Good Morning Maitland !
The conception began last night when our City Council voted to have a commuter rail station built for our community.
Want to learn more about our rail system ?
Visit this site:
http://www.cfrail.com/
Want to read today's articles ?
Visit these sites: http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2007/4/24/commuter_rail_in_central_park.html
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-rail2407apr24,0,1100928.story?page=2&coll=orl-home-headlines
Ann Lanier
JustAskAnn@aol.com
"We cannot become what we need to be by remaining what we are."
~ Max Depree
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
COMMUNITY Planning ? What does it mean ?
What is considered to be good community planning ?
What does it look like ?
Who is knowledgeable enough to describe it ?
In answer to these questions I could've written about what I think - but since I'm not an authority instead will share with you information that I've found.
Searching the Internet revealed books written by various authorities on this subject. One such book, Land Use Strategies for More Livable Places, reports on critical aspects to consider when developing a plan for creating a better community.
This report, prepared by The Local Government Commission of Sacramento, California, acknowledges the obvious problems of urban sprawl along with the solutions and how to implement them.
The problems ? Severe side effects from unbridled growth includes air pollution, neighborhoods with no sense of community and separation of children from parents because of endless hours of commutes among other issues.
The solutions ? Moving beyond what is referred to as "piecemeal planning" and instead developing "compact" (high density) - mixed use/pedestrian-oriented communities.
In this 1992 publication, Californians recognized the urgent need to identify a different strategy for accommodating inevitable growth that would require revising planning and zoning ordinances.
They also noted the importance of involving the community's citizens in the planning process and that local leaders must take charge.
But what does this report state are some of the core principles needed in order to create more livable and better planned communities ?
* All planning should contain housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities.
* Community size should be designed so that everything is within walking distance of each other.
* Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents
* Location and Character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network.
* The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design.
* The design should help conserve resources and minimize waste.
In summary, the core basics for creating good community planning will include developing a sense of community, planning high density mixed-use development along with securing citizen involvement.
Now that we have a better idea of what our city planning needs to include, can we, Maitland city officials and residents alike, learn from the abundant growth issues that have long challenged California ?
Yes, we absolutely can.
The bigger question now seems to be...will we ?
Ann Lanier
245 W. George Ave.
“Thinking well is wise; planning well, wiser; doing well wisest and best of all.”
~ Proverb
What does it look like ?
Who is knowledgeable enough to describe it ?
In answer to these questions I could've written about what I think - but since I'm not an authority instead will share with you information that I've found.
Searching the Internet revealed books written by various authorities on this subject. One such book, Land Use Strategies for More Livable Places, reports on critical aspects to consider when developing a plan for creating a better community.
This report, prepared by The Local Government Commission of Sacramento, California, acknowledges the obvious problems of urban sprawl along with the solutions and how to implement them.
The problems ? Severe side effects from unbridled growth includes air pollution, neighborhoods with no sense of community and separation of children from parents because of endless hours of commutes among other issues.
The solutions ? Moving beyond what is referred to as "piecemeal planning" and instead developing "compact" (high density) - mixed use/pedestrian-oriented communities.
In this 1992 publication, Californians recognized the urgent need to identify a different strategy for accommodating inevitable growth that would require revising planning and zoning ordinances.
They also noted the importance of involving the community's citizens in the planning process and that local leaders must take charge.
But what does this report state are some of the core principles needed in order to create more livable and better planned communities ?
* All planning should contain housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities.
* Community size should be designed so that everything is within walking distance of each other.
* Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents
* Location and Character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network.
* The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design.
* The design should help conserve resources and minimize waste.
In summary, the core basics for creating good community planning will include developing a sense of community, planning high density mixed-use development along with securing citizen involvement.
Now that we have a better idea of what our city planning needs to include, can we, Maitland city officials and residents alike, learn from the abundant growth issues that have long challenged California ?
Yes, we absolutely can.
The bigger question now seems to be...will we ?
Ann Lanier
245 W. George Ave.
“Thinking well is wise; planning well, wiser; doing well wisest and best of all.”
~ Proverb
COMMUNITY Educational Opportunity ~ Civil Rights
Good Afternoon Maitland !
When was the last time you visited our Maitland Senior Center ? Have you ever ventured over to our Maitland Historial Museum ?
Plan an educational excursion now - learn more about our city while learning more about our world. Invite a neighbor, take a friend from out of town, share an outing with your grandchild or plan a homeschool field trip.
It's all here and waiting for us...right around the corner from home.
Your Neighbor,
Ann Lanier
JustAskAnn@aol.com
"Education enables people and societies to be what they can be."
~ Bill Richardson
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Orlando Sentinel, Orange in Brief
Historical society lecture on Cold War, civil rights
Posted April 22, 2007
In conjunction with its current exhibit "The Cold War: Bomb Shelter Boutique," the Maitland Historical Society will present a lecture on how the Cold War affected the civil rights movement at 6 p.m. Tuesday.
Vilbert White from the University of Central Florida public history department will lead the discussion at the Maitland Senior Center, 345 S. Maitland Ave.
The Cold War exhibit can be seen at Maitland Historical Museum, 221 W. Packwood Ave. from noon to 4 p.m. Thursdays and Fridays and 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays.
The exhibit explores everything from politics and propaganda to bomb-shelter preparations and 1950s culture.
Visitors can even duck inside a mock bomb shelter to see what it would feel like.
Admission is free.
For details, call 407-644-2451.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-ornewsbriefs2207apr22,0,6806822.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-orange
When was the last time you visited our Maitland Senior Center ? Have you ever ventured over to our Maitland Historial Museum ?
Plan an educational excursion now - learn more about our city while learning more about our world. Invite a neighbor, take a friend from out of town, share an outing with your grandchild or plan a homeschool field trip.
It's all here and waiting for us...right around the corner from home.
Your Neighbor,
Ann Lanier
JustAskAnn@aol.com
"Education enables people and societies to be what they can be."
~ Bill Richardson
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Orlando Sentinel, Orange in Brief
Historical society lecture on Cold War, civil rights
Posted April 22, 2007
In conjunction with its current exhibit "The Cold War: Bomb Shelter Boutique," the Maitland Historical Society will present a lecture on how the Cold War affected the civil rights movement at 6 p.m. Tuesday.
Vilbert White from the University of Central Florida public history department will lead the discussion at the Maitland Senior Center, 345 S. Maitland Ave.
The Cold War exhibit can be seen at Maitland Historical Museum, 221 W. Packwood Ave. from noon to 4 p.m. Thursdays and Fridays and 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays.
The exhibit explores everything from politics and propaganda to bomb-shelter preparations and 1950s culture.
Visitors can even duck inside a mock bomb shelter to see what it would feel like.
Admission is free.
For details, call 407-644-2451.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-ornewsbriefs2207apr22,0,6806822.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-orange
Saturday, April 21, 2007
MEETING ~ City Council, Commuter Rail
Greetings Again Maitland !
Why attend our City Council Meetings ? ? ?
It's simple.
Because now is the time to help shape Maitland....your Maitland, my Maitland...OUR Maitland.
I encourage you to attend. I encourage you to become involved.
