National Trails Day: Saturday June 6th

The first Saturday of June is National Trails Day.  I think that it should be leveraged to promote trail use, volunteerism wrt cleanups, as a day to celebrate opening new trails, facilities, etc. ("Thousands of volunteers help maintain WA trails each year," Seattle Times).  

Too often it isn't.

The American Hiking Society is the lead, but federal agencies, at least they used to, like the National Park Service and the US Forest Service were big celebrants.  

Biking and walking access is a big part of trails and Trails Day events.

US Forest Service lands are free access on Trails Day.  They have a lot of volunteer and other events that day, all over the country.

National Parks aren't free that day.

1.  Last month, while doing park playground evaluation for a grant application, I realized besides most places not having enough signage calling attention to trails, that trail signage could be augmented with information/icons pointing people to nearby services like restrooms or air pumps--bike maps often do this, but not signs.

-- "May is National Bicycle Month | More on the concept of adding services icons to bicycle route wayfinding signage"

2.  Years ago, I was blown away by a trail study for Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Ohio (Cuyahoga Greenways Plan) that did demographic studies about the increased range of jobs made available through the expansion of trail networks.  

I haven't stayed in close touch with bike planning best practice over the past few years, but I think this plan is definitely worth reading in terms of how it lays out goals and evaluation criteria for route selection, and even branding!

3. The basic idea is building a network for cycling.  I like the way an old German National Bicycle Plan illustrated the point.

I'm still proud of the concepts I developed many years ago in creating the Western Baltimore County Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan in terms of the scales at which to focus the development of bicycle and walking infrastructure ("Extending the "Signature Streets" concept to "Signature Streets and Spaces""):

• within neighborhoods
• one mile radius from schools and bus stops and transit stations
• three mile radius from "town centers"
• along corridors
• between corridors
• connections within and to parks, which I called a County bikeway network
• connections to neighboring jurisdictions (Baltimore County has borders with Baltimore City, Anne Arundel County, Howard County, Carroll County and Harford County in Maryland, and York County in Pennsylvania.

4.  With regard to trails as networks and infrastructure, urban trails can be particularly good at connecting neighborhoods to parks, libraries, shopping districts, grocery stores, schools and other civic assets.  The Northwest Branch Trail in Prince George's County does this very well--and it's the first trail that I really rode on that made me realize the value of trails versus street riding.

On the street, so much of your mental energy is occupied on defensive cycling.  You can drop a lot of that when riding trails, except for gauging the movement of pedestrians, little kids, dogs, roller bladers, scooter riders, skateboarders, etc.

On the Baltimore and Annapolis Trail and the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, brewpubs in Iowa, etc. many businesses have opened rear entries to link to the adjoining trail.

The patio and 606 Trail access point at Wolf & Company in Bucktown. Credit: Quinn Myers/Block Club Chicago.

In Chicago, the Wolf and Company restaurant is the first company to have placed a restaurant entry on  the 606 Trail.  

They specifically chose that building because it could support multiple concepts, including the trail.

Ironically, the 606 Trail was created to serve a lower income area of Chicago ("Lessons from The 606," DePaul University Institute of Housing Studies) but the Bucktown neighborhood where the restaurant is, is decidedly upscale.

The top floor is a cafe with coffee, tea and other drinks.

The bottom floor, 1752 N. Western Avenue opens to the street and neighborhood, with a full service restaurant, bar and market ("Bloomingdale Trotters Should Beware of Wolves, Not Foxes, Along the 606," Eater).

With a butcher case like this, and prices to match, the market is definitely a lot more than a typical convenience store focused on selling snacks and soda.

So Wolf & Company is three concepts: cafe; restaurant and bar; and upscale market, in one, connecting both to the 606 Trail and the Bucktown neighborhood.

5.  Speaking of branding, how about Promoting Bikeway Networks through Postcards?  The Alta Trail Map postcard below pictures their trails for winter skiing.  I like the icons they use to denote the various amenities at different trailheads.  Ski resorts promote mountain biking in summers as a way to build revenue off-season, and publish trail maps.

Relatedly, the Ketchum Idaho Visitor Center has trail maps posted on its walls.  As do some other groups.  But rarely bicycle shops.

6.  Not trails per se, but bikeways, Salt Lake is really doing a lot of great work ("Recent study cites Salt Lake City as one of the nation's safest metro areas for bicycling," Cache Valley Daily), even though its program to add sustainable mobility infrastructure to the city's streets has been stymied and preempted by the Utah State Legislature--legislators complain that bikeways make it hard for them to drive to the Capitol ("Utah Senate approves bill that blocks Salt Lake City's street improvement work," Salt Lake City Weekly).

7.  Besides the drying up of federal funding for sustainable mobility infrastructure ("Cities Losing Federal Support for Bike and Walking Infrastructure," Governing, "USDOT’s historic failure to advance any new transit projects in 14 months may be a sign of things to come," Transportation for America) and fortunately most states and localities are maintaining their commitments to biking and walking (and can't afford to cover federal government funding for transit) ... 

8.  the biggest issue in bicycle planning to me is not the development, construction and implementation of infrastructure and facilities, but providing the assistance people need to make the transition from automobile-centricity to biking.

