National Bicycle Month | Rennes, France: a national model

May is National Bicycle Month.  I always try to do some entries then.  Sometimes I am more successful than others.  Here goes the first.

============

Years ago I did what I consider to have been at the time a best practice bicycle plan for a suburb, Baltimore County, in Maryland.  I wrote about the process here ("Best practice bicycle planning for suburban settings using the "action planning" method," 2010).  

Some of the key elements were: (1) creating a county-wide bicycle route network; (2) secure bicycle parking; and (3) support facilities such as repair services.  

 Plus bicycle wayfinding and map systems, teaching people how to commute and opportunities to try out biking without having to buy all the equipment first ("Revisiting assistance programs to get people biking: 26 programs"), and community promotion.

Sure we all know about cities in the Netherlands and Copenhagen as being best practice for bicycle ridership as a high proportion of total trips traveled, but many places in the US have a hard time grappling with best practice examples from large cities.

I wonder if Rennes, France is a model that is more graspable.  

Covid helped to push policies forward as people were less willing to be corralled on buses.  The city has best practice secure bicycle parking--free at transit stations and in conurbations, and for €40 per year for special bicycle garages in neighborhoods, a protected bicycle lane network in the city and suburbs, the Express Bike Network, "Reseau  Express Vélo." 

Bicycle sharing called LE vélo STAR that can be bundled with transit, and with options besides standard bikes--electric bikes, electric assist cargo bikes, and "longtail" bikes with a backseat child carrier--trailer and child seat rentals, etc.  

Of course, like most of these systems, at a certain price per year it makes sense to buy your own.  But it does offload security and parking costs.

Plus, repair cafes with both bike and food services, and community repair support through the area's bicycle promotion group.

Best practice bike parking in Rennes, France ("Rennes: The metropolitan area is trying out residential bicycle parking to combat theft," 20 Minutes).  It's branded C-Park, for the municipal parking system, which also offers the bike parking services (car sharing and EV charging too).

The news was announced discreetly, during a routine discussion on pricing for the new parking facilities at Hôtel-Dieu and La Courrouze. Adopted unanimously, the proposal put forward by Matthieu Theurier is nonetheless eagerly awaited by thousands of cyclists , particularly those living in apartments. In the second half of the year, four residential bicycle parking facilities will be created in the Breton capital.

Offered by subscription, these bike boxes will be installed in place of car parking spaces to provide a storage solution for cyclists who do not have a garage or a secure place to park their bikes. "The law requires co-owned properties to have a bike garage. But in reality, we know that this is not always possible. We wanted to offer a secure option for residents who don't have one," explains Matthieu Theurier, Vice-President of Rennes Métropole for Mobility.

... Access to these parking spaces will be possible through a paid subscription offered by Citedia via the Korrigo card. On Thursday evening, a rate of 40 euros per year was unanimously adopted by the Rennes Métropole council to launch this trial in the second half of 2022. "C-Parks like the one at the train station are free and will remain so . We will offer 500 additional spaces along the route of metro line B. But we needed a complementary offering," concluded Matthieu Theurier.

Metropolitan bike route network, Rennes ("In 2022, the Rennes metropolitan area's express bike network will move to the high plateau," Ouest France, "Express bike network in Rennes: these three towns are less than 20 minutes apart," Le Telegramme).  From the latter

The number of cyclists is already booming in Rennes, with a 50% increase in the city over the past four years, Valérie Faucheux, Deputy Mayor of Rennes in charge of mobility, told us . This is despite some users' concerns about road safety. The Express Bike Network helps to increase their sense of security on the sections concerned, since the deployment is "accompanied by appropriate signage to ensure the legibility and identification of these cycle routes: road markings with a white bicycle and blue chevrons, and directional signs."

Repair stands and air pumps (inflation stations).  The Rennes area uses participatory budgeting processes where citizens come together and prioritize items and issues which they want local government to fund.  

The network of repair stations is growing as a result of this program ("Even more bike repair and inflation stations!").

