October is National Community Planning Month: A program for Citizen Involvement

I never did get a PhD in planning (a big regret) but I wanted to do my dissertation on better citizen involvement processes, because outside of families with children in local schools, land use issues were the ones most likely to get the average citizen involved in local civic affairs.

I've been busy travelling or being sick or tired, so I haven't been writing.  I try to write pieces based on a theme, like National Public Lands Day in late September, or National Community Planning Month in October.

The American Planning Association webpage has some resources.  Next year's conference is in Houston in the Spring.  

They used to have a membership tier for community representatives on planning commissions and similar public bodies with review responsibility for planning and zoning issues that was individually based.  Now the planning organization joins, and individuals join under the group.  I don't know if planning groups at the sub-city scale qualify for this type of membership.

While I can be very voluble, I joke that I follow the lyric from the Talking Heads song, Psychokiller, "When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.  Say something once why say it again?"

Yes I joke I write the same stuff over and over, albeit with redos and expansions and even reversals over the years, because mostly my insights are the same.  And sometimes I have to change my mind, based on new information and experiences, which I try to do as well.

A public planning meeting in Montgomery County, Maryland.

The necessity of capacity building.  My biggest take away from 25 years involvement with a citizen advocacy perspective is that cities don't invest in capacity building and training to help citizens be better at involvement.  

To me it's damning that with each additional planning engagement they participate in, they don't become more knowledgeable, creative, and "better."  I have written about this a lot, and this is as good a sum up as any. 

-- "National Community Planning Month | Civic Involvement" (2025)

A few cities, notably Minneapolis with a program that doesn't exist anymore, Seattle, and Calgary, Alberta, are quite good at it, many aren't.  (In parks, the City Parks Foundation in NYC has a workshop and training program for park-involved citizens.)

Some communities have citizen academies, but I'll call that an idiosyncratic approach, because it's individually focused, not individually and organizationally.  Organizations as a whole need capacity development and the ability to pass on programs and best practice even as older members leave and are replaced by younger ones.

Plus groups tend to be somewhat hermetic and that needs to be addressed as well.  

Of course, the Internet is a great source of information on urban issues.  Urban Land Magazine is published by the main real estate development trade association and is a good way to begin to understand how developers think.

Libraries can be a way to organize and deliver such training, and create special collections of books, periodicals, and other resources on all aspects of urban planning.  Dallas offers the Grants Information Center and the Urban Information Center as part of the Government documents section, as a resource along these lines.

Originally established to strengthen the informational foundation for community development and urban revitalization efforts, the center provides tools, specialized resources, and subject guides tailored for researchers, city planners, and local residents

Money for travel/training.  Off site training is usually criticized as junkets.  People don't seem to have much respect for it.  When DC's Main Street program started out, they provided some funding to attend the Main Street conference.  But not anymore.  

My going to various conferences, on my own dime, like National Trust for Historic Preservation, Congress for the New Urbanism, APA and American Society of Landscape Architects when they cycled through DC, of course the Main Street conference, Urban Land Institute meetings, and other trainings lwas invaluable.  It accelerated my learning greatly, especially doing field trips as part of the conference.  

NRPA Exhibit floor at a past conference.

Oh and many such conferences come with exhibit halls and exhibitors and you can learn a lot from what you see there as well.  I just sent back over 50 pounds of literature I picked up at the National Recreation and Parks Association meeting in Philadelphia.

Maybe it has to be done through philanthropy and creating an endowment, but involved citizens in recognized groups should be able to get at least some financial support to go to such meetings, with requirements to do "after action reports" to share the learning with others.

Placemaking workshop as a training platform.  I don't think Project for Public Spaces does this workshop, "How to Turn A Place Around" anymore.  

They used to do one every year in NYC and then out in the field when asked to do so as consultants--I participated in one for Scenic America in DC in like 2004 ("write up").

I think every city should do a workshop like this every year, moving it around the city.  

Obviously, it would be held at a particular project or site, or more generally in a specific neighborhood, with groups in that neighborhood being co-sponsors and the lead participants, but also have the workshop open as a training bed, to other interested citizens, organizations, and city/county staff as informed participant-observers.  

