Webmaster on May 20, 2006 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was walking through the maze of what will be *Bridgewater Heights today. I noticed details on the window of one of the units that was closer to completion -- they were set up in nine panes instead of one. I thought it unique. Then I realized that *every* other window in sight was equally "unique." But looking around at almost all recent developments in Northfield seem to be the same way. Almost all the development on the south side (south of the High School) is the same way. And look over near the Northfield Retirement Center -- the north side is no better. Northfielders are constantly priding themselves on the history and  integrity of our town -- and its buildings. Based on what most residential development is looking to be like, we're becoming another dull, generic suburb. Anyone else have some thoughts? If not big-picture Northfield development, how about what shade of taupe will be all the rage next year?
*Technically, Bridgewater Heights is in Dundas.

Sean Hayford O'Leary, student
http://sdho.org

Continue reading "Highlights from Citizens Discussion - Development in Northfield" »

Posted by the Webmaster on May 17, 2006 10:17 AM | Permalink

The Northfield Planning Commission is undertaking a monumental task: we’re FINALLY moving ahead with revising Northfield’s antiquated Land Development Regulations (zoning ordinances).

Northfield likes to think of itself as a progressive community, but its zoning ordinances are stuck in the 1960s. In addition to just being bad, they aren’t congruent with the city’s
Comprehensive Plan (an overly wordy and pedantic document which contains some really, really good ideas).

The Planning Commission and the City Council have had their hands tied on land use for a very long time. Case in point – when we have to review a “preliminary plat” for proposed division and use of a land parcel for residential development, it’s generally something that will end up looking like a bunch of beige and taupe "snout houses" (thanks to Chip Cuccio on the “Development in Northfield” discussion on the Issues list). Then the Planning Commission gets the blame, which, I suppose, is fair. BUT… the fault is really in the zoning ordinances, because that’s exactly the kind of development the ordinances don’t simply allow, they foster. How this happens, and the importance of urban design, is a whole ‘nother thing and I won’t tackle it now. Suffice it to say that we may not like or want another faux-chateau beige subdivision, but if the laws on the books say “yes, you can,” then we aren’t in a position to legally say “no, you can’t.”

Continue reading "Hell is Zoned R-1" »

Posted by the Webmaster on May 11, 2006 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Yes, in some ways I'm sick of hearing about it too. What is the Comprehensive Plan, and why do we care?

Well, I've attended exactly three meetings now in my new capacity as Planning Commissioner, and if one thing is crystal-clear, it's that Northfield's current zoning ordinances do not correspond to the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2001. This is part of the reason why Northfield keeps sanctioning the cul-de-sac starter castles and monotonous 'burb developments that are popping up in the outskirts like toadstools after a rain. (I think the other reason is that developers nowadays just don't know how to build anything else, which they cloak in mumblings about "the market".)

Continue reading "The Tiresome Issue of Northfield's Comprehensive Plan" »

Posted by the Webmaster on April 30, 2006 04:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last Monday, 2/27, the City Council received a feasibility study/market analysis on three options proposed for the municipal liquor store:

1. Relocate to the Q-Block property on Highway 3.
2. Relocate to the current Lansing Hardware location on Division Street
3. Expand the existing liquor store at its current location.

There's some very interesting information in the study and analysis, which can be downloaded from its location on the City website, buried in the meeting packet for last week's Council meeting.

Continue reading "Liquor Store - Expansion, Relocation Options" »

Posted by the Webmaster on March 6, 2006 02:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)