I write about that here:

-- "Revisiting assistance programs to get people biking: 26 programs"

9.  Secure bicycle parking networks operating at the metropolitan scale.  But while #24 is Provision of secure bicycle parking, and lockers and showers in destination districts.  Zoning requirements to build them in office buildings and campuses of a certain size.  Or as a proffer/ community benefit.

I failed to call out specifically the need for secure bicycle parking networks.  That means 27 points.  This covers the topic:

-- "If you're going to promote electric bikes at scale, there needs to be complementary investment in secure bicycle parking and charging" (2023)
-- "Bike to Work Day as an opportunity to assess the state of bicycle planning: Part 2, building a network of bike facilities at the regional scale" (2017)

Rennes, France does a good job with regional secure bike parking ("National Bicycle Month | Rennes, France: a national model").  Other European cities too.

10.  E-bikes can help a lot.  Years ago I was critical about e-biking, because I thought "regular" bikes worked in cities--especially in flat areas--just fine ("(Still) tired of mis-understanding of the potential for e-bikes."

E-bikes have the added benefit of 

1. extending the distance people are willing to commute by bike
2. making it easier for aging seniors to continue biking
3. making it easier to bike in hilly conditions
4. making a bicycle trip more competitive with car travel in terms of time, so that people actually switch trips from a car to a bike.

From Reddit. An Amazon e-bike vehicle making deliveries in DC.  Although some worry about such vehicles blocking bike lanes. 

11.  Making cycling irresistible. But my earlier position on "the right way to use electric bikes" made me remember job isn't to make plans about how I think people should bike.  It should be about building the conditions to make bicycling irresistible 

-- "Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany," Transport Reviews (2008).  

I used that paper as the foundation for this piece, which was commissioned at the time by the DC Bicycle Advisory Committee in response to a Rails to Trails Conservancy initiative.   

-- "Ideas for making bicycling irresistible in Washington DC" (2008)  

In writing, I made the point that DC is urban and should lay out an urban agenda for biking, as opposed to the more suburban and rural biking "sense" of the rails to trails movement.

I see one of the ideas, delivery services using bike-based vehicles is just now being implemented in DC.

12.  E-bikes and cargo bikes help people shift trips to and from school from car to bike. ("Small But Mighty: Electric Bicycles Can Bridge the Gap in Access to Transportation," National Laboratory of the Rockies, "Study finds that once people use cargo bikes, they like their cars much less," ArsTechnica).

13.  E-bike voucher programs are quick to fill up.  I didn't even know about the latest one in Utah ("Utah E-Bike Program offers $800 vouchers to qualified residents," ABC4).  It opened on June 1st.  Was full before the end of the day on June 3rd.

I like the usually these programs provide more support for those of lesser means.  But I think that they should be loan deductible programs like in in England or Ireland.   Sometimes, they are funded through carbon tax programs and similar kinds of impact fees.

14.  E-bikes on trails (and beaches) can be problematic.  On trails it is because they are faster than people on foot or regular bike.  And certain types of e-vehicles aren't bicycles, but more akin to motorcycles ("Iowa City needs a nuanced conversation about e-bikes," Iowa City Press-Citizen, "Iowa cities team up to promote e-bike safety on trails and sidewalks," Iowa Public Radio/NPR, "E-bikes are all over mountain trails. Some want them banned," "In the South Bay, e-bikes are restricted along the beach. Yet they’re still everywhere," Los Angeles Times, "Moab Opened 200 Miles of Trail to E-Bikes. I Was One of the First to Ride Them (Legally)," Outside).  From the first article:

Anyone who regularly uses Iowa City trails has likely seen the tension already developing: riders moving too quickly through crowded pedestrian areas, oversized throttle-powered bikes built more like motorcycles than bicycles, and parents purchasing machines online without realizing they may exceed Iowa’s legal definition of an e-bike. 

A sign posted at a trail entrance to the Aliso Wood Canyon Wilderness Park 

in Aliso Viejo, California restricts e-bike usage.

That matters because Iowa City has spent decades building trails designed to function as shared public spaces. Pedestrians, runners, wheelchair users, cyclists and families with strollers all use the same network. That system works because speed differences remain relatively manageable and predictable. A 12 mph difference matters on a crowded trail. A 30 mph difference changes the character of a shared trail completely. 

Unfortunately, the public conversation often collapses into two extremes. Either all e-bikes are treated as dangerous, or any discussion of regulation is dismissed as anti-bike hysteria. Both reactions miss the point. Most e-bike riders are responsible, and many are exactly the kind of people cities should want out of cars and onto trails. E-bikes reduce traffic, parking demand, and transportation barriers for people who might not otherwise ride at all. At the same time, it is reasonable to acknowledge that high-speed electric motorcycles do not belong on crowded recreational paths simply because they have pedals attached.

Ketcham, Idaho.

15.  Suggestion: Create a senior bike purchase deduction program from the social security benefits program.  I recently suggested Medicare could do this for seniors ("The "new" Washington Post editorial page blows a chance to be innovative | Nudging versus "nannyism" and senior health care"), but instead of deducting from your payroll check, from your Social Security check.  

