Nathaniel Hood

Nathaniel Hood is a transportation planner and blogger living in St. Paul. He writes for Strong Towns and Streets.MN.

What is the Value of Closing a Street?

Posted by: Nathaniel Hood under Society, Physical infrastructure, Transportation Updated: November 9, 2013 - 12:46 PM

We need to move beyond Open Streets.

Open Streets closes down auto-oriented streets in Minneapolis and St. Paul along major corridors and opens them up to pedestrians, cyclists, strollers and skaters. The transformation is astonishingly beautiful. But, when the streets turn back into uninhabitable congested roadway the following day I’m left asking myself “What’s the point?”

Herein lies a problem with tactical urbanism and Ciclovía-styled events. They must go beyond the event and aim for a greater good. Open Streets must be a tactic in a broader strategy, and merely raising awareness may not be enough to accomplish their mission of enhancing healthy living, local business, sustainable transportation and civic pride.

I mean no disrespect to Open Streets. They’re an excellent organization and I support them 100 percent. But, amongst all their other much needed work, there needs to be collaboration on behalf of the cities beyond just permitting it. They need to join forces to help make these needed infrastructure adjustments the other 364 days of the year. 

We have one of the best examples in our own backyard: Milwaukee Avenue.

Milwaukee Avenue South by Franklin Avenue

Milwaukee Avenue Historic District runs for 2 blocks in South Minneapolis and is composed of small homes built for lower-income residents between 1880 and 1890 on quarter-sized lots. Deterioration occured throughout the second World War and preservationists in the 1970s helped save the homes and turn the street into a park. Today, Milwaukee Avenue is a magical place (especially after a fresh snow).

Closed streets have livablity, but what does that mean? It’s a soft, open-ended concept that doesn’t mean much. I wanted to see if the livability of a closed street created any monetary return. I took Milwaukee Avenue and compared the property values against a similar nearby street open to vehicle traffic.

mil26th

There are no perfect equivalents when comparing complex urban environments. Here are important notes about the comparison:

  • The homes along Milwaukee Avenue are small compared to their neighbors, but have better architectural character.
  • The homes on 26th Avenue were likely built for middle-class residents, whereas Milwaukee Avenue homes were built for the city’s lower class.
  • Commercial properties on the corner of each street at the intersection of Franklin Avenue were excluded.
  • 26th Avenue South included three (3) tax-exempt properties owned by Hennpein County. In an effort to be fair, since no value is assessed on public record, I assigned each property the mean value of all other properties ($209,986).

Here is what I discovered:

  • Milwaukee Avenue has 47 properties with an average value of $223,647 with an overall market rate taxable value of $10,511,400.
  • 26th Avenue  has 38 properties with an average value of $209,986 with an approximate market rate taxable value of $7,979,458.

In this comparison, the closed street has a total taxable value of $2,531,942 more than its neighborhood (approximately 31 percent). Again, I’d like to put this into perspective: Milwaukee Avenue has smaller lots, smaller homes and was originally built as affordable housing. This means the City of Minneapolis takes in about $43,043 more in property tax revenue per year on these two blocks.

There are wide streets all over Minneapolis that have limited functionality in our grid network. Upon repaving and/or reconstructing, we need to  really examine whether or not we actually need these streets for vehicles, especially if the homes have adequate alleyway access.

This is where Open Streets comes back into the equation. How can they (and we) help sell this idea of a closed street as a permanent fixture for creating a permanent and tangible community value? I don’t believe that Open Street events are just “feel-good projects”, they are real economic development if transitioned into infrastructure. Imagine the value that could be created by the City of Minneapolis if they were to replicate the success of Milwaukee Avenue?

__

Note: If you support creating more vibrant, healthy places, consider donating to Open Streets Minneapolis.

Hire a Marathon Planner

Posted by: Nathaniel Hood under Society Updated: October 8, 2013 - 10:57 PM

What’s the best way to see a place? Run a marathon. There is no better way to experience a city than running through it.

