“Walkable Urbanism” Event Leaves me Hungry for More

On June 1, 2011, CA and HHC co-sponsored “21st Century Development Plans – How Will Columbia Measure Up?” at the Spear Center in downtown Columbia.   HHC Vice-President John DeWolf, CA President Phil Nelson, and Brookings Institute Fellow Chris Leinberger walked an audience of almost 300 through the past 50 years of American real estate development and firmly laid the foundation for what is in store for the next 30 years.  (To be fair, Mr. DeWolf and Mr. Nelson provided mostly introductory remarks and Mr. Leinberger did the heavy lifting, but the tone and content of John and Phil’s words set the stage for a great evening.)

Although at the time of this writing, there has been no coverage by traditional media sources (newspaper, TV, radio), the HoCo blogging community has really stepped up to report and comment on the event.  Trevor Greene @ HoCoPolitico was first out of the box, with his personal observations posted just three hours after the event.  On Thursday morning, HoCoRising provided his insight regarding one particular exchange during the event.  And particular takes on the event were covered by Sarah Says, The Rocket Powered Butterfly, and HoCoConnect.  However, the blog post by Frank Hecker is without a doubt the best first person account of the proceedings on Wednesday night.  I urge anyone who was not in the room to visit his account of the meeting. 

My personal observations of the event have evolved over the past few days.  Let me be clear, Mr. Leinberger is a gifted presenter and easily held my attention of two hours.  He presented powerful and complex concepts that explained how development occurred in the past and how it is changing going forward.  I learned a lot on Wednesday night.

That being said, I have come to think that the event could have been, somehow, better.  By better, I really mean deeper and localized to Columbia.  For instance, Mr. Leinberger made use of clips from the 1985 movie “Back to the Future.”  He asked the audience to focus on the built environment in the movie, from both the 1950’s and 1980’s.  Putting aside the notion that downtown Hill Valley, both the 1955 and 1985, are caricatures of their time, his point was made.  However, given the 30-year timespan in the movie, some historical photography showing downtown Columbia 30 years ago, juxtaposed with how downtown Columbia looks today, may have driven home the point that as Mr. Leinberger stated, “Columbia has flat-lined over the last thirty years.”

Staying with the built-environment-as-reflected-in-pop-culture theme, Mr. Leinberger also discussed how the built environment was portrayed through the years on television.  Specifically, he showed clips of “I Love Lucy” and discussed how in the 1950’s the suburbs were depicted as the preferential place to live, whereas TV shows in the 1990’s depicted characters, such as those on “Seinfeld” living a walkable urban environment.

As a side note, Frank Hecker posits in his blog post (linked above) that the often-cited situation comedies Seinfeld, Friends, and Sex and the City “are manufactured images targeted at predominantly white middle-class consumers interested in the comedic and dramatic adventures of other white middle and upper-middle class consumers. Part of the Hollywood strategy here was to recast minorities from urban threats to background contributors to urban atmosphere.”  To an extent, I agree with Frank’s comment; although I tend to include The Cosby Show and Living Single as part of the “walkable urban television shows.”  Both were popular and supposedly located in Brooklyn, NY.  In addition, there is popular support for the theory that Friends “borrowed” from the Living Single show. 

One final point to make about pop culture and the built environment; I believe the pendulum has swung back toward drivable suburban in the small-screen landscape.  Since the demise of “must see TV,” today’s sit-coms (Two-and-a-Half Men, Modern Family) are firmly planted in suburbia, replete with lots of driving to and from events (I swear, if Claire and Phil Dunphy’s Toyota Sienna minivan had a name, it would require a screen credit at the end of the show).  Sex and the City was succeeded on HBO by The Sopranos, a show about a mob boss, in suburban New Jersey.  Even Weeds was based on the premise of a widowed suburban housewife making ends meet through the drug trade, to the point that “Little Boxes” served as the show’s theme song.  Once again, in most of these shows, minorities are sorely underrepresented.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, most TV crime dramas (principally the various CSI and recently defunct Law and Order franchises) are still played out in the urban environs, reinforcing the image of the city as a dangerous place; and yes the crime dramas are the 1970’s ideal of a societal melting pot when compared to the sit-coms mentioned above.

Hey, My Inner Geek is Screaming – What About the Data?!

Yes, this discussion surrounding the built-environment-as-reflected-in-pop-culture is great bar room chatter, but we should get back to the data.  For instance, Mr. Leinberger displayed for the audience a “heat map” indicating the (per household) CO2 emissions in the Chicago area. 

The story that the map tells is that walkable urbanized areas contribute far less to climate change (on a per-household basis) than the drivable suburban regions.  It stands as an alternate portrait to the “green” pictures typically associated with the drivable suburban setting and the “brick and mortar” images associated with the walkable urbanized setting.  I have no quibble with the imagery.  It is clear that when viewed on a per area basis, central cities produce a lot of pollution.  When viewed on the per capita (be it per person, per household, etc) basis, walkable urban demonstrates itself to be the better bargain.

Showing a map of Chicago provides a great example in the abstract.  Supporting the theory with local data would have driven the point home for those in the audience.  As a matter of fact, the folks that created the Chicago maps (and friends of Mr. Leinberger), the Center for Neighborhood Technology, have also put together a web site that allows the user to do display similar data for much of the United States.

The picture below was taken from this website and can be obtained by centering the map on Columbia and zooming in to the bounds of the city.  The areas on the map depict the amount of CO2 emissions on a per household basis.  Much of Columbia is a deep shade of red, indicating that on a per household basis, these parts of Columbia put out more than 8.6 metric tons of CO2 each year.  If you live inside LPP (Clary’s Forest), Faulkner Ridge, Bryant Woods, Fairway Hills, Talbott Springs, the Treeover section of Jeffers Hill, Locust Park, Huntington, or inside Cradlerock Way (Owen Brown), the per household emissions in your neighborhood are between 6.5-8.6 metric tons per year.  Lastly, if you live in Vantage Point or Governor’s Grant (both in Town Center), the per household emissions are between 5.1-6.5 metric tons per year.

What is also interesting about this map is the large swaths of white.  These areas of Columbia are more recognizable by their names; Columbia Mall, Oakland Ridge Industrial Business Park, Gateway.  What they all have in common is that there are no (or very few) households in these areas, once again reinforcing the single use zoning prevalent in Howard County and Columbia.

In addition to the fine work done by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, a consortium of universities and government agencies have come together to create a CO2 database for the entire nation.  Whereas the Center for Neighborhood Technology maps displayed CO2 emissions from automobiles, the Vulcan maps consider all man-made sources of CO2 emissions (note, Google Earth plugin required to view map).  The database is searchable down to the county level. I will leave it up to the reader to compare Howard County’s numbers to surrounding districts.  Suffice it to say, more than half our CO2 emissions come from Onroad Transportation.

Is There More Data to Consider?

Yes!  Later in Mr. Leinberger’s lecture, he was describing the different types of walkable environments and stated that the Washington DC area had the largest concentration of walkable environments in the nation.  He specifically highlighted development in Arlington County, VA along the Wilson Boulevard corridor.

One of the interesting numbers Mr. Leinberger provided was that the Wilson Boulevard corridor is about 2.5% of the land mass in Arlington County and 55% of the property taxes collected.  It would have been helpful at this point in his lecture to discuss the work done by Peter Katz, the Sarasota County (FL) Director of Smart Growth ().  Mr. Katz’s work falls right in line with the Mr. Leinberger statement, but also goes much further. Mr. Katz’s analysis was reported by Mary Newsom @ Citiwire as follows:

Indeed, that three-quarters of an acre of in-town urban-style (14- to 16-story) development is worth more property tax revenue than a combination of the 21-acre WalMart Supercenter and the 32-acre Southgate Mall.  Even a mid rise (up to about seven stories) mixed use building brings in $560,000, and the low rise (up to three stories with residential over retail) brings in over $70,000 per acre — more than three times the return of Southgate Mall.

And,

Still, evidence is piling up of the benefits of compact, in-town development compared with auto-centric greenfield development. With a smaller carbon footprint, it’s kinder on the environment. It’s kinder on residents’ waistlines, too, as they’re likely to walk more and drive less. And now there’s evidence it’s kinder to government coffers, as well. And that’s an attribute worth some serious attention.