There is clear value for promoting senior biking as a fitness measure.  Let's make it easy.  People with lower incomes could get a match--the check doesn't go all that far for many and i can be difficult to save up for big expenditures.

16.  Speaking of seniors, we need to have programs that promote walking and biking as people age.  Some senior centers and organizations do this on a national best practice basis ("Freewheelers: Old Spokes Bicycle Club," Philadelphia Inquirer).  Apparently there is a similarly named Old Spokes group in Calgary.  

Baltimore County Office of Aging sponsors a Cycling Seniors program.  Etc.

A couple years ago, Washington Area Bicyclists Association did an active transportation expo for seniors.  

I think all senior center programs should develop and implement similar kinds of programs.

17.  Acknowledge and respond to climate change.  Trails should consider adding push button mister stations to deal with the heat.  

Water stations where they can be installed, based on access to utilities.

Add shade structures and tree plantings.  With the aim that over decades, the trees become tall enough to provide significant shade.

A mister on a playground.  

 

Learnings from a recent zoning issue I've been involved in

Sugar House Park in Salt Lake City, the park for which I am on the board, has an anomaly on its border.  

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) Demolition crews take down the last of the old Sizzler restaurant by Sugar House Park in Salt Lake City on Thursday, April 18, 2024.

There is one piece of property that's private.  In 1942, when the site was the state prison, the parcel at the corner of 1300 East and 2100 South was sold off for private use.  It's just shy of an acre in size

Over the decades it's been a gas station, dry cleaner, and restaurant, among other uses.

There is tightly defined higher density mixed use zone across the street.  But this site has always been classified as low density and "neighborhood serving."

The proposed gas station at the corner of Sugar House Park was garish in design and posed traffic and other issues.

A few years ago there was an attempt by the once extant Kum and Go convenience store chain to open on the site.

It required a special exception use permit because it was a gasoline station (there are gas stations in this zoning classification) but ultimately it wasn't approved ("Neighbors aren’t all happy with what’s planned for the old Sizzler site in Sugar House," "Can neighbors actually stop that gas station near Sugar House Park?," Salt Lake Tribune).  

Surprisingly, the firm didn't make an offer on the property contingent on approvals (developers call these "entitlements") they signed a lease upfront.  So they, and then the successor company (Maverik, based in Salt Lake as it happens) were stuck with it.

Rendering of a seven-story hotel proposed for the western edge of Sugar House Park

Before that particular proposal and afterwards a hotel was proposed possibly involving a land swap with the park.  

Unfortunately at the time, the president(s) of the Park board were not in the habit of disclosing in detail their conversations with various principals on various matters such as this, so I was never a party to those discussions.

Because people don't want the property to remain a permanent eyesore--it's been vacant since covid, which led to the closing of the then Sizzler restaurant on the site--and those discussions, the lessee and underlying property owner--who has zero interest in selling the city to the park, and has made this clear many times--thought a hotel would likely be approved by the board and the community.

But for it to work out financially, it required an upzone.  One of the reasons I argued against the upzone is that the property owner was intransigent, valuing the property as if it were part of the Sugar House Town Center Mixed Use district, which now allows for buildings up to 150 feet tall.  But that wasn't the zoning, which is for low scale buildings and neighborhood serving uses.  

And the residents and stakeholders who worked on creating the community master plan, which called for density in an area of the city that didn't have it, were very clear about tight geographic boundaries.  The east side of 1300 East, where the park is, was considered a hard border against intensification, as it basically served as the gateway to the low density residential neighborhoods north and east of the site.

I argued that an upzone would reward the property owner's intransigence.

The board ended up being split.  I was decidedly in the no camp, because the proposal for a 90 foot tall building at that particular site, appeared to be in the park, and would forever reshape the viewshed from many directions.  But it was close.  The government representatives had to abstain as did one board member, so it was a tie, 3-3.

The developer continued his quest, with various community groups, seeking approvals.  In Salt Lake, community councils are neighborhood groups designated to address development proposals in their geography.

The community generally was against the proposal, but a small and vocal minority favored the project, seeing it as a neighborhood benefit, and that ground floor uses like a cafe would support the park.

The three key points in the anti-argument.  (1) A tall hotel would forever alter the park's viewshed both outside and within the park. (2) It would be placed in a manner that appears as if it is part of the park, a commercial use within a public, civic asset.  (3) The zoning for the site is low scale, under 35 feet in height, and classified as community serving.  A hotel does not categorize as neighborhood serving and requires an upzone to make financial sense.

No major urban park nor urban square in the US has tall commercial buildings seemingly located within its grounds.  Sure there can be institutional-civic uses like the Metropolitan Museum of Art on the edge of Central Park, but tall and commercial buildings are across the street--definitely leveraging proximity to the park for profit, but still apart.

Central Park, New York City

Prospect Park, Brooklyn 

Not a lot of tall buildings, but they are on the edge, across the street from the park

Humboldt Park, Chicago

Union Square, San Francisco

How the building would have related to the park.  Note that the dimensions of the building in their renderings were inaccurate.  The actual massing is shown as lighter shading.  I argued it would reshape negatively the viewshed within the park, not just outside of the park, and that this was the most important decision concerning the park since it was founded 70 years ago.