1383004_10100141919254872_238689335_n

Okay – so I used to play A LOT of SimCity. Thanks Jordan. I appreciate the support (and humor).

Here’s my advice: hire a marathon planner. Look at the selected route, find where it goes and why. You’ll see the strengths of your community. Try to double-down on that.

Seeing much of any American city on foot can be difficult. How and where to navigate? Which route to take? Will I be going through places worth seeing? These questions, and about a thousand others, prevent people from truly seeing a place.

Run a marathon. As someone who loves urban places (and public health), I can’t recommend it enough. Waking up at 5:45am on a dreary October morning and preparing to experience inevitable pain is worth it. Embarrassing example of pain: here.

Any given marathon route tells you a lot about the city, or in my most recent case: the Twin Cities. Marathon route planners want to show off the city. Typically you’ll start off at some notable focal point of the city (downtown Minneapolis, for example) and route through nice neighborhoods (Kenwood) and onto geographic landmarks (The Lakes District, Minnehaha Creek, Mississippi River), and then ending with a long straight run down beautiful, tree-lined Summit Avenue and ends at the State Capitol.

marathon

Marathon routes tell us a lot about the host city and what we aspire to. In the Twin Cities, we do appreciate our downtown, regardless of how poorly we may treat it sometimes, and we still love the beautiful Bueax Arts, Cass Gilbert designed State Capitol Building. These are great places. But, in between is what we Minnesotans aspire to: a nice house with a modest yard near a body of water. That’s why we cut through Kenwood, instead of taking a route down Hennepin Avenue or Lake Street.

I haven’t run many half and full marathons, but I’ve run enough to say with certainty this theory of city and cultural aspirations holds true on at least three continents. You can tell by the different cities you run through.

  • Barcelona: 98 % urban and 2% beach view [map]. You run down beautiful urban boulevards, past some beach and finish at the 1992 Olympics Park. Even from my limited time in Spain, this route and “course feel” summarize the aspirations of Catalonians.
     
  • Sydney: 75 % urban, 15% waterfront and 10% park [map]. You traverse around Sydney Harbor over the Bridge to the huge urban park, into neighborhoods and ending at the Opera House. I lived in Australia for nearly two years, and I couldn’t have picked a better route to summarize Sydney culture (possibly a hint more beach, but otherwise spot on!).
     
  • Duluth: 90% lakeshore, 5% residential and 5% urban [map]. The lake and the power of nature are the most unforgettable elements of the race, and this truly embodies the experience that is Duluth, Minnesota.

Even when you look at smaller and less notable destination marathons, like in Mankato [map], you’ll start at the college (a small, but important civic establishment) and run along the river to the rolling prairie and end in downtown. It’s almost as if it was intentionally designed to bypass the town’s sprawl, which for some reason, it continues to still want to build.

One of the many beauties of marathons is how people control the road. There is something empowering about running downtown Minneapolis in the middle of the street – a space typically dominated by cars. You experience the buildings passing you by from an entirely different angle. Every time I do it, there is something refreshing about it. It gives me the idea of what a space can look and feel like when the pedestrian is in control.

Beyond that, marathons typically bring out the best in a given community. Seeing friends, families and strangers holding handmade signs is something that makes your heart melt amid the pain of running 26.2 miles (even if they are smarmy).

Highland Park: Maintain Your Business District

Posted by: Nathaniel Hood under Government, Politics, Physical infrastructure Updated: September 14, 2013 - 9:36 AM

If we don't maintain what we have, it will fall apart.

My neighborhood is lobbying the City for $1 million in streetscape redesign money to match $4 million promised by our business district. At some level, this is a reasonable public-private partnership; businesses provide 80 percent of the funding and the city covers the rest. Yet, there is another side to this otherwise agreeable story.

The neighborhood has been arguing that our streetscape is falling apart and it needs to be fixed. They've been making this plea for a couple years. Maintenance is expensive, or so it goes, and it'd be just better if we tore it all out and built something new.

