Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A potential carfree site

Expand Messages
  • Will Stewart
    All interested, I ve been tracking a up and coming transit-oriented development in Loudoun County Va (rolling hills, near horse country, rustic area). There is
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 5, 2002
      All interested,

      I've been tracking a up and coming transit-oriented development in
      Loudoun County Va (rolling hills, near horse country, rustic area).
      There is a Metrorail stop coming in 2010, and the County wants to have
      a mixed use development New Urbanist style. I've been working on the
      Board of Supervisors, 7 of 9 of which are solid smart growth champions.
      I've been pressing a carfree approach for the core area, which the
      developer is hesitant about. See http://www.moorefieldstation.com for
      the preliminary concept plan. However, the zoning ordinance is
      undergoing a change at the present time, and the lead supervisor is an
      admirer of carfree areas, having traveled to Europe and seen them firsthand.

      The concept is a bit foreign in this area, as everything else is 100%
      car-dependent. However, there is now a budding bus system as well, and
      Flexcar and Zipcar have established carshare programs at dozens of other
      sites on the Metrorail network.

      This site is 100% greenspace and virtually flat; a perfect blankslate
      for a new carfree district, with room for sports fields, parks, and
      community gardens around the periphery. Joel helped out by coming up
      with a preliminary concept plan.

      Who's interested?

      Will Stewart
    • Chris Bradshaw
      Will s suggestion is the best one I ve seen. Arcosanti is too remote, lacking jobs; the inner-city 4x4 grid would not be able to shut out motor traffic
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 8, 2002
        Will's suggestion is the best one I've seen.

        Arcosanti is too remote, lacking jobs; the inner-city 4x4 grid would not
        be able to shut out motor traffic completely, although it could be
        limited to walking speeds, m-a-y-b-e... [Venice might not have cars,
        but it is very dependent on watercraft for many of the car functions
        (and its not transferable to many place)].

        The idea of building a new community around a Metro stop is not far from
        Peter Calthorpe's "pedestrian pocket" idea. One hasn't been actually
        built, although his Laguna West development in Sacramento, has _some_ of
        the features. [See his 1995 book, "The Next American Metrolpolis." It
        was "pre-carsharing."]

        Such a site would be the best combination of isolation and still be
        linked to a city economy, and services and cultural attractions. Being
        pretty much level, means that cycling will be very easy, especially
        cycling a) with cargo, b) cycling by marginal riders, and c) cycling
        under weather constraints.

        Access to car-sharing _from the beginning_ is also absolutely
        essential. The parking for these cars should be on the periphery,
        ensuring that local shops and transit are more "convenient." Having an
        internal transit system, perhaps using a van that can be used for
        delivery work as well (not to mention as a cargo-carrier for the
        car-sharers) would be also essential. The communal parking lots should
        have a supply of cargo carts (strollers would probably continue to be
        _personally_ owned, as are its occupants)

        These features should be carefully modelled, so that merchants and
        employers can be attracted, being shown how these unique characteristics
        are advantages.

        Now, will the board or supervisors listen to you, unless you have the
        $$s to show that you can make it happen (since politicians don't, or
        aren't willing to "grubstake" what is eventually going to be private)?
        But then, you could remind them of the potential for (green?) tourism
        that would come from being the first to "get it right."

        Another thing that should mention them is the taxes situation, which
        another Matt H. mentioned. On the whole, certain expenditures would go
        down, but in a carfree environment, there is a higher order of sharing
        things, which, for a community that has parks, they will simply be used
        more (they also cannot be all on the fringe, with parking lots; but
        rather scattered every few blocks, with wide sidewalks around _and
        through_ them.

        If the neighbouring increases (as I contend it will), costs for police,
        social services, and public health should drop, as well. And, transit
        might not need to be subsidized.

        However, they will get nervous that its residents might be asking for
        things that they would then have to provide to other parts of the
        county. To keep that from becoming a problem, suggest they recognize
        the area as a self-governing village (not of the stilted variety, like
        Disney's Celebration), which has the power to tax to provide whatever
        the local population might need. But, on the other hand, the new
        village council should ask for annual rebates for the savings _it_
        experienced from the new urban form and community spirit.

        Matt also mentioned the visitors wanting to parking in front of your
        door. Well, what they will get is a nice walk, and one without even as
        many conflicts with drivers as they regularly get in a mall parking
        lot. What better introduction to a friend's community!

        Chris Bradshaw
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.