If this data was presented in conjunction with the Arlington County data provided by Mr. Leinberger, the point becomes clear:  Throughout the country walkable urbanism is providing significant additional revenue to the local governments in the form of increased property taxes.

One last thing about Arlington, VA.  Without a doubt, urban planners, government officials and environmentalists have often times praised the development around Metro stops in Arlington as good urban design.  As Mr. Leinberger said, “To do walkable urbanism right, Columbia needs to understand what is going on in Arlington.”  And I get that.  I have read and understand the concepts.  What I would like to see are the hard numbers.  I would like to see a progression of traffic studies, from about 1995 to present day, depicting traffic conditions on Wilson Boulevard, Clarendon Boulevard, Fairfax Drive, Glebe Road, and Washington Boulevard.  I would like to see the US Census Journey to Work data, from 1990, 2000 and present day (in its American Community Survey form) showing any difference in “County-to-County workflows,” average commuting time, the percentage of people using mass transit, the number of people that drive alone, and the number of vehicle miles traveled.  This would go a long way to “understanding Arlington.”

Quarters, Dollars, and Dreams that Evolve

One of headline-grabbing quotes from Mr. Leinberger prior to his lecture was his assertion that “If Washington had been located 20 miles farther south of Columbia, the master-planned community would have failed.”  I found this to be an interesting flip on history.  It is my recollection that the Rouse Company bought up land in Howard County because it was between Baltimore and Washington.  Sure, stating that building a planned community is fraught with risk and that failure was a real possibility is certainly within the bounds of discussion, but to extend those statements to ignore the initial conditions is just plain irresponsible.

During his lecture, Mr. Leinberger spoke to this aspect under the a larger discussion of the “favored quarter.”  The favored quarter, as it applies to Baltimore is well described by Myron Orfield in his 1997 paper, Baltimore Metropolitics: a Regional Agenda for Community and Stability (pdf):

The “favored quarter” (a term coined by real estate consultants) dominates regional economic growth and garners a disproportionate share of the region’s new roads and other developmental infrastructure. Its housing markets are highly restrictive, its social needs small and often declining. However, it has too few local workers for local jobs and traffic congestion that cannot be solved by new highways. In the low social need sector growing communities corner the market in low-density executive housing and/or business tax base with low service requirements. Fiscal zoning is the process by which communities zone or plan to develop expensive housing and/or commercial-industrial property with low service demands so as to increase their tax base per household and keep their costly social need (and taxes) down.

Christopher Leinberger and his colleagues at Robert Charles Lesser and Co. (RCL & Co.), one of the most successful real estate consulting firms in the country, have made a great deal of money locating for businesses the “favored quarter” in a given metropolitan area.42 These quarters are developing suburban areas that have mastered the art of skimming off the cream of metropolitan growth, while accepting as few metropolitan responsibilities as possible. RCL & Co. look for areas with concentrations of housing valued above $200,000, high-end regional malls, and the best freeway capacity. As these communities grow affluent and their tax base expands, their exclusive housing market actually causes their relatively small local social needs to decline.

In the Baltimore region, Leinberger’s favored quarter is the tract of land that surrounds Interstate 83, in the Towson area and north into central Baltimore County. This favored quarter includes places just to the north of Baltimore that we have identified as areas with high tax base and low social need; such as Towson, Luthersville-Timonium, and Mays Chapel. Leinberger also identifies two secondary favored quarters as being the Owings Mills and the White Marsh areas. The area of White Marsh has also been identified in our study as a low social need place. These secondary areas may become more important in future years as the I-83 favored quarter north of Baltimore is held back by strict zoning ordinances and limited available infrastructure.43 In addition to these favored quarters identified by Leinberger, using similar techniques, our study has identified other places of low social need, predominantly located in Howard and Anne Arundel Counties.

I believe that the favored quarters in the Washington DC and Baltimore regions (and the success of Columbia) are tied to, and in service of, the American Dream.  Mr. Leinberger touched on this early in his lecture.  He spoke of the American Dream, and how it has changed over time. In early American (United States) history, the American Dream was tied to an agrarian ideal.  As Mr. Leinbeger stated, “40-acres and a mule” were enough for a family to provide for itself. 

As the manufacturing, industrial and transportation industries matured during the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, the American Dream evolved into the suburban ideal.  It was during this maturation period in which the foundation of the favored quarter was laid in Baltimore and Washington DC.  In Baltimore, the Jones Falls that runs through the city proved to be a beneficial site for early mills.  With any industrialized waterway, the affluent area was predominantly upstream, given, among other things, cleaner water.  In addition, upland regions were desirable to the affluent because they could escape the heat of the city during the summer months.  In Washington DC, the creation of the C&O canal and later the railroad created the transportation infrastructure for the well-to-do seeking relief from the city.  From these initial beginnings, the favored quarters evolved into the areas we know today. 

It is also worth mentioning the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act of 1924 (and revised in 1926).  This landmark legislation was produced by the Department of Commerce under the guidance of then Secretary Herbert Hoover.  This act provided for the separation of land uses and accelerated the transformation of the American Dream in which the place of residence is separate and distinct from the place of work.

With respect to Columbia, let me refer back to Mr. Leinberger’s opening remarks.  At the beginning of the evening, Mr. Leinberger praised the work of Columbia’s founder Jim Rouse and stated that he was ahead of his time.  Although Mr. Rouse failed to persuade the United States Patent and Trademark Office to locate within Columbia, the city’s regional proximity to the National Security Agency, the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, the University of Maryland Baltimore County, the Goddard Space Flight Center, and the Social Security Administration provided ample employment opportunities.  Each of these facilities either opened or dramatically expanded during the 1960’s.  In particular, the types of jobs at these facilities; analysts, engineers, scientists, technicians, physicists and other degreed professionals were what I believe are the seeds of what Richard Florida has called the "Creative Class.”  In this way, intended or not, a generation of Columbia residents prospered in a way that wasn’t even defined until thirty years later.  Mr. Leinberger’s favored quarter discussion is valid within the context of regional manufacturing and industrial legacies; however, in the current information age and the emerging experiential age, the thinking will have to change.  To be fair, Mr. Leinberger did hint at this rethinking during his discussion.

All things considered, it has been more than a week since the meeting, and I’m still buzzing.  As I said on Twitter the next day, “I laughed, I learned, and I start this day with renewed hope.”  Part of this renewed hope is that we will have more of these type events in the near future.  On that note, I have one last request.  I hope that in future meetings, CA and HHC can provide some sort of babysitting on site so that young families can attend.  Doing so will open up the number of people that can attend, and that can’t be a bad thing.

Stop What You are Doing, and Listen

I was listening to the Maryland Morning program yesterday morning on WYPR (88.1 FM).  On Wednesday mornings, the program features a segment called “Connecting Family with Meredith Jacobs.”

Yesterday’s segment was one of those stories that the folks in the public radio realm refer to as a “driveway moment.”  As in, the story is so good; you will sit in your driveway to listen to the whole story before removing your car key from the ignition.

The subject of this segment was Meredith’s reflections on summer swim team.  I’m pretty sure Meredith does not live in Columbia, but the description of her experience with her child’s summer swim team would be easily recognized by the more than 2000 Columbia Summer Swim League members and their families.  She accurately describes the social interactions between swimmers, and between parents (aka “Jamie’s mom” or “Alex’s dad”); the team camaraderie, the individual achievement. 

All said, it was a joy listening and reflecting on my own experience as a swimmer and as the parent of a swimmer.  It should be required listening for all parents of school age kids in Columbia (or anywhere there is an active summer swim team program).  So if you have kids, or were once a swimmer, take a listen.

Click to Listen:  “Connecting Family with Meredith Jacobs” – Summer Swim Team 

Columbia Summer Swim League practice starts next Tuesday at your local neighborhood pool.  If you or your child is at all motivated by this, I look forward to seeing you at the pool on Saturday mornings.  Go Wilde Lake Watercats!!