Here's what it looks like today:

IMG_3549

IMG_3550

IMG_3565

Bricks are missing. Retaining walls are sloping. The area is starting to age (well, it's almost 30 years old!).

Something has bothered me about the not-so-old bricked streetscape and the business district's complaint: there's nothing wrong that can't be fixed with a little duct tape and TLC. All of the neighborhood's minor chips and dents could be solved with about $5,000 of brick, mortar and the labor cost of an underemployed bricklayer.

But, if fixing what we have takes such little effort, why aren't we doing it? And why are we spending $5 million to boot!?! And, why should we trust someone with a new, more expensive streetscape if they aren't even responsible enough to minimally maintain the basics of what they currently have?

Let me give you a few examples:

IMG_3567

Ten bricks have fallen off, but no one has even bothered to pick the weeds?

IMG_3547

A tree has been removed, yet instead of re-planting a tree (total cost: $250 - $400), we let the soil collect weeds?

IMG_3561

A patch of weeds? How about some grass, a bench and a bike rack?

IMG_3573

Here's the level of disregard: I noticed the condition (left) had been poor for a couple weeks. I decided to get on my knees and get to work. Two minutes later I had rearranged the bricks (right). It's not a perfect, but it looks 10 times better (and it took literally two minutes). In weeks, not a soul who worked for the business or the city government thought to do something.

These are not streetscapes in front of marginal businesses. This is Highland Park in St. Paul. The photos were taken outside of a high-end yoga studio, boutique medical clinic, Barnes & Noble, upscale gift shop, popular book store and a busy sub shop. So, what gives?

The best analogy is that you buy a new house in 1985. For 28 years, you do nothing. Now, it's 2013 and the roof leaks water, the kitchen is out-dated and the basement is moldy. It's in a state of disrepair and you tear it down!

This, of course, is ridiculous. You wouldn't do that! The second the roof started to leak, you'd fix it. When the stove stopped working, you'd replace it. When the basement got musty, you'd clean it and buy a dehumidifier. Now, why aren't we doing this with local community infrastructure?

This is exactly what is happening with my local business district, and likely, yours too. The problem is that people involved assume it's someone else's responsibility. It's a byproduct of the top-down approach. The business district can contend it's the city's fault while the city claims the business district has it backwards. The real is answer that it's not clear. Nobody appears to know what's going on, so by default, no one does anything.

This model takes the constant "eyes on the street" to handle small issues away from locals, or at least, confuses them about what to do. The $5 million project is a big windfall that takes little effort on behalf of the businesses besides a financial contribution. They provide the money and the city rebuilds the sidewalks. Yet, constantly tending to bricks, picking weeds and planting flowers; well, that takes effort (but little money). It's the type of effort that can only be handled by the locals, those who experience and interact with the space on a daily basis.

We've bypassed the maintenance and defaulted to the "built it brand-spanking-new then leave it alone for 20 years and then say it's falling apart and we need a new one" policy. This is how we treat public infrastructure in the United States, be it a water main, public park, sports stadium or pedestrian mall.

There is one place that has a not-so-crumbling bricked planter. It's outside a wine and cheese shop and eye clinic. They've given the street some duct tape and it looks like this:

IMG_3559

Not bad. It's the same bricked planter as everywhere else in the neighborhood. It's missing a few bricks, but pieced together and has some flowers. Flowers aren't cheap, but their small investment makes the streetscape better by many times over. If nothing else, while walking past, one gets the impression that the business, and the people who run it, care about the neighborhood.

St. Paul giving $1 million to Highland Park to improve the streetscape is akin to watching your teenager beat up the old Buick and then deciding to buy him a new car because the old car is in such bad shape (that, and there are about 1 million better ways to spend $1 million locally).

The heart of the matter is that this isn't the way we should treat shared infrastructure. We need to constantly be on the lookout at the most local level and constantly care for its health. If we don't maintain what we have, it will fall apart. And it'll cost us a lot more money to fix it back up.