What happened?  City Council voted no.  In Salt Lake the planning department makes recommendations to the planning commission concerning zoning changes, which trigger public input.  The Commission approved the change, with specious reasoning, completely ignoring (as did the planning department) that the request called for a significant height increase outside of the Town Center district.  

It also provided for a further upzone than what was approved by a recent city-wide upzoning--to support housing and transit oriented development--without that change having taken effect, and without supporting housing or TOD.  (The planning department justified the changes based on tax revenue and job increases, and some minimal community benefits.)

But the final arbiter is the City Council, which scheduled a set of hearings.

We ran a pretty tight campaign, focused on the "outside" -- getting residents to make their voices heard and to contact other representatives and the "inside" of working to get a Council majority to vote against the change.  

Given my experience with these kinds of matters in DC and elsewhere, I was adamant that as many of the people testifying at hearings had to have message discipline, ideally focusing on one element of the project in detail, rather than a mish-mash of opposing points, which tend to typify community member testimony and diffusing the message.  It turns out afterwards, a couple Councilmembers mentioned specifically they were surprised by the quality of the public comments.

When it came to vote a couple weeks after the hearing, the City Council voted, unanimously, not to approve the upzone ("SLC Council seals fate of hotel plans at Sugar House Park," SLT).  I knew we had at least four votes, but I was surprised and pleased by the unanimity.

Next steps.  I joked the vote was a beginning.  A group of us have been working on an alternative proposal that calls for a profitable use of the property, with park and civic functions as well, as a public-private partnership.  Hopefully, the lessee and the property owner will give it consideration.  We'll see.

Interesting learnings.  Discussions about this property and what to do with it have been going on for about 4 years.  These are the things that surprised me about the various views and opinions expressed.

1.  People don't understand land use context.  The property is relatively unique in that it is embedded within a park.  Most people weren't against a hotel in the greater neighborhood, just not at that particular site.  But so many of the arguments people made in favor or about the opposition lacked a sense of context.

E.g. one person equated the project with opposition to a Walmart years before.  But it was nothing like that, and the Walmart merely replaced a Kmart.  

Another to an intersection two miles away that had a couple of tall buildings--because it is abutting the University of Utah campus.  In fact I pointed out that his statement actually proved mine, because the area between the park and that intersection is all low density residential (plus a college) demonstrating how the "park corner" is a gateway to neighborhood scaled development, not intense commercial development.

Yet another equated opposition to another low scale development site in the neighborhood.  Frankly, why I agreed with him that opposition to that project, was groundless, the site is completely different, one corner of an intersection which had development on all corners, and was low density--I think the new buildings are no more than three stories, not seven stories, and there definitely isn't a park there.

Ironically then, the height of that project is about what the current zoning allows.  So in some way it was a better example for the opposition.

2.  This is probably the same point, but they don't seem to be very good at making "like for like" comparisons.  Tall and commercial versus short and and compatible with a civic use was an elusive concept.  To them a building is a building, and there is no difference between public or private use, or its size and placement.

3.  Most people didn't express much awareness of the concept of civic assets and public goods.  Yes, the property is private.  The park is not, it's public. But it's reasonable for citizens to want a compatible use on that site, even if privately owned. (This is an example of the "social contradiction" of property discussed in Planning the Capitalist City, when property owners have to accept public oversight and input if they want the state to regulate against the possibility of nuisance.)

4.  Many people don't understand the criteria on which zoning decisions are made.  Because the city is experiencing growth and intensification, many said "oh, the Council will agree, look at everything else happening in the city.  That's what they do.  They are stooges of developers" etc.

This was even stated in a brief piece in the Salt Lake City Weekly:

And now, because the city is anxious about the coming onslaught of people—and peripherally about housing affordability—it is fielding criticism over plans to build a seven-story hotel. The developer is seeking a zoning change that supporters believe will bring jobs and somehow “new recreational opportunities,” per KSL. There will be parking and traffic challenges, and one notable concern centers around the park’s birds potentially crashing into a 90-foot-tall building. But if history is an indicator, Sugar House—once a walkable, streetcar suburb turned suburban shopping area—will continue to grow up and out.

It wasn't about history.  The writer doesn't seem to understand that zoning is a legal construct and it dictates what can and cannot be built.  Sure plenty of sites within Salt Lake have been intensified.  It's not done willy nilly even if they think so, but through a path determined by the particular zoning classifications of those sites.  It's not just doing x because then are beholden to developers.  There is a set of criteria outlining a legal path for making such decisions.

(Fwiw, the City Council has tended to not give immediate approvals to zoning and upzone changes when the land use of adjacent parcels is so different.  This was such a case.)

Buildings on the west side of 1300 East are a mish mash of one story fast food and quick service restaurants like Olive Garden or Wendy's and commercial spaces up to about 6 stories tall--although the zoning allows for taller buildings.   

It is understood over time that the current retail taking up much of that district is likely to be rebuilt as mixed use and intensified.