One thing I found is that having a mix of people with deep local knowledge, and less local knowledge but more technical knowledge is that the "new people" help the long time neighborhood residents in seeing a place differently, with possibilities, rather than the "same old, same old."

The workshop is great for helping to develop a consensus about community priorities and initiatives, but not so detailed as a full blown neighborhood plan.

Together Bay Area conference.

Annual community conference.  Some parks friends organizations like Park Pride in Atlanta have an annual conference.  It's more for professionals but interested members/residents are welcome.  Friends of the Parks in Chicago includes community awards for people and programs, so there is a celebratory element.  The Together Bay Area open space group's annual conference sometimes includes advocacy activities as well as field visits.

At the state level, most bike advocacy, historic preservation, and commercial district revitalization programs (Main Street) have conferences too, and these can be particularly good.

Past entries on Community Planning Month.  Rather than write something new, past entries related to the month are still fully relevant and worth (re)reading.  Here goes:

-- "National Community Planning Month | Civic Involvement continued, Orange County Register's Be the Change" (2025)
-- "National Community Planning Month | A Planner's Bookshelf" (2025)
-- "National Community Planning Month | Citizen advocates matter" (2025)
-- "National Community Planning Month | Civic Involvement -- Sometimes you lose" (2025)

-- "National Community Planning Month: Resource | Planning Whole Communities Toolkit, Puget Sound Regional Council" (2022)
-- "National Community Planning Month: Schools as community anchors" (2022)
-- "Community Planning Month and transportation" (2022)
-- "October is National Community Planning Month" (2022)
-- "Planning books to read for National Community Planning Month" (2020) [to the public safety section I would add Peter Moskos Back from the Brink, an oral history of the implementation of Broken Windows policing theory in NYC, blog entry]

-- "Community planning, capitalism, and housing/real estate development" (2020)
-- "October as National Community Planning Month (and "defund the police")" (2020)

An RFP isn't a plan: redux

I caution against cities releasing RFPs--requests for proposals--without being built upon a planning process.  Without a plan, anything can come over the maw and what comes reflects the developer's preferences, not necessarily either "the city" or "the public".  And proposals tend to be conservative because cities are conservative.

A great example of this is the redevelopment of the Walter Reed Military Hospital Campus in DC.  Hey, they've done a good job.  But it's mostly housing and retail, because the city economic development group is most comfortable with that ("Nice looking five story brick apartment building, Parks at Walter Reed development, Washington, DC," 2026).

Some of the RFPs included wacky hope of getting MIT involved, etc., because the campus included the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which basically was a set of buildings turnkey that could have been used to start a medical school, biotechnology campus, etc.

That happened sort of, but not by the city's hands.  The Children's Hospital of DC separately lobbied Congress to get control of that property and they did.  Stuff's happening there, not sure about how breakthrough it is.

I wasn't involved at all in the public process around Walter Reed even though it's less than two miles from our DC house, because I had been working on a bunch of other stuff.  

Later, some people came to me with their concept of using the new hospital building (since torn down and it cost more than $125 million to do so) and the Pathology facilities to create a graduate medical education program (the aim was to get the Royal College of Surgeons Dublin to open a medical school, and with Washington Adventist University--there is a medical school at Loma Linda University and many Adventist colleges have medical professions education, and other institutions, open other allied medical education programs) and a biotechnology research initiative/research park.  And I wrote it up.

We were far too late in the process, again the city is conservative, and it didn't help that the leaders of the effort were somewhat wacky, one's focus was to use the H1B Visa program for funding, and we couldn't get either the Royal College or Washington Adventist to sign on the dotted line so that the city would take it seriously.

But in contrast to the housing and retail, it could have supported thousands of high paying jobs, including technology associate positions that didn't require postgraduate work.

St. Elizabeths East campus (West is for the federal government).

Later I wrote it up as a proposal for the city's St. Elizabeths campus in SE DC.

-- "Ordinary versus Extraordinary Planning around the rebuilding of the United Medical Center in Southeast Washington DC:  Part Two: Creating a graduate health and biotechnology research initiative on the St. Elizabeths campus," (2018)

And after that went nowhere, suggested the University of Maryland could do it at the new Largo Hospital--UMD's biomedical research is mostly in Baltimore.