(I will say that in my experience in the US, these often get vandalized, and cities aren't good on keeping them in good repair.  It's one reason why I suggest they be placed outside transit stations, where they can be better monitored.  Plus, with electricity connections, you can also have air compressors for pumps.

Bike washing.  Not in Rennes, but there's a free bike washing station in the Avoriaz ski resort community, called Hakken, produced by a company called Wintersteiger, which even has a US branch in Utah.  They brand the equipment as Veloclean.

Repair cafes and a community bike shop (bike hubs) ("Cycle paths, repair workshops…: Rennes, the new cycling Eldorado?" "A Café Citron before getting back in the saddle?," "In Petite Rennes, "assisted self-repair" for cyclists on a budget," "At Ta grand-mère à vélo, a coffee while you study," OW).

Repair shops are flourishing With the increasing number of cyclists, bike repair workshops of all kinds are springing up: traditional or community-based, repair cafes where you can have a drink or a bite to eat while your bike is being serviced, and even self-service repair workshops. Like the Petite Rennes association, which has just opened a 250 m² open-access workshop in La Courrouze, where you can get free advice and, if needed, assistance (only parts, new or used, are charged).

Best practice bicycle promotion:  Bike House and Mobile Bike House (also (Destination Rennes)..

When I was with a small group of sadly undercapitalized folks trying to sell bicycle sharing systems, I came up with the idea of a front end Bicycle Center promoting biking, tourism, cafe, etc., modeled in part on the headquarters for VeloQuebec in Montreal, with the bike repair support facility for the bike sharing system as the back end. 

Rennes' bike sharing does that, as part of the region's commitment to sustainable mobility .  From the webpage:

The Rennes 2020 Cycling Plan aims to develop cycling throughout the metropolitan area. The objective is a 20% market share. It relies on four main levers: speed reduction, network improvement, service enhancement, and cycling promotion . The Maison du Vélo (Bike House) plays a key role in this initiative.

Opened in November 2017, the Maison du vélo (Bike House) moved to its new premises on Place de la Gare in Rennes in October 2020. It offers a wide range of services for cyclists, both residents of the Rennes metropolitan area and those just passing through. It has become the go-to place for cycling information within the metropolitan area.

Electric bike rentals, a self-repair workshop, bike marking to combat theft, a cycling school, conferences, exhibitions… The program of activities is co-developed with various partners: associations, bike shops, Destination Rennes, and road safety organizations. A true hub for activities and information dedicated to cycling, the Maison du Vélo (Bike House) is also a permanent space for meetings, advice, prevention, and training on cycling.

They collaborate with area bike-related groups, and using a transit bus specially outfitted, the mobile bike house takes the services on the road, promoting bike sharing subscriptions and other programs ("What can be found in the mobile bike house that travels around the Rennes metropolitan area?," OF).

Conclusion: Cycling as a System. These examples show the value in having such services in house, rather than contracting them out, which allows for integration.  For example, a municipal parking system provides an enterprise platform that can also support bicycle parking and car sharing.

The Metropolitan government can provide services like a metropolitan scale bike path network and the Bike House and the Mobile Bike House, which over the course of the year, stops in most of the region's 43 individual jurisdictions.

Rennes the city can build its bike path network and provide other supports, centering and backstopping regional efforts.

It's a focus on creating a bicycle mobility system equal to the system that supports automobility, along the lines suggested in a past German Federal Bicycle Plan, from where this graphic is derived.

Toronto's parking system runs bike sharing, but they took it over once it was on the verge of failing. 

I've suggested that government parking systems could be the backbone of a metropolitan scale system of secure bike parking ("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").  That the expense of e-bikes means secure parking is necessary to support widescale use ("If you're going to promote electric bikes at scale, there needs to be complementary investment in secure bicycle parking and charging").  

(Baltimore uses its parking garage revenue to support free transit on the Baltimore Circulator bus program.)

A number of cities have bits and pieces of this, but as my writings over the years indicate, an integrated system is way better.

