Note: This piece originally appeared on Sightline Institute’s website: http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2008/03/20/the-courtyards-of-copenhagen.

snowy_courtyard_500

Our Copenhagen apartment was in an old neighborhood. It was on a commercial street full of shops, with buses passing every two minutes. Our street was lined with marvelous Danish bikeways that made the entire city our two-wheeled home. I had lived in a compact neighborhood in Seattle, so I was already sold on urban life.

But I discovered that Copenhagen, though far denser than Seattle, is also dramatically more friendly to children. Like much urban housing in the City of Cyclists, our apartment overlooked a green and spacious courtyard. Gated where it met the sidewalk and shared only with others in our building and adjacent buildings on our block, it had play equipment, benches, chairs, and barbeques set amid gardens, lawns, and full-grown trees. It filled the interior of our block; it was like having a park inside your house. (The photo above is the wintertime view of the courtyard from my kitchen window.)

Our courtyard made all the difference for me as a mom. I could walk downstairs and spend a quarter hour with my son on the courtyard’s play equipment, then pop back inside to avoid a rain shower or get a snack. I could look out my kitchen window in the very heart of the city and watch scenes of family life unfolding: a father hanging a hammock, a boy learning to ride a bicycle, a woman tending her garden, a clump of neighbors chatting while their children dug in the sandbox. I could picture my son growing older there, playing by himself in the courtyard as a toddler, throwing a ball with a friend as a school-ager, and as a teen, returning from the city beyond to this safe haven of green.

Aerial_copenhagen_courtyard_500
Google Earth aerial image of my Copenhagen neighborhood.

When I came back to Seattle, I felt deprived. I wanted a courtyard, but they’re rare in North America. Perhaps as a result, families with children almost all strive to live in single-family houses with yards. Urban lots (and therefore lawns) are expensive, so families often head far into the suburbs to find affordable, private outdoor space for their children. Perhaps that’s why urban areas have fewer children than suburban areas. In the city of Seattle, for example, families with children account for only 20 percent of households, while in the rest of surrounding King County, families with children make up 37 percent of households. This outward spread of families with children contributes to sprawl and long commutes; it also undermines community stability as adults move outward to have children and inward again as empty-nesters.

Still, I’m hopeful for the future of courtyards in our region. A few buildings here and there have them, and a national organization is promoting them under the name community greens. Community greens convert existing city blocks, turning underutilized places into community spaces. Private backyards become shared residential greens by taking down fences and designing the space to fit the residents’ needs. Community greens offer safe, accessible places for children’s play; increase community bonds, which improves safety and security as neighbors get to know each other; raise property values by turning often-neglected spaces into amenities; and make urban living more inviting and attractive to families with children.

Copenhagen_play_courtyard_500 copenhagen_courtyard_500
Old and New: A passive open space area in Charlotthaven (right), and the play area outside my apartment buildingin Amager (left).

In Copenhagen, many new developments continue to feature courtyard-style housing. Charlottehaven, for example, (pictured above) provides a variety of courtyard spaces including a basketball court, passive landscape areas with seating, and children’s play structures. In existing neighborhoods, Copenhageners are redesigning the courtyards of some older apartment buildings. In such areas, different apartment buildings are grouped around the block, but the courtyard of each building is fenced from the courtyard of the next building. Now, the renewal efforts are combining these piecemeal courtyards into larger, block-wide ones—the same strategy as community greens.

When parents I know talk about the limits of compact communities for young children, I nod with understanding. And I wish they could experience Danish-style courtyards as I have. Once you’ve lived in a building wrapped around a park, a fenced yard just seems second best.

Thanks to Dara P. O’Byrne for the use of her 2006 University of Washington Master’s thesis Reversing the Trend: Strategies to Make Center City Seattle Livable and Attractive to Families with Children.

Share

One of the reasons we helped found Streets for All Seattle is because of the need to make sure that kids have places to play in the city. That’s what makes this video from England so heartwarming; if you close it, they will play.

Playing Out from Paul Gilbert on Vimeo.

h/t Copenhagenize

Share

Yesterday, Great City joined a number of other leading civic voices to call on Seattle’s state legislative delegation to provide more local, mode-neutral transportation funding mechanisms. You can read the letter below:

December 21, 2010

Dear Seattle’s Legislators—

Thank you for your diligent work in representing our community’s interests in Olympia. As you move forward into the 2011 legislative session, one of our top priorities is creating a more diversified, local, mode-neutral transportation funding toolbox.

