Really "In-Scale" with Neighborhood, as Zoning Requires? (original) (raw)
Related papers
[open access] Riverwood North/Washington Park renewal project: Final wave evaluation
2024
This report summarises the findings of the Wave 3 fieldwork of the Riverwood North longitudinal evaluation study, which took place during the latter half of 2023. The objectives of the study were: • To analyse the content, implementation and impacts of community regeneration activities; • To quantitatively measure the socio-economic impacts of the scheme as achieved via population change and employability initiatives; and • To gauge resident views about all aspects of scheme design, implementation and outcomes (both physical and community regeneration elements). The findings highlighted throughout this Wave 3 report complements those of the Wave 1 fieldwork report (Liu et al. 2022), which reflected on the initial outcomes of the Riverwood North/Washington Park renewal project. Both reports can be found at unsw.to/Riverwood. Methodology The longitudinal evaluation was designed for similar activities to take place across two fieldwork waves, encompassing a mix of secondary data analysis, a resident survey, stakeholder interviews, and resident focus groups. It was recognised, however, that the original focus of Wave 3—to assess resident experiences approximately two years since the completion of renewal activities—had lost relevance. Instead, further insights into how different resident groups currently interact across and live alongside different social and tenure groups were preferred. Therefore, the planned resident survey did not proceed, with the qualitative components expanded to ensure broad resident views were captured. In all, 30 residents, comprising a mix of social renters (n=19), private renters (n=3), and owner-occupiers (n=8) participated in five separate focus group discussions, with most (n=27) currently living in the Washington Park area of the broader neighbourhood. Only one stakeholder participated in interviews; all others invited either did not respond, or noted that staff who were involved in the renewal had moved on, and there were no other staff who would have working knowledge of their organisation’s involvement in the renewal. Physical design of the neighbourhood and buildings For the most part, participants were positive when asked to reflect on the physical changes that the Washington Park part of the neighbourhood had undergone. The pedestrian-friendly nature of the plaza, and updated green infrastructure were particular highlights. There was also a high rate of satisfaction among participants with their new homes in terms of size, quality and affordability. How differently Washington Park looks compared to the rest of the neighbourhood, however, led many participants to reflect on a neighbourhood of split identities, noting there were few reasons for residents of the two areas to venture into the other part and interact. While most teething programs reported in Wave 1 (Liu et al. 2022) have been addressed, increasing traffic and a perceived lack of safety remain ongoing matters that require further attention. Suggestions included enhancing the brightness of street lighting, improved maintenance and upkeep of public and common areas, installation of security cameras, and improved traffic management, especially to facilitate residents entering and existing the neighbourhood onto Belmore Road. Local infrastructure and services While most are appreciative of the new and upgraded community facilities such as the Library and Knowledge Centre, some (especially owner and private renter participants) were at times less sure of who may be able to use these facilities. The two community gardens were highlighted as an example, where a lack of signage on how to apply or sign up to tenancies were noted as barriers. Likewise access to the community room at 9B Kentucky Avenue was mistakenly believed to be restricted to social housing residents. While shopfronts are incorporated on the ground floor of the Morton residential block, residents lamented the lack of variety of shops and eateries that would improve the overall liveability of the neighbourhood. Limited communication of when and where community activities happen was perceived as a barrier to more residents participating. Suggestions for improvement included encouraging cafés and eateries into the neighbourhood, introducing more child-friendly events and activities in response to the changing neighbourhood demographics, improving communication of events and activities, and incorporating health and medical facilities within plans for further renewals. Living in a planned, mixed tenure neighbourhood With the renewal-related construction completed a few years prior, there have been notable demographic and socioeconomic changes observed in the neighbourhood, particularly in Washington Park. These were largely facilitated by new households moving into Washington Park, as owner-occupiers, as private renters, and also new social renters being offered tenancies or having relocated from elsewhere. Most participants said they paid little attention to the different tenures. At the broader level, Washington Park is functioning socially like many other higher density neighbourhoods. Interactions among residents of different tenure types remain largely incidental, with language proficiency and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns presenting as possible barriers to deeper interactions. As highlighted in literature, ‘third spaces’ can act as important venues in facilitating and encouraging neighbourhood social interactions. For now, community engagement and social activities like the weekly barbeques are performing this vital function. Suggestions of more local amenities like cafés and eateries would provide more opportunities for these incidental interactions to occur. With most participants intending to stay living in the neighbourhood, and as we continue to recover socially from the pandemic, it is likely that more and deeper levels of interactions may be cultivated in the years ahead. Looking ahead On the main, participants expressed overwhelming support for renewing the remainder of the neighbourhood, citing the poor quality of housing, an impression of a lack of safety, and the need—for the neighbourhood, for Sydney, and for Australia more generally—for more affordable housing options as reasons for support. Participants noted the good quality and affordable housing as a factor enticing them to stay living in the neighbourhood for several years. While participants noted the level of density—residential towers of 7 to 10 stories—seems about right, concerns remain over whether appropriate infrastructure, services and amenities may accompany further renewal. This is especially in view of the poor traffic conditions the neighbourhood already experiences, and the general lack of shopping and eatery options in Washington Park. The final outcomes, of what may be delivered as part of an extended renewal, may determine whether and which of the residents will choose to remain living in the neighbourhood in the long term. Conclusion Reflecting on the overall aim of creating an integrated residential and community precinct, it appears the renewal has to a large extent been successful. While noting that further improvements will enhance their quality of life, most participants considered that Washington Park as it stands is a nice enough place for owner-occupiers, private and social renters alike to want to call it home, for now and, for many, into the future. The areas suggested for improvement, as noted above and throughout this report, are not that different to those that also require attention in many other neighbourhoods, including those that have and continue to undergo similar renewals. In that way, the Riverwood North/Washington Park renewal has been successful in creating a ‘normal’ neighbourhood. Nonetheless, there may be a broader need to rethink the communication and engagement opportunities for the neighbourhood. Keeping the community informed of plans for further renewal, and outcomes of how they have contributed to their community, are important ways to keep residents engaged. It is also an important mechanism to learning what adjustments to the renewal activities may be needed, and what additional support may benefit the community, in sustaining an integrated residential and community precinct as the renewal had intended.