OTOH, there is very clear evidence (planning history and decision making) that the intent of the Sugar House Master Plan was to make a hard boundary on the east between the west and east sides of 1300 South--one side dense, one side not.

Relatedly, lots of pro-development people argued the private property owner could do whatever she wanted, and set the property's value independent of the zoning classification.

While that is what the property owner tried to do, it didn't happen.  Early on in those discussions I made that point, that the same type of property across the street--a Chevron station--was valued at 1/3 of what the property owner claimed for their site.  Otherwise they were identical sites, except for the zoning, and the Chevron site lies in the Town Center district and could be developed into a multi-story complex--it was worth much more.

In fact, had the hotel developer tried to develop that site instead, the zoning there would have allowed for the use, with limited to zero grounds for opposition.

5.  Many people believe "private property" trumps everything.  No it doesn't.  Planning the Capitalist City discusses the contradictions of private property in the public context.  Owners give up some of their rights in return for regulation protecting them from other owners potential having noxious or nuisance uses that would devalue their property.  

Just because the property is privately owned doesn't mean an owner can do whatever they want.  Especially when they need a zoning change to do so.  A request for a change provides the opportunity for discussion and input.  It may be beneficial to the owner, it may not be.

But just because the property is privately owned didn't mean that we didn't have the right to weigh in on how it gets used not just because it's next to the Park, but because it is a parcel of property in the broader neighborhood and city.

I could work within those parameters.  A lot of other people believed no such parameters or constraints exist.

I know that I sound like a broken record: The importance of planning in government | property development in Portland, Bilbao, Liverpool, Salt Lake, Washington, DC

Some cities plan.  Some cities release RFPs.  Others do "stuff."

When Obama got elected, and seemingly was interested in focusing on urban issues, I thought about the Pasteur quote: Chance Favors the Prepared Mind.

What I took it to mean was that if you are prepared (with plans) you can pounce on opportunity.  

The difference with a plan is you come up with a vision, ideally with creativity and positive public input.  An RFP asks others to come up with a vision, which may or not be a good fit.  

A good example is with Kennedy School in Portland.  The community came up with a some ideas for what they'd accept.  What they got was a great bed and breakfast, music venue and brew pub, by the McMenamin Group ("Fall Asleep in Class at Portland, Oregon’s Kennedy School," NTHP).  

Sketch by Marlena Wyman.

Not an terrible outcome, but a similar Catholic facility deaccessioned in the Brookland neighborhood became a charter school.  When being located one block from the district's Main Street, 12th Street, it could have become a broader destination.

Later I codified this point as a part of best practice revitalization planning and in my concept of Transformational Projects Action Planning.  

-- "Updating the best practice elements of revitalization to include elements 7 and 8 | Transformational Projects Action Planning at a large scale"  (2022)  [this entry has other related links to other examples and iterations of the development of the TPAP concept]
-- "Why can't the "Bilbao Effect" be reproduced? | Bilbao as an example of Transformational Projects Action Planning" (2017)

Not only was Bilbao quick to act to land the Guggenheim Museum, they realized after it opened, that despite being close to the city's subway, they needed better surface transit to link various attractions, and added a tram within 4 years of the museum's opening.  The system continues to be expanded.  

It took DC 13 years to open its streetcar, and because the system never expanded (and because DC's elected officials were indifferent) the service will close this year, after a ten year run.

A couple examples are how, having a city revitalization plan in place, with an implementation organization and financing, Bilbao jumped on the decision of Graz, Austria to not host a Guggenheim Museum, and ended up with the Gehry designed international attraction instead, thereby rebranding and positioning the city as an international destination.

Liverpool's 2001 plan called for the city to be designated an EU Capital of Culture, when at the time in the current cycle, the UK wasn't even on the list as a participating country ("Liverpool regeneration as a process for regaining relevance at the regional, national, and global scales").  

A statue of the Beatles.

By the time UK was selected, Liverpool had at least four years of planning when other cities had none, so Liverpool was best positioned to be picked, and it was ("Almost two decades on, this vibrant UK city is still a ‘Capital of Culture’," Metro, "Liverpool event strategies," Spirit of 2012). 

Although there are differing viewpoints ("Liverpool’s European Capital of Culture legacy narrative: a selective heritage?," European Planning Studies, "The 'Liverpool model(s)': cultural planning, Liverpool and Capital of Culture 2008," International Journal of Cultural Policy, "‘Capital of Culture—you must be having a laugh!’ Challenging the official rhetoric of Liverpool as the 2008 European cultural capital," Social & Cultural Geography) which is true for Bilbao too.

Or, sometimes it's scenario planning wrt to potential for austerity and acts by other governments impacting local governments.  

-- "Contingency planning in parks planning: Montgomery County Maryland edition," 2013
-- "Federal shutdown as another example of why local jurisdictions should have more robust contingency and master planning processes," 2013

Sugar House Park, Salt Lake City.  I mention I'm on the board of a park.  While it's jointly owned by the city and county for reasons of history, it's underresourced.  We don't have the money to do a full blown plan.  We do have a planning framework from 2008, but there are many gaps.

As I outlined in 2024 in a series on gaps in park master planning  I try to use objective frameworks for decision making in that context.