Your Neighbor,
Ann Lanier
JustAskAnn@aol.com
"Let's learn together so we can work together to shape and build our community into everything we want it to be."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~
When: Monday, April 23, 2007 , 7:00 P.M.
Where: City Hall ~ Council Chambers
What: Council Decisions ~ Commuter Rail Interlocal Agreement
For full agenda, please view this link: http://itsmymaitland.com/agenda-citycouncil.aspx?a=viewPost&PostID=2871
Why attend our City Council Meetings ? ? ?
It's simple.
Because now is the time to help shape Maitland....your Maitland, my Maitland...OUR Maitland.
I encourage you to attend. I encourage you to become involved.
Your Neighbor,
Ann Lanier
JustAskAnn@aol.com
"Let's learn together so we can work together to shape and build our community into everything we want it to be."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~
When: Monday, April 23, 2007 , 7:00 P.M.
Where: City Hall ~ Council Chambers
What: Council Decisions ~ Commuter Rail Interlocal Agreement
For full agenda, please view this link: http://itsmymaitland.com/agenda-citycouncil.aspx?a=viewPost&PostID=2871
Monday, April 16, 2007
COMMUTER RAIL ~ Dead Deal ?
Greetings Maitland Neighbors,
Will we or won't we get a Commuter Rail ? Do we or don't we want one ?
Now is the time to speak to our elected officials.
Decisions are made in our City Council Meetings.
Next City Council Mtg. - April 23, 7PM, City Hall.
Ann Lanier
NOTE: The following are only excepts. Full article can be read at: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-rail1507apr15,0,969856.story?coll=orl-home-headlines
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Commuter rail runs into 'deal-killer'
Christopher Sherman Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted April 15, 2007
Contracts that would clear the way for Winter Park and Maitland to have a commuter-rail stop have hit an obstacle that could be a "deal-killer."
As the day for signatures nears, the uncertainty of commuter rail's future costs has caught up with the only small cities...to shoulder a portion of the system's financial burden.
...Maitland's and Winter Park's participation has...have been given more time to negotiate with Orange County...
The cities are expected to vote on their agreements April 23.
Maitland and Winter Park have said they could only commit to sharing commuter rail's costs if they could easily opt out and close their stations if their budgets can't support them...
...The county wants the cities to agree to cover any "negative financial impact" that could occur if they decide to opt out. That nebulous wording has both sides digging in their heels...
...Councilman Jeff Flowers summed up what seems to be the thinking on all sides: "A contract that you can't even know the cost of is just an idiotic contract."
Will we or won't we get a Commuter Rail ? Do we or don't we want one ?
Now is the time to speak to our elected officials.
Decisions are made in our City Council Meetings.
Next City Council Mtg. - April 23, 7PM, City Hall.
Ann Lanier
NOTE: The following are only excepts. Full article can be read at: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-rail1507apr15,0,969856.story?coll=orl-home-headlines
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Commuter rail runs into 'deal-killer'
Christopher Sherman Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted April 15, 2007
Contracts that would clear the way for Winter Park and Maitland to have a commuter-rail stop have hit an obstacle that could be a "deal-killer."
As the day for signatures nears, the uncertainty of commuter rail's future costs has caught up with the only small cities...to shoulder a portion of the system's financial burden.
...Maitland's and Winter Park's participation has...have been given more time to negotiate with Orange County...
The cities are expected to vote on their agreements April 23.
Maitland and Winter Park have said they could only commit to sharing commuter rail's costs if they could easily opt out and close their stations if their budgets can't support them...
...The county wants the cities to agree to cover any "negative financial impact" that could occur if they decide to opt out. That nebulous wording has both sides digging in their heels...
...Councilman Jeff Flowers summed up what seems to be the thinking on all sides: "A contract that you can't even know the cost of is just an idiotic contract."
Thursday, April 12, 2007
DOWNTOWN ~ Only a figment of our imagination ?
Good Afternoon Maitland !
So, do you want a downtown Maitland or not ?
If you, like me, do want one...then what are the facts about us ever really getting one ?
TRUE or FALSE: Since we already have a developer, it's a guarantee we'll be getting a downtown.
False ! It is NOT a guarantee that we will EVER have a new downtown. Period. Our Mayor and City Council will VOTE on the final decisions. Period.
TRUE or FALSE: Even if the majority of residents want a downtown, we may never get one.
True ! It's called politics. If the residents who want a vibrant downtown continue to keep their voices to themselves while the residents who oppose the current development continue to speak out loud and strong - who do you think our Mayor and City Council will listen to ??? The ones they hear from the most - it's their elected duty.
NOW is the time to make your voice heard....NOW like never before.
We must do more than just thinking about wanting a downtown, we must take action in order to get one !
Otherwise having a downtown may forever remain only a figment of our imagination.
Ann Lanier
245 W. George Ave.
JustAskAnn@aol.com
"Thinking is easy, acting is difficult, and to put one's thoughts into action is the most difficult thing in the world." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
So, do you want a downtown Maitland or not ?
If you, like me, do want one...then what are the facts about us ever really getting one ?
TRUE or FALSE: Since we already have a developer, it's a guarantee we'll be getting a downtown.
False ! It is NOT a guarantee that we will EVER have a new downtown. Period. Our Mayor and City Council will VOTE on the final decisions. Period.
TRUE or FALSE: Even if the majority of residents want a downtown, we may never get one.
True ! It's called politics. If the residents who want a vibrant downtown continue to keep their voices to themselves while the residents who oppose the current development continue to speak out loud and strong - who do you think our Mayor and City Council will listen to ??? The ones they hear from the most - it's their elected duty.
NOW is the time to make your voice heard....NOW like never before.
We must do more than just thinking about wanting a downtown, we must take action in order to get one !
Otherwise having a downtown may forever remain only a figment of our imagination.
Ann Lanier
245 W. George Ave.
JustAskAnn@aol.com
"Thinking is easy, acting is difficult, and to put one's thoughts into action is the most difficult thing in the world." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
COMMUNITY Voice ~ Commuter Rail
Dear Maitland Neighbors,
The following email was originally sent to our Maitland City Mayor and Council on 04-10-2007. I am grateful that our re-elected Councilman Jeff Flowers recognized the value of forwarding this on to me this morning.
We must hear ALL the voices in our community !
Again, I encourage you to attend City Council Meetings every other Monday evening at 7P.M., but if unable to attend I urge you to listen to the recording of the minutes by clicking on the following link: http://www.itsmymaitland.com/meeting_recordings.aspx
Ann Lanier, 245 W. George Ave., (407) 622-1165, email: JustAskAnn@aol.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I attended last night's council meeting (04-09-2007) and would like to make some additional comments relating to commuter rail. The idea of crafting an agreement with Orange County that is acceptable to the Maitland Council and that limits the cost of closing a station after seven years is a good one, though it is disappointing to me to see so much concern about a potential failure of the project and the resulting impact on the City of Maitland. Even though the process of negotiating for a Maitland station is obviously frustrating for all concerned, I urge each of you to hang in there and push to get closure on this issue.
One of the problems I see with this effort is letting lawyers hammer out the agreement. Drafting an agreement should be the domain of city and county administrative managers, perhaps the transportation department. Then lawyers should dot the i's and cross the t's. Having attorneys draft a contract sets a high potential for aggravation, delays and unnecessary red tape. Councilman Miller pointed out that the Tri-Rail contract was only five pages long but the Central Florida Commuter Rail contract length was 16 pages. It's a good bet that the Tri-Rail contract was not written by lawyers.