-- "Extending the "Signature Streets" concept to "Signature Streets and Spaces," (2020, originally 2015)

-- "Bike to Work Day as an opportunity to assess the state of bicycle planning: Part 1," (2017)

-- "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)

-- "Why not a bicycle hub at National Airport?, focused on capturing worker trips but open to all," (2017)

-- "Revisiting assistance programs to get people biking: 26 programs," (2024, original 2015, updated 2020)
-- "Repeating b.s. about everything being about race and class: bike infrastructure in Washington, DC," (2024, earlier entries cited within)

-- "Denver and Rio Grande Rail Trail in Davis County, Utah: a great foundation, full of (missed) opportunity," (2022)

-- "World Bicycle Day is today: Ideas for making transportation cycling irresistible," (2022)

This is a little ridiculous: 3 regional commuter train stations in 3 miles in Hammond, Indiana

A South Shore Line train enters the Hammond Gateway station in north Hammond, where passengers can transfer between the Lakeshore Corridor, the traditional east-west route, and the Monon Corridor, the long-awaited West Lake Corridor extending south to Dyer. Doug Ross photo, "Transit development districts already fulfilling promise to attract prosperity," Indiana Business Magazine.

I wrote recently about the extension of the South Shore Line to Hammond and Dyer ("South Shore Line Interurban extension in Indiana").  The South Shore Line is the last functioning interurban railroad in the US.  

It travels from South Bend (the airport, not downtown) to Chicago.  It has many trains each workday, 28 daily, and 28 total on weekends, but basically the ridership is abysmal: before the expansion post-covid it was fewer than 7,000 daily riders.   

Of course, if the Chicago Bears move to Hammond, that could perk up weekend ridership a lot.  Apparently Hammond is closer to a lot of Chicago than is the suburb of Arlington Heights, which the Bears are also considering.

Officials turn dirt at the ceremonial groundbreaking Thursday, April 16, 2026, for the new $10 million South Shore Line station to be built in downtown Hammond. (Doug Ross/for the Post-Tribune)

The Gary Post-Tribune reports, "Ground broken for new South Shore station to serve downtown Hammond," that the city is building a new downtown station for $10 million.

From the article:

“If we are serious about downtown Hammond, we have to have a station in downtown Hammond,” Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr. said. The station plays a key role in the city’s plans to revitalize the downtown.

“Not long ago, we stood together to celebrate the opening of the Monon Corridor, a transformational investment that expanded the South Shore Line and changed the trajectory of our region,” he said. “Today, we build on that momentum. Because this isn’t just another ribbon-cutting. This is proof that the investment is already delivering results.”

The new station will join two new stations that began service as a result of the $945 million Monon Corridor extension of South Shore Line service to Dyer. The Hammond Gateway station is a mile north of the new downtown station being built, and the Hammond South station is about two miles south.

Granted the downtown should always be served by a transit line, but this isn't a subway or streetcar, it's railroad.  So the number of added riders is likely to be minimal.  It's not like people are going to use the railroad passenger service to travel within Hammond.

Or perhaps they could consider closing one of the other stations.  Except they just built them.  Why didn't Downtown Hammond get a station from the start?

National Park Week 2026: What's to celebrate? (April 19-27)

The National Park Service (and similar facilities of the US Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service) have been getting crushed by staff cuts.  

That and other actions by the Trump Administration make it pretty hard to take a celebratory attitude towards national parks.

As mentioned in other entries, they've been forced to dumb down historic interpretation of difficult issues like slavery ("National Park Service Dismantles Slavery Exhibit in Philadelphia," "How the National Park Service Is Deleting American History," New York Times, "What just happened at the President’s House?," "They helped design the President’s House. Now part of the site’s ‘heart has been ripped out’ after orders from Trump administration," Philadelphia Inquirer).  

Trump put his mug on the annual pass for US residents.

In keeping with the anti-science agenda of the Administration, many Park Service science programs have been gutted (eg. "National Park Service Sea Turtle Expert Says She Was Forced To Resign As Texas Coordinator Of The Sea Turtle Stranding And Salvage Network," National Parks Traveler).