-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part One | Levels of Service"

-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Two | Utilizing Academic Research as Guidance"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Three | Planning for Climate Change/Environment"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Four | Planning for Seasonality and Activation"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Five | Planning for Public Art as an element of park facilities"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning, Part Six | Art(s) in the Park(s) as a comprehensive program"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Seven | Park Architectural (and Landscape Design) History" 
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Eight | Civic Engagement"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Nine | Second stage planning for parks using the cultural landscape framework" 

-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Ten | Park transportational access (2025) 

This is the last month of my first term--4 years.  And we were talking about it in a meeting.  I mentioned my biggest learning is that so much of our agenda is externally driven.  Anyway, we have lots of projects to pursue, some quite major, and we need to have formal plans to move forward.  

A rendering of a proposed 89-foot, seven-story hotel on the corner of 2100 South and 1300 East next to Sugar House Park. A plan to rezone the lot received support from the Salt Lake City Planning Commission.

On a really big issue ("Plan to build a 7-story hotel next to Sugar House Park gets key endorsement,"  "New Utah law could address remaining issue in proposed hotel next to Sugar House Park,"KSL ) where the board is split, me and another person have created a great vision plan for an alternative to the site--hopefully the lessee will entertain it, especially if the hotel project isn't approved.  

(The final decision will be made by the City Council over the next couple months.  I'm in the "no" camp as it punctures forever the perimeter of the park, and no major urban public park in the US has a similar commercial puncture within the park.)

But that's just a vision, it would need detailed planning and design to move forward.   

And we have up to three other projects requiring a similar process of vision plan + detailed plan.  Not to mention a bunch of other projects.  I liken us to beggars, doing a form of barter to get what we want when working with other entities.  And the amount of time I spent on the vision is considerable, and came out as fast as it did only because of prior knowledge.  The other plans will require more research.

Photo: Joanne Lawton, WBJ.

Washington DC.  The Washington Business Journal reports that Ward 3 Council Representative Matt Frumin wants the city to buy a building in foreclosure, 4000 Connecticut Avenue NW.  It's huge. ("Frumin rallies District to snag former Whittle School building as foreclosure auction looms").  From the article:

A D.C. councilmember is renewing his push for the District to acquire the leasehold interest in a high-profile Northwest D.C. mixed-use building that’s scheduled to be sold at a foreclosure auction next month.

In an interview Tuesday, Councilmember Matt Frumin, D-Ward 3, described the 666,202-square-foot 4000 Connecticut Ave. NW — formerly home to Intelsat’s headquarters, then the Whittle School & Studios — as an “amazing location” that he expects will be sold for “far lower” than it would have a few years back when he unsuccessfully rallied the District to acquire the property for use as a vast civic center.

“How could we leverage this building at a key site to the benefit of the city?” Frumin said. “There's lots of possibilities, and if it could be gotten for a very attractive price, I hope the city will think about it.”

The leasehold interest in 4000 Connecticut — the State Department owns the land under the building — is scheduled to be sold at an April 8 foreclosure auction at Alex Cooper Auctioneers D.C. office. Affiliates of New York-based investment firm 601W Cos. and commercial real estate developer Berkley Properties co-own the leasehold interest and owe $132.2 million on the note held by an affiliate of Jericho, New York-based Winthrop Capital Partners, according to a foreclosure notice filed Monday with D.C.'s Recorder of Deeds.

It's an interesting idea.  BUT 

• THE CITY HAS A POOR TRACK WITH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (e.g., Eastern Market, "Eastern Market DC's 150th anniversary last weekend | And my unrealized master plan for the market")
• THE BUILDING IS F* EXPENSIVE
• ON EQUITY GROUNDS, PEOPLE OUGHT TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT SUCH A BIG INVESTMENT IN THE CITY'S WEALTHIEST WARD
• THERE IS NO PLAN.

Plus, usually with white elephant projects like this (and note the property is proximate to the University of the District of Columbia), the cost of the building is minimal, and an arts use gets developed like Cabelfactory in a former Nokia manufacturing plant in Helsinki, La Friche in Marseille (Design Handbook for Cultural Centres, Trans-Europe Halles), or smaller projects in the US, like GoggleWorks in Reading, Pennsylvania ("GoggleWorks finances go back to black," Reading Eagle, "Next phases of GoggleWorks development include apartments, educational space," WFMZ-TV).

Since "the arts and culture don't make a profit" it's best to start with low cost buildings ("Arlington's Artisphere, cultural planning and Arlington's identity").  And Artisphere was 1/10th the size of the former Intelsat building.

It's unfair to suggest that Frumin should do this but.... In my entry, "Outline for a proposed Ward-focused (DC) Councilmember campaign platform and agenda," one of the points was that a Councilmember should have a thumbnail plan (basically a vision plan) for commercial districts.  

I should have also included "and for big buildings that might become vacant."

Councilmembers don't do planning independent of the Executive Branch.  This is an example where it could and should be done.

