Seattle Sustainable Neighborhoods Assessment Project

This was the first session of the conference that really impressed me.  Peter Steinbrueck and Michaela Winter from Steinbrueck Urban Strategies, reviewed a project the City of Seattle had commissioned as part of the update of their comprehensive plan.  They identified 22 indicators (from four categories) and gathered data associated with the “levels” of each indicator.  The end game was to measure the achievements between the years 1994 (when the plan was written) and 2014 (when the plan was updated).  I found this interesting because we have worked on similar projects ourselves but we tend to approach it a little differently.  We heavily utilize GIS when we work on projects like this.  GIS provides:  a framework for organizing the data, tools for sustainability analysis, and a platform for communicating the results to the client and the public.  I spoke briefly with Mr. Steinbueck and Ms. Winter after the session about their approach.  We discussed the importance of projects such as this and the need for internal changes within planning departments that result in indicator data monitoring and collection – and ultimately analysis and feedback into the system in an effort to direct resources towards those issues that are not meeting sustainability (performance) standards.  Really good stuff.  You can check it out for yourself by searching for it on seattle.gov and you can click the link for it here.

Fostering Historic Preservation in Smaller Communities

This is a session I found myself in by accident, but I’m glad it happened.  The session featured:

1. Paul Ellis, AICP -Director of Community & Economic Development for the City of Columbia, Illinois (map)
2. Richard Seplar, AICP – Director of the Planning and Community Development Department of the City of Bellingham, Washington (map)
3. Catherine Powers, AICP -Planning and Sustainability Director for the City of Franklin, Tennessee (map)

What I liked about this session was the linkage the speakers established early on between the act of nurturing real, authentic places and sustained economic growth.  Towns that have historic structures in need of preservation are incredibly lucky.  Investments in the past tend to have longer, more sustained payouts than most new construction, whether it be housing or commercial.

Background

The Brice-Tussing area of Columbus was once a vibrant and viable retail district on the far east side of the city.  Over the years, retail activity shifted even further east and suddenly the area found itself out of favor with retailers of all sizes.  The preponderance of big box retail made the decline even more noticeable when preferences began to shift.

The Task

Tired of watching the Brice-Tussing area languish, the City engaged an enterprising team of consultants to study the area and identify opportunities for redevelopment.  During the study process, the team met with a variety of stakeholders including several local area commissions, residents, commercial realtors, local business leaders and potential investors.  Data was poured over and parcels were scrutinized for highest and best use as well as optimal land use and zoning.

Info

The plan is currently in the final stages of development.  In the interim, here is a page dedicated to the project and maintained by the City of Columbus.  Here you can read a midterm draft of the plan as well as view several display boards that were generated for the various open houses.

One of the ways the project team has kept in touch with the community is through the West Franklinton MindMixer page at www.westfranklinton.com.  The beauty of this website is two-way communication: the project team can start a general conversation and the members of the West Franklinton community can fill in the details.  The site launched on January 2, 2014 with six core topic areas requiring community input:

1. Community Identity + Image
2. Driving, Walking + Biking
3. Housing + Neighborhood
4. Retail
5. Parking Strategies
6. Parks + Open Space

Collectively, these core topics generated 177 individual ideas with 193 comments over a period of two months.  We were thrilled with the feedback and the active participation of community members, and we are currently working on incorporating this wealth of local knowledge and energy into recommendations and strategies that will be presented at the second public meeting on April 30th, 2014 at Gladden Community House from 5 – 7pm.

There’s obviously a lot to read through in these discussions, but there are many tricks to getting a quick idea of the general concerns and even mood of a discussion.  Among them is a simple and easy visualizing technique that was all the rage in planning circles circa 2011: the word cloud.  A word cloud is merely a visualization of text data, where words from a given source are sized according to their use.  That is to say, the more a word appears in a given text, the larger it will appear in a world cloud.

Word clouds are by no means a substitute for carefully reading through text or other analysis exercises, but they can reveal some pretty interesting patterns and are a handy visualization regardless.  We decided it would be fun to throw the discussions from the original six MindMixer topic areas into wordle to see what these community discussions look like.  We’ll probably continue to play with these visualizations over the next few weeks (I would particularly like to edit out the words “West” and “Franklinton” to see what else will stand out), but the results are below.  What do you think?