The imperative for sustained public investments in our in-city transportation system is growing daily. We know that funding for mode-neutral transportation infrastructure and transit service brings more jobs, more business, and more resources to our City, but our economic future is being hamstrung by a lack of adequate funding tools. That is why we are seeking your help; we are looking to the legislature to provide local authorities with more funding tools.

These new revenue options might include the following:

  • Tax Increment Financing;
  • Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) for County and Regional transit;
  • New Transportation Benefit District tools such as a parking stall tax, local gas tax, carbon fee, engine displacement fee;
  • Capital and Transportation budget-based matching funds to pay for infrastructure in Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) zones;
  • State gas tax-based funding for local Complete Streets projects; and
  • Local share of tolling revenue from state transportation projects;

We believe that these are exceptionally important legislative opportunities that will spur economic development and job creation in designated growth centers. But these investments go beyond monetary returns, helping us advance Washington State’s business, labor, health and environmental leadership.

Thank you for your commitment, time and kind attention. We look forward to working with you on these matters in the coming session.

Sincerely,

Brice Maryman, Great City

Kate Joncas, Downtown Seattle Association

Chuck Ayers, Cascade Bicycle Club

Morgan Ahouse, Washington State Chapter
of the Sierra Club

Lisa Quinn, FeetFirst

Rob Johnson, Transportation Choices Coalition

Josh Kavanagh, UW Transportation

Share

The following is a post from Cheryl dos Remedios,  an artist/advocate and member of the Great City Board. Any opinions expressed here are Cheryl’s, and do not represent Great City. As an organization, Great City has not taken a position on the tunnel, nor do we plan to since that space in our civic dialogue is already well represented. If anyone would like to post any commentary on the tunnel process–regardless of your position–we are happy to make this blog available to you as we believe that honest, fact-based dialogue is important to a strong city. If you would like to contact Cheryl directly, her email address is: cheryldosremedios@gmail.com.

Constructing a tunnel on Seattle’s waterfront will permanently alter the historic character of Pioneer Square. Whether you are pro-tunnel* or anti-tunnel, here is some information that might be new to you:

· The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has identified 13 buildings with historic significance that may be damaged during construction, including several that have direct ties to the Seattle arts community (see list below). This project is incredibly risky. Why? Because this would be the biggest bored tunnel ever.

· Many Seattleites are dreaming of an open waterfront. Please know that the same 4-lane road is being planned along the waterfront with –or- without the tunnel. In fact, the tunnel generates more traffic on the waterfront than the surface street/ transit/I-5 option (that’s the option that the citizen advisory group recommended 2 years ago in consultation with WSDOT before Gregoire, Nickels and Sims pulled plans for a bored tunnel out of a back room)

· The tunnel will more than double traffic in Pioneer Square because there are no exits into downtown. The traffic numbers are 50,000 a day at the southern interchange without tolling, with an additional 40,000 autos once tolls kick in. Currently, autos can exit on and off the viaduct at Seneca, Columbia, Elliot and Western. But once the tunnel is built, Pioneer Square becomes the south portal in-and-out of downtown. Many people will drive through Pioneer Square just to avoid tolls.

· For over a year, WSDOT has been aware that the volume of traffic in Pioneer Square “would not be acceptable” but offers no alternatives. The amount of traffic – combined with the scale of the interchange itself – would permanently alter the character of this historic district. In addition to the giant portal, likely changes include constant streams of traffic on previously quiet streets, no street parking, elimination and damage to trees, damage to buildings from traffic vibration, etc.

· My favorite oxymoron is “value engineering.” This is what happens when the State runs out of money and all of the promises they made regarding aesthetics and other culturally important values get cut. All that’s left is the mega-engineering. This project has a high likelihood of being “value engineered.”

What to do?

There are a handful of historic preservationists who are diligently responding to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (S-DEIS), but your stories are equally important.

Why do you care about Pioneer Square?

WSDOT and the mayor, SDOT, and the City Council members** need to hear from you. Please write today. Your letter can be as short as “Protect Pioneer Square” or as long as you’d like. Both types of messages are needed.

If you can get your comments in during the public comment period for the SDEIS – that would be great. The deadline of Monday, December 13, 2010 is looming. If this date passes – yet this is the first time you’ve heard about the threat to Pioneer Square – just note that fact in your email.

Want to do more?
Please share this information with other artists, musicians, architects, landscape architects, gallery owners, club owners, theater people, film makers, historic preservationists, etc.