Columbia Demographics 1990-2009 – Useful Eye Candy

To help better understand demographic change, I have taken the time to put together a map that helps depict the changes in Columbia, MD.  Shown below is a map of most of Columbia.  My apologies to the folks in Dorsey’s Search north of MD 108, the US Census boundaries in your area do not match up easily, and it would take me weeks to put together the numbers in your neighborhood.

For the remainder of Columbia, I have outlined the year 2000 Census Tracts that comprise the city.  If you click on a section of the map, it will display the name of the neighborhood and the total population for that area in 1990, 2000, and 2009 (estimate).  In addition, each pop-up window includes the statement “click here for details.”  I encourage everyone to “click here.”  By doing so, it will direct you to a spreadsheet that displays the detailed demographic data for the geographic area and in many parts of the city, it tells an interesting story.  For instance, the Columbia Association is concerned about the decline of those 21-54 years old in Columbia.  In the Hopewell neighborhood, this age group has seen a 40% drop (estimated), but attendance at the Hopewell pool is one of the best in the city.  This is just one example of the dynamic changes occurring throughout the city over the last twenty years.

It is important to note here that the 2009 data is an estimate, and at times carries a large margin of error.  The US Census Bureau is releasing state 2010 Census demographic data throughout this month.  When the new 2010 data becomes available, I will update the map and spreadsheets.

Also, in the lower left corner of each spreadsheet, shaded in blue, the limited data from the 2010 Census can be found.  I encourage you to look at it.  In many cases, the 2010 Census data does not correlate with the 2009 estimates. 

Coming up soon:  Let’s look at CA Aquatics Pool Attendance Data!

Diving into CA Aquatics Demographics

So it’s been more than a few weeks since the Columbia Association Aquatics Department kicked off its Master Planning Process (http://www.columbiaassociation.com/aquaticsmasterplan/), and to be frank, there is something about the numbers presented that have been bothering me.  The first thing that put me on the path of unbelievably ridiculous research was a slide that CA put up during their master planning workshops.  The slide (pdf – Slide 18) entitled “How Much Does it Cost?” detailed the capital costs of pools over the lifetime of Columbia.  The first pool listed is the Bryant Woods Pool.  It was built in 1968 for a cost of $41,000.  The last pool on the list is River Hill Pool.  It was built in 1995 for a cost of $1.2M.

The implication was that the cost to construct pools has increased dramatically over the years.  I had a problem with this for several reasons.  First, the Bryant Woods Pool is a six-lane, rectangular pool with (by today’s standards) an undersized diving well and an adjacent wading (baby) pool.  The hot tub at Bryant Woods was part of an upgrade and built in the 1980’s.  The River Hill Pool is an eight-lane pool with beach entry, the site also includes a spray structure in the beach entry area, a snack bar, shade structures, a beach volleyball court and hot tub.  Even the baby pool has a spray mushroom.  By comparison, I believe that both the men’s and women’s bath house at Bryant Woods could fit inside a single side (sex) of the River Hill bath house.  In other words, it is difficult to compare a base model 1968 Dodge Dart, with bias tires, lap seat belts, drum brakes, no air-conditioning and AM radio with a top-of-the-line Lexus; with anti-lock brakes, airbags, multi-disc CD player, leather all-around, sunroof, and thousands of goodies at the high end.

Secondly, it occurred to me during the public workshop meeting that when the Bryant Woods Pool was constructed in 1968 for $41,000, the houses surrounding the pool were selling for about $27,000 (admittedly some more, some less).  When the River Hill Pool was constructed in 1995 for $1.2M, the houses in River Hill were selling for about $500,000 (admittedly, some more, some less).  From this point of view, it appears that pool construction costs have gone up, but have roughly remained at pace with the cost of constructing houses (and yes, like the BW v. RH pool scenario, there are dissimilarities in the housing stock amenities, but they do trend with the type of pool in each neighborhood.  In other words, if a house of the style found in Bryant Woods was built in River Hill, it would cost less; however, if the pool in River Hill was a rectangular pool without the bells and whistles, it would cost less too).

Lastly, and this is where CA could be most helpful, it would be beneficial to understand how much of the capital budget the Bryant Woods Pool consumed in 1968 and how much of the capital budget the River Hill Pool consumed in 1995.  CA would have to provide the numbers, but given the number of lien payers in 1968 (approx 2,000) v. 1995 (> 76,000) (and the resultant $0.75 per hundreds assessed paid), I believe the River Hill Pool constituted a smaller portion of the capital budget than the Bryant Woods Pool.

For the reasons stated above, I think CA Aquatics was a little misleading about “How much it costs.”

Hey! We’re (Still) Here!

Another set of data that didn’t seem quite right to me can be found on the Columbia Association – Aquatics Master Plan web page.  Under the title “Existing Conditions and Trends,” the following passage can be found:

Built and upgraded over 40 years, Columbia's inventory of aquatics facilities are aging and require investment to continue to offer programs and amenities that meet user expectations.

At the same time, Columbia's demographic trends show that our population is aging - the median age today is almost 40 years old, whereas it was 32 in 1990. In addition, residents in their prime child-rearing years (aged 21 to 54) have decreased as a proportion of the population from almost one-half of the population in 1990 to one-third of the population today.

To understand and respond to these and other trends, the Columbia Association is undertaking a master plan to set the framework for future capital investments and programs to keep our aquatics program strong and to make sure investments are made wisely.

The above paragraphs paint a pretty dramatic picture.  It portrays Columbia, broadly speaking, as getting older.  To an extent, this is true.  I checked the median age numbers at the U.S. Census and they are correct.  The median age in Columbia is increasing.

What is troubling is the second piece of data: “In addition, residents in their prime child-rearing years (aged 21 to 54) have decreased as a proportion of the population from almost one-half of the population in 1990 to one-third of the population today.”  To be kind, this is a 100% factually untrue statement.

I looked up the Columbia demographic data over at the United States Census webpage; first the 1990 and 2000 decennial Census data, and then the data from the 2009 American Community Survey.  Note:  The 2009 American Community Survey is an estimate conducted by the US Census Bureau.  The 2010 Census decennial demographic data (say that five times fast) has not been released for Maryland.  It is expected to be released within the next two weeks.

As shown below, the 1990 Census data indicates people aged 21-54 made up 60% (not 50%) of the population.  Over the last 20 years, this age cohort has seen a decline to 50% (estimate) of the population.  This 10% decline over 20 years is a much slower rate than the 17% decline offered by the Columbia Association Aquatics Department.

What is most interesting about the Columbia demographic data is that yes, as a proportion of the total population, those aged 21-54 have seen a decline; however, for twenty years the total number of people has remained remarkably constant.  The realization for the Columbia Association isn’t that 45,495 people in 1990 constituted 60% of the population or that 45,236 (estimate) in 2009 constituted 50% of the population.  What is most important is that 45,000 people, most likely lien payers and membership owners don’t take kindly to being marginalized by some “fuzzy numbers.”

Taken at face value, the (factually incorrect) demographics above paint one picture, but they do not reveal the total picture.  I am very concerned that CA is approaching this based on proportionality.  I think it is wrongheaded thinking.  It whispers “divide and conquer.” This position is similar to the “how much does it cost” statement by CA above.

Most other institutions do not use the proportionality argument.  Hypothetically, if eighty kids need to be bused to a local elementary school, the public school system provides buses for them.  If at some time in the future there becomes a dramatic increase in need for busing at the high school level, but eighty kids still need to be bused to the elementary school, the school system provides more buses.  They don’t say to the elementary school parents, “you know, as a proportion of the total bus rider population, the elementary school kids have declined, so we’re going to cut off their service to the elementary school.”

Now is the time for the Columbia Association to get back on the right track.  It is time for the Columbia Association to commit, loudly and clearly, to providing (at a minimum) the amenities and services that were available over the last twenty years because the population that wants these services has not changed over the last twenty years.  The Columbia Association should also embrace the change that comes with a growing senior population, but not at the expense of others in the community. 

John and David

As the Columbia community begins to settle in with its new (insert your own “relationship analogy” here: partner, step-dad, drummer, etc..), John DeWolf; it may be instructive to look broadly at Howard Hughes Corporation.  This morning, HHC announced David Striph as the Senior Vice President position for its Hawaiian assets. 