But basically, while CM Frumin has ideas, he hasn't further developed them over the two years the building has been vacant ("First Intelsat HQ. Then failed Whittle School. What’s next for D.C.'s 4000 Connecticut Ave. NW?," WBJ), which is opposite of "Chance Favor[ing[ the Prepared Mind." So opportunity doesn't favor this project.  Especially when the city budget is being compromised by the Republican Congress in multiple ways.  And the need to get a majority of Councilmembers to agree.

Former Imperial Sugar Plant, Fort Bend, Texas.

Note that governments buy sites and buildings not infrequently, to control their development ("Mayor Elicker Announces Propospal to Transform the Former English Station Power Plant Property into Mill River Park,"City of New Haven, "Erie County acquires 148 acres of industrial land at the former Bethlehem Steel site in Lackawanna for redevelopment," "Sugar Land Acquires Historic Imperial Sugar Site for $50 Million Redevelopment Project," Covering Katy News, "After closed-door meeting, Salt Lake County buys former corporate headquarters outside Utah’s capital,"Salt Lake Tribune, "Utah to buy US Magnesium plant for $30M," KSL, etc.).

BTMFBA.  I myself am a proponent of arts organizations owning their own buildings.  And recommend that the locality set up a CDC to buy, hold, develop, and rehabilitate properties to preserve their use outside of the normal market forces of real estate.  While I often tout SEMAEST, the Paris CDC that does this with retail properties, Helsinki as a city does this with an agency called Kaapelli.  I've written about this in Philadelphia ("BTMFBA + programs to lease the properties to local businesses | Philadelphia").  And there are other examples.  

SEMAEST also has a retail incubator program allowing short term leasing in order to develop and test proof of concept ("Testing your business with Semaest: the example of Alma Grown in Town dedicated to urban agriculture" City of Paris).

-- "BTMFBA: the best way to ward off artist or retail displacement is to buy the building," 2016

-- "From BTMFBA to "community right to buy"," 2024
-- "BTMFBA: maintaining arts spaces in the face of rising real estate values | Seattle, New York City," 2024
-- "New form of BTMFBA in San Francisco," 2023
-- "A wrinkle on BTMFBA: let the city/county own the cultural facility, while you operate it (San Francisco and the Fillmore Heritage Center)," 2021
-- "BTMFBA: Baltimore and the Area 405 Studio," 2021
-- "Revisiting stories: cultural planning and the need for arts-based community development corporations as real estate operators," 2018
-- "BMFBTA revisited: nonprofits and facilities planning and acquisition," 2016
-- "BTMFBA: artists and Los Angeles," 2017
-- "BTMFBA Chronicles: Seattle coffee shop raises money to buy its building," 2018
-- "Dateline Los Angeles: BTMFBA & Transformational Projects Action Planning & arts-related community development corporation as an implementation mechanism to own property," 2018

But in the DC case, taking on a 660,000 s.f. building is pretty daunting.  Especially in that location.

Conclusion.  Without a good business plan, what Frumin proposes is a folly.  

Does the US need a set of national urban parks? | Revisiting a comment from 2019

I bring this up because reading "backfile" articles about architecture and parks in the Toronto Globe and Mail, there is this year old article, "What Canada’s only national urban park can teach us about accessible, eco-friendly design." 

The Rouge National Urban Park is 30 minutes outside of Toronto, and is transit accessible ("One of the largest urban parks in North America is in Toronto and you can get there for free"), unlike most of the Canadian national parks in rural areas. (Or many US national parks and related federal park-type facilities.)

It's a single park unit, not an amalgamation of sites like an NPS National Recreation Area spanning multiple sites in an area like SF, Boston, Long Island, New York or outside Atlanta.

(WRT access issues and DC area national parks, see "A gap in planning across agencies: Prioritizing park access for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users compared to motor vehicle access" and "Revisiting: Access to Theodore Roosevelt Island, a national park in Washington, DC.")

Nor is it a National Heritage Area which typically isn't urban-focused specifically, they are focused on a large region and interpreting it thematically, such as the Rivers of Steel NHA for Greater Pittsburgh (although the one in Baltimore is; Boston has a National Historical Park including many different sites), but an area of historic interested spread out in a region of many hundreds of square miles. (In the Detroit area there is even an (inter)national wildlife refuge along both the US and Canadian sides of the Detroit River.

(Separately, I've argued DC should manage itself as a heritage area, whether or not it is federally designated as such.  See "A unified National Park Service Visitor Center for DC (and the region).")

Toronto as seen in the distance from Rouge National Urban Park.

The article makes the point that the Canadian Park Service wants to develop other urban parks.  From the article:

Dubbed the “people’s park,” RNUP is currently Canada’s only national urban park. But not for long. To connect more urban dwellers to nature, the federal government committed $130-million in 2021 to establish more of them across the country – looking at cities such as Windsor, Ont., Edmonton and St. John’s, with the aim of creating six by 2025 and a total of 15 by 2030. Parks Canada believes that creating these parks will improve resident well-being, air and water quality and commemorate Indigenous knowledge and culture. The government also recently announced RNUP’s expansion, scrapping plans for an airport in Pickering in favour of adding to the park’s footprint.

As RNUP expands and new urban national parks take shape, the question of how these spaces should look and function becomes more important. Planners and designers are grappling with how to balance ecological health, accessibility and public use, while also considering the role of beauty and aesthetics.