Thanks so very much for your help in getting the word out!
Cheryl dos Remedios
cheryldosremedios@gmail.com

Cheryl dos Remedios is an artist/advocate and member of the Great City Board. Great City has not taken a position on the tunnel.

____________________________________________
* If you are pro-tunnel, I’m betting that the tunnel WSDOT has designed is not what you have in mind. Please engage in this process so that we can get a better design at a lower risk.

** If the link doesn’t work, please cut-and-paste these addresses into your email:
awv2010SDEIScomments@wsdot.wa.gov, peter.hahn@seattle.gov, mike.mcginn@seattle.gov, richard.conlin@seattle.gov, sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov, tim.burgess@seattle.gov, sally.clark@seattle.gov, jean.godden@seattle.gov, nick.licata@seattle.gov, bruce.harrell@seattle.gov

Buildings at Risk:
At least twelve buildings that are located within the Pioneer Square Historic District or listed on the National Register for Historic Places may be damaged during tunnel construction:

1 Yesler Building — 1 Yesler Way
Maritime Building — 911 Western Ave
Federal Building — 900 First Ave
National Building — 1000 Western Ave
Alexis Hotel/ Globe Building — 1001 First Ave
Arlington South/ Beebe Building — 1015 First Ave
Arlington North/ Hotel Cecil — 1015 First Ave
Grand Pacific Hotel — 1115 First Ave
Colonial Hotel — 1123 First Ave
Two Bells Tavern — 2313 Fourth Ave
Fire Station #2 — 2334 Fourth Ave
Seattle Housing Authority — 120 Sixth Ave N.

One additional building that is a Seattle landmark but not listed in the NRHP:
Watermark / Colman Building — 1107 First Ave.

The 2 buildings most likely to experience damage (and be torn down):
Polson Building at 61 Columbia
Western Building at 619 Western

Here’s what the Western Building website has to say:
“The Art Building of Seattle – Celebrating 100 years! More than one hundred artists work from studios in this six story building. 619 Western is one of the largest artist studio enclaves on the west coast if not the world. It has been a workspace for artists since 1979.”

And what does the S-DEIS have to say about the Western Building? “Mitigation measures to protect the building may not prevent the need for demolition to avoid the possibility of collapse.”

Share

Kaid Benfield (director, Sustainable Communities and Smart Growth for the National Resources Defense Council; co-founder, LEED for Neighborhood Development rating system; co-founder, Smart Growth America coalition and author of Once There Were Greenfields and other books) has called for a reexamination of how we talk about Smart Growth, which begs the question: What does Smart Growth mean to you? There are official principles, of course, established when the term was coined, but do you have your own definition?

Via Verde affordable green housing, Bronx, NY (courtesy of Jonathan Rose Cos.)

It’s time to update the definition of “smart growth”

It has been a dozen years or so, fifteen at the most, since a broad but committed group of advocates and organizations coalesced around a shared set of beliefs that, borrowing from then-Maryland-governor Parris Glendening’s landmark legislation, we called “smart growth.”  The phrase suited the movement because it emphasized that we were not opposed to population and economic growth, but we felt it was important to accommodate it in a smarter way:  one that reduces the environmental, economic and social costs of unchecked suburban sprawl and brings investment and opportunity back to communities that had been left behind in the building boom on the fringe of our cities and metro areas.

I’m still for that and, if you’re reading this, chances are that you are, too.  But what about the particulars?  Have we learned anything in the last decade and a half, and are we sufficiently applying what we have learned?  I would say yes, and no, respectively.  I’ll get to that in a minute but, first, let’s look at where we’ve been.

Capitol Hill, Seattle (by and courtesy of Eric Fredericks, neighborhoods.org)

rural Frederick County, MD (by and courtesy of Kai Hagen)

Of all the attempts to define what the content of smart growth should be, the one that has had the most publicity and staying power has been the set of ten principles crafted in the late 1990s for the Smart Growth Network (NRDC is a co-founder).  They are expressed as imperatives, the things we should strive for in pursuit of a smart growth agenda:

  • Create a range of housing opportunities and choices
  • Create walkable neighborhoods
  • Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration
  • Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place
  • Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective
  • Mix land uses
  • Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas
  • Provide a variety of transportation choices
  • Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities
  • Take advantage of compact building design

…More

via New Urban Network

Share

From Communities Count here’s an update on health and community information for November 2010.

The National Bureau of Economic Research recently called an end to what is now known as the Great Recession. After several quarters of retraction, the economy started to grow again –albeit slowly – in June 2009. Yet, the collateral damage from the recession is far from over, leaving many Washingtonians uncertain about what the future holds. What’s evident is this – our economic landscape has fundamentally changed, as has our collective well‐being. Several economic indicators are moving in a direction that threatens King county residents’ long‐term economic security.