And they raised the price of entry to 11 premier parks by "foreigners," to $100 per person.  Maybe it's reasonable to charge more ("A better way to fund national parks — paid for by their most eager visitors," The Hill), maybe it isn't if it reduces tourist visits, especially because international visitors spend more money than domestic travelers ("Concerns raised over significant increase in National Park fees for international visitors," KUTV, "Will Higher Fees For Foreign Visitors Help Or Hurt America’s National Parks?," EcoServants).

According to the New York Times ("At Yosemite, Rangers Are Scarce and Visitors Have Gone Wild"), as but one example, Yosemite National Park is being overrun by "bad patrons" who face little repercussion because there aren't rangers--most have been riffed.

For decades, visitors to Yosemite National Park have been greeted by green- and khaki-clad rangers, who collect fees and guard the park’s entrance. But on a chilly morning in December, there were no rangers at the park gates. Tourists descended into the majestic wilderness for free, confused by their apparent good fortune.

In fact, ranger sightings were too rare last year, according to park regulars and advocates. Visitors were far less supervised than they normally were, which had led to the wrong kind of wildness — littering, cliff jumping, drone-flying.

This is Yosemite under President Trump.

That and other actions by the Trump Administration make it pretty hard to take a celebratory attitude towards national parks.

As mentioned in other entries, they've been forced to dumb down historic interpretation of difficult issues like slavery ("National Park Service Dismantles Slavery Exhibit in Philadelphia," "How the National Park Service Is Deleting American History," New York Times, "What just happened at the President’s House?," Philadelphia Inquirer).  

Trump put his mug on the annual pass for US residents.

In keeping with the anti-science agenda of the Administration, many Park Service science programs have been gutted (eg. "National Park Service Sea Turtle Expert Says She Was Forced To Resign As Texas Coordinator Of The Sea Turtle Stranding And Salvage Network," National Parks Traveler).

And they raised the price of entry to 11 premier parks by "foreigners," to $100 per person.  Maybe it's reasonable to charge more ("A better way to fund national parks — paid for by their most eager visitors," The Hill), maybe it isn't if it reduces tourist visits, especially because international visitors spend more money than domestic travelers ("Concerns raised over significant increase in National Park fees for international visitors," KUTV, "Will Higher Fees For Foreign Visitors Help Or Hurt America’s National Parks?," EcoServants).

Pluses

• More revenue without raising costs for residents.  By charging nonresidents more, the agency can direction millions of additional dollars each year into trail work, facility upgrades, and visitor safety, while keeping the existing rate for US residents unchanged.
• Targeting visitors who already spend heavily on travel.  International tourists often spend thousands of dollars on flights, hotels, rental cars, and tours.  Supporters argue that an extra $100 per person, or a $250 annual pass is a small share of the overall trip cost, and that many visitors will still choose to come.
• Potential to manage crowding at the most stressed parks.  If higher prices slightly reduce demand at hyper-popular parks, that could ease pressure on sensitive habitats, trail systems, and small gateway towns that struggle with traffic and congestion.
• Dedicated funds for climate resilience.  Higher fees could help pay for wildfire mitigation, flood repairs, invasive species removal, and other climate adaptation work that is increasingly urgent in protected areas.

Minuses

• Equity and access. A wealthy tourist from abroad may shrug off the added cost, but a student, researcher, or low-income traveler might be priced out. The fee does not consider ability to pay. It only considers nationality. 
• Impacts on gateway communities. Many small towns near major parks depend heavily on international tourism for jobs and local revenue. Even a modest drop in foreign visitors could hurt hotels, restaurants, guide services, and local outfitters that are already operating on thin margins. 
• Mixed message about global stewardship. U.S. national parks are more than just vacation destinations. They are symbols of global conservation and shared responsibility. Making it harder and more expensive for the rest of the world to visit can feel at odds with the idea that nature is a common heritage that we all help protect. 
• Risk of over-reliance on user fees. If agencies lean too heavily on visitor surcharges, it can reduce pressure on lawmakers to provide stable, long-term public funding. Parks are public goods, not theme parks, and many advocates argue that basic operations should not depend so heavily on how much can be extracted from visitors at the gate. 
• Implementation and fairness issues. Verifying residency at crowded entrances, handling dual citizens, and dealing with tour groups adds complexity. Any system that separates people into different lines and prices will create friction, delays, and the possibility of unfair treatment.