-- "University of Maryland could seed a complementary biotechnology and medical education initiative in Prince George's County" (2021)

I learned the importance of pre-planning from the example of Kennedy School in Portland.  Residents wanted a say in how it would be sold and remade.  They ended up supporting the idea of a bed and breakfast ("Vision and Versatility: The Story of McMenamins," Spirited Magazine, "Preservation Brotherhood," Chicago Tribune, 2004, "Preserved in Alcohol: Case Studies of Adaptive Reuse Projects by McMenamins, Inc.," thesis). And the McMenamins Company came up with an amazing response resulting in an award winning property.

Edgefield Manor

But they moved from brewpubs and cinemas to larger property redevelopment earlier, buying the 300 acre Multnomah County poor farm,  Edgefield Manor..

By the time they got the property it was pretty much wrecked.  They found the money to rehabilitate it.  Now it has a hotel, golf course, brewpubs, distillery, gardens, and other amenities.

They've gone on to do this with many properties in Oregon and Washington, they didn't stop with Kennedy School.

Sadly, it's rare to find a developer that is (1) super creative, (2) committed to historic preservation, and (3) willing to work with "white elephant" properties that are difficult and costly to redevelop.  (Note that while the firm doesn't deal that much with former public buildings, Jemal Development is fine with historic buildings, first in DC, then in places like Frederick, Maryland, Richmond, Virginia, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo, among others.)

Northampton State Hospital in 2007.

Other cities have either been good or bad at this dimension.  This article laments that such a path and a company like McMenamins isn't active in Massachusetts, ("Miracle Manor," Valley Advocate), suggesting that the old Northampton State Hospital could have been developed similarly.

-- "A planning process done right | NYC to build affordable housing on a city parking lot & points about DC and Montgomery County" (2026)
-- "Adaptive reuse of a high school to a concert space in Portland, Oregion: Revolution Hall" (2023)
-- "One way to encourage community input into development planning" (2010)

TGM photo by Sammy Kogan.

Toronto Waterfront.  Conclusions in the Toronto Globe & Mail article "A bigger Biidaasige Park is another waterfront triumph for Toronto," encapsulates this argument, also mentioning the failure of the Province of Ontario in its quest to "revive" Toronto's waterfront separate from the City.

There is a lesson for other governments about how to make a place. Think hard up front, with public input, about what your goals are; then hire excellent designers, give them direction, and rigorously defend their vision.

... Mr. Glaisek says success began with decades of public advocacy – the citizen group Bring Back the Don was central – and basics: “We had strong leadership, we had funding, and we had the continuity of an organization that could focus attention for 20 solid years.”

While city staff and others helped realize the project, Waterfront has been at the helm. In meeting after meeting, year in and year out, their staff has defended the idea of “leading with landscape” and the specifics of this huge, complex, fragile project.

Of course, that presumes the local government doesn't blow off the opportunity.  In DC, like with Walter Reed, St. Elizabeths, and many other civic building projects. Which the writer points out is a problem with Toronto's city agencies.

Over at Toronto City Hall, none of those conditions exist. The parks department’s output is chaotic and nobody seems to know how its decisions are being made or by whom, much less what the guiding principles and design standards might be.

Waterfront has been different. The expanded Biidaasige invites thoughts of a city that can build great things, and whose greatest times are still ahead of it.

Location, location, location ... and what zoning allows determine what a property is actually worth

According to Crain's New York Business, this 85-year-old White Castle at 89-03 57th Avenue in Queens is selling for $15 million.

Having dealt with land use issues from the perspective of a revitalization advocate for about 35 years, I have come to belief that most less involved citizens think land use and planning decision making is a game.

That don't see it as a legal process with parameters.  Yes, a lot of the law preferences development if the project meets categories of approved use, height, and mass. Usually this means that those projects are called "matter of right" with no opportunities for citizens to weigh in.

Public notice for a zoning hearing in Detroit.  Flickr photo by Steven Vance.

If not, and a zoning changes of one or more elements are required to develop the property the way the owner wants, it triggers hearings and opportunities for citizens to weigh in on the matter, positively or negatively.

Similarly, with historic preservation if a building is landmarked individually or is part of a historic district, desired changes require approval, which unless minor also trigger a hearing process. 

Some cities extend this to demolitions, an automatic triggering of public review.