This announcement is significant because, although half-a-world away, the HHC (nee GGP) owned Ward Centers, located in Honolulu’s Ala Moana District has progressed on a roughly parallel track with Columbia, Maryland.  During the mid-2000’s, then GGP embarked on a master planning process for both Columbia and the Ward Centers.  In each case, GGP needed zoning changes to realize the master plans.  In Hawaii, the Ward Center master plan was submitted to the Hawaii Community Development Authority.

Subsequent meetings generated dozens of supporters and many that opposed the Master Plan.  To get a bit of the flavor surrounding the master plan, here is a report from the October 16, 2008 Honolulu Star Bulletin:

There were people both in support and opposition to the plan, which demolishes most of the existing buildings at Ward over the next 20-plus years, transforming the skyline with up to 4,300 more residential units in the form of mid- and high-rises throughout the 60-acre neighborhood.

[A] group calling itself the Kakaako Coalition held a rally at Sheridan Community Park an hour and a half before yesterday's public hearing.

Carrying signs and wearing red T-shirts, the group's position was that HCDA should require an environmental impact statement and traffic study before considering approval of the plan.

[M]any stakeholders were concerned as well about preserving open space and view planes, which could be blocked by high-rises along Ala Moana.

In addition, Frierson said, the neighborhood needs more affordable housing and fewer upscale projects targeting second-home owners.

 

Sounds kind of familiar, doesn’t it?

Moreover, the Hawaii Community Development Authority approved the zoning (8-1) in January of 2009 and the Howard County Council approved local Columbia zoning (5-0) in February 2010. 

Another interesting point to consider is that although the Ward Centers is on 1/10^th the land of Downtown Columbia (60 acres v. approx 600 acres in Maryland), the magnitude of development is fairly similar.  In the press release announcing John DeWolf, the Downtown Columbia project is described as follows:

Columbia Town Center has an approved master plan to create up to 13 million square feet of mixed-used development. The plan includes up to 5,500 residential units, approximately one million square feet of retail, approximately five million square feet of commercial office space and 640 hotel rooms.

Whereas the Ward Centers described in the HHC press release for David Striph are described as:

Ward Centers is comprised of approximately 60 acres situated along Ala Moana Beach Park and is within one mile of Waikiki and downtown Honolulu. Ward Centers currently is a 550,000-square-foot shopping district containing six specialty centers and over 135 unique shops, a variety of restaurants and an entertainment center, which includes a 16-screen movie theater. In January 2009, the Hawaii Community Development Authority approved a 15-year master plan, which entitles a mixed-use development encompassing up to 9.3 million square feet, including up to 7.6 million square feet of residential (4,300 units), five million square feet of retail and four million square feet of office, commercial and other uses.

So is there any insight into Howard Hughes Corporation, given that they announced the hiring of two men (yes, I noticed that too) to carry out two master planned developments in the span of four days?  The jury is out (being that hiring announcements are a bit formulaic), but there are some clues in each announcement.

The introductory paragraph in each press release emphasizes the accomplishments of each Senior Vice-President.  For comparison, here is the background on John DeWolf:

Mr. DeWolf brings over 30 years of real estate experience to his new role. Most recently, Mr. DeWolf ran his own consulting practice leading real estate strategy, portfolio management and start-up guidance for multi-billion dollar businesses. Mr. DeWolf was Executive Vice President Real Estate/Strategic Initiatives for New York & Company where he oversaw the addition of 225 stores, the closing of 100 stores, and downsizing of over 250 stores. Additionally, as head of strategic initiatives he managed the development of two accessory store concepts and four new store prototypes. Previously, Mr. DeWolf had senior leadership roles with New England Development, Woolworth Corporation and The Disney Stores, Inc.

And the background on David Striph:

An industry veteran, Mr. Striph has financed and managed over two billion dollars worth of real estate assets during his career, including mixed-use, retail and high-end residential projects. Prior to joining Howard Hughes, Mr. Striph served as Senior Managing Director at Westmount Realty Capital, a Dallas, Texas-based real estate investor. Mr. Striph was also Managing Director at Fortress Investment Group, Vice President at Fremont Investment & Loan, and President of Amresco Capital Trust.

In addition, each press release provides complimentary quotes from Howard Hughes Corporation Leadership.  John DeWolf receives the following from HHC CEO David Weinreb:

"The Maryland Communities, Landmark and West Windsor are important strategic assets for the company. John brings the acumen and experience necessary to ensure that the full potential values of these key assets are realized, ” David R. Weinreb, Chief Executive Officer of The Howard Hughes Corporation, stated. “John’s appointment is a clear example of our dedication to identifying the best leaders for our management team, and our commitment to the time and exploration necessary to find the ideal leaders for each vital role.”

While David Striph is the recipient of accolades from Weinreb and HHC President Grant Herlitz:

"David’s multi-faceted background in commercial real estate makes him the ideal leader for our assets in Hawaii,” stated Grant Herlitz, President of The Howard Hughes Corporation.

“Ward Centers is a key example of the untapped value within The Howard Hughes Corporation’s portfolio. We have the approvals to redevelop the property with up to 9.3 million square feet of mixed-use development,” stated David R. Weinreb, the company’s Chief Executive Officer. “This opportunity has the potential to include thousands of residential units with unobstructed ocean views and to materially enhance the property’s retail presence.”

In the end, it is all too early to make any judgments about either executive, but it will certainly be interesting the observe the trajectory of both projects as each of these individuals fulfill their roles in their respective communities.

Election Editorial Response

When my copy of the Columbia Flier arrived on my driveway early Thursday morning, I expected coverage of the recently completed Columbia elections.  A piece by Sara Toth on fellow Wilde Lake resident (and elected Wilde Lake Village Board member) Regina Clay has been up on the Explore Howard website for a few days.  Sara does a decent job covering the bases, but I was really insulted by the editorial regarding the Columbia Elections.  The editorial begins as follows:

Stop us if you've heard this one.

Eight years ago in this space we called upon the Columbia villages to put their heads together and standardize their election rules. It didn't happen.

Y’know, I love it when any entity gets up in front of the community and says “We told you to do something about this eight years ago,” and then for eight years does nothing to improve the situation.  It just shows the level of community commitment and professionalism in the organization.

Moreover, Explore Howard whitewashes a lot of Columbia election/Governance history between the 2^nd and 3^rd sentences quoted above. So to help set the record straight, let’s look at what did happen.

1^st, the history

It is a well-known fact that the differences between Villages on Columbia Election Day exist because voter eligibility is derived from the Covenants in each Village.  The Covenants vary from Village-to-Village, but the one thing that is constant is there exists a high bar to change the Covenants.  For example, the Wilde Lake Covenants can only be changed “by execution of an instrument signed by not less than 90% of the lot owners.”  So to change voter eligibility from “lot owners and tenants” to “all residents over the age of 18” would require 2,357 lot owners (90% of 2618 dwelling units. (Source, Columbia Association 2011 Public Information Guide, p. 23) to sign a petition (or similar) to approve the change. 

The term of office also varies by Village.  Some Villages have two-year terms.  Some Villages have one-year terms.  The term of office is not in the Covenants, it is spelled out in the Village Articles of Incorporation (aka Charter).  Again, using Wilde Lake as an example, the terms of office are as follows:

Beginning with the first annual meeting of the Association to be held on or before march 1, 1968, the members, at each such annual meeting, shall elect five (5) directors, at least two of whom shall be elected from among the membership of the Association, each for a term of one year.

It also states: 

“The members of the Association shall in each year elect from among the members thereof a representative to serve a one year term as a member of the Columbia Council.”

Now, amending the Articles of Incorporation requires first an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the Board of Directors (Village Board) and a majority of the members entitled to vote.  For those of you keeping score at home, that’s 1310 property owners and renters that would need to approve the change.

Now the intention here is that neither the Covenants nor the Articles of Incorporation are easy to change.  What has become the accepted “wisdom” is that it is nearly impossible to change either document.