According to the New York Times ("At Yosemite, Rangers Are Scarce and Visitors Have Gone Wild"), as but one example, Yosemite National Park is being overrun by "bad patrons" who face little repercussion because there aren't rangers--most have been riffed.

For decades, visitors to Yosemite National Park have been greeted by green- and khaki-clad rangers, who collect fees and guard the park’s entrance. But on a chilly morning in December, there were no rangers at the park gates. Tourists descended into the majestic wilderness for free, confused by their apparent good fortune.

In fact, ranger sightings were too rare last year, according to park regulars and advocates. Visitors were far less supervised than they normally were, which had led to the wrong kind of wildness — littering, cliff jumping, drone-flying.

This is Yosemite under President Trump.

Elisabeth Barton, a co-owner of a company that offers guided tours of Yosemite’s attractions, said her business had benefited from the crowds. But she has also noticed more visitors driving the wrong way down one-way roads, parking on sensitive meadows and BASE jumping off cliffs, which is not allowed. “We’re seeing the park really struggling to support the number of visitors that are coming in,” said Ms. Barton, 46. “I struggle to see the long game here.”

Wrecking the workplace--parks--as national policy.  Yosemite is but one example.  The Administration is targeting staff ("Trump Admin “Deliberately” Tanking Morale to Get Parks Staff to Quit, Official Says in Leaked Tape," The Intercept).

A recent National Park Service directive to limit high scores on employee evaluations has raised fears of more layoffs after a turbulent year of cuts and resignations.

Don Striker, a veteran agency leader who oversees parks in Alaska such as Denali National Park, said the new performance review process was crafted outside the NPS.

“To the extent that they continue to do things that many of us feel are the reign of terror, that deliberately impact our morale in hopes that they’ll drive us out, that’s OMB and that’s OPM, right?” Striker said, referring to Vought’s Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. “And that’s what the performance thing came under.”

“Ultimately,” Striker went on, “it was not in the hands anymore even of the National Park Service political leadership or the Department of the Interior political leadership.”

Keys View, Joshua Tree National Park.  Photo: Beth Collier for the New York Times.

Ending the visitor pass reservation system/crowding/visitor management.  Because many parks are oversubscribed ("Overwhelming Yosemite Valley Summer Crowds," Restore Hetch Hetchy), as a visitor management protocol, many parks introduced reservations systems ("Want to visit Yosemite this summer? You’ll need a reservation," San Jose Mercury-News). 

They've been controversial in terms of equity etc., but they have been effective in regulating crowds.  Pretty much, the Trump Administration is dropping these systems.  They claim it's to increase access, but it's really about making parks more unmanageable and diminishing the quality of the visitor experience.

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.

Dead mall in Gaithersburg finally getting demolished

Gaithersburg Mayor Jud Ashman speaks in front of the partially demolished Lakeforest Mall. Credit: Jacqueline Kalil.

Lakeforest Mall has languished for at least 18 years, since the Great Financial Crisis in 2008 if not before.  It went through various iterations of foreclosure and debtor in possession and special servicing and finally shut for good in 2023.

In 2013 and probably before the special servicer was Hines Interests, one of the nation's largest property firms.

I was at a conference out west and the guy in charge of the mall for Hines was talking to one of the presenters, a guy who did night markets in Australia, about the opportunity to do that to try to enliven and activate the property.

I said, just tear it down and redevelop it.  Now they are ("Lakeforest Mall demolition ushers in start of $1.2B redevelopment project," Bethesda Magazine).  15 years later.  From the article:

Opened in 1978, the mall once served as a central shopping and social hub for Montgomery County, featuring major department stores, an ice rink and later a movie theater and food court. For many residents, it was a place of first jobs, first dates and holiday shopping traditions.

To me it was one of Montgomery County's weak malls, declining even before the GFC, so it had a 30 year or less good run.  Montgomery Mall is somewhat upscale and still successful.  The Westfield Mall in Wheaton is successful as a middle income mall targeting Latinos and other segments.

Interior commercial district malls in Silver Spring and Rockville have never been successful.  While the White Flint Mall declined, interestingly at the time, the connected department stores did okay regardless.  Lord & Taylor (now defunct) even sued to keep the property owner.

The Curlicue sculpture by Chris Byars has been moved from Lakeforest Mall in Gaithersburg to the streets of Olney, Maryland.

But I don't think Lake Forest Mall was ever a particularly high performer.  

It was notable for public art ("Lakeforest Sculptures Relocated to Olney Hot Spots") and the ice rink, among other things.  

Montgomery County DOT booth at the Agriculture Fair.

I was only exposed to it because it was the staging point for parking used to support the Montgomery County Agriculture Fair at the nearby Fairgrounds.  Montgomery County RideOn bus transit did a very good system of shuttle buses back and forth.

It's going to be replaced with a mixed use development including residential, office space, and some retail-entertainment space.

A great newspaper article about St. Paul Minnesota's options for revenue generation | How about Packaging, Marketing, and Branding them into a Program?

 -- "How might St. Paul boost its tax base and stabilize property taxes?" in the St. Paul Pioneer-Press

One of the ideas is what's called a Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILOT, by nonprofits. This is done by cities to help to cover the cost of services to nonprofits not paying property taxes.  It's a voluntary program and most places feel they aren't getting enough--which is probably true.  

Boston's probably the best example.  To get around an unwillingness to agree, Providence proposed a "capitation tax" per college student, since so much of the city's property is owned by Brown University.

Interestingly, there was an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "O’Connor’s partnership approach brings millions to Pittsburgh from tax-exempt nonprofits, corporations," about PILOTs which has been a big issue there because the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Allegheny Health System, the University of Pittsburgh, and Carnegie-Mellon University control so much of the property.

Rather than focusing on negotiating a broader PILOT, which could include funding for annual operations, he has moved to getting various institutions committed to putting money towards capital projects.  For example, UPMC is paying for new ambulances--some of the trips the new ambulances make will end up at one of their facilities.  The Heinz Foundation, a strong supporter of the city and region, gave money to the city to finish its stalled new Comprehensive Land Use Plan.  Etc.

Map of St. Paul from Etsy.

In St. Paul, it turns out almost 60% of the nonprofit land is government owned, where no PILOT would be derived.  And the rest of the organizations are generally much smaller than those in Pittsburgh.

Making it harder, St. Paul is small, about 315,000 population, while the rest of Ramsey County is only 226,000 more.  Plus, the county has lost population since 2020.

Building the tax base through capital investment.  The article goes on to describe various options.  Some are what I call investment oriented, in that "you need to spend (invest) money to make money."

One of the items discussed is Tax Increment Financing, where you sell bonds to support development based on the idea that the new development will raise tax revenues.  So you get the loan against future benefits, which pay off the bond.

According to the article, a number of groups oppose more TIF, even though the city has the capacity for more, because they see it disproportionately benefiting developers, which I suppose it does.

Neighborhood TIF, Minneapolis.  But I couldn't help but think of the counter example of Minneapolis, which created a TIF system to fund neighborhood improvements.  Called the Neighborhood Revitalization Program, resident associations worked with the city, school district and parks district to make physical improvements with long term positive effects (case study, "Empowered Participation in Urban Governance: The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research).

Perhaps St. Paul could look at multiple approaches to TIF, neighborhoods as well as more traditional development projects.

Some MPAS4 projects.