While I hear much concern about costs relating to closing the station in seven years, I have heard nothing about the potential to generate revenues by using the station as retail space or of selling it if it be deemed desirable to close the station. Such revenue could be used to cover the cost of a necessary station closing.
I would also like to address some mis-information a citizen presented last night who obviously was against commuter rail.
1. He implied commuter trains may run late because Amtrak runs late and that is caused by the CSX having more freight business than they can handle. He also indicated commuter trains may run late because railroads restrict speed during heat waves due to the potential of rail buckling caused by heat expansion. The truth is about 10 freight trains will be rerouted and for 18 hours a day the right-of-way will be the exclusive domain of commuter trains and 4 Amtrak trains. So, freight trains will not be a cause for delays as he implies. It is true CSX has placed speed restrictions on trains during heat waves. What our fellow citizen failed to say was that the restriction reduced speed from the normal 79 MPH to 60 MPH. I don't think commuter trains will be scheduled faster than 60 MPH in congested areas such as south of Sanford.
2. He indicated there is no way 50 or more trains can operate daily on single track through Maitland. Doing the math proves him incorrect. Currently, there are approximately two miles of single track running through Maitland. At an average speed of 30 MPH, a commuter train could clear two miles in 4 minutes. Assume a two minute station stop in Maitland. Accordingly it would take a minimum of 6 minutes for a train to pass through Maitland including a station stop. Given these conditions a train could pass through Maitland every 10 ten minutes without the dispatcher having to be concerned with split-second timing. This would permit 6 trains per hour or 108 trains in an 18 hour period to operate on the existing single track route. My understanding is that commuter trains will operate on average every 45 minutes both north and south or less than 3 trains per hour. (During rush hours, trains will run every 30 minutes; other periods one every hour). Three trains per hour times 18 hours equates to 52 trains per operating day against a theoretical track capacity during an 18 hour period in excess of 108 trains. NOTE: The Burlington Northern R.R. operates about 50 freight trains a day (many a mile long) on slow running mountainous winding track along the Columbia River east of Portland, OR on single track.
AND FINALLY....I have heard concerns about the frequency of commuter trains potentially delaying auto traffic at track street crossings. Doing the math would quell those fears. I understand about 10 freight trains will be re-routed during the periods when commuter trains will operate. My observation is that most of these trains are long averaging perhaps a 100 cars or about a mile long. Using an average speed of 30 MPH passing through Maitland, it would take a mile long train 2 minutes to pass over a given crossing---and 30 seconds for crossing gates coming down ahead of the trains arrival and going back up after the passing of the train. This means it takes about 2 1/2 minutes for a long freight train to pass over a given crossing or about 25 minutes of crossing time currently tied up with the passing of these 10 trains. This crossing time will be eliminated when these trains are rerouted. Bring on the commuter trains----A two car train running at 30 MPH would take about 4 seconds to pass a given crossing plus 30 seconds for crossing gates to go down and back up. This means 44 commuter trains could pass a given crossing using the same amount of total crossing time (25 minutes) that are currently used by 10 freight trains. So the projected 52 commuter trains per day would use slightly more crossing time than the 10 freight trains currently require.
And for those who want to be politically correct in their support for commuter trains and are worried about mankind making a difference in slowing global warming, trains are much more efficient fuel consumption wise than vehicular traffic and spew far fewer environmental pollutants.
If the general public knew facts such as these, I think you would see even more support for commuter train operation. I am hopeful this kind of information will be helpful to each of you and will help you support your argument for commuter rail operations in Maitland.
Skip Penney
955 Gamewell Ave
The following email was originally sent to our Maitland City Mayor and Council on 04-10-2007. I am grateful that our re-elected Councilman Jeff Flowers recognized the value of forwarding this on to me this morning.
We must hear ALL the voices in our community !
Again, I encourage you to attend City Council Meetings every other Monday evening at 7P.M., but if unable to attend I urge you to listen to the recording of the minutes by clicking on the following link: http://www.itsmymaitland.com/meeting_recordings.aspx
Ann Lanier, 245 W. George Ave., (407) 622-1165, email: JustAskAnn@aol.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I attended last night's council meeting (04-09-2007) and would like to make some additional comments relating to commuter rail. The idea of crafting an agreement with Orange County that is acceptable to the Maitland Council and that limits the cost of closing a station after seven years is a good one, though it is disappointing to me to see so much concern about a potential failure of the project and the resulting impact on the City of Maitland. Even though the process of negotiating for a Maitland station is obviously frustrating for all concerned, I urge each of you to hang in there and push to get closure on this issue.
One of the problems I see with this effort is letting lawyers hammer out the agreement. Drafting an agreement should be the domain of city and county administrative managers, perhaps the transportation department. Then lawyers should dot the i's and cross the t's. Having attorneys draft a contract sets a high potential for aggravation, delays and unnecessary red tape. Councilman Miller pointed out that the Tri-Rail contract was only five pages long but the Central Florida Commuter Rail contract length was 16 pages. It's a good bet that the Tri-Rail contract was not written by lawyers.
While I hear much concern about costs relating to closing the station in seven years, I have heard nothing about the potential to generate revenues by using the station as retail space or of selling it if it be deemed desirable to close the station. Such revenue could be used to cover the cost of a necessary station closing.
I would also like to address some mis-information a citizen presented last night who obviously was against commuter rail.
1. He implied commuter trains may run late because Amtrak runs late and that is caused by the CSX having more freight business than they can handle. He also indicated commuter trains may run late because railroads restrict speed during heat waves due to the potential of rail buckling caused by heat expansion. The truth is about 10 freight trains will be rerouted and for 18 hours a day the right-of-way will be the exclusive domain of commuter trains and 4 Amtrak trains. So, freight trains will not be a cause for delays as he implies. It is true CSX has placed speed restrictions on trains during heat waves. What our fellow citizen failed to say was that the restriction reduced speed from the normal 79 MPH to 60 MPH. I don't think commuter trains will be scheduled faster than 60 MPH in congested areas such as south of Sanford.
2. He indicated there is no way 50 or more trains can operate daily on single track through Maitland. Doing the math proves him incorrect. Currently, there are approximately two miles of single track running through Maitland. At an average speed of 30 MPH, a commuter train could clear two miles in 4 minutes. Assume a two minute station stop in Maitland. Accordingly it would take a minimum of 6 minutes for a train to pass through Maitland including a station stop. Given these conditions a train could pass through Maitland every 10 ten minutes without the dispatcher having to be concerned with split-second timing. This would permit 6 trains per hour or 108 trains in an 18 hour period to operate on the existing single track route. My understanding is that commuter trains will operate on average every 45 minutes both north and south or less than 3 trains per hour. (During rush hours, trains will run every 30 minutes; other periods one every hour). Three trains per hour times 18 hours equates to 52 trains per operating day against a theoretical track capacity during an 18 hour period in excess of 108 trains. NOTE: The Burlington Northern R.R. operates about 50 freight trains a day (many a mile long) on slow running mountainous winding track along the Columbia River east of Portland, OR on single track.