Life After Public Purpose

Posted by: Nathaniel Hood under Best Buy, Politics and government, Politics Updated: August 27, 2013 - 3:35 PM

 The Star Tribune recently ran an article about Minnesota’s 2006 law change that prevents cities from pursuing eminent domain for public purpose economic development schemes. It prevents cities from condemning property and reassembling it for projects (such as the Best Buy Corporate Campus along I-35 and I-494),

“It used to be that … you could use eminent domain to assemble some or all of that [redevelopment] site, and resell it for private use,” said Larry Lee, Bloomington’s community development director. “We can’t do that now.

“What cities still have eminent domain for is to use it for a public purpose: a city hall, a fire station, a park, a trail.”

Quick refresher. Prior to 2006 in Minnesota, eminent domain allowed for the public taking of private land for a public use and public purpose. The “public purpose” has been removed from the equation, and probably for the better. It had a very malleable definition, as one could argue that a public purpose was to take property for economic development, jobs and increased property tax revenue.

It appears as if the law is working as intended and cities are now only using eminent domain for projects that fit a public use, such as utility upgrades, street improvements, sidewalk expansions, bike trails, etc.

Eminent domain has had a spotty history across the country. The most tragic being the use of land takings in Connecticut, where City of New London (pop. 26,000) acquired vast amounts of property and tore down a historic neighborhood so drug-giant Pfizer could move in (see Kelo v. New London). The company spent $294 million on a 750,000 square foot suburban complex only to abandon it 8 years later (the New York Times has brilliant coverage on the story and Strong Towns covers the issue well).

Here’s what New London looks like today, post-public purpose eminent domain: http://www.dr5.org/kelo-v-new-london-the-aftermath/.

The Best Buy story isn’t as tragic, yet. However, Best Buy has been experiencing trouble and has reduced its workforce from around 9,000 to around 4,500 employees at the corporate campus in Richfield. Rumor has it that one of the four towers on site has never been occupied.

The problem with ‘public purpose’ eminent domain is that it typically aims to provide the silver bullet approach; one big project comes into town and the next thing you know, a town’s got jobs and tax revenue! Reality is a little harsher as these projects, as they fail, typically leave the municipalities who championed them holding the ball when all hits the fan. Pfizer can always relocate and Best Buy close-up shop and dissolve assets to shareholders, whereas the City of Richfield and New London aren’t going anywhere.

When it comes to economic development, our thinking is too 1995. One quote from Richfield’s Community Development Director in the Star Tribune article stands out as an example of this;

“… [the Director] said if Best Buy were looking for big plot of land today, without a tool like eminent domain Richfield probably couldn’t compete with an outer-ring suburb that could point the company to a cornfield.

Now that the economy is picking up, Stark said, it could be just a matter of time before legislators begin looking at cities and asking why certain areas are suffering from disrepair and disinvestment.

If Best Buy were looking to relocate today, they certainly would not be looking at a cornfield in Lakeville or wetlands in Chanhassen. They’d be looking for office space in downtown Minneapolis. The tables have turned and the competitive advantage is no longer cheap land, its amenity.

The mega suburban corporate campus is a dying model that, once empty, is hard to lease. It’s also a model of development that is insular and has few positive spillover effects. Why no spillover effects? Because it’s designed to keep employees under one-roof and to not engage them in the wider economic activities of a metropolitan area. This model kills innovation by eliminating casual encounters and knowledge spillovers.

It’s also wrong to think that disrepair and disinvestment in cities or inner-ring suburbs are a result of a lack of large economic development projects. Cities that can’t grow out must grow up, both literally and figuratively. The economic gardening approach, which is safer, lower-risk economic development approach, needs to be the status quo – not the exception. Whatever the case, a city needs to create a template for incremental growth; which includes small-scale density improvements over time, transit and transportation access, urban design improvements, the growth of existing business and the welcoming of small, growing businesses.

The cities that have been the most successful over the course of the last 20 to 30 years are those that have embraced small business growth through innovation, and those that have been nimble, urban and welcoming to change. And, eminent domain that supports large, insular development such as corporate campuses (or large master-planned development, football stadium, etc.) is likely to not add much to a community in the long-run.