Metropolitan Area Projects, Oklahoma City.  Another program, although more in terms of packing, is the MAPS program in Oklahoma City.  

It's an add on sales tax, which in different phases each with a preapproved capital projects plan, has funding major projects, from a sports arena, to a streetcar, to canal and river improvements, and physical improvements to schools ("Big League Cities: Small Cities," "Change isn't usually that simple: The repatterning of Oklahoma City's Downtown Streetscape"). 

From the Daily Oklahoman article, "What MAPS projects will start in 2024? Everything to know about ongoing OKC projects":

For three decades, Oklahoma City’s Metropolitan Area Projects program, better known as MAPS, has played a key role in ongoing development of the city.

The debt-free MAPS program is funded by a one-cent sales tax, approved by voters and currently expected to raise more than $1 billion between 2020 and 2028. The funds are used for capital projects, neighborhood improvements and job-creating initiatives.

Various projects for MAPS 4, the program’s current iteration, are underway, with all of them in different stages of development. Passed by voters in 2019, MAPS 4 encompasses 16 projects that address issues like homelessness, post-incarceration programming, youth and senior well-being, along with traditional MAPS projects like the fairgrounds coliseum and updates to the NBA Thunder's arena.

Note that the current MAPS4 program is less focused on big capital projects, and includes a number of social service facilities, transit development, and  "beautification" projects, as well as providing operating funding for some programs  ("Some OKC MAPS 4 programs will receive annual operating funds. Here's how that will work," Daily Oklahoman).  Operating funds will be provided long term, through a creation of a trust funded by MAPS. (Although I think that many of the funding commitments should instead be paid through a larger property tax.)

MAPS might not work that well for St. Paul as it's small, whereas OKC is as large physically, as many US counties.  A city exclusive tax wouldn't generate enough money.  But could the city and county develop a similar program, jointly?

Hennepin County Community Works.  The county next door to St. Paul (which is in Ramsey) is the home to Minneapolis.  In the 1990s Hennepin County realized that population leakage from Minneapolis as a result of suburban outmigration would also hurt its revenue stream.  

It studied the areas of the city that best retained their value, and found them proximate to lakes, parks, rivers, and trails.  So it created a program to make investments in the city to extend those qualities of livability to more places, both to retain population and to gain it.

This journal article, "A COUNTY AND ITS CITIES: THE IMPACT OF HENNEPIN COMMUNITY WORKS," Journal of Urban Affairs (2006), describes the program.   

Faced in the nineties with a growing imbalance between the declining prosperity of its core city (Minneapolis) and suburban municipalities, Hennepin County, Minnesota, pioneered a different path. In 1994, Hennepin County launched an urban redevelopment program, “Hennepin Community Works” (hereafter HCW) that clearly supplemented the more common models of county activity. HCW devised an entirely new redevelopment role for the county, and has consequently had a major impact on Minneapolis and its suburbs. 

Since its inception, Hennepin County commissioners have committed close to $200 million of infrastructure spending into a targeted redevelopment program with five goals: (1) to enhance the tax base; (2) to reshape troubled neighborhoods; (3) to improve transportation within the county; (4) to protect and develop green space; and (5) to create new jobs. While much of the U.S. urban past since the eighties has featured decreasing levels of public sector funding and involvement with urban affairs, Hennepin County voluntarily took on substantial additional financial and political commitments with this program

... HCW began here in 1994 as a public works program initially intended to address declining property values. Since then, HCW has significantly transformed portions of the county through major housing, transportation, parks, and environmental restoration investments. Through 2008, HCW launched nineteen projects, totaling $197.5 million in investments.

Later they added creating a light rail transit system as part of their overall investment program.

The city's peak population was 522,000 in 1950.  From 1980 to 1990 it was about 370,000.  It grew to 382,000 in 2000 and today is 435,000.  They have a ways to go to equal their peak but at the same time Hennepin County's population in 1950 was only about 150,000 people outside of Minneapolis.  Today the non-city population is almost 850,000 people.