AND FINALLY....I have heard concerns about the frequency of commuter trains potentially delaying auto traffic at track street crossings. Doing the math would quell those fears. I understand about 10 freight trains will be re-routed during the periods when commuter trains will operate. My observation is that most of these trains are long averaging perhaps a 100 cars or about a mile long. Using an average speed of 30 MPH passing through Maitland, it would take a mile long train 2 minutes to pass over a given crossing---and 30 seconds for crossing gates coming down ahead of the trains arrival and going back up after the passing of the train. This means it takes about 2 1/2 minutes for a long freight train to pass over a given crossing or about 25 minutes of crossing time currently tied up with the passing of these 10 trains. This crossing time will be eliminated when these trains are rerouted. Bring on the commuter trains----A two car train running at 30 MPH would take about 4 seconds to pass a given crossing plus 30 seconds for crossing gates to go down and back up. This means 44 commuter trains could pass a given crossing using the same amount of total crossing time (25 minutes) that are currently used by 10 freight trains. So the projected 52 commuter trains per day would use slightly more crossing time than the 10 freight trains currently require.
And for those who want to be politically correct in their support for commuter trains and are worried about mankind making a difference in slowing global warming, trains are much more efficient fuel consumption wise than vehicular traffic and spew far fewer environmental pollutants.
If the general public knew facts such as these, I think you would see even more support for commuter train operation. I am hopeful this kind of information will be helpful to each of you and will help you support your argument for commuter rail operations in Maitland.
Skip Penney
955 Gamewell Ave
COMMUNITY Connection ~ Blog, blog, blog
Good Morning Maitland !!!
Which came first...the email or the blog ?
Sending out emails to help keep you abreast of our city news was a great way to begin communicating...but as most of us already agree, change can be a very, very good thing ! Hence, this blog site.
Please note that my current plan is to be sending out less and less email reminders as everyone becomes more familiar with checking this site daily.
Again - I urge and encourage you to post your comments directly on the web and to use this media as a community forum., your community forum.
Do you dream of a vibrant and connected community ? We can make it a reality !!!
Write an editorial, send it to me via email and I will be glad to post it !
Write an educational article, send it to me via email and I will be glad to post it !
Sharing your views, suggestions, ideas and insights is an easy and very helpful way to become active in developing our Maitland community voice.
What if I had never sent out that first email posting of Vanessa Blakeslee's Orlando Sentinel's Reader Opinion ? http://just-ask-ann.blogspot.com/2007/04/development-issues-growing-in-maitland.html
Let's all get connected...and stay connected !
See you at the Maitland Progress NOW meeting tonight !!! http://just-ask-ann.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-group-for-pro-downtown-forms.html
Ann *smiles*
"All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them." ~ Walt Disney
Which came first...the email or the blog ?
Sending out emails to help keep you abreast of our city news was a great way to begin communicating...but as most of us already agree, change can be a very, very good thing ! Hence, this blog site.
Please note that my current plan is to be sending out less and less email reminders as everyone becomes more familiar with checking this site daily.
Again - I urge and encourage you to post your comments directly on the web and to use this media as a community forum., your community forum.
Do you dream of a vibrant and connected community ? We can make it a reality !!!
Write an editorial, send it to me via email and I will be glad to post it !
Write an educational article, send it to me via email and I will be glad to post it !
Sharing your views, suggestions, ideas and insights is an easy and very helpful way to become active in developing our Maitland community voice.
What if I had never sent out that first email posting of Vanessa Blakeslee's Orlando Sentinel's Reader Opinion ? http://just-ask-ann.blogspot.com/2007/04/development-issues-growing-in-maitland.html
Let's all get connected...and stay connected !
See you at the Maitland Progress NOW meeting tonight !!! http://just-ask-ann.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-group-for-pro-downtown-forms.html
Ann *smiles*
"All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them." ~ Walt Disney
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
COMMUNITY QUESTION ~ Should We Go Green ?
Bob Miller's comments last night at our Maitland City Council Meeting prompted me to ask myself the following questions:
What is "green" ? Why go green ? Are other cities going green ? Should we go green ?
An online article by the city of Seattle, Washington entitled, "Why Build Green?" states the following potential benefits:
* Increased property value - a "green" designation can increase a building's market value as assessed by appraisers and investors.
* Increased return on investment - green designs and technology can yield financial paybacks over the life of the building in the form of lower utility bills and reduced operating and maintenance costs.
* Enhanced occupant health and well-being - because occupants have access to daylight and fresh air in an environment free of toxins and irritants.
* Boost occupant productivity - studies show the productivity benefits of fresh air and natural light in buildings, and conversely, the negative impact of poor indoor environmental quality.
* Increased sales and leasing potential - can be leased out more quickly and at an enhanced rate per square foot than comparable non-green space.
* Enhanced community and local economy
* Protect threatened and endangered species
* Support sustainable resource use
Green building requires an integrated, multi-disciplinary design process and a "whole-building" systems approach that considers the building's entire life-cycle (from planning, design, and construction to operation and maintenance, renovation, and demolition or building reuse). Together, these provide the means to create solutions that optimize building cost and performance.
Additional information can be learned by familiarizing ourselves with information gleaned from the "Declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future" adopted by the UIA/AIA World Congress of Architects in 1993 which recognizes the following:
* A sustainable society restores, preserves, and enhances nature and culture for the benefit of all life, present and future; a diverse and healthy environment is intrinsically valuable and essential to a healthy society; today's society is seriously degrading the environment and is not sustainable;
* We are ecologically interdependent with the whole natural environment; we are socially, culturally, and economically interdependent with all of humanity; sustainability, in the context of this interdependence, requires partnership, equity, and balance among all parties;
* Buildings and the built environment play a major role in the human impact on the natural environment and on the quality of life; sustainable design integrates consideration of resource and energy efficiency, healthy buildings and materials, ecologically and socially sensitive land-use, and an aesthetic sensitivity that inspires, affirms, and ennobles; sustainable design can significantly reduce adverse human impacts on the natural environment while simultaneously improving quality of life and economic well being;
What can we learn from others ? Who in our community has a passion for and belief in building green ? Will one of us step up in order to help the rest of our neighbors learn this part of how to build a model community ?
The Central Florida Chapter of the United States Green Building Council meets the 1st Tuesday of every month. There stated mission is as follows.
To have a positive impact on Central Florida's environment, economy, and social well being by:
* Promoting green and sustainable design, construction, and operation of buildings.
* Developing green and sustainable building standards, design practices, and technologies.
* Outreach and education to our members and communities.
Our city is busy making decisions each and every day as to our environmental future. How can we help our city officials make the best choices for our community's tomorrow's ? It's really up to you and me to educate ourselves and others NOW.
Ann Lanier
"Things alter for the worse spontaneously, if they be not altered for the better designedly." ~ Francis Bacon
Resources:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/GreenBuilding/OurProgram/WhyBuildGreen/default.asp#design
http://www.uia-architectes.org/texte/england/2aaf1.html
http://www.worldchanging.com/cities/
http://chapters.usgbc.org/centralflorida/
What is "green" ? Why go green ? Are other cities going green ? Should we go green ?