The Communities Count data update for November 2010 shows:

 Large increases in poverty for children and working‐age adults
 Drop in median income from 2008 to 2009
 Unemployment remains high compared to pre‐recession levels
 Visits to food banks rising
 Personal bankruptcies continue their steady increase
 Home foreclosures in 2010 are outpacing foreclosures in 2009

More…

Share

Image from DryIcons.com

Many have said that the recovery will be the beginning of a new economy, different from the one that created the bubble. The Brookings Institution speculates on the opportunity before us to shape that economic development for the betterment of all:

What if there were a new economic engine for the United States that would put our people back to work without putting the government deeper in debt? What if that economic engine also improved our international competitiveness, reduced greenhouse gases, and made the American people healthier?

At a minimum, it would sound a lot better than any of the current offers on the table: stimulus from the liberals, austerity from the conservatives, and the president’s less-than-convincing plan for a little stimulus, a little austerity, and a little bit of a clean-energy economy.

The potential for just such an economic renaissance is a lot more plausible than many would imagine. At the heart of this opportunity are the underappreciated implications of a massive demographic convergence. In short, the two largest demographic groups in the country, the baby boomers and their children—together comprising half the population—want homes and commercial space in neighborhoods that do not exist in anywhere near sufficient quantity. Fixing this market failure, unleashing this latent demand, and using it to put America back to work could be accomplished without resorting to debt-building stimulus or layoff-inducing austerity. At least for the moment, Washington has an opportunity to speed up private investment for public good and launch what could be a period of long-lasting prosperity. It is a market-driven way to make the economic recovery sustainable while addressing many of the most serious problems of our time: the health care crisis, climate change, over-reliance on oil from countries with terrorist ties, and an overextended military. …More

Share

Are you looking for accurate local data? Communities Count has enough community and health data to satisfy almost anyone. Have at it, data junkies!

The 2008 Report updates indicators of community life that were reported in previous years’ reports, tracking social, economic, health, environmental or cultural conditions of value or concern to people residing in King County.  With this information, the public, local governments, and private funders can make informed decisions toward building and sustaining healthy communities.

What Is New in the 2008 Report?

In response to stakeholder recommendations, it takes an in-depth look at an issue of special relevance to the quality of community life in King County:

Affordable Housing, Transportation and Quality of Life in King County

Housing is the largest household expense for most families, generally followed by transportation. As housing costs have risen in King County, more families are moving farther from job centers in search of affordable housing. How are families deciding whether to pay more for housing near their workplace or to live farther from work and pay high transportation costs and endure long commutes? What are the trade-offs to balance housing, transportation and quality of life?

To answer some of these questions, Communities Count interviewed 40 families across King County. We spoke with renters and owners from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds. Most have lived in their house less than five years. We spoke with young couples, single person households, families with children, single parents and seniors.  To read some of their stories, click here.

Share


In Philip Langdon’s review of Peter Calthrope’s new book, Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change, he highlights the award-winning designers’ mapping of the virtues of urbanism:

A chief virtue of urbanism, he avers, is that it “naturally tends toward a ‘small is beautiful’ philosophy.” “Compact development does mean smaller yards, fewer cars, and less private space for some. On the other hand, it can dramatically reduce everyday costs and leave more time for family and community.”

Having recently produced a framework called “Vision California” for authorities in his state, Calthorpe has a wealth of California facts and figures at his command. A “more compact future” would save “an average of 3.4 million acre-feet of water per year — enough to fill the San Francisco Bay annually or to irrigate 5 million acres of farmland.”

more here

via Planetizen via New Urban Network

Share

Help SDOT document the level of walking and biking in Seattle (Image via SDOT)

Over at SDOT’s blog, they’ve put out a call for volunteers to help do pedestrian and bicycle counts. According to the blog:

This is an exciting step forward in SDOT’s data collection efforts.  Following a consistent, nationally recognized methodology will improve the quality and consistency of our data, and also increase the frequency with which we collect this type of data.  The information we collect will document current levels of walking and biking, help us measure our progress towards increasing the number of people who walk and bike, and help make the case for additional investments.  More information about the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project is available at http://bikepeddocumentation.org/

Share

Join the University of Washington for a compelling exploration of the 21st century’s urban age. Presented in collaboration by the College of Built Environments and College of Arts & Sciences, our panels of experts explore how to think about cities in a global context.