Lot Size, Zoning, and Household
2009
Impediments to Smart Growth? E l i z a b e t h K o p i t s , V i r g i n i a M c C o n n e l l , a n d D a n i e l M i l e s
Incremental Strategies for Suburban Densification
Architectural Science Association, 2018
Sprawling, low density development dominates and destroys natural landscapes and productive farm land at the edges of urban centres. Yet, suburbs continue to grow outwards, requiring continual development of green field sites to keep up with housing demand. Additionally, existing dwellings are demolished to make way for new developments with minimally increased density, creating waste in an industry that generates over 50% of New Zealand’s landfill. In spite of this, New Zealanders’ reported preferences for stand-alone dwellings on private sections and NIMBY attitude challenge higher density settlements, perceiving them as less safe, less visually appealing and less able to provide an enjoyable lifestyle. This research addresses the need for higher density living within the Wellington suburban context, while attempting to meet these challenges through the incremental implementation of accessory dwelling units that fit around existing dwellings. The implementation of this strategy has been tested within the Wellington suburb of Kilbirnie through the dimensional analysis of existing sites and the iterative design of accessory dwelling units. From this, possible new levels of density have been estimated within various areas of the suburb to investigate the feasibility of achieving higher density by adding small scale dwellings to front, side and back yard sites.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
The following zoning code language on mixed-use development was adopted by the City Council on July 6, 2004 and will be in effect in thirty (30) days. The language below is just a portion of the requirements contained in the Zoning Code. Other requirements may be applicable depending on the location and nature of a proposed project. Definition of Mixed-use development (Sec. 8-2162.9.7) " Mixed-use development " shall mean a development consisting of one or more lots developed as a cohesive project and designed with a blend of various compatible uses such as commercial, residential and institutional. The uses may be located in the same building or in separate buildings. A mixed-use development should not consist exclusively of live/work units. Mixed-use development requirements (Sec. 8-22148.7): The purpose of this section is to encourage and promote well planned, suitable and appropriate mixed use developments with residential and commercial components within selected commercial districts. The focus is to allow a more balanced mix of uses in a mixed-use development. To provide for the diverse needs of the residents of the City and to allow developers the flexibility to accomplish such goals without sacrificing the existing image and character of the surrounding neighborhood. To encourage efficient land use by facilitating compact, high-intensity development and minimizing the amount of land needed for surface parking. And, to facilitate development (e.g., land use mix, density, and design) that supports public transit where applicable. A mixed-use development should be safe, comfortable and attractive to pedestrians, patrons and residents. This section is organized by topic. Within each topic, development standards will be listed first followed by its corresponding design guidelines. In some instances, the topics may contain only development standards or design guidelines. (a) Uses: To allow a mixture of complimentary land uses that includes retail, offices, commercial services, housing, and civic uses, to create economic and social vitality and to encourage the linking of trips as well as shortening trip distance between uses and services. And to dissuade those uses deemed incompatible with residential uses. The following regulations are intended to create and maintain developments with a compatible mix of residential and commercial uses. To insure compatibility between uses within the development and surrounding area, any use requiring a zoning administrator permit or a conditional use permit shall be reviewed as part of the proposed development. A broad range of uses are allowed: (i) to promote efficient use of land; (ii) to provide options for commercial opportunities; and, (iii) to promote the development of the affordable housing. (1) Uses – permitted:
Preliminary Assessment for Community Revitalization at 10th and Monroe
2011
Multi-family residential, maximum floor area ratio of 0.162 MR-2 Multi-family residential, maximum floor area ratio of 0.348 MR-3 Multi-family residential, maximum floor area ratio of 0.696 MR-4A Multi-family residential, maximum floor area ratio of 1.49 MR-4B Multi-family residential (townhouses), maximum floor area ratio of 1.49 MR-5A Multi-family residential, maximum floor area ratio of 3.2 MR-5B Multi-family residential next to single-family districts, maximum FAR of 3.2 MR-6 Multi-family residential, maximum floor area ratio of 6.4 MRC-1 Mixed residential and commercial, maximum floor area ratio of 1.696 MRC-2 Mixed residential and commercial, maximum floor area ratio of 3.196 MRC-3 Mixed residential and commercial, maximum floor area ratio of 7.
Appeal Letter re: 100 Maryland St. re-development
This letter was filed about 20 minutes too late, so I wasn't allowed to appeal the Committee decision pertaining to the re-zoning and re-development of this property. I notice in reviewing it that I talk there about the developer's advice that a 'piled' foundation is less destructive to trees and their root systems, however, the construction effort at this site has since amounted to a hole fifteen feet deep from lot line to lot line, so I am not real impressed with the reliability of my source.