An online article by the city of Seattle, Washington entitled, "Why Build Green?" states the following potential benefits:
* Increased property value - a "green" designation can increase a building's market value as assessed by appraisers and investors.
* Increased return on investment - green designs and technology can yield financial paybacks over the life of the building in the form of lower utility bills and reduced operating and maintenance costs.
* Enhanced occupant health and well-being - because occupants have access to daylight and fresh air in an environment free of toxins and irritants.
* Boost occupant productivity - studies show the productivity benefits of fresh air and natural light in buildings, and conversely, the negative impact of poor indoor environmental quality.
* Increased sales and leasing potential - can be leased out more quickly and at an enhanced rate per square foot than comparable non-green space.
* Enhanced community and local economy
* Protect threatened and endangered species
* Support sustainable resource use
Green building requires an integrated, multi-disciplinary design process and a "whole-building" systems approach that considers the building's entire life-cycle (from planning, design, and construction to operation and maintenance, renovation, and demolition or building reuse). Together, these provide the means to create solutions that optimize building cost and performance.
Additional information can be learned by familiarizing ourselves with information gleaned from the "Declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future" adopted by the UIA/AIA World Congress of Architects in 1993 which recognizes the following:
* A sustainable society restores, preserves, and enhances nature and culture for the benefit of all life, present and future; a diverse and healthy environment is intrinsically valuable and essential to a healthy society; today's society is seriously degrading the environment and is not sustainable;
* We are ecologically interdependent with the whole natural environment; we are socially, culturally, and economically interdependent with all of humanity; sustainability, in the context of this interdependence, requires partnership, equity, and balance among all parties;
* Buildings and the built environment play a major role in the human impact on the natural environment and on the quality of life; sustainable design integrates consideration of resource and energy efficiency, healthy buildings and materials, ecologically and socially sensitive land-use, and an aesthetic sensitivity that inspires, affirms, and ennobles; sustainable design can significantly reduce adverse human impacts on the natural environment while simultaneously improving quality of life and economic well being;
What can we learn from others ? Who in our community has a passion for and belief in building green ? Will one of us step up in order to help the rest of our neighbors learn this part of how to build a model community ?
The Central Florida Chapter of the United States Green Building Council meets the 1st Tuesday of every month. There stated mission is as follows.
To have a positive impact on Central Florida's environment, economy, and social well being by:
* Promoting green and sustainable design, construction, and operation of buildings.
* Developing green and sustainable building standards, design practices, and technologies.
* Outreach and education to our members and communities.
Our city is busy making decisions each and every day as to our environmental future. How can we help our city officials make the best choices for our community's tomorrow's ? It's really up to you and me to educate ourselves and others NOW.
Ann Lanier
"Things alter for the worse spontaneously, if they be not altered for the better designedly." ~ Francis Bacon
Resources:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/GreenBuilding/OurProgram/WhyBuildGreen/default.asp#design
http://www.uia-architectes.org/texte/england/2aaf1.html
http://www.worldchanging.com/cities/
http://chapters.usgbc.org/centralflorida/
CITY Council Meeting 04-09-2007
Good Morning Maitland !
I'm a total newbie when it comes to attending anything having to do with government - so please bear with me concerning my input and overview of last evenings City Council Meeting. I'm not attempting to include everyone who spoke nor everything that was said but just touch on some of the items.
The agenda, of course, can be viewed online and as well you can listen to the minutes at:
http://www.itsmymaitland.com/agenda-archives.aspx
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
City Council Meeting
Bev Reponen addressed what she referred to as the "seeming disconnect" that sometimes exists between citizens and city council. She made note that slander, insulting comments and the like must not exist and offered possible solutions that could be added to the Rules of Procedure already established by the city.
Jean Thornton (?) gave a farewell and thank-you speech to honor Bob Brown's service to our community as he is completing his three-year term in office. Bev Reponen will be sworn in at the next meeting on the 23rd of April.
Bruce Grossman approached our city council by suggesting that we establish some type of Citizen Advisory for Marketing and Advertising our city in regards to making money by securing more businesses, filling empty retail/office vacancies and the like.
Skip Penny (?) shared his views concerning the commuter rail and his reasons why we cannot afford to loose it. He stated we'd be loosing: convenience, tax revenues, property values - hence additional loss of tax revenue, desirability of living here, etc.
Larry Schnapper spoke about our community needing to enter a new era and that he could envision himself in the future enjoying the many amenities our new downtown would bring us. He sees a clear need to move rapidly forward towards that goal and wants our council to be able to look back at the legacy they helped create.
Council was very pleased to have so many people applying to serve on boards and committees. Our Mayor Kinson stressed the importance of the councils need for each applicant to connect personally with each member of the council in order for them to make their best determination as to who might be most qualified and well suited to serve on the boards. He also made note that the city seems to be coming alive with people who want to serve and that he was very pleased to see this change taking place The council voted in quite a few new adviser's.
Quite a bit of time and discussion was given to the Commuter Rail Funding Mechanism - repayment of funds if electing the opt-out, unknown future expenses, drop-dead date for inclusion in project, policing, etc.
Bob Miller was granted permission to seek qualified architects who have expertise and experience in designing municipal safety buildings. He stated his strong belief in "going green" with future city building projects and noted the current involvement Lake Sybelia Elementary has regarding an energy project with Progress Energy.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I hope this has been of some help...because the voice that speaks out is the one that gets heard. Okay, that wasn't such a brilliant statement but it's so very true. We need me and we need you - together - speaking out and being involved.
Blessings to all,
Ann *smiles*
I'm a total newbie when it comes to attending anything having to do with government - so please bear with me concerning my input and overview of last evenings City Council Meeting. I'm not attempting to include everyone who spoke nor everything that was said but just touch on some of the items.
The agenda, of course, can be viewed online and as well you can listen to the minutes at:
http://www.itsmymaitland.com/agenda-archives.aspx
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
City Council Meeting
Bev Reponen addressed what she referred to as the "seeming disconnect" that sometimes exists between citizens and city council. She made note that slander, insulting comments and the like must not exist and offered possible solutions that could be added to the Rules of Procedure already established by the city.
Jean Thornton (?) gave a farewell and thank-you speech to honor Bob Brown's service to our community as he is completing his three-year term in office. Bev Reponen will be sworn in at the next meeting on the 23rd of April.
Bruce Grossman approached our city council by suggesting that we establish some type of Citizen Advisory for Marketing and Advertising our city in regards to making money by securing more businesses, filling empty retail/office vacancies and the like.
Skip Penny (?) shared his views concerning the commuter rail and his reasons why we cannot afford to loose it. He stated we'd be loosing: convenience, tax revenues, property values - hence additional loss of tax revenue, desirability of living here, etc.
Larry Schnapper spoke about our community needing to enter a new era and that he could envision himself in the future enjoying the many amenities our new downtown would bring us. He sees a clear need to move rapidly forward towards that goal and wants our council to be able to look back at the legacy they helped create.
Council was very pleased to have so many people applying to serve on boards and committees. Our Mayor Kinson stressed the importance of the councils need for each applicant to connect personally with each member of the council in order for them to make their best determination as to who might be most qualified and well suited to serve on the boards. He also made note that the city seems to be coming alive with people who want to serve and that he was very pleased to see this change taking place The council voted in quite a few new adviser's.