On the long ago entry, "Defining National Park Service installations in DC as locally or nationally serving" (2019), Ed Drozd made the point that there ought to be a systematic provision of "national" parks throughout the country:

First, in re whether locally serving, thinking about it, I wonder what should be the goal of the National Park Service. Clearly part should be iconic areas. But, I do think selected locally serving areas, whether National Parks or National Historic Parks, might be important as well. Not just as outreach between the NPS and most people, but also to connect people to history and/or environment.

Part first amended: my wife lives near the Cuyahoga Valley National Park (full National Park) between Akron and Cleveland. I've been in it, and have been underwhelmed compared to, say, Acadia or Glacier, but it is truly lovely and can connect people to the environment like few other places in the area can.

But, why there but not places in NJ where I grew up? Granted there are National Historic Parks, but those are tied to history. However, in the grand scheme of things, perhaps it doesn't matter because of the programming.

If we think about this in terms of spreading the wealth of national parks beyond the signature parks, as far as urban parks go, there are a bunch of NPS installations, mostly historic site based, some "national recreation areas" like around Boston, SF, Long Island, etc.  They do have an urban program, or at least they did before Trump.

In a follow up comment I was in agreement, but now I am not so sure.  DC has a lot of national park sites, big and small, but the Park Service hasn't been that great about taking care of them, partially because they have a big portfolio, a backlog of maintenance, and because they aren't set up well to deal with urban parks.

Even though they produced a couple decent reports on how to do it, the Urban Agenda Call to Action Initiative more generally, and wrt DC specifically, the Small Parks Management Strategies document (report).

Cracked and broken tiles mar the appearance of Welcome Park, a plaza dedicated to telling the story of William Penn’s vision for the city. Tom Gralish / Philadelphia Inquirer.

And resource deficiencies aren't just a problem in DC, they are especially a problem at Philadelphia's Independence National Historical Park ("Large granite ‘join or die’ sculpture is among Independence Park improvements that still need funding," "Independence Park is ‘woefully behind’ for 2026 and in ‘grave need of resources,’ stakeholders say," "A Much-Needed Makeover: How Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park is getting ready for America’s 250th birthday," "More bikes and pedestrians, fewer cars: A $100M rethink of Philly’s historical district," Philadelphia Inquirer) 

-- Independence National Historical Park: Long-Range Interpretive Plan, National Park Service (2007)

A display describing the lives of enslaved people on the site where one of George Washington's homes once stood in Independence National Historical Park. Tom Gralish / Philadelphia Inquirer.

This is irrespective of the recent problems over historic interpretation ("The slavery exhibits at the President’s House are starting to be restored by the National Park Service," "Trump’s attempts to hide the unpleasant truths about our actual history are the real disparagement," PI) at the President's House and the Trump Administration's desire to whitewash over "minority" elements, especially "hurtful" history, as part of the good and bad of the national story.

What about networking existing urban parks?  Now, and I might be biased because I am on the board of an urban park (granted it's 1/6 the size of Central Park in NYC), and knowing also that there are extensive networks of state parks in addition to the large park inventories typical in major cities, that maybe like how within Montreal, they have a set of parks they refer to as Network of Large Parks, some more urban and sculpted, others more natural, that instead, somehow we think of these park systems as networks, and promote and support them that way.

Parks People, the parks advocacy group in Canada, has created such a network there ("Park People launches first-of-its-kind network for Canada’s large urban parks").  Of course in the US there is the Trust for Public Land, an advocacy and consulting group--with an urban parks unit, and various national and state professional associations.  But judging from what I know about parks in Salt Lake City and County, state parks or natural resources agencies don't work that closely to help local and county park systems in terms of a network.

Still a role for the Park Service (and other federal agencies).  There is still a place for NPS in terms of linking various federally controlled sites through National Recreation Areas, Urban National Heritage Areas, Boston's National Historical Park, historic sites and landmarks, and other resources.  There's talk in Southern California of designating some of the beaches a national par ("Parks service says federal control of local beaches could spur new, protections, conservation efforts and economic activity," Santa Monica Daily Press).

But like as opined in the above-cited blog entry, there needs to be a strong interpretational, historic, and cultural resources framework for determining why such parks and sites should be designated as federal.  

And new systems need to be built that better gather public input on these facilities, especially for places treated as more like public parks--ordinarily the Park Service is pretty distant from local input.

Which is why I recommend that local parks master plans also provide guidance wrt federal, state, and county parks within their boundaries.  Some planners say, we don't have any authority so why bother.  My counter is without guidance from us we guarantee we're not considered ("Federal shutdown as another example of why local jurisdictions should have more robust contingency and master planning processes," 2013).

And, there needs to be money appropriated to deal with additional responsibilities for new federally designated parks, rather than merely add to the current $10+ billion backlog in maintenance.

That doesn't even mention US Forests which may be located on the outskirts of urban areas such as in Los Angeles and the Uintah-Wasatch-Cache National Forest outside of Salt Lake.  The Forest Service has been underbudgeted for years, which has led to mergers of forests covering often disparate areas.