The same is true of environmental review when development proposals are located in sensitive areas, etc.

I call these "remedies," opportunities within the law to have input on the process.

Most citizens see approvals as a process that favors developers.  While the process does favor development--after all, cities make the bulk of their revenue from property tax, and commercial property tax is higher than on residential, plus cities have so much untaxed land between government and nonprofits like churches [see the Growth Machine argument]--it's not a slam dunk.

Based on the regulatory framework projects can be defeated.   Developers call when the zoning and review, and permitting process provides the go ahead to build, "entitlements."

The reason this property interests me is that it is seemingly similar to a property matter I dealt with in Salt Lake involving Sugar House Park ("Learnings from a recent zoning issue I've been involved in").  

There a single private property on the perimeter of the park exists as a historical anomaly predating founding of the park.  

Though zoned low density and neighborhood serving, the property owner valued it as if it could be rezoned to a high density use that wasn't neighborhood serving.  They refused to accept anything opposite their belief.  The failure to get approval for an upzone was based on the land use context and the clear language and history of master planning for that neighborhood-this site was never intended to be able to be densely developed.

One of my arguments against the upzone was that the property owner's intransigence shouldn't be rewarded with an upward revaluation of the property.  Ultimately it wasn't.

The Queens site is zoned for medium density residential (say 6-7 stories), and it wouldn't be a stretch given NYC's recent move to build more housing ("City of Yes") that they could get a slight upzone, but not a major one.

Different property.  Different "entitlements".  Different outcomes.  Different value.

Big League States: Illinois versus Indiana | Maybe Illinois Wins By Losing

"Big League City: Small Cities" discusses how professional sports teams can help to redefine smaller communities by putting the city into global media systems communicating about particular sports leagues, especially the NBA, which like soccer outside of the US, is a more internationalized brand.

"Big League City: Big League States | The real advantage is held by the sports team" discusses the competition between states when sports teams are located in metropolitan areas spanning two states.  

That entry focused on Kansas vs. Missouri in landing a new facility for the KC Chiefs NFL football team, and the offering of over $1 billion in incentives.  

"Big League City: Big League States: Part 2, Salt Lake/Utah" discusses how success of the Utah Mammoth hockey team having moved from Phoenix, is helping to reposition the Salt Lake City metropolitan area as competitive for professional baseball, even though it is a small market.

Towards the tail end of the Kansas vs. Missouri "win," Indiana threw itself successfully into the competition for a new stadium for the Chicago Bears football team.  The team had been playing off Chicago versus the suburb of Arlington Heights, where it bought an old horse racing track as a site for a new stadium, but they had a hard time getting the kind of tax breaks they wanted from the various taxing districts especially schools.

Indiana saw an opportunity and seized on it, and now according to Sports Illustrated ("Bears Heading to Indiana and It's Obvious Who Is Most to Blame"), after the Illinois Legislature failed to pass the kind of bill that the Bears wanted to facilitate their suburban location for the team are going to Indiana.  From the article:

The city and the state have had three years to take the Bears seriously and only now realize they should have. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson is the chief culprit here. He drove the Bears to Indiana by insisting it had to be Chicago or he wasn't supporting it.

Illinois and Chicago chasing both business and residents away is a very common theme. This is just another example. If not, then why did Indiana have no problem getting their plan in order to add a second NFL team?

Nashville, Buffalo and Cleveland all eventually got stadium situations resolved one way or the other. Illinois' legislators and Chicago chose to take the route Kansas City, Mo. and New York City took. They let business leave.

It's all been going on in Illinois since before the Bears even batted an eyelash at Arlington Heights. And how is that kind of general approach toward business working out, by the way?

Ironically, a stadium in Hammond is easier to reach for many in the Chicago metropolitan area compared to the Arlington Heights location ("'They were running into typical bureaucratic meandering, and here we are' | Bears board votes to move team from Chicago to Indiana," WTHR/NBC).

Given that football team stadiums cost so much money, and have few events, maybe Illinois is the real winner here, especially as the Chicago White Sox continue to seek public monies towards a new development for that team, as well as other sports projects seeking public funds (men's soccer, women's soccer, etc.).

If they are going to allocate scare dollars to stadiums and arenas, do it for the ones that have the most activity.

Although at least for in-city locations, football teams are starting to do a better job planning for more events, although only Miami seems to be doing it successfully, well Las Vegas maybe too but more indirectly because it's a good location for signature concerts.

-- "You get what you plan for: the multi-use Miami Hard Rock Stadium versus typical football stadiums | Washington Commanders"

Daylighting creeks in Salt Lake City: Creating the Three Confluences Park

Last Saturday was the Celebrate at the Confluence event sponsored by Seven Canyons Trust, held at Three Confluences Park on Salt Lake City's West Side.

Seven Canyons Trust worked with the city to create the park by daylight the confluence of Red Butte Creek, Emigration Creek, and Parley's Creek at 900 West  ("Salt Lake City’s newest park is now open — see where three creeks meet on the west side," Salt Lake Tribune).  It opened in 2021.

The Trust grew out of a University of Utah planning design studio, which focused on the concept of daylighting creeks throughout Salt Lake Canyon.

The Wasatch Front is full of canyons and creeks.  The creeks, fed by snowmelt and rain, empty into the Jordan River which in turn flows into the Great Salt Lake.  Area communities capture this for the bulk of their water consumption.  (Once they are past the canyon, rain and stormwater, plus water releases from the canyons, make up the water flow.)

An 1800s citizen movement to protect the watershed.  Because of citizen concerns in the late 1800s about the quality of water supplies because the creeks and rivers were mostly used for dumping waste including dead animals, and the denuding of canyon forests for wood, they advocated for the creation of national forests as a way to protect the water supply.

Phillips Arch in the boundaries of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.  Photo: Tim Petersen.

Today Utah is a leader in trying to overturn federal ownership of public lands.  These days that's particularly ironic, because at the State level and the State's representatives in Congress, including the particularly odious Senator Mike Lee, Utah is a leader in trying to get federal public lands given to the state.  And the state (and Senator Lee) want to develop these lands as much as possible ("Thanks to Utah, Americans are about to lose their public lands," Moab Times-Independent).  

For example, the State supports the reduction in size of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument ("Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Under Attack from Utah Members of Congress," Earthjustice).  And it suggested that the federal lands in the Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons--also used by for profit ski resorts in the winter, should be converted to state control.  To what ends...?

The State of Utah funded an ad campaign promoting its preference for federal lands being "returned" to the state.  Note that the State Constitution says federal lands should always be federal ("Here’s how much Utah is spending on a public relations campaign for its lawsuit seeking control of public land," Salt Lake Tribune).

Forest Service changes to increase for profit use of forests at the expense of conservation and public use.  Moving the US Forest Service to Utah ("The Forest Service Is Moving to Utah. Here’s What That Means for Our Public Lands," Outside) and the firing of scientists there ("Forest Service Sheds Research Capacity in Move to Utah," PEER) furthers this agenda.

How the Trump Administration is selling the move: "USDA Prioritizing Common Sense Forest Management, Moves Forest Service."

Undergrounding into pipes creeks and rivers.  But I digress.  In many urban areas, starting in the 1800s, creeks and rivers were covered and diverted into underground pipes.  

In DC, that's happened with Tiber Creek.  Someone who worked in a building abutting the old creek said you could hear it sometimes.  

In my Manor Park neighborhood, a creek at Fort Slocum was undergrounded--but the area still has a high water table and flooding--we had to install two sump pumps as a result of that and increasingly "robust" rain events.

DC still has other streams, even if it doesn't have an active daylighting program.  The Anacostia Watershed Society, Anacostia Riverkeeper, and Washington Parks & People lead efforts to remove litter and improve water quality for creeks that run into the Anacostia River.

Rock Creek Conservancy does the same for the DC and Suburban Maryland sections of the Potomac River Watershed, alongside the Potomac River Conservancy.

RFK Jr. may be willing to swim in it.  I think it's still premature ("Kennedy Swims in Washington Creek That Flows With Sewage and Bacteria," New York Times).  But ever closer, at least for the River, except that it took a major step backwards when a wastewater line burst, flowing into the River for weeks before it was repaired and contained ("A Huge Sewage Spill Is Over, but Contamination Lingers in the Potomac," NYT).

Daylighting.  For 20ish years at least, there has been a movement for daylighting--restoring these creeks and rivers.  Seoul is particularly famous for removing a freeway that had been built on a river.  In 2020, the Catharijnesgel Canal in Utrecht, Netherlands, was restored after being filled in during the 1970s to create a 12-lane freeway.  Etc.  

Before and after, Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project.

I think I first came across the concept in an issue of the Urbanite, a magazine that focused on Baltimore urbanism, which sadly went defunct as a result of the 2008 Great Financial Crisis.  

In "The Urbanite Project 2010" "Architect Gabriel Kroiz and environmental lawyer Eliza Smith Steinmeier proposed daylighting Harford Run, a stream that runs under Central Avenue, and turning it into a lively community recreational space."

 3 Confluences Park today and the site in 2007.

Jordan River.  Separately the Jordan River Commission has been charged with restoring the Jordan River (and Utah River in Utah County) as it flows to the Great Salt Lake.  One thing they did that's really cool is the Jordan River Parkway trail along the River from Utah Lake in Utah County to the Great Salt Lake in Davis County--I've ridden parts of it but then I got sick and couldn't bike ride--over 60 miles.

View of the 3 Confluences from the east bank of the Jordan River/Jordan River Parkway Trail.

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 a 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, all along valuing the property as if it were already 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 serves 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 justification for the general increase.  (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 the sites were incomparable, and the Walmart merely replaced a Kmart.  

Another compared it 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, while 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 of planning decisions.  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 they 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/private property proponents 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.  So we won.  Proponents did not.

Three ways to put additional checks on professional sports facilities after a contract is signed

The arena is pictured towards the bottom right of the photograph, as a round building.

1.  Conditional Use Permit.  Madison Square Garden has a conditional use permit to operate an arena on top of Penn Station.  

The original term was 50 years.  The permit was renewed for 10 years in 2013.  MSG asked for a permanent permit before its expire in 2023.  This obtains from the Zoning Regulations Section 74-41.

Stakeholders want MSG to accede to new developments in and around Penn Station to make it function better as a railroad passenger station.  This would include land transfers and other acts.  MSG hasn't been cooperative.  The station's location on top of multiple railroad and subway lines means that a majority of its patrons use transit to get there.

Because of MSG's recalcitrance about redevelopment, the most recent renewal was only for five years to put pressure on them to participate ("Five-Year Madison Square Garden Permit Inflates Pressure to Play Ball," The City).

In any case, a conditional use permit provides the opportunity to renegotiate elements of the original agreement, in line with current conditions.

Photo: Danielle Parhizkaran / The Boston Globe.

Annual license.  A provision in the State of Massachusetts code provides that arenas and stadiums are licensed annually for the program they present.  The World Cup is a modification.

The license gives the locality extraordinary opportunity to manage and mitigate elements of the operations of the stadium and its effect on the community.

Much to the chagrin of Kraft Enterprises.  Annual license.  The town of Foxborough, Massachusetts refuses to agree to a license for the soccer World Cup until they receive the money they requested for police and other security measures that would have to be provided by the town ("The $90-a-month Foxborough Select Board members taking on FIFA’s Goliath," Boston Globe).  

Kraft Enterprises pays for security costs for football, concerts, and other large events held at the stadium complex.

Kraft Enterprises and FIFA are up in arms about this ("Boston’s World Cup games still in doubt after funding shortfall proposal rejected," The Athletic).  Foxborough hasn't budged.  From the CBS News story "World Cup security update: Foxboro "shocked and dismayed" by Kraft Group's latest statement on funding":

The town insists that FIFA and Boston 26 pay the $7.8 million security bill upfront ahead of the matches, but the organizations have said that they will reimburse the town, or that the equipment they need for security will be available by June 1.

... “The Town’s public safety team has spent thousands of hours in conjunction with regional, state and federal partners to develop a comprehensive security plan. While the total cost for such services is a microscopic fraction of the revenue that the events will generate, the Town has been met, at every turn, with resistance from the Kraft Group and other event organizers.

“That such entities may have miscalculated the cost of hosting the World Cup is not a reason to compromise on event security. The Town cannot and will not finance the Kraft Group’s losses by sacrificing public safety.”

It turns out that Kraft Enterprises operates Gillette Stadium in part through an annual license wrt the number of events, and other conditions.  It can be modified during the year, e.g. to add a concert to the list of events, etc.  From the license agreement:

In accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 140, Section 183A, Chapter 136, Section 4, Chapter 140, $181, and Chapter 229, Section 6 of the Code of the Town ofFoxborough (the “Governing Law") the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Foxborough (the "Board") licenses Kraft Sports and Entertainment LLC and its affiliates (collectively "KSE") to conduct live entertainment and sporting events at the premises controlled by KSE inside Gillette Stadium, including activity in the parking areas and plazas surrounding the Stadium that is incidental to events being held inside it, subject to the following terms.

El Paso claims President Donald Trump's political campaign owes more than half a million dollars for police and public safety services from a February campaign rally. REUTERS/Leah Millis.

An aside: Trump and his rallies.  The license approach is interesting.  

If cities had used such a process for dealing with Trump rallies for his election/re-election, they wouldn't have been stiffed ("Cities seek more than $750K in unpaid bills for Trump campaign events since 2016," NBC, "Why the Trump campaign won’t pay police bills," Center for Public Integrity).  From the CPI:

That depends on who you ask. The cities are adamant Trump should pay up. But in many of these cases, there are no signed contracts between the municipal governments and the Trump campaign. The cities dispatched police officers to secure Trump’s events because they believe public safety required it — and the U.S. Secret Service asked for it.

Transportation demand management plans. In "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities" (2021) one of the sections is on transportation, with examples.  

Most contracts between a locality and the sports team don't have detailed requirements for transportation planning, and the contracts can't really be changed after the fact.

The Washington Wizards and Capitals have an informal agreement to pay for Metrorail service after the system closes, if games go late.  But this doesn't extend to playoffs.  The Washington Nationals baseball team has no similar agreement, formal or informal.

OTOH, the Chicago Cubs are required to have a transportation demand management plan, and it has been tweaked for improvements over time.  The codified document is difficult to find.  The 2018 Cubs Neighborhood Report describes the traffic measures on pages 1-6, including remote parking, shuttles, bicycle valet services, and a focus on CTA rail transit.

The 161st Street Subway Station is directly across from Yankee Stadium.

The Barclays Arena/Brooklyn Nets have a TDM requirement.  Yankee Stadium has a more informal agreement, with possibilities outlined in the environmental impact statement, but it has no public parking lots or garages, and most people arrive by subway and CitiField (NY Mets).  MTA provides extra express subway railroad trains on game days.

Meadowlands Stadium in New Jersey has the Meadowlands District Transportation Plan 2045, but it doesn't always work ("‘Mass-Transit Super Bowl’ Hits Some Rough Patches in Moving Fans," New York Times).

Other arenas that have investments in transit, including free transit fares to and from games and non-sports related concerts include Chase Arena (Golden State Warriors), Climate Change Arena (Seattle Kraken), and Talking Stick Arena (Phoenix Suns).

Other teams have contributed to transit stations and other facilities. Facilities in Australia even include extensive special bus and train services, including for concerts ("Transperth transit (Perth, Western Australia) provides free transit to certain events, like the Red Hot Chili Peppers concert on 2/12/2023," "Perth traffic: TransPerth offers range of travel options for Ed Sheeran concert attendees," Perth Now).

Some casinos too.  While not a sports team, the Springfield Massachusetts MGM Casino was required to create a TDM plan too, although they call it a Traffic Mitigation Plan.  

They complement public transit ("Despite Low Ridership, Springfield's Casino-Funded Bus Service Keeps Moving," WBUR/NPR) with special shuttle transit services ("MGM Springfield launches new shuttle service to Connecticut," Fox61)..  

Springfield doesn't have the same array of transit services as the casino in Everett (next paragraph) so it makes sense that the primary focus is on vehicular transit.

There is also a TDM plan for the Wynn Casino in Everett, although some complain that it maximizes the benefits to the casino, and doesn't work to extend transportation infrastructure improvements beyond the casino site ("New transit links could transform Everett’s access to Boston," Boston Globe).  A soccer stadium will be constructed proximate to the site as well.

However, the state is interfering with these programs to capture the revenues otherwise diverted from the state budget ("‘It couldn’t come at a worse time’: Legislature strips casino mitigation funds amid municipal budget woes," CommonWealth Beacon).