Fast Forward to 2003

Let’s recall the events that provoked the Explore Howard editors all those years ago to call “upon the Columbia villages to put their heads together and standardize their election rules.”  Back in the Spring of 2003, then Howard County Councilperson David Rakes went to the Long Reach polling place (Stone House) to vote.  Mr. Rakes had previously lived in Oakland Mills, but within the last year rented an apartment in Long Reach.  Given that he was a renting an apartment, he was asked to provide a copy of his lease as proof of residence.  In a related article , Mr. Rakes stated, “This is nothing but a false barrier; it's discriminatory."  In the same edition of the Columbia Flier, the editors cobbled together an editorial that lamented the low voter turnout (this time Hickory Ridge did not reach a quorum) and the Rakes controversy.  Toward the end of the editorial, they stated:

“We call for an assembly of village officials _ a constitutional convention, if you will _ to establish in time for next year's village elections uniform rules governing the voting process that remove as many barriers to participation by residents as possible.”

Now for those whom have the time and energy, “standardize their election rules” (2011) does not exactly comport with “uniform rules governing the voting process that remove as many barriers to participation by residents as possible;” (2003) but we are going to stick to broad principles here.

The Last Great Governance Discussion

After the 2003 Columbia elections, the idea of election reform was not ignored.  In fact it was a topic of discussion amongst every Village Board.  Residents provided input.  Boards discussed how to change the unchangeable (Covenants).  Exo-Covenant and Supra-Covenant ideas were put forth and debated.  Lawyers were consulted.  The last great covenant discussion was unearthed and discussed at length.  Ultimately, the Columbia Association electeds convened a second Governance Committee, whose only task was to study election reform.  This committee studied four different reform proposals, took input from residents and village board members, and issued a report that can be found here:  NOTE:  links to appendices do not work.

The result of all this input was filtered through the Columbia Council/CA Board of Directors. There was general acceptance that Village Board elections were locked in by the Covenants and Articles of Incorporation of each Village and could not be changed.  The CA Board endorsed a plan in which Columbia residents would participate in two simultaneous elections.  Elections for Village Board and Columbia Council Representative would proceed as they always have.  But every other year, all village residents over the age of 18 would also vote for Village representation on the CA Board of Directors. Technically, this would achieve a standardized election for the CA Board of Directors. Residents in Dorsey's Search, Kings Contrivance, Long Reach, River Hill and Wilde Lake would vote in odd-numbered years, while those in Harper's Choice, Hickory Ridge, Oakland Mills, Owen Brown and Town Center would vote in even-numbered years.

Under this arrangement, the elected CA Board of Directors would be charged with carrying out the business of the Columbia Association, while the elected Columbia Council Representative would either be the same person (assuming they ran for both positions) or would be a “figurehead.”  This is the “2005 endorsement” that is mentioned in this week’s Explore Howard editorial.

To try and rectify any loose ends, CA’s legal staff created a “compact” to be signed by all the Village Board and Columbia Association.  Ultimately, this proposal was met with much resistance by many actors.  The Alliance for a Better Columbia exercised much hand waving and worried about potential lawsuits from corporations that would no longer have the same voting rights.  Villages currently under the one vote per property regime bristled at the prospect of having to maintain two sets of voter rolls.

Ultimately election reform collapsed under the weight of opposition, and the status-quo remained.

The Straw Man

Getting back to present day, the Explore Howard editors offer a straw man argument for poor election results:

It's a mobile society, and it's not uncommon for Columbia residents to move from one village to another. Young couples move from apartments to single-family houses. Empty-nesters downsize. Sometimes these crossover Columbians get blind-sided by a shift in the rules.

I have tried to find the source of this story and after some extensive searches on Explore Howard, the earliest mention I came across was in 2003 by then Columbia Council Representative Barbara Russell (OM):

“I think the time has come to set up a big meeting where all the 10 villages' board members could discuss such issues as voting rules," said Barbara Russell, the Oakland Mills representative to the CA board. "More uniformity is needed. People get confused, especially when they move from village to village."

To be fair, it may be entirely possible that in 2003 there was a noticeable internal migration of people throughout Columbia; however, given today’s economic climate, I am not so certain that this occurs in an appreciable amount.  I suggest that the folks at Explore Howard, a news organization, do a little research and find out how many people have moved from one village to another over the last five years.  In addition, the Explore Howard staff should interview these people and ascertain their voting records before and after the move.  Otherwise, the editors at Explore Howard should stop exploiting what most likely is a myth.

Future Thoughts, What will Elections be Like in 2019?

It is entirely possible that eight years from now, there may be a Village that does not meet a quorum, but we can collectively change that.  Some of the folks involved in the 2004-2005 CA governance debate are currently on the CA Board of Directors.

Absent another round of CA governance discussion, there are a few other things that can be done.  First, the folks at Explore Howard could do a better job of covering the Village Boards.  Maybe set for themselves a goal of a Village Board story in the paper/website every two weeks.  Another goal may be to write about each Village Board at least once every six months.  Lastly, if Explore Howard really believes that voter eligibility is a real problem and a true barrier to voter turnout, why not construct an infographic chart that depicts what elections take place in a particular year and who is eligible to vote?

The Villages need to work at this problem too.  Interestingly, the Villages of Owen Brown and Hickory Ridge often find it difficult to obtain a quorum.  If you ask the Village Association folks about this, they typically say that the low turnout is because their association site is not near the Village Shopping Center.  So during elections, a few people are spurred to vote in Oakland Mills or Harper’s Choice because as they go about their shopping, they are reminded by the elections and take a few extra minutes to vote.  In Owen Brown, voters need to take a separate trip to a different location to vote, and that difference of eight votes shy of a quorum this year most likely would have disappeared in another village.  So in particular Owen Brown and Hickory Ridge, but all Villages, should attempt to increase village resident traffic to their community building.  I also believe each Columbia Village should publish and hold an event every February on the “State of the Village.”  This would help clarify the issues for the upcoming elections and start to get people interested.

Lastly, residents need to get more involved.  The Ellicott City/Columbia area did not become “the number-two place to live in America” through a plethora of inaction.  It did so by the hard work of many people and it will not remain a highly desirable place to live unless people continue to be engaged.  One of the easiest ways to be engaged is to vote in the local Columbia elections.

The Evolving First Impression of Mr. John DeWolf

I recently had a chance to listen to a HoCoMoJo audio interview with John DeWolf, the Howard Hughes Corporation Senior Vice President of Development.  Mr. DeWolf will be the point person with regard to Columbia Downtown redevelopment.  I encourage everyone to listen to the audio for details.

The one thing I will say is that Mr. DeWolf does have a bit of a monotone (and in the interest of full disclosure, my intonation is pretty flat-lined too).  I would find it interesting from an acoustic perspective to sit in on a meeting between HHC's John DeWolf and CA's Phil Nelson.

Confessions of a 40-Something Pool Rat

Looking back on a lifetime spanning now six different decades (1960’s through 20-teens), there are few things that I can point to that have been part of my life throughout this time.  One of them has been a love for swimming, diving, swimming pools, and in general, being submerged in water.  I believe chlorine is in my blood.

Within a few weeks of arriving in Columbia, my family found itself at the Running Brook Pool.  Equipped with the little 2”x2” pool passes pinned to our suits, we began the yearly ritual of escaping the heat of summer in the water.  After three short weeks of lessons, I found myself part of the Running Brook Swim Team.  Somewhere in my house I have a shoebox filled with decades-old swimming ribbons.  Small badges marking stroke, time and place from long ago.  I remember the maroon and white striped swimsuits were not all too protective from the sun, and resulted in alternating tan-and-not-tan stripes on my butt.  This was also my first introduction to Visine.

Summer days were filled with splashing in the 3ft and “taking the Nestea Plunge” in the 5ft (a maneuver that today would raise the ire of CA’s risk management overlords).  All of this periodically interrupted by the lifeguard’s long whistle trill signaling adult swim.  This provided time for us kids to find their way to the 7-eleven for Slurpees and the occasional purchase of Wacky-Packages or Odd Rod sticker packs (yes, thanks to the wonder of the internet, they are still available).  Those days ended back at home, with hair bleached by sun and chlorine to point of almost being translucent and total exhaustion.  Yes, we slept well on those summer nights.

As childhood blossomed into pre-teen and adolescence, Columbia’s aquatics grew to more than a dozen pools scattered throughout the city.  Toughskins cut-offs gave way to OP shorts and swimsuits.  Someone invented the boombox.  WPGC and WAVA went from the AOR format to pop-40.  Funk and R&B were provided equally by WOOK (OK-100) and the big ol’ funky V-103.  The word “lightsaber” entered the lexicon.

Back at the pool (now the Dasher Green pool), swimming proficiency expanded from freestyle to backstroke and then breaststroke to butterfly.  Splashing in the shallow end migrated to all kinds of merriment in the deep end. 

The 1-meter diving board, installed throughout the city, became a focus.  As with all things aquatic, it begins with learning:  Step out to the end, turn around and take three steps back.  Take two steps, and on the third step, hop; land with two feet and find yourself sprung into the air.  After that, what happens was up to you and your imagination.  And this is where it gets interesting.  No matter where you lived in Columbia, the types of dives, even when left to the imagination, efficiently whittled down to a few different types of dives.  The simple forward dive, the swan dive, the “jackknife.”  The forward flip, forward 1-1/2, and the hard to accomplish forward double.  The backflip, the back 1-1/2, the gainer.  Apart from the acrobatics existed a second type of dive – the “splash dive.”  The intent here is completely counter to the Olympic diving ideal: bounce off the board and displace as much water when you hit the surface.  The belly-flop, the cannonball, the can opener, wherein one leg is gripped by the arms combined with a falling-backward motion only after touching the water.  Hours were spent launching off the board, splashing, and then returning to the end of the line again to get the chance to refine and repeat the performance.

As middle school gave way to high school, the chance to work at the pool presented itself.  This required obtaining Red Cross lifeguard certification and was taught over-winter at the Columbia Swim Center.  For those who are old-dog Columbia lifeguards, you know who ran the lifeguard certification.  Kitty was an affable woman who embodied years of experience and wisdom with regard to water safety, first aid, and responsibility.  This course was unlike any other course for Columbia’s teens.  It required study and passing written and practical exams.  All those kind and friendly lifeguards that we had known through the years showed up to ensure that anyone taking the course was going to know how to keep the pool safe and how to rescue anyone in trouble.

Completion of the course and subsequent employment of the Columbia Association put pool operation in a whole new light.  Work involved not only shifts “in the chair” or at the front desk, but also included a needed knowledge of pool filtration, water chemistry, and a knowledge of pumping systems.  There was a lot of cleaning.  But there was a cadre of great people.  Suddenly your peer group was not limited to your neighborhood and high school, but expanded city wide.  Fast friendships were developed with Peter, Ellen and Larry from Atholton, Beth and Chris from Wilde Lake (although Beth lived in Clemens Crossing), Jen, John, Cindy, Mary, and Luke from Oakland Mills, Benny and Kim (and her younger brother Steve) from Centennial, Jimmy (and his brothers John and Dennis) and Rich from Mt. Hebron, and Judy, who lived in Catonsville, but found her way down to Columbia every summer.  Many of these friends are still close to this day.

During this time, CA expanded offerings at some of the pools.  Hot tubs were installed.  Volleyball went from “on grass,” to “on mulch,” to “on sand.”  Splashdown opened at the Columbia Swim Center.

It was at the end of this era that the imbalance occurred.  As with most forms of recreation, aquatics offerings evolve.  After two decades of pool operations, a different type of pool emerged in the late 1980’s; the “superpool.”  Let’s first go on record and say that at the time, the Columbia Association was correct in constructing superpools in Hawthorn, Dickenson, River Hill, and Kendall Ridge.  I take a little bit of exception to the construction of the Clary’s Forest superpool, given that it is less than a mile from Hawthorn.  Construction of those pools demonstrated that CA continued to be on the leading edge of aquatic recreation.

What also occurred at that time was that CA quietly changed the name of the non-indoor division from “Neighborhood Pools” to “Outdoor Pools.”  CA now claims that this change in nomenclature signaled that they would no longer pursue the Columbia Vision of having a pool in every Columbia neighborhood.

From that point forward, not all Columbia pools were created equal.  Before the advent of the superpool, most aquatic facilities followed a predictable offering.  Each provided lanes for lap swimming, a diving board (with one or two exceptions), a roped-off shallow end, and a deeper end.  There were differences.  Some pools are 25 meters; some are 25 yards.  Some baby pools are round, others square.  Some bathhouses are little more than a small bathroom and shower.  Some bathhouses are more extensive.  Bryant Woods has perpetually shaded by trees (and some like that just fine).  Huntington and Dorsey’s Search have a lot of deck and not much grass.  All-in-all, the differences were not so large that a pool a little farther away was not so different than the one close by.  In fact, as I have lived these few decades in aquatic bliss, I have known many people that would just not go to another pool on the day of the week that their pool was closed.  The end result was that in the past, pools provided equal opportunity for relief from the heat and family fun, and the pool attending population was dispersed throughout the city.

In the current era, the superpools have quite a bit to offer: beach (or zero-depth) entry, fountains, snack bar, hot tubs (not at Dickensen), and sand volleyball courts.  By comparison, pools constructed before the superpools suffer from the lack of amenities.  This resulted in a concentrating of pool-goers at a few pools, with others seeing low attendance figures.

This brings me to the current relationship with Columbia’s pools.  As a parent, I have looked forward to introducing my kids to the water.  Over the last few summers, we have had a great time splashing around and learning how to swim.  My son loves the summer swim league, and I have had a great time participating in the master’s events.  Here is what has been our family experience with the summer pools:  If we get a chance to hit the water during the week, our number one priority is to get to the pool as fast as possible so that we can maximize our time in the water.  On the weekends, the focus shifts because we know that we will spend a significant time at the pool.  It is then that choices need to be made.  Do we want to spend time with classmates?  The local pool works well for this, but it is not absolute.  Our local elementary school is fed by children in four different Villages, so spending time in the water with classmates can lead us to four different locations.  The other driver is what can be done at the pool.  At the superpools, the kids can roam from the fountain to the diving board to the volleyball court and back, and that can’t be done at some of the local pools.  I have also found that the beach entry is very good for allowing the little one to gain confidence on her terms.  At our older neighborhood pool, it is pretty much a yes/no proposition. 

Looking forward, I can soon see a day when I can go to the pool with the kids and they will be self-sufficient.  Playing in the pool as I did all those years ago.  I look forward to watching them do their thing and then getting in a few hundred yards of exercise.  I look forward to the sing-song Marco-Polo games while I am still perfecting that forward 1-1/2 or cannonball.  And for the first time in my life, I look forward to adult swim, and I will send my son to 7-eleven to get me a cherry and coke (mixed) slurpee.

Speed Cameras Can be Fun

I’m not a fan of speed cameras, but I am resigned to the fact that they will be coming.  Some have stated speed cameras are a tax and certain Ford Mustang drivers have a lot to say about the subject.  For a great analysis of driver behavior, I strongly suggest checking out Sarah’s blog on the subject.  Behind all the discussion, I have been impressed by the approach the Ulman Administration has taken on this subject.  Rather that jumping into deployment, the administration conducted studies to quantify the problem.  Good idea to have the data to back your decision.  Personally, I would like to see the details broken down by school (and time of day), but the fact that 66% of drivers are speeding in school zones and nearly one-in-five motorists exceeded the speed limit by more than 12 mph, indicates a real problem.  The administration has also indicated as slow approach to deployment, using two cameras next year.  Contrasted with Baltimore County’s recent decision to expand their program, two cameras appears to be a measured first step.

Now let me share with you my personal experience, because, you see, I know speed cameras.  My place of employment is in College Park, Maryland; which is firmly ensconced with the bounds of Prince George’s County, Maryland.  The PGCo government started using speed cameras earlier this year.

What you see above is not the unlikely offspring of Number Five of the movie Short Circuit  and an Ingorsoll-Rand portable air compressor, it is a speed camera (although on some mornings, it does look self-aware).  This particular camera is located on the southbound side of U.S 1, a few hundred feet north of Greenbelt Road (MD-193).

This camera and a similar installation on Metzerott Road have been the subject of much discussion in my office building.  Few people were given notice that the cameras were active and the initial reaction was mild ire.  The protestations, the animated hand-waving about big brother and the general feeling of being coldly judged by technology all had their actors and places.  Over time, behaviors have changed and various levels of acceptance has grown.  From the admonition of fellow employees “watch your speed when you get out on Route 1, you know they’re watching,” to violators willingly posting tickets received on their cube wall or office door.  They are badges of dishonor proudly displayed to demonstrate “yes, I am human, I made a mistake.”

I provide this as background because if the speed cameras are installed, many people in Howard County can expect a similar reaction.

But it Doesn’t Have to Be This Way

Now let me be clear and say that I don’t like speed cameras; but I do like serendipity, I like innovative thinking, and I like (although cliché) win-win outcomes.  Some of you hipster savvy readers may be acquainted with The Fun Theory an initiative by Volkswagen.  A few more of you out in Compass Nation may not know Fun Theory by its name, but are still familiar with their award winners.

Late in 2010, just as some of the counties in the region began researching speed camera sites, the Fun Theory announced an award winner that involved speed cameras.  The theory at play here is to reward good behavior rather than only punishing bad behavior.  The New York Times “Wheels” blog has a pretty good post on the subject.

As shown above, rather than taking a photo of only those exceeding the speed limit, the speed camera takes a photo of every car that passes by.  Those who speed still get a speeding ticket and fine; however, the drivers who pass the camera and obey the speed limit have their picture taken and are automatically entered into lottery.  Each (you pick ‘em, week, month, etc) a drawing is held for those entered in the lottery and the winner is awarded a portion of the fines issued by that particular speed camera.

The folks at Fun Theory tested this on a street in Stockholm, Sweden with positive results:

Transforming theory into practice isn’t always a smooth process.  I can already see two issues that may have to be resolved before this kind of innovative thinking can be deployed in Howard County.  First, I believe the maximum fine that is allowed by law is $40.  This apparently covers the cost of operating the cameras and does not provide for much of a lottery prize.  Legislation may have to be enacted to raise the upper limit on the fine to make the lottery an alluring proposition.  I would think $60 vs. $40.

Secondly, because of the chance for monetary gain, this type of arrangement might have the unintended consequence of increasing traffic near schools.  I believe some study should be performed to look at this possibility.  At its worst, the increased traffic would be presumably moving at the speed limit in an attempt to gain entrance into the lottery.

Although the presentations from Fun Theory and my discussion above are pretty light in theme, I believe the speed camera lottery idea should be given serious consideration.  By rewarding good behavior the system holds the promise of greater compliance with the posted speed limits and shifts the attitude of the general public from an onerous infraction to a possible gain for doing what you were supposed to do anyway.  If PGCo had adopted this idea, the discussion around my office would have been very different.  I hope the leaders in Howard County will give this serious consideration.

A Great Love Story

 I am a big fan of the WNYC radio show “Radio Lab.”  Robert Krulwich and Jad Abumrad are master storytellers. This particular show first aired on January 25, 2011, but I came across it again on Monday.  The story I speak of is the third item in the podcast, and is referenced by the show editors as:

Finally, we turn to a very different kind of lost and found: a love story about running into a terrifying, and unexpected, fork in the road.

Radio Lab is a great show, so I recommend that you listen to the entire show, but I suggest you pay particular attention starting at about the 40:00 minute mark.  It’s only about twenty minutes of your time and I think anyone that listens will be rewarded with a beautifully told story.

HoCo Blogtail Party, Southeast Style

The every-so-often Howard County Blog Party made its first appearance in Savage last night at the Ram's Head in Savage Mill. The event brought out about 30-40 people who were gregarious and lively. Thanks to everyone I met and I look forward to seeing you all at the next one.

This Company is Getting Harder to Like

I really don’t like doing back-to-back blog posts on a single subject, but the chatter about Howard Hughes makes it difficult not to say something.

Recently I posted about the lack of a replacement for former GGP/HHC Vice President Greg Hamm.  Since then I have come to find out that there have been other vacancies at Howard Hughes.  Specifically the Chief Financial Officer position became vacant on January 31, 2011.  This did not come as a surprise to Howard Hughes, because the CFO was actually an interim CFO that was intended to leave on that date.  It was spelled out in the documents that formed the company back in November.

Instead of conducting a search and installing a new CFO by the January 31^st deadline, the Howard Hughes Board of Directors has installed Mr. Grant Herlitz as the CFO.  The board should be familiar with Mr. Herlitz, in that he is also the President of the Howard Hughes Corporation.  This news report indicates Howard Hughes is “conducting an executive search for a permanent Chief Financial Officer.”

Tonight, we hear of Howard Hughes activities in Houston, TX.

Executives with The Howard Hughes Corp. held a high-dollar launch party last week in Houston, complete with plenty of glitz to impress their new business contacts.

...Walls were covered with crushed velvet drapes. Large posters with historic pictures of Hughes were sprinkled throughout the space, each of which contained information on the legendary Houston-born entrepreneur.

Music from the 1920s set the scene, and cocktails flowed freely.

...David Weekley of David Weekley Homes was heard to say: “I didn’t know they had developer parties anymore.”

...Picture an ice sculpture, lots of beautiful flower arrangements, steak sliders and made-to-order stir-fry. Open bars surrounded the room. A dessert buffet beckoned in the back. And live musicians entertained as guests ate dinner.

Decorations included several small replicas of Hughes’ Spruce Goose airplane made specifically for the party.

...Howard Hughes executives who spoke included Grant Herlitz, president; and David Weinreb, CEO; and Peter Houghton, vice president of master-planned communities and general manager of Bridgeland.

It was Houghton’s idea to throw the party.

“The good ole days are back, folks,” Houghton told the crowd. 

Indeed.

I don’t know if they intend to take this party on the road, but I gently suggest that they accomplish something before they start celebrating.

Columbia still waits at the docks for new skipper to arrive.

These days, I don’t know anyone outside of Texas that understands what is going on with the Howard Hughes Corporation. Born out of a bankruptcy settlement, the corporation exists as a monument to potential; vested in a few master-planned communities and a handful of underperforming malls ripe for redevelopment.

Shortly after forming the corporation, senior management has made a number of moves that indicate Howard Hughes intends to make the most of this potential; and sooner rather than later. Throughout the country, Howard Hughes has shown their intent to move projects forward.

• Houston, Texas 
• Las Vegas, Nevada 
• New York City

Sadly, one member of Howard Hughes’ senior development team has been fired during this initial push. Wordbones, wrote a great piece on Greg Hamm last week.  Greg Hamm oversaw operations here in Columbia, Maryland and did what I believe was a very good job of working with the community, local activists, and the Howard County Government as the Downtown Columbia zoning and General Plan amendments moved through the local legislative process. What makes his work all the more commendable is that he weathered an almost constant change in management above him at GGP. The man who hired him, Tom D’Alassandro IV, left GGP within a few months of Greg’s hire. Soon after, the GGP board of directors and senior leadership underwent many changes. It was only after exiting bankruptcy, and yet another round of leadership changes did the company fire Greg.

When the news broke that Greg was leaving, the newly formed Howard Hughes Corporation stated that they would find a replacement for Greg “within a month or two.” When I read that, I circled today on the calendar. It has now been two months.

The purpose of this blog post is not to inveigh against Howard Hughes about broken promises or failing to live up to their word. Rather, I suggest caution and provide the following analogy as they work through their selection process:

I look upon Howard Hughes Corporation’s Columbia dilemma as similar to an America’s Cup yacht race. A few years ago, Greg Hamm arrived here and put together a crew that successfully navigated through, and won, a Challenger’s Cup. Now, it is well within the rights of the yacht owner to remove the captain at any time, including after winning a Chellenger’s Cup. However, if such a move is made, the boat owner better bring in a new skipper that has already won a cup. Don’t bring in somebody that has won in Olympic Class racing or Open Ocean racing. Only a skipper that has already won the cup would be viewed to have a chance.

So I say to Howard Hughes, with respect, it has been two months. Bring in the new captain; and make sure this person has the requisite experience. Someone that has a resume long on greenfield single-family home development or office park development will not have the skills required to manage Columbia downtown development.

Local Census Data For Maryland (and Howard County) Released

Something to Think About

At the place of “It Can Happen Here,” what almost happened here, happened there.  Columbia, Maryland and Berkeley, California have been intertwined since Columbia’s founder, James Rouse, gave a speech at Berkeley detailing his basis for building Columbia.  Catherine Bauer, the woman who chaired the conference at which James Rouse spoke, taught both Bill Finley (Columbia’s Chief Planner) and Mort Hoppenfeld (Columbia’s Chief Architect) in graduate school. 

Both cities have a population of approximately 100,000.  Both are adjacent to two large cities; Berkeley has Oakland/San Francisco, Columbia has Baltimore and Washington.  Although the Lawrence-Berkeley National Lab is closer to downtown (approx. 1 mile) than NSA is to downtown Columbia (about 8 miles), both Federal centers employ many people in their respective communities.

Fast forward to today, and we find both Berkeley and Columbia looking at their downtowns.  The Berkeley City Council passed zoning legislation in the Summer of 2009 to redevelop their downtown and the Howard County Council passed zoning legislation in the Winter of 2010.  In both cases, residents opposed to the zoning mounted referendum petition drives.  In Columbia, the petition failed, in Berkeley, the petition succeeded and was placed on the ballot as “Measure R.”

Now Berkeley has an interesting structure to their referendum questions.  As part of the ballot process, the Measure is listed on the city website.  Also included on the website is an impartial analysis of the Measure by the City Attorney, as well as arguments for and against the Measure.

The short form of the Measure reads as follows:

Ballot Question

Shall the City of Berkeley adopt policies to revitalize the downtown and help make Berkeley one of the greenest cities in the United States by meeting our climate action goals; concentrating housing, jobs and cultural destinations near transit, shops and amenities; preserving historic resources; enhancing open space; promoting green buildings; and calling for 2 residential buildings and 1 hotel no taller than our existing 180 foot buildings and 2 smaller office buildings up to 120 feet?

As linked above, all of this is still on the City of Berkeley website, and provides a pretty-good understanding of the question.  I will leave it to your individual Google searches to fill in some of the background information, but one of the interesting parallels between the Columbia community and Berkeley community was the use of social media and new web tools.  As with Freemarket’s use of Xtranormal to highlight the Fox/Beams race, it appears that some enterprising folk in Berkeley used the same software.  This gave the virtual impression that although these races were a continent apart, Fox/Beams, and the Berkeley Resident/Nimby Robot were each having a discussion in front of the same virtual building.

I bring this up because, as with most elections, there has been quite a bit of navel gazing about what the election means.  Those that peruse the HoCo blogs have certainly read some of the search for meaning from the Republican point of view.  But there has also been some soul-searching amongst others in the community.  Voter apathy?  Federal workers?  Voters not understanding the message?

A recent column written by San Francisco columnist John King may shed some light on both communities.

Measure R hit all the buttons of 21st century urban environmentalism: The ballot question framed the issue at hand as "concentrating housing, jobs and cultural destinations near transit, shops and amenities" to "revitalize the downtown and help make Berkeley one of the greenest cities in the United States."

The measure also would make room for three buildings of 180 feet - equal to office buildings of the same height from 1925 and 1969 - and opponents responded as though Sears Tower was being shipped to Shattuck Avenue. The ballot arguments warned of "empty promises with destructive proposals" and "a developer-backed plan ... allowing outsized development to overwhelm surrounding neighborhoods." Man the barricades!

For those Democrats that live in District 4, some of the above passage may sound like pieces of mail that began showing up late this summer.  Mr. King goes on to present an interesting hypothesis that may provide some insight here in Howard County.  His column begins:

"Generation gap" is a phrase past its prime, like a guy who thinks he's still hip because Levi's are still his look.

But it rings true in the Bay Area of 2010, especially with regard to attitudes about the shape our cities and suburbs should take.

More and more, there's a disconnect between the established view of how we should grow, and the values of people who weren't even born when activists first battled "Manhattanization." The (mostly) gray-haired guardians who radiate the certainty that They Know Best have dominated the debate for decades, but they can't defy the calendar. With every passing year, the old certainties look a bit more ... old.

Broadly speaking, I think Mr. King might be onto something; however, I do not believe that theories on how cities can sustainably evolve break down solely along generational lines.  What is now clear is that there is more than one viable theory on how a city can grow responsibly.  Mr. King closes with that in mind:

This shift rubs some old-school environmentalists the wrong way, Madsen admits. But as the Berkeley vote shows, it's in sync with younger people who like the idea of filling "their" downtowns with people and life.

"The options aren't the cul-de-sac or Manhattan," Madsen suggests. "What you see in Berkeley is a bit of what we see happening all over the Bay Area. ... People are saying there's a different urban form they'd like to see come to fruition."

I don't want to oversell the transition now under way.

There always will be growth-wary neighbors, at times justifiably so. Some people in their 60s love towers; some people in their 20s loathe them. Nor do I buy the premise that every additional housing unit in San Francisco or Berkeley means one fewer home on distant farmland. Families don't choose between a McMansion in Brentwood or a 20th-floor condo on Rincon Hill.

But here's the difference: This generation of activists has moved beyond the simplistic mind-set that change is to be resisted. Its definition of urbanity doesn't start with the notion that the essence of San Francisco as a place - how it should look, how tall it should rise - was defined once and for all in 1969 or 1984.

One veteran who accepts the shift is John Kriken, a longtime urban designer with the international firm Skidmore Owing & Merrill who also now teaches at UC Berkeley's College of Environmental Design.

"Kids today have grown up with a much greater awareness of sustainability issues and the role that density plays in protecting land from indiscriminate use," Kriken says. "They see the bigger buildings, and they're not fearful of them."

This doesn't mean today's younger activists are right and the ones of Kriken's era were wrong. It's that - news flash! - times change.

"For every generation that chooses the city, the beginning point is now," Kriken says. "The 'real San Francisco' is today. They don't carry the images in their head that I have in mine, or that my friends have in theirs. They don't have the baggage of all the past battles."

And you know what? That's a good thing.

Gateway Overlook Shopping Center Sold for $90M.

As General Growth Properties exits bankruptcy, the local effects are felt almost immediately.  According to this Reuters news story, General Growth Properties has sold the Gateway Overlook Shopping Center for $90-million.  The identity of the buyer has not been released.

The Video Connection

In the end, I blame Michael Nesmith.  The quixotic son of the inventor of liquid paper and former Monkees band member invented the music video and started the company that eventually became MTV.

MTV announced itself to the world when I was a freshman in high school.  Over the last three decades, I never cared much for the other programming on the MTV network, but I did watch the videos.  In particular, I have fond memories of the early Dire Straits’ “Money for Nothing” and A-Ha’s “Take on Me” videos.  Over time, the videos have evolved, with some breaking more ground than others.

Recently, the band Arcade Fire changed everything with their new interactive video, “The Wilderness Downtown”  This video was released in conjunction with their new album (I guess I’m old enough to call new music releases “albums.”) “The Suburbs.”

The video exists on the internet and prompts the viewer to enter the address of the house they grew up in before viewing.  After an address is entered (from just about anywhere in the world), the video begins to play, and incorporates Google Earth images of that address into the video as Arcade Fire’s song “We Used to Wait” plays in the background.

As with Michael Nesmith’s ground breaking “Elephant Parts,” Arcade Fire’s “The Wilderness Downtown” is not flawless, but it represents such a leap forward that any discernible shortcomings are quickly forgiven.  In particular, the video imagery relies (in part) on Google street views.  If you enter a street address that Google has not driven down, there is less material to work with.  With respect to Columbia, Google has street views of all major roads and some collector roads (think Cradlerock Way or Phelps Luck Drive).

What is also interesting is that the viewer quickly realizes that although the intent of the video is to bring the viewer back to his/her childhood, any address can be used.  I found the video using the Wilde Lake Village Center address (10400 Cross Fox Lane) interesting.

One last word of caution.  This video is resource intensive.  Make sure you use a broadband connection.  “The Wilderness Downtown” can be experienced here.

If you find an address that is particularly cool to view, please post it in the comments section.

Asian Invasion Redux

Just a quick post here.  I was wondering, what is worse, the snakehead fish invasion or the stinkbug invasion.  And could we work on the lexicon, I am hoping the next invasive species that shows up has a much better name; something like the "rainbow weevil" or the "flower lizard."  Your comments are encouraged.