June 21, 2007

Waterfront Parks - Some ideas

Project for Public Spaces is a US-based organization that devotes itself wholly to the study of public space across North America, and offers tips and suggestions on how to maximize the best use of this valuable resource. I am a member of this group. The following is an exerpt from an e-mail I received on the issue of car parking within urban parks:

U.S city parks have given over large swaths of green to automobile storage, but not every park is held hostage by the automobile. Cities are finding ways to increase access while relieving pressure to provide parking in parks.

Urban park advocates struggle mightily to create new green space through a precious parcel here and an irreplaceable acre there. But a large swath of existing parkland is given over to the prosaic task of automobile storage, complete with its side impacts - impermeable surface, water runoff and erosion, oil and gas drippings, heat island effect, displacement of trees and meadows, loss of playing area.

A study by the Center for City Park Excellence of 70 major city parks in the U.S. reveals that, collectively, they devote a total of 529 acres to the very technology that many people seek to escape when they head into their local patch of nature. In Chicago, which recently spent $475 million to create 24-acre Millennium Park, almost twice that much land - 46 acres - is given over to auto storage within nearby Lincoln Park.

Download the full report from TPL here.

(http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/Pavement%20in%20the%20Park.pdf)

Flipping through al of the resources on waterfront development on the internet, on PPS, in planing journals and in my own experience have led me to come up with my own preliminary thoughts on the issue of waterfronts:

How to Make a Bad Waterfront:

At all costs, do this:
  • Single-use developments (large arenas, hotels, convention centres)
  • Domination by cars (parking lots)
  • Too much passive space (nothing to do but sit and stare)
  • Private control / restricted access
  • Lack of destinations (no centre of activity, no places to be)
  • Lack of focus
  • Process driven by development, not the community
  • Make the park the destination – full stop.
How to Make a Great Waterfront:
  • Make public goals the primary objective
  • Create multiple destinations
  • Connect the destinations
  • Optimize public access
  • Fit private development into the vision
  • Use parks to connect – not as destinations in themselves
  • Design buildings to engage public space
  • Make single-use buildings into multi-purpose ones
  • Limit cars! Make walking, cycling easy
  • Don’t allow an empty waterfront! Encourage year-round 24/7 activities
Applying this to Riverside Park in my town of Kamloops, my thoughts on what we could do are as follows:
  • Create a public vision for Riverside Park
  • Create a year-round destination plan (skating rink, coffee shop, dog park, indoor market, art gallery, hotel, restaurants etc. where, when & how they fit)
  • Make the plan & vision LAW (Riverside Park Plan, Kamplan, Development Permit etc.)
  • Link the destination sites (upgrade paths etc.)
  • Fix single-purpose destinations – turn them into year-round spaces (Arena, Bandstand, Pioneer Park etc.)
  • Get rid of things that don’t work (parking lots!)
  • Build nice things that fit the public vision (Public and Private)
In my thoughts, there is room for a hotel and convention centre project associated with the park - IF - it offers some significant benefits to public space, is multi-purpose, and enhances the park as a public space by INCREASING public access and amenity. If we can link into the Arena and enhance its year-round appeal, and create more year-round variety of activity happening there, all the better. What doesn't work for me though is allowing the parking lot to remain as it is - it seems like such a waste of public space, given the plethora of parking options in the area. Maybe the City can look into making the arena area into a special development permit area, and fix the terms and conditions under which development can happen.

Labels: , , , , ,

May 31, 2007

Kamloops needs a downtown Dog Park

Being a dog owner, a good, centrally located dog park is a matter of high importance to me. A good dog park provides a safe and secure place to bring your dog to, where he/she can play safely, learn to get along and behave around other dogs, and have a smashing good time.

A good dog park doesn't just stop with dog-joy though - it's a great social opportunity for their owners as well! We already know, through many studies, that dog owners walk more often in their communities, weigh less, and live healthier lives. A good dog park allows a dog owner to add "better socialized" into the mix for themselves, as owners chat on the merits of their pets, and enjoy having a great time playing with and watching their furry friends. the BEST dog parks are just right around the corner, within walking distance, and close to the centre of liveliness, coffee shops and other fun things for owners (and dogs) to see and do. Play dates can be arranged, social "bumping" can occur. ("Oh hi, nice dog! Do you come here often?" etc.)

Google Street Maps is a really neat tool to look at dog parks close up. So far, I've only found one, but I'm sure there are plenty more.

link

Why do I care?

My community, Kamloops, has two dog parks. One is located far up in a hillside suburban sprawl area. It is very difficult to walk to, and is in a low-density neighbourhood. It is also hidden from the road, so there is no certainty that there would be any dogs to play with should you choose to travel to that point. And if you do, there is nothing else around to enjoy. It is a single-purpose, single-destination dog park that is ill-used.

Our other dog park is far out on the edge of town, by the airport. It takes a god 20 minutes to drive to this spot, as again, it is not located alongside any bike trails or pedestrian routes, and is even cut off from the surrounding neighbourhood by train tracks and industrial yards. However, it is highly visible, and is jam-packed with dogs, and dog owners, at nearly all hours of the day.

What we are missing is a central dog park, located in the highest-density area, the downtown residential district. We need a dog park that is integrated with the existing public park amenities, that is alongside the pedestrian trail network, that is within walking distance of a coffee shop or ice cream parlour so you can have something to enjoy while playing with your friend. We need a dog park that promotes walking, and fits in with a healthy walking lifestyle, not one that requires you to drive.

My thoughts on design criteria for a dog park are therefore as follows:

  1. Must be located in a central, visible location near other activities
  2. Of sufficient size to allow some separation between dogs, and let them get up a bit of running speed
  3. Adjacent to a significant pedestrian/cycling trail system
  4. Fenced and secure facility with chambered entry gates
  5. Landscaped with grass or gravel (non-muddy surface)
  6. Entryways/high-use areas should be paved/bricked to prevent erosion
  7. Water fountains (human and dog sized) provided
  8. Park furniture - including benches, picnic tables, rocks etc.
A good, well-designed dog park can be a valuable amenity in a walkable neighbourhood - providing a great social space, visual entertainment for dog owners and other park users alike, and reducing conflict between dogs and other park activities by providing a dedicated space.

These are thoughts on some criteria. Do you know of good dog parks in your cities that you're proud of, and support a walkable environment? Do you have criteria yourself that you can add?

Labels: , , , ,

September 12, 2006

City Councilman Unearths Magical Zoning Amulet | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

City Councilman Unearths Magical Zoning Amulet | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

ROCHESTER, NY—After years spent poring over mysterious and arcane plat sheets and deciphering long-forgotten building codes, city councilmember Mike LaMere unearthed the mysterious City Zoning Amulet Friday.

Mike LaMere, wearing the Ever-Evaluating Eye of Surr-Vey.

"Behold!" LaMere said, holding aloft the solid-gold amulet, which is emblazoned with the Ever-Evaluating Eye of Surr-Vey, Lord Of Demarcation, He Who Measures And Assesses. "With this sigil, the power of zoning comes. Through me, the power of zoning flows! All will behold my power, and I shall bow to no man when designating matter-of-right developments for major retail and office spaces to a maximum lot occupancy of 75 percent for residential use!"

LaMere held the glowing amulet aloft and transmuted a neighborhood of low-income apartments into a semi-wooded, single-family, residential district with an adjoining riverside park.

Though the amulet had long been dismissed as urban legend, a mythical ideal of zoning perfection handed down from city planner to city planner, LaMere became convinced that not only was it real, but that it had been used to lay out the cities of Ur, Atlantis, and Inver Grove Heights, MN.

LaMere credited the amulet with the overnight renovation of the Monroe County Public Library, and the recent redesignation of a Southern Rochester area from "commercial" to "single-family residential use for detached and semi-detached structures." Many Rochester citizens believe the amulet is responsible for the fully stocked ocean aquarium that materialized in the city center Sunday, and the gleaming new Friendly's restaurant that rose serenely over the banks of the Genesee River late Monday afternoon.

Although the Rochester City Zoning Board controls all decisions related to city planning, sources at City Hall say that, as long as LaMere's powerful zoning wizardry is performed for the good of the city, they "see no reason to deny him what seems to be his destiny."

LaMere unleashes the Eye of Surr-Vey's power, violently rezoning a residential area into a landfill.

"Two weeks ago, the biggest news in Rochester was our huge public garage sale," said William A. Johnson, Rochester's mayor. "Our city center was still a moribund tax burden with small businesses in big buildings and families moving to the suburbs in droves. Now, with a wave of his mighty amulet, Councilman LaMere can designate matter-of-right medium-density development, with limited offices for non-profit organizations, trade associations, and professionals permitted as a special exception requiring approval of the RCZA."

Despite the potential improvements to Rochester's civic landscape, some residents remain wary of LaMere's apparent bureaucratic invincibility.

"It's wonderful that someone's finally doing something to revitalize this town, even if it is someone who can commune with church gargoyles," said local baker Wendy Kittner, whose business was mystically placed on the National Register Of Historic Places last week despite being housed in a building erected in 1981. "He frightens me, and my concern is that if I defy him, I may be turned to stone."

City planning commissioner Errol Criclow, who was dismissed by LaMere at a Planning And Zoning Commission hearing last Thursday as "subhuman," said that he feared that LaMere's power would eventually corrupt him and his city. According to Criclow, during a private consultation with local community leaders, LaMere became infuriated with timid suggestions that his amulet be used to create more green spaces. In a blinding torrent of thunder and light, LaMere violently rezoned Rochester's west side with a maze of warehouses and parking garages. The act left LaMere himself dazed and shaken.

"For a minute there, he seemed his old self," said Criclow. "When he saw what he'd done, he looked remorseful. But then his hand found the amulet, and he threw back his head and laughed long and loud, like a man who has forgotten the difference between industrial and recreational—between right and wrong."

Added Criclow: "I don't think what he's doing is mere magic. I think it's darkest bureaucromancy."

Labels: , , ,

September 05, 2006

Planners wage war on Garages

This fascinating article came through the wire over the weekend. This is a direct response to the issue of massive visual blight casued by the overwhelming prevalence of garages taking over the street frontage of our communities, and the impermeable surfaces (read: driveways) that are associated with them. Hopefully this kind of thinking can make its way into other areas as well.

Door closing on 'dull' design

Melissa Leong, National Post
Published: Thursday, August 31, 2006

Last week, Carl Zehr drove through a new subdivision in Kitchener and saw a wall of garages.

He looked at the rows of semi-detached homes with double-car garages in front, separated by swatches of concrete and small tufts of grass.

"When you looked at these in multiples, side by side if you were looking [down the street], you saw nothing but garage doors," said Mr. Zehr, Kitchener's Mayor.

"There has to be a better way."

On Monday, the city's municipal council voted unanimously to ban two-car garages in front of semi-detached homes, beginning in 2007. Mr. Zehr said the new zoning bylaw is not simply about ridding communities of what urban planners and architects call "snout houses."

"It's about quality of life, eyes on the street and making sure that people could interact in their front yards," Mr. Zehr said.

Kitchener is the latest example of Canadian municipalities launching attacks on the garage in an effort to create more livable, sustainable communities.

Avi Friedman, an architect, planner and professor at McGill University, said more towns and cities are taking their inspiration from places such as Bois-Franc in Montreal, Garrison Woods in Calgary and Cornell in Markham. They have attractive streetscapes with trees and porches, and few front-facing garages.

"When you build garages, what you get is not only an unpleasing building that looks at times like a car wash, you also create a situation by which a large segment of the sidewalk is paved -- not leaving room for trees," Mr. Friedman said.

"The street is, therefore, very dull. Developing something like this is an anti-social statement."

Valerie Shuttleworth, director of planning and urban design in Markham said the town was one of the first in Greater Toronto to wage war on the garage.

In the mid-'90s, the town set limits on the size of garages and began developing communities with lanes to access detached garages behind houses.

She said she didn't get to know her neighbours until she moved to an area without front-facing garages.

Going back to suburban development in the 1920s, garages or sheds were found at the back of the home, planning experts say.

As society increased its reliance on cars, the garage began to creep around to the front of the home.

As more households required multiple vehicles, the garage grew to two, three and four-doors. And as land values rose, people wanted to maximize space by building on top of and around the garage.

"What consumers wanted was the convenience of having a garage attached. They wanted to increase the size of the outdoor space at the back of the house for their enjoyment," Douglas Stewart, president of the Waterloo Region Home Builders' Association, said.

"It's convenient, it's efficient and it improves the overall urban design," he said of front-facing garages.

With increasing restrictions on garages, some builders and real estate agents lament the reduction of choice for the consumer.

"If builders are coming forward with houses and designs, it's because they've got a demand out there that they're trying to meet," said John Kenward of the Canadian Home Builders' Association.

"It's all very well for somebody to stand back and say, 'Frankly, I don't like the look of it,' but ... I think the customer has to have a say in this at the end of the day."

Eastforest Homes Ltd. built 52 semi-detached homes with double garages in a Kitchener subdivision, which was the cause of concern for the city.

But Dave Steinbach, a real estate agent with Peak Realty in Kitchener, said the houses sold "like crazy."

They cost about $217,000 each. A single detached home with a two-car garage in the same neighbourhood starts at $295,000, he said.

"Today everybody's a two-car family," he said. "The city tends to think you use your driveway for a car and the garage for a car. But unless you build a shed in your backyard, where do you put the lawnmower and the kids' bikes?"

Kitchener tightened garage rules for single-family homes in 2000 (the width of a garage is limited to 70% of the home's frontage) but did not include semi-detached homes until now.

As municipalities become stricter on what can be built, the building industry has had to modify how it designs homes.

Garages are being pushed back into the house; municipal planning departments need to be consulted on colour schemes for homes.

"They've turned the construction market upside down," Mr. Steinbach said. "All these restrictions add to the final cost of the house."

Restrictions are the result of municipalities learning to manage the pressures of growth and urbanization or communities being proactive in their planning, design experts say.

"If the Mayor of the community doesn't think of himself as the chief urban designer of the city then no improvement is possible. It has to be led by the top echelons," said Toronto-based architect Peter A. Gabor.

"You would be astonished at the range of measures that are controlling development all across the region. Council gets very inventive."

But planning experts argue that if the goal is to create a better public realm, kicking massive, front-facing garages to the curb is a timid first step.

To reduce the focus on the car, local officials need to develop more compact communities, better public transit and live-work-play areas, Ms. Shuttleworth said. She added that Markham is planning a major employment centre near its Cornell community.

"This issue of the garage is really a symbol or a sign of a much deeper underlying problem," said Ken Greenberg, a Toronto-based urban designer.

"At the rate Southern Ontario is growing, we have to find new paradigms of handling that.... I think there's a huge pent-up desire in the public for alternatives to the conventional form of low-density sprawl." © National Post 2006

Labels: , , , , ,

August 29, 2006

Encounters with Cities - More discussion

I think the lesson to be learned here it to look at how we’re designing the spaces where we actually want people to be walking, enjoying the scenery, looking at the flowers and such – in small town cities this would refer directly to our main streets and commercial shopping areas, and we’ll leave aside the crack dealer alleys for now. How do we make them interesting and compelling places to be?

Much of the retail plazas that go up these days are designed for that 60 km/h speed – the intention is to pull in that fast-moving vehicle traffic whizzing by on the traffic arterial, get them into that parking lot, and then into the store. Our small towns are sold on this ideal as a design standard. Walmart is a LOVELY example of that, but then again, just drive down any major street and have a look at the profusion of large signs scaled to the automobile, and not to the pedestrian level of detail. And yet – as soon as these drivers stop, they become instant pedestrians. Where is the design attention for that?

Here’s a picture of a recently completed new retail mall right on the main approach to Kamloops. This is on the main drag of Columbia Street, by the University, right where the City is planning to see mixed-use development in the future. Notice the abundance of shade, for a City with a mean summer temperature in the mid-30s. How is stuff like this supposed to do anything to attract a pedestrian environment? Why – oh why – would anyone voluntarily go to places like this to wander, socialize, and browse the other shops? And if it isn’t designed to do that – what is it doing on the main entrance to the City – and what does it say about the City itself?

If we want this to be a functional, impersonal place, then let’s leave it as is. If we want it to be something more, a place people can use as a town centre, a new gathering place – then let’s talk about sidewalk width, texture and materials, having actual crosswalks with textured, physical material and visual prominence, put in some bike racks, get rid of the blank spaces between the big box stores (maybe some community art), make a central plaza with lots of shade trees and stuff in place of that parking lot – widen the sidewalks to allow for some benches, tables and chairs, and some shaded seating places for people to hang out in. We can fix this and make it better, it’s not too late. Unless of course we DON’T want people hanging out here, in which case, let’s leave it as is. Drive, shop, leave.

But before we even talk about putting in shade trees and nice sidewalks, we need to make a decision about what kind of environment we want our cities to have, and how we want our public spaces to interface with the people who live there. Are we designing for cars, or for people? Is there mutual exclusivity? What do we want our main people places to be for – quick, functional trips only, or something more? THEN we can talk about all the other details to make those places work.

The lesson to be learned from this article, in my opinion, is that good urban spaces function as more than just rational, functional places – places to move in and out of quickly, places that serve to expedite a particular process or function – that being the conduction of business or other functional activity. Good urban spaces have emotion, and a social context that is missing from much of our urban landscape. We need to plan for it, design for it, insist on it. While going into the details of trees, sidewalk materials, sidewalk width etc. is important, it is even more important to recognize that a dichotomy exists in the first place, before you can go ahead and use urban design techniques to treat the situation.

Labels: , , ,

Close Encounters with Cities - Discussion

Hi Dave

I was looking at figure 6, which is from Stockholm. As you know I lived in Stockholm for 10 years and the street is a tourist street. Durning the summer you cannot move more than 5/km not because of the facade, but the novelty of the area for tourist. The authors contrast this with 60km/hr walking, now that is pretty fast walking; walking on crack. I grew up in New York City. Given it was New York and Americans over exaggerate we all walked 80 km,/hr, we also all took super crack. If you tripped well you where simply trampled into the concrete.

Anyway, I knew Gehl, the lead author, he is also on crack. He came an guest lectured and the Swedish students harassed. They attacked him because he never included side walk materials or design, other street elements (trees, etc), the type the commercial-residential mix, length of the street, time of day. Basically he ignored the issue that the objective of some street are move as many people as quickly as possible, while others encourage slow leisure movement and others encourage people to actually sit and enjoy the environment. Look at figure 19 do the before and after pictures show any changes in sidewalk width. NO! You think anyone wants to sit in a street corridor that gets no sunlight with deep shadows. Well maybe if you want to sell crack.

Ciao, Eric

Labels: ,

Close Encounters with Buildings

Interesting Urban Design Article

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/udi/journal/v11/n1/pdf/9000162a.pdf

Abstract:

What we have are closed, self-absorbed buildings. What we would like to have is open, versatile, interesting and safe cities. The challenge is how to incorporate large buildings in cities where people have the same small stature and slow pace they had hundreds of years ago. There is now a considerable confusion in the gap between large and small scales and between 'quick' and 'slow' architecture. Ground floor facades provide an important link between these scales and between buildings and people. For public space and buildings to be treated as a whole, the ground floor facades must have a special and welcoming design. This good, close encounter architecture is vital for good cities.

Labels: , , ,

October 14, 2005

Reinventing the Alley - Key Elements for Great (and useful!) Alley Design


kamloops alley
Originally uploaded by Spatial Mongrel.
Alleys are wonderful places for social dynamics. The hidden nature of the alley can create ideal conditions for an ad hoc playground among neighbourhood children. Residents hanging laundry out to dry, doing minor house repairs or other activities can meet and chat, watch children play, and get to know one another in a less-formal setting. The alley becomes shared neighbourhood space, a courtyard for the neighbourhood, and is self-maintained by the residents living alongside. An alley achieving this type of attention is visually distinguished by certain characteristics including the condition of the alley maintenance-wise, the permeability of its boundaries, and the high level of visual oversight found within.

It is the rare alley that is able to achieve this type of social role. Many factors must come together for an alley to develop into a community courtyard. Many of these enabling factors have to do with the physical characteristics of the adjoining properties, additionally complicated by the scarcity of rules and regulations governing physical behaviour. The alley that is able to overcome the inherent limitations of its parts and become more than a functional space does so not because of structured rules to make it so. Rather, it emerges from the urban fabric, dependent on a series of small decisions made by residents to bring it into being, and preserved likewise through the ability of residents to maintain the enhanced level of attention. In rare circumstances it is possible to manufacture the conditions that allow an alley to transcend its functional role, but to create a sustainable system requires area residents to buy into the program and take ownership over the alley.

Ownership
The lack of ownership of the alley is by far the greatest threat to its viability as more than functional space, or even to its efficiency at facilitating service delivery. An unsupervised alley collects litter and debris, and provides a potential home for marginal activity. The alley can be an exceedingly good hiding place, full of nooks and crannies, poorly lit, and rarely visited. It is frequently a place for prostitution in urban areas. Drug use is likewise highly common, and some of the worst of human behaviour flourishes there. A visit to an unsupervised inner-city alley can be a wretched and disgusting experience in the daytime. At night, it can be a positively terrifying prospect. It is no surprise that the alley is rarely built in newly planned subdivisions and is frequently eliminated in infill redevelopment situations. On the other hand, a visit to a supervised alley, a "community courtyard," can be an incredibly restful and relaxing experience, and can fill a visitor with a profound sense of satisfaction.

The chance of a resident becoming involved in the care of an alley depends, not surprisingly, on the level of stake they have in the alley. Residents who have rear lot parking or whose children actively play in the alley are far more likely to care about the alley as a resource and work with neighbours to maintain its condition. This returns us to defensible space and the issue of ownership and sense of responsibility over a space, underlining again the importance of ensuring that an alley maintains a reasonably useful and functional role for the residents of a community, aside from its social function as a neutral meeting ground. To reconnect alleys back into the lives of residents, we must consider physical factors that restrict or ease the ability of residents to take ownership. A successful intervention strategy must take into consideration the physical environment of the alley, the properties alongside, and the residents.
The first step is to look at the alley on a block by block basis and develop a definition of what it is, and what the community wishes it to be. Is it a commercial alley, oriented towards service activities? Is it a residential alley, providing green space and community atmosphere to the block? Perhaps it is a functional alley, with vehicle movements and utility maintenance as the primary activity. It may be a purely recreational alley, with activities such as community gardening, walking, conversation and the like occurring within. On a wider context, the alley needs to be looked at as to how it fits into the alley network. Is it part of a linear green corridor, with plenty of dog walkers, pedestrians and bicyclists?

Indicators of Alley Vitality
When looking at the alley to measure how it fits within the block, three elements are important indicators of alley vitality. These are:
  • Does the alley provide access by pedestrians into offices, residences or shops? What type of access has emphasis?
  • Does the alley provide for service delivery, trash and recycling, utilities and maintenance? How prominent are these services?
  • Does the alley function as a connecting walkway to other city streets and alleys? How well is it used?
Other points to consider are future opportunities. Are there parks or gardens nearby that the alley links to? Is the area slated to undergo any kind of redevelopment? Are there opportunities for altering the definition of the alley into something different? An alley is never going to fit cleanly into one mould, but is rather a heterogeneous mix of character from one section to the next, and it relies on the judgement of the planner with input from the local community to determine how best to meet the challenge.

Building Community Support - the Bottom-Up Approach
An alley intervention scheme with a top-down approach will rarely be effective in the long term. If there are no users and no one to assume ownership, if the underlying reasons behind its neglect are not treated, the space will inevitably decline and the initial investment will have been wasted. Many revitalization schemes for alleys, streets, parks and other projects have failed for just this reason. Therefore it becomes imperative to involve stakeholders in the alley right from the start and to determine, based upon local input, the measures that will be taken to enhance the alley and ensure that it remains a cared-for spot.

Community support does not necessarily imply that planners must wait for the community to come to the City for help in repairing an alley. Part of the task of an urban planner is to serve as an advisor to the community and point out possibilities or suggest options that may not have been considered. However, it is also true that in some areas the situation is so severe that residents give up on the alley and consign it to its fate. In that case, the City may need to take the initiative and take the first steps to repair the alley, in order to stimulate interests by local residents in the lane. Again, without community support and an ongoing monitoring program, the investment will be wasted unless followed on by strong local participation and a vigorous monitoring program by City staff.

Assessment and Maintenance
The primary complaint about alleys is that they are dirty. Household debris piles up, neighbourhood dogs rip open garbage bags and strew waste about, and leaves and vegetation collect in the corners. While the City is likely unable to pursue a regular maintenance strategy for the alley in addition to its work with parks, sidewalks and city streets, it is possible to use both proactive and reactive measures to respond to the problem. An example of a partially proactive approach to alley maintenance is to put in place a “needs assessment” site survey program. The survey conducted in this report is an example of such a needs assessment. This data can be collected in a geographic information system and updated either through local surveys or by residents phoning in reports. This can allow for directed maintenance action by sanitation crews for alleys that need extra assistance beyond the capabilities of the neighbourhood. This system is not fully proactive because, though it may identify areas with serious deficiencies, it responds only to the ensuing results of those deficiencies.

A wholly reactive maintenance strategy calls for programs such as the “spring clean-up,” where City crews intervene in alleys with especially severe maintenance problems and conduct a full clean-up. The program can be extended to include regular visits by maintenance crews throughout the year. This can be an effective stop-gap measure in an area with limited economic and social prospects, but is essentially a way to keep an alley in a holding pattern and stop it from getting any worse. This type of action is quite costly and does not address the underlying problem of why the alley is in such poor shape in the first place.

Grant Programs
A different strategy the City can use is to offer assistance to residents by supplying equipment or grants for maintenance, and committing a crew to assist with removing collected material once residents have conducted the initial clean-up. This approach relies on the impetus of residents to participate and be active in the care and upkeep of the alley, while the City provides the heavy lifting capacity to haul away undesired items.

Grant programs such as the “Une Place au Soleil” program in Montreal are effective because of the requirement for full community support from all residents on the alley and the local action that it represents. Grants can be given by the City to residents in support of various community-driven alley projects, including a local clean-up effort, mural painting, flower planting, landscaping, fence repair and so on. Grants can be of any dollar value, from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands, depending on the initiative of the local community and how much they are willing to invest of their own time in the program. A small grant can help the community buy some cans of paint to touch-up fences and paint over graffiti, while a large grant can pay for more extensive landscaping projects.

Gifts-In-Kind
Gifts in kind represent another powerful tool from the City to promote local activity and care for the alley. Gifts in kind are donations by the city of material or services that have an ascribed dollar value attached to them and are offered in lieu of a cash payment. Services such as providing a maintenance crew with a truck can be used as a gift in kind. Other services are only limited by imagination. The following list offers a few suggestions:
  • plants and flowers;
  • concrete bollards and planters;
  • new or improved street and pedestrian lighting;
  • street paving or paving bricks and stones; and
  • technical advice from a planner and/or landscape architect.
These can be offered as an incentive with the understanding that the primary work and maintenance will be undertaken by residents. The City can agree to provide ongoing maintenance for some features, such as pedestrian and alley lighting. A good alley intervention program combines both grants and gifts in kind as motivational incentives to get residents involved in the state of their alley.

Grants and gifts in kind can be offered as a special program that can be applied for through the city planning department or community services department. Another alternative is to provide funds as a seed program to neighbourhood community associations who will then act to distribute the funds as they see fit. This may be an advantage in cases where a decentralized structure exists that is able to handle such a program.

The primary benefit to these programs is that the City is removed from the alley intervention and takes a role as a supporting partner, not as the initiator. While the City may have approached the community with the idea of providing the resources and the program, it is the residents themselves who must move ahead with the project and do the work. With increasing residential involvement comes the greater likelihood of residents feeling they have a stake in the alley. This increases the possibilities for regular upkeep and enhances neighbourhood surveillance. Observations throughout the course of the author’s research indicate that alleys that have undergone community revitalization work have more proactive residents who are likely to challenge visitors to the alley, report misbehaviour to local authorities, or deal with problems themselves.

Regulating the Alleyscape: Bylaws and Regulations
An alley bylaw can have a great deal of say about the shape and setbacks of the rear area of lots, without being overly restrictive. Bylaws with dimensional ranges and guidelines allow for the creation of consistent urban form while still allowing for individuality to find expression. For example, a bylaw could restrict the amount of paved surface in a rear yard to no more than 20%, leaving it up to the lot owner to determine how best to meet that guideline. Another requirement could be to have a rear fence that is between 1 and 2 meters in height, and no more. The type of material, the shape and pattern, and the colour is left entirely in the purview of the resident. Bylaws that attempt to guide individual expression and detailed visual aesthetic go too far and have no place in the chaotic world of the alley.

Alley Housing
Another regulatory mechanism that can have a major impact on life in an alley is allowing alley-housing. This can be accomplished by legalizing existing secondary suites and allowing new granny suites, or even allowing for the subdivision of lots and the creation of new housing facing directly onto the alley. Allowing habitation of an alley necessitates that the City pay much more attention to issues of maintenance and safety and security, and can require extensive physical interventions to bring the alley up to City standards.

Alleys that are purely residential can be assisted by reviewing obstacles and working to alleviate those conditions. Resurfacing an alley can increase access to garages and carports and provide a hard surface for neighbourhood children to play. If the surface is paved with interesting materials such as cobblestones or brick, this can add extra appeal and charm, particularly if this is coupled with an area-wide pedestrian amenity plan. Adding lights can eliminate shadowed areas and encourage night-time use by residents. Physical interventions done directly by the City are inherently tricky and must involve more community support and interaction to succeed.

Guidelines for Alley Design
Existing alleys must deal with the fact that people live in the area, use the alley on occasion and therefore have an opinion in what happens to it, and more importantly, how it will affect their property. New residential areas do not have that concern. Alleys in a new residential neighbourhood do not need to be developed and planned to the same level as streets, nor do they require extensive public consultation. However, it is strongly recommended that certain key physical features be included to maximize the immediate and long-term benefits to the neighbourhood. The optimum alley has the following minimum physical elements:


  • 6 Meter Right-of-Way: A low-to-medium density neighbourhood should have a right of way of at least six meters in width to allow for adequate open space, visual surveillance and access to rear lots. The width should not be increased greatly beyond six meters unless the alley is expected to handle excessive vehicle traffic to a high-density residential or commercial property.
  • Paved Carriageway: It is recommended that the carriageway be paved to allow for a multiplicity of uses by adjoining residents and to ease maintenance. Side-drainage is encouraged to allow run-off to disperse through permeable edging material in the buffer space, either gravel or paving stones. Speed bumps should be placed at the ends of the carriageway and in the middle, and be well-marked and illuminated. With a six meter right-of-way, the carriageway should be four meters in width and should not extend the full width of the right-of-way.
  • Landscaped Buffer: The buffer refers to the transition space between the carriageway and the lot line. In many alleys the buffer is zero, in others the buffer is approximately one meter in width or greater on either side of the carriageway. Lighting, service utilities and vegetation are the main components of the buffer; parking is less common but can occur. It is recommended that a one meter buffer be retained for the purposes of soft landscaping and drainage, and to act as a transition zone between the public carriageway and the private lot.
  • Pedestrian Illumination: Preferably, illumination should be designed to provide lighting to the entirety of the right-of-way and be reduced in height to conform to pedestrian lighting standards. It is recommended that full cut-off fixtures be used and placed no higher than 4 meters in height to avoid light intrusion and glare, and to allow for adequate horizontal illumination for facial recognition.
  • Utilities & Services in Alley: Services refer to electrical utilities, telephone, cable, and waste disposal. When possible, service utilities should be placed underground, accessed through utility boxes inset into adjoining lots but accessible from the right-of-way. Garbage receptacles should equally be inset within the limits of the adjoining property and be enclosed within a defined area for easy maintenance and access from the right-of-way.
  • Allow Vehicle Parking Access: Parking refers to vehicle storage both in private rear-lot stalls and in garages. Parking justifies the alley in terms of transportation linkages, rear lot access and vehicle storage, particularly in fairly dense residential environments such as found within an infill community. Parking should be included in the design of the alley and space made available for turning radiuses into private rear-lot spaces.
  • Permeable Fencing: Fencing is a method of delineating the limits of a property, separating uses from each other, providing privacy and maintaining a border between private and public space. Fence heights should be kept low, to less than 1.5 meters, and visual permeability should be retained.
  • 8 Meter Alleys for Commercial Activities: Alleys with commercial activity should be widened to handle increased traffic and larger service delivery vehicles, with the increase depending on the degree of activity. Alleys with a moderate level of activity (three or four businesses) should be designed with at least an 8-meter right-of-way.
Each alley has its own character and substance, and will experience a range of uses. Ensuring that the design is permissive of use of all varieties will ensure that the alley remains a successful addition to a neighbourhood.

Labels: , , , , ,