Community Identity + Image

Idea Titles Text

Discussion Text

Driving, Biking, Walking

Discussion Text

Idea Titles

Housing + Neighborhood

Idea Titles

Discussion Text

Retail

Idea Titles

Discussion Text

Parking Strategies

Idea Titles

Discussion Text

Parks + Open Space

Idea Titles

Discussion Text

As the plan develops, this blog will provide information related to the project.  You can also follow and participate in the planning process by visiting the following sites.

Important Links & Related Sites

www.westfranklinton.com – This site is serving as the primary information collection & dissemination portal for the duration of the project.  The software that is powering the site is provided by MindMixer.  The topics and information that is disseminated through this site, will evolve as the actual planning project evolves.

West Franklinton Facebook Page – West Franklinton has a Facebook page that will also provide a place to keep folks informed on the planning process.  Links to project documents and project photos can be found on this site.

@WFplan (Twitter) - this is the Twitter account for the West Franklinton Plan.  Follow it and you will never be out of the loop!

Project Timeline

October 2013 – The consultant team begins meeting with the Staff Working group (planners from the City of Columbus, recreation & parks, housing, mayor’s office, and others).  Later that month, the team conducts their first meeting with the Community Working Group, a group of leaders from Franklinton comprised of members of the Franklinton Development Association (FDA), Gladden Community House, Mount Carmel, to name a few.

November 2013 – The consultant team begins conducting stakeholder interviews and collecting “existing conditions” data.  Each parcel within the neighborhood is surveyed and vacancies are documented.  The commercial (retail) market analysis begins.

December 2013 – Stakeholder interviews continue as does the data collection and analysis for the existing conditions.  The housing market analysis begins.

January 2014 – The project’s website (www.westfranklinton.com) goes live.  The public information gathering begins in earnest.  Existing conditions data gathering concludes.  The market analyses (housing, commercial, office, and industrial) concludes.  The planning team meets with the Staff Working Group and the Community Working Group.  Both groups are briefed on the results of the existing conditions report and the market analyses.  Later that month, the first public workshop is held.

Public Workshop #1

On January 28, 2014, the first West Franklinton planning Public Workshop was held at the Gladden Community House.  Even though it was the coldest night in decades, almost 100 hearty souls turned out to provide their input and mingle with others that were interested in participating in the planning of Franklinton’s future.  NBC 4 in Columbus even came out to document the event with a nice video piece with an accompanying web article.

One of the exercises that the public was encouraged to partake in was a mapping exercise where four location-specific questions were posed to participants.  The results of that exercise were as follows:

1. Question:  What one place would make the neighborhood better if it was dramatically different from how it is today?  Please indicate on the map.
   Answer:  Click here to see the map
2. Question:  What do you consider to be the “heart” of West Franklinton?  Please indicate on the map.
   Answer:  Click here to see the map
3. Question:  What is the one place that a visitor to Franklinton should see?  Please indicate on the map.
   Answer:  Click here to see the map
4. Question:  If you could create a new neighborhood park in West Franklinton, where would you build it  Please indicate on the map.
   Answer:  Click here to see the map

February 2014 – The “plan development” phase begins.  This is when the rubber meets the road.  New topics are added to the westfranklinton.com site.  The new topics reflect the progression of the planning process.  The team begins working with the City and the Community Working Group to craft a comprehensive vacant housing & housing development strategy.  Late in the month, the team meets with the Community Working Group to initiate the plan development phase.  Discussion topics include improving community outreach for the next public workshop (scheduled for the end of April).

April 2014 – The 2nd community workshop is scheduled for Wednesday, April 30 from 5-7 PM.  The official press release can be found on westfranklinton.com (in the “about” section) OR you can link to it here.

October 2014 – The West Franklinton Plan has been completed.  You can download the plan here.  The plan is very progressive in its approach; emphasizing connectivity and public open space (parks) enhancements as property becomes available.  The flexibility built into the plan allows for the development of these features in a variety of places throughout West Franklinton.

November 2014 – The West Franklinton Plan has been adopted by Columbus City Council.  You can learn more about the Plan by checking out the City of Columbus’ website.

“Creating successful urban retail districts is a goal of planners and community leaders alike. But as Robert J. Gibbs points out in Principles of Urban Retail Planning and Development(2012; Wiley; 272 pp.; $80), planners may be hampered in that task by an overly romantic view of an ideal shopping area. Even in the best planned new urbanist developments, he points out, retail components often fail to live up to expectations.