Quite a bit of time and discussion was given to the Commuter Rail Funding Mechanism - repayment of funds if electing the opt-out, unknown future expenses, drop-dead date for inclusion in project, policing, etc.
Bob Miller was granted permission to seek qualified architects who have expertise and experience in designing municipal safety buildings. He stated his strong belief in "going green" with future city building projects and noted the current involvement Lake Sybelia Elementary has regarding an energy project with Progress Energy.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I hope this has been of some help...because the voice that speaks out is the one that gets heard. Okay, that wasn't such a brilliant statement but it's so very true. We need me and we need you - together - speaking out and being involved.
Blessings to all,
Ann *smiles*
COMMUNITY Meeting ~ Wednesday 04-11-2007
Good Morning Maitland !
I've been informed that the Bob Reese-Brossier Company Downtown Development informational meetings will no longer be taking place.
But there's another opportunity for you to educate yourself while becoming active with fellow neighbors who are working towards securing a vibrant downtown for our Maitland and it's happening THIS Wednesday.
So make your plans and I'll see you there !
Ann
===============================
WHO: Maitland Progress NOW
WHEN: Wednesday's...7PM...Bi-Monthly
WHERE: 145 S. Orlando Ave. (SW corner of 17-92 & Horatio at Royal Plaza in the old Mail & Package Station)
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 11th.
This newly formed pro-downtown development group has been referred to by our neighbor Bruce Grossman as, "...a diverse and determined group building up energy to move Maitland forward...". Bruce, in case you don't know him, has remained an active pro-community participant over the last several years by attending - city council and planning & zoning meetings, Maitland United gatherings, special downtown developmental workshops, The Brossier Company's presentation and forum, etc.
Another community involved neighbor of ours, Dale McDonald - who is currently serving our Maitland on the Citizen Advisory Board Board of Zoning and Planning - speaks out by encouraging everyone to "Bring all your friends/neighbors on 4/11 and let's make our voices heard!!!"
According to our city's former City Council candidate Linda Frosch, the Maitland Progress NOW (MP-NOW) meetings will each begin by having Bob Reese give a 15-20 minute presentation followed by 15 minutes of Q&A. She also states that this newly formed group's mission is to, "find out the truth of what is happening in our city, spread the word..." and that it will welcome new participants with open arms.
I've been informed that the Bob Reese-Brossier Company Downtown Development informational meetings will no longer be taking place.
But there's another opportunity for you to educate yourself while becoming active with fellow neighbors who are working towards securing a vibrant downtown for our Maitland and it's happening THIS Wednesday.
So make your plans and I'll see you there !
Ann
===============================
WHO: Maitland Progress NOW
WHEN: Wednesday's...7PM...Bi-Monthly
WHERE: 145 S. Orlando Ave. (SW corner of 17-92 & Horatio at Royal Plaza in the old Mail & Package Station)
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 11th.
This newly formed pro-downtown development group has been referred to by our neighbor Bruce Grossman as, "...a diverse and determined group building up energy to move Maitland forward...". Bruce, in case you don't know him, has remained an active pro-community participant over the last several years by attending - city council and planning & zoning meetings, Maitland United gatherings, special downtown developmental workshops, The Brossier Company's presentation and forum, etc.
Another community involved neighbor of ours, Dale McDonald - who is currently serving our Maitland on the Citizen Advisory Board Board of Zoning and Planning - speaks out by encouraging everyone to "Bring all your friends/neighbors on 4/11 and let's make our voices heard!!!"
According to our city's former City Council candidate Linda Frosch, the Maitland Progress NOW (MP-NOW) meetings will each begin by having Bob Reese give a 15-20 minute presentation followed by 15 minutes of Q&A. She also states that this newly formed group's mission is to, "find out the truth of what is happening in our city, spread the word..." and that it will welcome new participants with open arms.
Monday, April 9, 2007
EDUCATION ~ Density versus Crawl
Good Evening Maitland !
We already know all the pluses, all the positives for and the pretty side of living in our chosen city of Maitland...lakes, great family neighborhoods, the art center, senior center, parks and on and on. But what about the negatives, the minuses....the ugly side ?
The City of Maitland and residents are what I refer to as "grid-land-locked" because we are wedged between Metropolitan Orlando and Urban Sprawl. Therefore without a fully developed Town Center we're destined to be forever stuck right smack dab in the middle of traffic congestion. And to me....this fact about Maitland is way ugly.
Therefore I choose density over doing the urban sprawl crawl. What about you ?
The following article published by the Uban-Land Institute was thirty-seven pages long in it's entirety and so I've chosen to share only excerpts but encourage you to read and familiarize yourself with all of it.
Striving to educate myself and hoping to help educate you, my Maitland Community neighbors,
Ann Lanier
245 W. George Ave.
Maitland, FL 32751
(407) 622-1165 home
"You don’t have to stay up nights to succeed; you have to stay awake days." ~ Source Unknown
We already know all the pluses, all the positives for and the pretty side of living in our chosen city of Maitland...lakes, great family neighborhoods, the art center, senior center, parks and on and on. But what about the negatives, the minuses....the ugly side ?
The City of Maitland and residents are what I refer to as "grid-land-locked" because we are wedged between Metropolitan Orlando and Urban Sprawl. Therefore without a fully developed Town Center we're destined to be forever stuck right smack dab in the middle of traffic congestion. And to me....this fact about Maitland is way ugly.
Therefore I choose density over doing the urban sprawl crawl. What about you ?
The following article published by the Uban-Land Institute was thirty-seven pages long in it's entirety and so I've chosen to share only excerpts but encourage you to read and familiarize yourself with all of it.
Striving to educate myself and hoping to help educate you, my Maitland Community neighbors,
Ann Lanier
245 W. George Ave.
Maitland, FL 32751
(407) 622-1165 home
"You don’t have to stay up nights to succeed; you have to stay awake days." ~ Source Unknown
===============================
DENSITY versus CRAWL...the Urban Sprawl Crawl
"In addition to eating up more human time and motor fuel, car-centric cities require greater expenditures on transportation and other infrastructure—expenses that chip away at a region's economic potential." - Ecology
“An intelligent city plan thinks impartially for all parts of the city at the same time, and does not forget the greater needs of tomorrow in the press of today.”The legendary J.C. Nichols wrote this philosophy on urban planning some 60 years ago. Urban Land Institute.
The purpose of this publication is to dispel the many myths surrounding higher density development and to create a new understanding of density that goes beyond simplistic negative connotations that overestimate its impact and underestimate its value. Elected officials, concerned citizens, and community leaders can use this publication to support well-designed and well-planned density that creates great places and great communities that people love. With the anticipated population growth and continuing demographic and lifestyle changes, consensus is building that creating communities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses will be both necessary and desirable.
As this country continues to grow and change, communities are left to figure out where all these new people will live, work, and shop. New markets are emerging for real estate that offers a more convenient lifestyle than is offered by many low-density sprawling communities. New compact developments with a mix of uses and housing types throughout the country are being embraced as a popular alternative to sprawl. At the core of the success of these developments is density, which is the key to making these communities walkable and vibrant.
Unfortunately, in too many communities higher-density mixed-use development is difficult to construct because of zoning and building codes that favor low-density development with segregated uses and because of opposition from the community.