Allegheny County Regional Asset District.  The Regional Asset District in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania is funded from a county-wide sales and use tax ("How the Regional Asset District rode to the rescue of Allegheny County attractions," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).

Historically, the City of Pittsburgh paid for and provided regionally-serving cultural assets (museums, zoo, etc.) without support from other area jurisdictions.  As cities lost population and business activity, funding such facilities became an increasing strain.  The RAD, also supporting cultural assets in the County, was a way to spread out the cost.

Business Revitalization District Zoning Overlay, Cleveland.  This calls for an extra level of review, including design, in designated zones where the city has already been investing, to ensure that each new project adds value to the whole, rather than diminishing it.  The classification has been subsumed into a broader category of design review.

"Outlines of a plan."  To me, St. Paul has had a relatively high turnover of mayors.  So some programs that have been introduced, like "Vibrant Places and Spaces":

• Ensure Saint Paul puts people first
• Encourage vitality through investment, private and public alike
• Create accessible places where people want to connect and spend time
• Promote healthy living
• Celebrate the city’s cultural diversity

get dropped when a new administration takes office.  

Plus, while I am contradicting the conclusion in the entry about Pittsburgh and the NFL Draft Day Event and many small projects versus one or two large ones ("Big events as priming actions: Pittsburgh and the NFL Draft | Go big, medium, or little? Go for a few projects or many?"), the placemaking focus on the Vibrant Places initiative improved places on the margins, but didn't contribute to a larger whole.

St. Paul has focused on leveraging the light rail, greening initiatives, and projects converting large vacant industrial properties ("Why hasn't light rail revitalized the Midway neighborhood of St. Paul | While it has for the Prospect Park neighborhood of Minneapolis").  And a soccer stadium ("Sports facilities and the reproduction of retail space often doesn't work for the locals").

St. Paul also has the Grand Round, a parkway system conceived of before Olmsted.  It's connective capacity ought to be leveraged in the same way Hennepin County focused on rivers, lakes, parks, and trails in Minneapolis as a way to stabilize neighborhoods and add population.

Conclusion.  These programs show various ways St. Paul could work with Ramsey County to develop a long term investment approach for the city and county based on creating a package of programs and funding sources.   

(Every Day Should Be) Local News Day

Local News Day is today.  

It's sponsored by various modes of community-serving media.  

There should be scads of participants--metropolitan newspapers, community newspapers, public radio and public television programs, I guess local television station news, although it tends to not be in depth, and digital only news sources.

There aren't that many member newsrooms so far.

======

-- "Inside the crisis facing local TV news" (2026)
-- "Davis Kennedy, a one time force in local community newspapers, dies at 87" (2026)
-- "Washington City Paper community media project" (2026)
-- "Another media tragedy: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is shutting down" (2026)
-- "New Jersey loses largest published newspaper: Newark Star-Ledger" (2025)
-- "Newspaper acquisition as an element of a conservative agenda" (2024)
-- "The impact of local radio news in England" (2022)
-- "Newspapers as public media: WBEZ, radio, an NPR affiliate, to merge with the Chicago Sun-Times" (2022)
-- "Louisville Courier-Journal mobile newsroom initiative and Salt Lake Tribune Innovations Lab" (2022)
-- "Orange County Register coronavirus tracker graphic is a great model" (2021)
-- "Local music used to define communities: today with radio chains and national music distribution systems, not so much" (2021)
-- "Newspapers, community media, and knowledge about and engagement in civic affairs" (2020)
-- "Revisiting community radio" (2020)
-- "Thinking anew about supporting community radio" (2019)
-- "Culture planning and radio: local music, local content vs. delivery nodes for a national network" (2019)
-- "One more blow against community media: Washington Post drops Thursday "county" news special sections" (2017)
-- "The ongoing tragedy of dying print media, the latest being community newspapers in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland" (2015)
-- "Grassroots communications capability in the city" (2015)
-- "Protest as Civic Engagement and the role of the media" (2007)