….(Gibbs) explodes various myths about what makes a successful retail district and lists some of the common mistakes made by planners, business owners, and community leaders — failing to begin a project with a professional market analysis, for instance. He shies away from easy answers. While clearly in favor of the walkable retail districts that planners typically espouse, for instance, he concedes that they don’t always succeed financially.

Gibbs includes plenty of useful information on specifics such as parking. His book will be most useful to private-sector planners and those who work with public-private partnerships. But the material it contains will also be helpful to public planners dealing with zoning issues. — Ryan Smith”

Several of us here at UDG, have at one point in our lives, worked for real estate market analysts (in fact, we have several current clients that are in this line of business).  This is where we learned the value of conducting a market analysis for planning and development purposes.  Our backgrounds in GIS and Urban Planning provide us with a unique perspective on the concept of the market analysis.  We have seen more than our fair share of good and bad examples of market analysis.  If you are a city conducting a land use or comprehensive plan, it is in your best interest to include market analysis as part of the planning process.  In addition, you should thoroughly vet the analyst to make sure they understand what the goals and objectives of the plan are.  Traditional, boilerplate market analysis is not going to suffice.  Cities, and the spaces within a city, are unique.   The market analyst must be willing to approach their task as part of the entire planning team, which means they must be engaged in the process from start to finish.

Traditional market analysis does not address the goals of a land use or comprehensive plan.  There are two basic questions planners need to answer with respect to the market analysis:  1.  Is there a market and 2. how “much” should we plan for? Further, planners (and the public in general) may ask questions regarding “what it takes” to achieve the critical mass required to achieve the desired results.  For example, “how many households do we need to add, at varying income levels, to achieve the critical mass required to support a medium-sized grocery store?”

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are the perfect tool for conducting this type of analysis and far too few analysts invest the time and money to employ a robust GIS to help them answer these spatial questions.  A GIS makes it much easier to visualize the current conditions as well as visualize future conditions – which is at the heart of the concept of planning.

Urban Decision Group has been fine tuning this very type of analysis into a service we call “Planning Market Analytics“.  Planning Market Analytics is specifically designed for informing  comprehensive or land-use plans.  Like a traditional market analysis, field observations are required but the observations must be targeted and focused on the goals at hand.  Our service focuses on a data-driven GIS model to produce predictive analytics via established methods such as Huff Modeling.

The Planning Market Analytics service is usually expensive because of its intended audience.  The audience for a traditional market analysis generally consists of developers and  financiers.  That group is looking for very specific price points, rents, and lease rates for defined product types like town homes or 2 bedroom apartments.  The planning audience, on the other hand, is focused on the larger picture.  They need to  know if a project has a  chance at being successful (is there a market?), how much space should be allocated, what infrastructure improvements will be necessary, etc.  Two different audiences require two difference approaches.

So if you’re a city, county, region or state that is engaging in city or regional planning, I agree with the letter writer above.  Do you your homework first.  It’s a nominal portion of the project cost that can literally save you millions on the back end.

If you would like more information on Planning Market Analytics and you live in North America, contact Urban Decision Group at 614-383-8447 or email Rick Stein at rstein at urbandecisiongroup.com.

Concentric Circles
DO NOT use simple concentric circles. Concentric circles (sometimes referred to as radials) ignore all the important information about any given area such as physical and psychological barriers, real travel time, and the area’s socioeconomic character. This method may be appropriate as a guide or a starting point, but it should never be used as the final market area for a project.

example of concentric circles

Drive Time Polygons
Drive Times are best expressed as polygons rather than concentric circles because polygons calculate the real travel time required to move from one point to another using actual road infrastructure. Drive Time polygons are a great starting point for a project’s market area delineation. It should be noted, however, that Drive Times ignore walking and users of public transportation, which could be problematic depending on the project. Drive times also do not reflect consumer preferences or psychological barriers.

example of drive time polygons

Census Tracts
Census Tracts, although critical to a proper analysis, are also not the best way to delineate a final market area. Census Tracts are a creation of the U.S. Census Bureau, and their sole purpose of is to make it easy for the U.S. Census Bureau to organize information: Tracts consist of several Census Block Groups which are an aggregation of individual Block Points. Block Points are nothing more than actual city and/or country blocks. Therefore, market areas created by simply aggregating entire Census Tracts are equally likely to include irrelevant areas as well as exclude relevant ones because they do not take any of the factors (barries, population density, etc.) that impact a market area into account. This ultimately results in an inaccurate market area that, much like a simple concentric circle, overstates or understates the true socioeconomic conditions that exist within the actual market area.

example of census tracts

Hand Drawn Market Areas
By far, hand drawn market areas are the best way to delineate a project’s market area. Hand trade areas rely on multiple sources of information to establish boundaries. These might include interviews with local stakeholders, thematic demographic maps that visually display socioeconomic character down to the Block Group level, or oversetting thematic data with drive time polygons. This is important because a useful market area isn’t bound by arbitrary political boundaries; it should be based on all of the information available.

example of a hand drawn market area

Once you’ve delineated the final market area, then you must spatially gather the data associated with the people, housing units and businesses in order to build a profile of exactly “what” the trade area contains. It is during this step that planners, developers and analysts sometimes make the mistake of choosing the wrong tools to do the job. The only proper tool for apportioning data to a market area is a Geographic Information System (GIS). Without a properly outfitted GIS, spatial data is going to be miscounted and miscalculated. Here’s why: This map shows a close-up of a market area boundary (red) and a Census Tract (black) that is bisected by the market area. The area to the right of the red boundary is INSIDE the market area. The area to the left of the red boundary is OUTSIDE of the market area.

Census Tracts bisected by a market area boundary

Let’s assume you have data from the U.S. Census Bureau for this particular Tract. How would you go about the process of determining the number of households within the market area? A lot of guesswork could be involved. For example, visually it seems that 70% of the Tract is within the market area and 30% is outside. It stands to reason, therefore, that 70% of the households must be within the market area and 30% must be outside. It sounds simple, but let’s look at the actual numbers. Using real Census data, we know the total number of households within this Tract is 2,300 Therefore, we are estimating that there are 1,610 (2,300 x 70%) households within this single Tract that reside within the market area. However, if we use a GIS to do this calculation, we find out the actual number of households within the market area is 1,343. That means we over counted this single Tract by 267 households. The typical market area cuts through 20 or more Census Tracts (depending on the type of project and the density of the population). That means there are at least 20 opportunities for estimation and calculation errors from manually assembling this market area data. The difference between the estimation and the actual number has real consequences: at this level, bad information could either potentially provide support for a project that should not be supported OR dissuade a project that is actually viable. In sum, there is a lot of money at stake when apportioning data to a market area. If you don’t use a GIS to apportion the data for you, then miscalculations will assuredly occur, effectively wasting many people’s time and money.

So why does a GIS do a better job of apportioning data to a market area? A GIS is capable of accurately apportioning population, household, housing unit and business data because it uses the location of Census Block Points to determine exactly how many people, households, housing units, or businesses, are within a market area’s boundaries. Let’s look at the zoomed-in map again.

Census Block Points in relation to the market area

The dots you see on the map are proportional symbols that represent the actual physical location of Census Block Points. Block Points contain four types of information for each city/country block that it represents – total population, total households, total housing units, and the total number of businesses. Virtually all Census data (and by extension, third-party demographic data) is associated with one of these “Universes” (that’s U.S. Census lingo). Let’s use the same example market area and Census Tract that we just looked at. A GIS will examine all of the Block Points that reside within the market area and will calculate the actual percent of population, households, housing units and businesses that reside within the market area. Those percentages can then be used to apportion all the data associated with that tract. In other words, we can now accurately determine the precise levels of all data elements within the market area. A GIS can also calculate things like median income for an entire trade area without you ever having to type in a bunch of numbers into a spreadsheet and apply a bunch of assumptions.

A properly outfitted GIS is without a doubt, the most effective tool available for market area delineation and more importantly, for data apportionment to the market area. There is a lot riding on your project(s). Shouldn’t you be using the right tools for the job?

Rick Stein is Principal & Owner of Urban Decision Group (UDG).  He is a trained urban planner, GIS expert, and software developer.

Urban Decision Group (UDG) has expanded its operations and is now providing consulting services in the western United States.  It’s newest office is based in Seattle, Washington, and its location will allow UDG to provide on-site and virtual services to the planning and development community in the western portion of the U.S.  UDG’s Principal and Owner, Rick Stein recently announced, “We’ve had some staff in Seattle for several months and we felt the time was right to market ourselves more aggressively in the northwest.  We already had a strong client base in this market.  Now we can provide timelier service delivery and on-site consulting to our existing and future clients.  There are a lot of planning & development shops in the western U.S. that don’t have the resources to staff a full-time department to do what we do.  We’re excited about the opportunities.”

Urban Decision Group is a location information technology firm that specializes in providing Geospatial Information Systems (GIS)-centric technology and analysis to those in the private and public sectors of the planning and development community.  Urban Decision Group was founded in 2010 by software developer/urban planner Rick Stein when he realized there were large information gaps between urban planners and developers, and the decision makers responsible for making projects happen.  Urban Decision Group’s world headquarters are located in beautiful Columbus, Ohio.

I’m hopeful that Devin will find the time to go into his project in more detail in a longer blog post, but I was really struck by how intelligently he and his teammates went about their framing their project. They struck a really mature balance between practicality and ambition that I can imagine playing out very well in a development meeting.  It’s a credit to the Ohio State’s relatively new City and Regional Planning undergraduate program.  Most UDG staff members are alumni of Knowlton’s MCRP program, so we’re always excited to see what the grad and undergrad students are working on.  And honestly, the future looks pretty bright if this is the quality of work that one can expect from students in these programs.  How ideas are presented matter just as much as the ideas themselves; if that’s something we can ensure that the urban planners, designers and advocates of tomorrow understand, then we’re in pretty good shape.

What I do consider to be a mostly urban phenomena is the modern food truck.  Food carts aren’t new by any stretch of the imagination, but mobile food culture in the US has grown to the point of backlash and co-option.  (Which is a form of success, yeah?)  Food trucks and urban planning have enjoyed a strong and supportive relationship for many years, driven by concentrations of the kind of people who find a thrill in tracking mobile food vendors through interactive maps and twitter.

Food carts are such a big thing that they’ve somewhat outgrown their own mobility.  Cities across America hold regular food cart courts with a revolving or permanent set of mobile food businesses.  Like many planning trends, this arguably began in Portland, OR, but–like many good ideas–it spread.  After testing the waters with several successful food carts, and years of food truck themed festivals, Columbus now has its own permanent food truck court at Columbus Commons every Thursday.   I find this to be ridiculously exciting as the last food cart court I attended at the Commons was so popular that I was unable to try anything.  Another thrilling option (that has been around for a little while) is Franklinton’s Dinin’ Hall which is open M-F from 11-2.    Community building, micro economic development, local entrepreneurs and food.  Does it get any better?

If you don’t want to wait until next week to survey some of the many food truck options in Columbus, there’s always the Food Truck and Cart Hop by Hal and Al’s on the southside. It’s a good excuse to bring out the bike from winter storage.  Secure bike parking is free and the weather is supposed to be fine.

(Though we all know this is Ohio, so bring a rain coat just in case.)

I debated my previously innocuous choices as I idled away, waiting for the light.  My destination was only five miles from my home at most.  I could have easily biked. I enjoy biking, but had wanted to avoid the rain.  The bus was another option, but the route would have at least tripled my travel time each way, making it an inefficient and unappealing alternative.   So I chose to drive.

Obviously my decision to drive was understandable and nothing out of the ordinary.  I’m willing to bet that most people in the same situation would have made the same choice, but that’s precisely the point.  That people will make choices that are most beneficial or useful to them is obvious, but it’s a powerful framework to build on.  When we as planners or communities try to change collective habits that have a negative impact on our quality of life, we tend to think of some combination of reward and/or penalty.  This certainly has its place, but, where individual choice is concerned, we might be prudent to consider the long term impact of simple convenience on the choices we make.  I would have taken the bus if it were the more convenient option, and I’m positive that I’m not alone.

It might seem to be an obvious thought, and it certainly isn’t a new one.  But it helped me feel a little better when the light finally turned green and I was able to continue to my destination.  Unfortunately, we can’t enact change over night, but we can move forward with a clear idea of how to achieve goals in the long term.  When it comes to altering the individual decisions that increase CO2 emissions, part of the long-term solution will be to encourage better choices by making them the more convenient and obvious option.  It’s a start.