This publication looks at several myths surrounding higher-density development and attempts to dispel them with facts to help dismantle the many barriers such developments face. America’s changing population is creating demand for new types of homes, offices, and retail outlets. Better solutions are needed to the challenges created by changing demographics, dwindling natural areas, smog and public health issues, shrinking municipal budgets, and traffic congestion. Communities that answer these challenges will develop into great places to live.
Better solutions are needed to meet the challenges created by changing demographics, dwindling natural areas, smog and public health issues, shrinking municipal budgets, and traffic congestion.
America will add roughly 43 million new residents—that’s 2.7 million new residents per year—between now and 2020.1 America is not only growing but also undergoing dramatic demographic changes. The traditional two-parent household with children is now less than a quarter of the population and getting proportionally smaller. Single-parent households, single-person households, empty nesters, and couples without children make up the new majority of American households, and they have quite different real estate needs. These groups are more likely to choose higher-density housing in mixed-density communities that offer vibrant neighborhoods over single-family houses far from the community core.
The fact is that continuing the sprawling, low-density haphazard development pattern of the past 40 years is unsustainable, financially and otherwise. It will exacerbate many of the problems sprawl has already created—dwindling natural areas and working farms, increasingly longer commutes, debilitating traffic congestion, and harmful smog and water pollution. Local officials now realize that paying for basic infrastructure—roadways and schools, libraries, fire, police, and sewer services—spread over large and sprawling distances is inefficient and expensive.
Most public leaders want to create vibrant, economically strong communities where citizens can enjoy a high quality of life in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner, but many are not sure how to achieve it. Planning for growth is a comprehensive and complicated process that requires leaders to employ a variety of tools to balance diverse community interests. Arguably, no tool is more important than increasing the density of existing and new communities, which includes support for infill development, the rehabilitation and reuse of existing structures, and denser new development. Indeed, well-designed and well-integrated higher-density development makes successful planning for growth possible.
Most land use professionals and community leaders now agree that creating communities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses could be the antidote to sprawl when implemented regionally. And across the country, the general public is becoming more informed and engaged in making the tough land use choices that need to be made while understanding the consequences of continuing to grow as we have in the past. Many have also come to appreciate the “place-making” benefits of density and the relationship between higher-density development and land preservation. Media coverage of the topic of growth and development has also evolved. Past media coverage of growth and development issues was often limited to the heated conflicts between developers and community residents. Many in the media are now presenting more thoughtful and balanced coverage, and several editorial boards support higher-density developments in their communities as an antidote to regional sprawl.
Yet despite the growing awareness of the complexity of the issue and growing support for higher-density development as an answer to sprawl, many still have questions and fears related to higher-density development. How will it change the neighborhood? Will it make traffic worse? What will happen to property values? And what about crime? Ample evidence—documented throughout this publication—suggests that well-designed higher-density development, properly integrated into an existing community, can become a significant community asset that adds to the quality of life and property values for existing residents while addressing the needs of a growing and changing population.
Many people’s perception of higher-density development does not mesh with the reality. Studies show that when surveyed about higher-density development, those interviewed hold a negative view. But when shown images of higher-density versus lower-density development, people often change their perceptions and prefer higher density. In a recent study by the National Association of Realtors® and Smart Growth America, six in ten prospective home-buyers, when asked to choose between two communities, chose the neighborhood that offered a shorter commute, sidewalks, and amenities like shops, restaurants, libraries, schools, and public transportation within walking distance. They preferred this option over the one with longer commutes and larger lots but limited options for walking. The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice. Such contradictions point to widespread misconceptions about the nature of higher-density development and sprawl. Several of these misconceptions are so prevalent as to be considered myths.
To some degree, these myths are the result of memories people have of the very high-density urban public housing projects of the 1960s and 1970s that have been subsequently deemed a failure. Somehow, the concept of density became associated with the negative imagery and social problems of depressed urban areas. The reality is that complex interrelated factors such as the high concentration of poverty and poor educational and employment opportunities combined to doom the public housing projects. Even very-high-density housing can be practical, safe, and desirable. For example, the mixed-income apartments and condominiums or luxury high rises in New York and Chicago—some of the safest and most expensive housing in the country—prove that density does not equal an unsafe environment.
MYTH # 1 – Higher-density development overburdens public schools and other public services and requires more infrastructure support systems.
FACT – The nature of who lives in higher-density housing --- fewer families with children --- puts less demand on schools and other public services than low-density housing. Moreover, the compact nature of higher-density development requires less extensive infrastructure to support it.
Public officials across the country struggle to afford the infrastructure needed to support sprawling development. A recent study analyzing the costs of sprawl estimated that more than $100 billion in infrastructure costs could be saved over 25 years by pursuing better planned and more compact forms of development…
Unfortunately for local governments, a growing body of evidence shows that sprawling development often does not pay enough property tax to cover the services it requires….
…introducing higher-density projects into a community will actually increase that community’s revenue without significantly increasing the infrastructure and public service burdens. Blending apartments into low-density communities can help pay for schools without drastic increases in the number of students. Diversifying housing options and adding amenities like shops and offices close by will improve the quality of life and attract businesses and people that will strengthen the community’s economic stability. Increasing density provides a real economic boost to the community and helps pay for the infrastructure and public services that everybody needs.
MYTH # 2 – Higher density developments lower property values in surrounding areas.
FACT – No discernible difference exists in the appreciation rate of properties located near higher-density development and those that are not. Some research even shows that higher-density development can increase property values.
Not only is there compelling evidence that increased density does not hurt property values of nearby neighbors: researchers at Virginia Tech University have concluded that over the long run, well-placed market-rate apartments with attractive design and landscaping actually increases the overall value of detached houses nearby.21 They cite three possible reasons. First, the new apartments could themselves be an indicator that an area’s economy is vibrant and growing. Second, multifamily housing may increase the pool of potential future home-buyers, creating more possible buyers for existing owners when they decide to sell their houses. Third, new multifamily housing, particularly as part of mixed-use development, often makes an area more attractive than nearby communities that have fewer housing and retail choices.
Concerned citizens should use the entitlement process to demand high-quality development in their communities…homeowners would benefit from knowing that developers make a substantial financial commitment when investing in new higher-density projects. This investment is an incentive to make the project successful, which can give the community leverage in working with the developer. Such interrelated and overlapping economic interests among these stakeholders make it all the more likely that a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached. Such an agreement can result in a project that enhances the existing community, ensures the appreciation of residents’, developers’, and the local government’s financial interests, and addresses the needs of current and future residents of the community and region.
MYTH # 3 – Higher-density development creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low-density development.
FACT – Higher-density development generates less traffice than low-density development per unit; it makes walking and public transit more feasible and creates opportunities for shared parking.
Most people assume that higher-density development generates more traffic than low-density development and that regional traffic will get worse with more compact development. In fact, the opposite is true. Although residents of low-density single-family communities tend to have two or more cars per household, residents of high-density apartments and condominiums tend to have only one car per household. And according to one study using data from the National Personal Transportation Survey, doubling density decreases the vehicle miles traveled by 38 percent…
Increasing density can significantly reduce dependency on cars, but those benefits are even greater when jobs and retail are incorporated with the housing. Such mixed-use neighborhoods make it easier for people to park their car in one place and accomplish several tasks, which not only reduces the number of car trips required but also reduces overall parking needs for the community….
With a typical family now making more car trips for family, personal, social, and recreational reasons than for commuting to work, reducing the number of non-commuting trips takes on greater importance in the battle to reduce traffic congestion and parking problems...
Higher-density development also makes public transit more feasible. When a community that includes residences, shops, and offices reaches a certain threshold of density, public transit-shuttles, bus service, trams, or light rail becomes an option for residents…
MYTH # 4 – Higher-density development leads to higher crime rates.
FACT – The crime rates at higher-density developments are not significantly different from those at lower-density developments.
People sometimes associate density with crime, even though numerous studies show that no relationship exists between the two…
With the emergence of better-quality designs, higher-density mixed-use development is an attractive and safe addition to a community, one that is increasingly attracting a professional constituency seeking safety features. In fact, the luxury segment is one of the fastest-growing components of the multifamily industry.
MYTH # 5 - Higher-density development is environmentally more destructive than lower-density development.
FACT – Low-density development increases air and water pollution and destroys natural areas by paving and urbanizing greater swaths of land.
Low-density sprawl takes an enormous toll on our air, water, and land. The United States is now losing a staggering 2 million acres of land a year to haphazard, sprawling development. More than 50 percent of Americans live in places where the air is unhealthy to breathe, and childhood asthma and other respiratory diseases are on the rise. Almost half the damage to our streams, lakes, and rivers is the result of polluted runoff from paved surfaces.
It is inefficient land use, not economic growth, that accounts for the rapid loss of open space and farms…
Higher-density development offers the best solution to managing growth and protecting clean air and clean water…
Many communities employ techniques such as infill and brownfield development to transform unused, abandoned lots into vibrant, revenue-generating components of the community. Some create direct incentives for higher-density development…
Although a well-designed higher-density community offers residents a higher quality environment, poorly planned sprawl does the opposite…
Increasing density not only improves air and water quality and protects open space but also redirects investments to our existing towns and cities. It can revitalize existing communities and create more walkable neighborhoods with access to public transit and hiking and biking trails… Higher-density communities are vital to preserving a healthy environment and fostering healthy lifestyles.
MYTH # 6 – Higher-density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low-density community
FACT – Attractive, well-designed, and well-maintained higher-density development attracts good resident and tenants and fits into existing communities.
Higher-density development comes in many forms. Some of the most attractive well-planned modern development is built at a high density. Across America, appealing higher-density mixed-use town centers have been wildly popular with the public. Lushly landscaped boulevards, fountains, and showcase architecture have created a sense of place in areas previously known only for faceless, uninteresting low-density development. The enduring appeal and desirability of older and more gracious higher-density neighborhoods—Georgetown in Washington, D.C., Beacon Hill and Back Bay in Boston, and Lincoln Park in Chicago—attest to the fact that some of the more desirable neighborhoods in America historically have been of higher density than that found in typical outer suburbs.
This return to the design principles of the past is at the core of the new urbanist movement that took hold in the 1990s. The movement grew as many people came to miss the sense of community that was created by the mixed-density and mixed-use communities of the past. They realized that low-density subdivisions isolated their owners not only from pedestrian access to shops and offices but also from their neighbors… These new communities combine the best design ideas of the past with the modern conveniences of today to provide residents with what has been missing from many sprawling areas—a sense of community.
Today’s developers, architects, and planners know that to attract customers and to secure zoning approvals and community acceptance, they must produce attractive and innovative properties that complement their surroundings. Design professionals are driven to produce projects that meet users’ demands, understand and respond to the context of a site, enhance its neighborhood, and are built to last…
It is plausible that the high level of citizens’ opposition to density may be based on an outdated notion of what higher-density development looks like. A University of North Carolina study revealed that when given a choice between two attractively designed communities, one higher density and the other low density; the majority preferred the higher-density option. Other visual preference surveys confirm that there is an almost universal negative reaction to the visual appearance of commercial strip sprawl and an almost universal positive reaction to traditional town-like communities of the past, communities that almost invariably included a mix of densities and uses.
MYTH # 7 – No one in suburban areas wants higher-density development.
FACT – Our population is changing and becoming increasingly diverse. Many of these households now prefer higher-density housing, even in suburban locations.
When many of us think of the American Dream, we envision married couples with children living in single-family detached houses in the suburbs. The notion is that the only people who want to live in higher-density areas are those who cannot afford a traditional house with a back yard or who want to live in the middle of the city. Both perceptions are flawed.
This country’s population is changing, and so are its real estate preferences. These lifestyle changes have significant implications for suburban development. For the first time, there are more single-person households (26.4 percent) than married-couple-with-children households (23.3 percent).53 The groups growing the fastest, people in their mid-20s and empty nesters in their 50s, are the groups most likely to look for an alternative to low-density, single-family housing.54
A growing number of Americans are redefining their American Dream. They are seeking a more convenient and vibrant lifestyle. And while some seek this lifestyle in cities, many others seek the same lifestyle in the suburbs. According to a 2002 study by the National Association of Home Builders, more than half the renters questioned said they wanted to live in the suburbs.55 Moreover, a national survey of homebuyers’ community preferences found that nearly three-quarters of all buyers prefer to live in a community where they can walk or bike to some destinations.
The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice. These surveys confirm that many people prefer the suburbs but want the amenities traditionally associated with cities, including living close to work. With the continuing decentralization of cities and the rise of suburban communities with urban-like amenities, many people find that they can live and work in the suburbs with all the attributes of suburbia they desire without giving up walkability and convenience. A recent study confirms that in many regions, more office space is located in suburban locations than downtowns, providing an opportunity for people to live near their jobs. Communities and developers that have recognized and responded to the dual trends of decentralized offices and a growing desire for a more convenient lifestyle have been rewarded. Well-placed mixed-use, higher density developments in the suburbs are increasingly popular, creating a new sense of place.
Communities are being developed using the best concepts of traditional communities—smaller lots, a variety of housing types, front porches and sidewalks, shops and offices within walking distance, and public transit nearby. Communities like Celebration in Florida and King Farm in Maryland have been so popular with the home-buying public that past worries over whether the demand exists for them have been replaced by concerns about their rapid price appreciation, putting them out of the reach of all but the highest-income households. Today’s real demographic and lifestyle changes are inspiring a return to traditional development styles that offer walkable, bikeable, and more dynamic communities that put residents closer to shops, offices, and parks.
MYTH # 8 – Higher-density housing is only for lower-income households.
FACT – People of all income groups choose higher-density housing.
Multifamily housing is not the housing of last resort for households unable to afford a single-family house. Condominiums, for instance, are often the most sought after and highly appreciating real estate in many urban markets. The luxury segment of the apartment market is also rapidly expanding. Most people are surprised to learn that 41 percent of renters say they rent by choice and not out of necessity, and households making more than $50,000 a year have been the fastest-growing segment of the rental market for the past three years. Multifamily housing throughout the world has historically been the housing of choice by the wealthiest individuals because of the access and convenience it provides. From Manhattan to Miami to San Francisco, higher-density housing has been prized for the amenity-rich lifestyle it can provide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
