The Growing Trend that Scares Walmart?

From Upworthy: 
(Things that matter. Pass 'em on.)

The Growing Trend That Should Terrify Walmart

"The age of "sprawl" is ending: people are leaving the suburbs and once again flocking to cities in search of a better way of life. Whether Suburbia can be saved or not, its worth taking a look at the key factors contributing to its decline. As always, understanding the problem is the first step to finding the right solution." 

In a nutshell the article says the three factors leading to the decline of suburbia are

1. Poverty- suburban poverty is increasing at twice the rate of urban poverty
2. Less Driving- from 2001-2010 increase in average yearly gas expenses rose 109%
3. Generation Y- 62% of adults 18-29 would prefer to live in a walkable neighborhood

For us in U-Heights it means that we are poised to be a destination community if we can expand on our already considerable assets of proximity and charm. By focusing in on neighborhood amenities (walkable commercial enterprises)  we will be even more appealing. What I find most interesting below is the second highest demographic group interesting in walkable "Smart Growth" neighborhoods is the over 60 crowd, since we are the oldest average aged community in Johnson County. 

 

  

U-Heights Council Meets with JoCo Supervisors

City Council held a special meeting with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors last night. It was an interesting and informative session. We updated them on our Sunset wide sidewalk project, and a street sign replacement grant we are applying for this spring. They gave us information regarding their road and bridge infrastructure plans and other improvements. 

Supervisor Rod Sullivan asked about our city finances since they had been mentioned when the One University Place TIF request went before the board in August 2011.

Councilor Jim Lane, as our finance chair, responded we currently have about $500,000 in cash reserves, of which $200K is earmarked for Olive Court and Leamer street repairs following completion of the Hendrickson development in Iowa City. I mentioned that with our Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) money running out this summer, we will be facing the equivalent of a 10% budget cut. The supervisors were sympathetic regarding our tight finances, especially in light of how many services we purchase from other communities, and whose cost we have little control over.

Perhaps the most interesting point of the evening was when Supervisor Chair Janelle Rettig commented regarding the possible interest of the University of Iowa in the St. Andrew Church site. Her comment was that we should be working to make sure that the property goes into private hands in order to generate tax revenue, just as she would be working to do the same for the current Johnson County Jail site, if the Justice Center Bond (vote scheduled for May 7th) should pass. She said unless UI comes up with the "golden ticket" (or something to that effect) price for the land, she would much prefer a dense mixed use development on the jail site.

After the meeting I talked with Janelle about the necessity of all governmental agencies whose jurisdiction adjoins the University meeting with them about planning and future land use. She heartily agreed, but that will be another post.

How Small Are We?

To give you an idea of the approximate size of University Heights compared to our neighbor to the east, north and west, namely the University of Iowa, here is a tidbit from the online version of the Cedar Rapids Gazette:

UI officials plan new Kinnick scoreboard, sound system

IOWA CITY — Kinnick Stadium will get a new scoreboard and sound system under a University of Iowa proposal that will go to the state Board of Regents next week. UI officials want to purchase a new video display and sound system for Kinnick from Daktronics, Inc., at a cost of up to $4.5 million, with the total cost of the purchase and installation of the system, equipment and infrastructure needs for installation not to exceed $8 million, according to meeting information released Thursday.

The UI is spending 4.5 million to buy a scoreboard. The FY 2014 University Heights municipalbudget approved at our March city council meeting totals $1.16 million. 

THE City Issue in a Nutshell

Many visitors to this site are probably coming after my most recent council meeting update. Since a good portion of you may be new to the community, you don't know a whole lot about One University Place. This is a proposed mixed use development on the site of the current St. Andrew Church.

 

This project was first proposed in 2008 and in 2009 community meetings began as well and zoning commission and city council hearings. This issue is what prompted me to run for City Council in 2009. It is a long and convoluted story.

Sound Familiar?

Here's an interesting article from Planetizen posted  on 4/2/13

Density Done Well, and Not Just Downtown

Author Brent Todarian, the former Chief Planner for the city of Vancouver, BC, tells of how over a 20 year period Vancouver has consistently enhanced their city using Smart Growth principles.

Here in U-Heights it has been hard to encourage some people to look at some higher density projects as well as mixed use projects that are at the heart of smart growth, and would help lead to a higher quality lifestyle for all of our residents. The two phrases I've heard most frequently over the last four years from those opposed to One University Place are "We're not a big city" and "We are a residential community." So when I read the article above I was struck by several points, including the idea that we in U-Heights are in essence "suburbia." Think about our town when you read this quote from the article:

"Unfortunately, even gentle forms of density can be especially controversial in the suburbs. Something as simple as secondary suites in single detached homes or backyard granny/”Fonzi” suites can lead to big battles. This has to change if city-regions stand a chance of addressing their serious issues." 

Substitute "landlocked small towns" for "city-regions" in the last sentence and it pretty well sums up the discussions regarding One University Place.

For quality development, Todarian proposes three guidelines:

1. Aligning your land-uses and how you get around!

2. Be unashamed to have a consistently high urban design standard!

3. Amenities make density enjoyable!

The first two points, we have some history with. U-Heights successfully fought an attempt to make Melrose Ave. a four lane through U-Heights. This is exactly what Vancouver did in the '60's when they prevented highways from cutting the city into pieces. We have had a high quality design standards as well,. Requiring a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be agreed to prior to approval of any major redevelopment or infill project (Grandview and Birkdale) have assured consistent and quality results.

As to the third point, Todarian says it pretty succintly here:

"Amenities support public life, and the denser it gets, the more such amenities are needed. Design your density with parks, recreational and people places; childcare and schools; and cultural, civic and heritage offerings.

On top of publiclly owned amenities, density brings the population for market-driven amenities like the coffee shop, pub, grocery store and farmers market.

These amenities, public and privately owned, make density livable, lovable and successful, for all ages and for families if you design for them all."

This is where having some mixed use commercial at the intersection of our two arterial streets (Melrose and Sunset) could have have tremendous payback to our community.

Walking Locally

I'm continuing with my  pedestrian theme from last week's post. I found an interesting website over the weekend. It is called walkscore.com
You enter your address and get a walk-ability score of the area based on what's nearby. The maximum score is 100. The components of the score include: Restaurants, Entertainment, Arts & Community, Health, Shopping and Errands.

Here is the walkabilty results for my address:

I think this is pretty accurate. I can easily get "emergency" groceries (milk, bread, eggs, toilet paper) at Walgreens, not listed, on my bike, but otherwise we are somewhat car dependent. I do occasionally walk downtown, my youngest daughter and I like to do that, and then ride home on the Cambus. 

While reading the above, I was interested in was a claim from the 1926 real estate brochure for U-Heights that I have that says U-Heights is just as close to downtown Iowa City as Summit Street, or Manville Heights. (The exclusive neighborhoods of the era) That is certainly true, but how do their current walkability scores compare? 

Here is Summit Street:

Here is Manville Heights:

No surprise that Summit scores highest, and that neither neighborhood is highly walkable, but both neighborhoods outscore U-Heights.

For real fun I put in our prior home where we lived until we moved to U-Heights:

Having lived in a walker's paradise prior to U-Heights, I can say that is really the one thing I've missed since moving. 

As shown, I speak from experience when I say that a few more amenities within walking distance would make for a great improvement in our community's quality of life!