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)

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)