Eminent domain for a public use is only fair; although I’m confident it’s been used for bad projects. Nonetheless, there are certainly good and reasonable uses for it. The broad-ranging public purpose, which is now a relic of the past, is something entirely different. It’s the taking of land for what essentially amounts to a gamble; that a baseball stadium or convention center or corporate campus will help revive a town that’s too lethargic to put in the hours and grow from the ground up.

[Read some great comments on this topic at Streets.MN]

Convention Centers: It's a race to the bottom

Posted by: Nathaniel Hood under Physical infrastructure Updated: August 21, 2013 - 8:45 PM

There was a haunting piece of information in The Atlantic Cities that should send shivers down the spines of city leaders across the country.

Over the last 20 years, convention space in the United States has increased by 50 percent; since 2005, 44 new convention spaces have been planned or constructed in this country alone. That boom hasn’t come cheap. In the last ten years, spending on convention centers has doubled to $2.4 billion annually, much of it from public coffers. [Is It Time to Stop Building Convention Centers?]

The desire for convention centers is simple: it brings in visitors with outside money who consume things that are taxed at higher rates (alcohol, hotel rooms, rental cars, etc). From the city’s perspective, it appears to be a win-win. But, these investments come at a cost. In this case, the cost is increased competition.

The article continues,

There aren’t really enough conventions to go around. The actual number of conventions hosted in the U.S. has fallen over the last decade. Attendance at the 200 largest conventions peaked at about 5 million in the mid-1990s and has fallen steadily since then. [Is It Time to Stop Building Convention Centers?]

The number of conventions and total number of people going to conventions has decreased since it peaked in the mid-1990s. The situation we have now is that of more cities are competing for fewer dollars.

It's a classic race to the bottom.

The problem with convention center developments are numerous: there are usually a lot of bad urban design outcomes, they’re large buildings that are essentially single-use that don’t lend much to street life, and they cost local governments a lot of money.

Here’s the bigger problem. Convention centers aren’t limited to just our major cities. Most mid-size cities have them, too. In Minnesota – it’s not just Minneapolis and St. Paul, it’sMankatoSt. CloudDuluthRochester and even Bemidji!

The State pays for most of them. The confusing part is why a State would subsidize Bemidji’s convention center that will directly compete with its other State-aided convention centers in Mankato, St. Cloud, Duluth and Rochester. The cities are competing against each other to provide more space for fewer events and fewer people?

Minneapolis and St. Paul may struggle to make payments on conventions center operating cost overruns or debt service payments, but are big enough to absorb some bad decisions. But, towns like Mankato (pop. 40,000) and Bemidji (pop. 15,000) shouldn’t be risking economic growth on a convention center (or convention center expansions, of which is being seriously considered in Mankato).

I’m going to pick on Bemidji’s new convention-entertainment center. It cost $75 million.

[Image from www.ci.bemidji.mn.us website. Click to enlarge]

The problems here are numerous. Much has been written on convention centers andsporting arenas and their failures at delivering even the most modest of economic gains. This is a concern. But, I wanted to take a different angle.

It’s not just that these projects are economic losers. They more than often destroy prime parcels of real estate with little or nothing to show for it except lots of parking.

Here’s the location.

It’s approximately 1.4 miles from the center of town, occupies a large parcel of prime land on the south shore of Lake Bemidji, doesn’t add any real value to the adjacent neighborhood and won’t pay any property taxes. A better use of this land could be doing something as simple as just continuing the street grid and added single family homes.

This is a sample of 10 blocks of mostly taxpaying single-family homes that will easily fit on the parcel. Coincidentally, this is approximately the same space dedicated to parking.

To make matters worse, it’s about the same size as Bemidji’s charming and loveable downtown. Financing of the project aside, we need to scale down the size of our developments – especially those in small towns.

Continuing to expand convention center space is the economic development equivellent of gambling aginst someone with a stacked deck. It's not going to end well.

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT