KristianKelley.net
North-South Orientation?

According to the California Energy Commission and all empirical evidence gathered to date, the proper orientation of a building is north-south.  This more practically means that the long axis of a structure should be oriented east-west with the majority of windows and livable spaces along the north and south facades.  This notion has been co-opted by homebuilders and used as a marketing tool for homes that line their east-west oriented street grid.  Unfortunately, this is slightly misleading.

In the early housing boom in the 1910’s and 20’s, homes were built with using sound principles of passive solar design.  Neighborhoods such as Willo, Encanto and Arcadia here in the Phoenix area were developed with lots that were longer than they were wide, just as they are today.  Willo lots measure approximately 70’ by 120’ where as Arcadia lots measure approximately 130’ by 180’.  This accommodates the homebuyers desire to have a back yard capable of becoming a private resort.  Homes are generally built along the east-west axis, windows and livable spaces along the north and south facades.

Arcadia

In the 1940’s and 50’s homebuilders were challenged to be more efficient with the land and provide more density.  This was accomplished by shortening the lot, becoming more square and maintaining the north-south orientation of the homes.  In the adjacent photo of post war Scottsdale, lots have been reduced to approximately 70’ by 100’.  Only the backyards have been compromised to accomodate this change.

Scottsdale

Now we fast forward to the latest housing boom here in the Valley of the 1980’s through 2000’s.  The critical change that occurred during this period was less about increased efficiency and more about decreased costs.  Lots were reduced to a typical width inorder to decrease the infrastructure cost for each lot, that is, reducing the amount of street frontage per lot to about 50’.  This change was a winner for the bottom line of builders, however this required a rotation of the homes orientation to east-west due to the narrow constraints of the property.  In order to maintain the illusion of “north-south” orientation builders provided homebuyers with either a windowed northern or southern façade.  This is hardly the intent of passive solar design.

Chandler

I hope that the next step in suburban home evolution will be a return to proper orientation or to rethink housing products all together.  Have you seen a good example in your city that addresses passive solar design and the economics of tract home building?  Please let me know, I look forward to a good discussion!

This concept of Naked Streets or Shared Streets has been alive and well for a while in the netherlands.  I wonder if it could work in suburban America.  Are there any areas in your town that might benefit from this?

Interesting article on how the neighborhood you live in can affect your childrens health.

This is a great piece from Harvard Business Review and provides further support to my notion of suburban “Destination Streets”.

“Research by Lawrence Frank, Bombardier Chair in Sustainable Transportation at the University of British Columbia, looks at neighborhoods in King County, Washington: Residents in areas with the most interconnected streets travel 26% fewer vehicle miles than those in areas with many cul-de-sacs.”

This is an interesting video series from The Atlantic with Richard Florida, author of The Great Reset.  In this post he discusses life after the real estate bubble in the sun belt.

This article helps illustrate my notion of the need for suburban “Destination Streets”.  It is interesting to note that Jane Jacobs pointed to this theory over 40 years ago in her analysis of New York City.  The Upper East Side has more pedestrian activity than the Upper West Side.  She points out that UES has shorter block lengths than UWS which correlates with the the “Intersection Density” theory of the attached article.

Can we encourage walking through urban design?

Really good news for the Southeast Valley.  I just wish they were going to build something more timeless and authentic.

If you are looking for an experienced Urban Planner or Landscape Architect, please contact me through Planit Design Studio. 

Destination Streets

Jane Jacobs taught us that the best streets were those with a real blend of uses that were used throughout the day.  Obviously she was referring to many of the great urban environments we love and not the suburban sprawl that we are accustom to in most of the country.  What can we take from Ms. Jacobs empirical evidence here in suburban America?

destination street

I have long held the notion that all streets should be purposeful and provide the maximum benefit for their users.  This of course should be the intent of any developer as well.  If a neighborhood street’s only purpose is to move vehicles from the arterial to the home then it is not living up to its full potential.  What are the other elements we should try to build in to our suburban street system?  I believe we need to think of a street as equal parts vehicular circulation, pedestrian circulation and social interaction.  Social interaction is more influenced by residential design than street design so I will address this in an upcoming article on residential products for the next decade. 

For new developments the question of proper vehicular circulation for creating Destination Streets is an easy one to answer.  Suburban streets are characterized by wide expanses of asphalt with very limited contact with the outside world.  To reverse this epidemic we need to understand the genesis of the suburban street.  The width is influenced by jurisdictional traffic engineers and the fire department.  All types of traffic calming devices and roadway widths have been tried through the years.  I don’t have a problem with the width of the pavement as long as it is well justified and the streets are purposeful. 

However, in order to create a Destination Street we need to provide more connectivity or transparency of future developments.  If we start out the design of new communities with the notion that all streets should make a connection to their adjacent arterial or collector, we have gone a long way to improving the livability of suburbia.  Through the design process some streets will be identified as interior circulators and will never fulfill their full potential.  Other streets will be identified as critical connectors that will be necessary for the success of the neighborhood.  These critical connectors are streets that may provide access to retail, schools, parks and arterial traffic signals.  Contrary to conventional wisdom, these critical connectors should be fronted with residential products to improve their hours of utilization. 

One argument I have heard over the years against Destination Streets is increased vehicular traffic generation and lack of security.  The first is easy to refute as the more connections we make to the collectors and arterials, the fewer internal trips there will be.  That is, if you live on “Street A” in a Destination Street Community you would access the street directly from the arterial.  If you live on “Street A” in a conventionally designed community you would have to access the neighborhood from the main entry at the arterial, take a right on “Street B” then take a left on “Street C” then a left on to “Street A”.  Clearly the first option is preferable.  The second question of security is more difficult to argue as are most issues of the heart.  If a street is designed with a destination in mind, we will see an increase in pedestrian activity which increases the passive security.  The theory goes; the criminally minded are less likely to commit said crime if there is a sense that one is being watched.   

If we follow the rules for Destination Street vehicular circulation, pedestrians will come naturally.  How about existing communities?  How can we create Destination Streets with existing infrastructure?  Currently my neighbors and I use the sidewalks adjacent to the street to check the mail at the gang mail box or to walk the kids to the neighborhood park.  The activity on our sidewalks is limited to approximately 3pm when the kids are out of school and 6pm when all of the kids head home for dinner.  How can we extend the usage of the street as a pedestrian circulator?  Not by widening the sidewalk or adding more shade or by providing street furniture.  The best way to encourage pedestrian activity in suburbia is to provide a walkable destination beyond parks and mailboxes.  Neighborhood retail is the obvious and best influence in creating a more active place to live. 

In order to improve an existing community’s walkability we need to break down the notion that retail adjacent to residential should be mitigated.  My neighborhood was constructed adjacent to a neighborhood retail development with a fitness center, hair salon, restaurants, day care, convenience grocery, doctors and dentistry offices, dry cleaning and a day spa.  These uses were considered so adverse to residential sales that a 6 foot wall was constructed to “keep the people who use the retail from walking into our community”.  Of course this is a ridiculous notion because the people who use the neighborhood retail are, for the most part, residents of my community.  Now, because of the wall, most residents choose to get in their cars, drive to the nearest arterial connection and then drive to the neighborhood retail.  Without the wall many of the streets in my community would be Destination Streets with more purpose; walking the dog to the vet, walking the kids to the day care in the morning, walking to the restaurants in the evening, walking to the fitness center, etc.   

I believe that if we attempt to create more Destination Streets we will improve the livability and walkability of future suburbia.  Also, we should look for opportunities to convert our existing streets to Destination Streets by removing walls and barriers.  What do you think?  Please add your thoughts here, I look forward to your input.