A central component of the UW’s NEXT CITY initiative, Now Urbanism: City-making in the 21st Century and Beyond examines the ways in which research and practices of urbanization offer new insight and possibilities for the future of cities and society. Hear from a dynamic roster of experts in this year-long John E. Sawyer Seminar of Comparative Cultures. Learn more at NowUrbanism.org.

Registration for the December seminar is available now:

Networked Urbanisms: Connections & Communication Across Space and Time
December 8, 2010, 6:30-8:30 p.m., Kane Hall 120

Vibrancy is brought to our urban communities through social connections, and now those connections are happening via digital media. From online maps to social networks, new technologies are changing what we know about the cities we live in, how we use them and how we connect to one another.

Panelists:
Tad Hirsch – People and Practices Research Group, INTEL
Todd Presner – Germanic Languages, UCLA
David Stark – Sociology, Columbia University
Remarks by Hanson Hosein and Gina Neff – Communication, University of Washington

Registration will be available in December for the remainder of the Now Urbanism: City-making in the 21st Century and Beyond seminars. We will email you then with complete information.

Share

Patrick McGrath‘s recently filed field report made us want to go back and watch this great video.  It is a tremendous overview of the concept of Shared Space, with some real life before and after examples.

Part One:

Part Two:

Share

One of those rare instances of a Seattle-ite saying what’s right about Seattle. A nice, inspirational pick me up to start your week.

Share

Where: GGLO Space at the Steps, 1301 First Ave., Level A
Date: Thursday, December 9, 2010
Time: 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm
Enter through door located about 1/4 of the way down the Harbor Steps (click for map)

Chuck Wolfe, Principal of Charles R. Wolfe, Attorney at Law, will draw from his active law practice and frequent writings on urbanism to present a year-end series of vignettes from around the world, posing universal questions for today’s efforts to remake the way we live and work. From brownfields to hill towns, the history of community planning to today’s transit-oriented development, please join us for a thought-provoking session.

Presenter:
Charles R. Wolfe, M.R.P., J.D. is an attorney in Seattle, where he focuses on land use and environmental law and permitting, including the use of innovative land use regulatory tools and sustainable development techniques on behalf of both the private and public sectors, and the successful redevelopment of infill properties under federal, state and local regulatory regimes. He is an accomplished speaker and author on growth management and innovative zoning, “transit-oriented development”, and brownfield/sustainable development topics, regularly participates in regional and national seminars and serves as a reporter for the national publication, Planning & Environmental Law. He is also an Affiliate Associate Professor in the College of Built Environments at the University of Washington, where he teaches land use law and a range of planning and development courses to planners and future design professionals and is a contributor to major research efforts addressing urban center, transit oriented and brownfield redevelopment. Additionally, Chuck serves as Vice Chair, Fund Development for the Urban Land Institute (ULI), Seattle District Council, is a Member of the Boards of Futurewise and Great City, and is a King County Trustee of the Cascade Land Conservancy. He contributes regularly on urban development topics for several publications including seattlepi.com, Crosscut.com and blogs at myurbanist.com.

Share

This is a guest post by Great City alumni Roger Valdez, originally appearing on Facebook. We think Roger’s vision is pretty compelling, but what do you think? Do you consider yourself an “urbanist,” and does this reflect your principles? What’s missing?

The Problem

Sprawl—small numbers of people living far from one another and connected by expensive roads—contribute to many of our most significant resource and social problems. Sprawl contributes to obesity and bad health outcomes; it creates air and water pollution, it is an inefficient use of land and energy, and it tears at the social fabric by alienating people from one another.



How we want to live

Human beings crave connection. We seek each other out. We need each other. Seattle’s future is in its people, and how we build and weave our lives together. How we live together in private and in public is largely the consequence of our use of space and how it is used and organized.

While we do crave togetherness we also value our time alone—our privacy. But privacy is not a wall, or technology, or even physical separation from each other, but rather having discretion for each other within a community.

People also value variety, opportunity, and choice. Our cultural preference is to be able to move freely about our neighborhoods and city and choosing where we live and how we get around is important to us.

The future of Seattle is as a city

We believe that city life—lots of people living close together—is healthier, creates less damage to our air and water, is a more efficient use of land and energy, and it creates social cohesion and community.

We believe that the division between public and private realms is conceptual not physical, and that we can build a Seattle that allows every resident or visitor to move between these realms at will, affordably, and with ease. We further believe that a family’s home is their castle, and they should be given as much choice as possible about how they organize their living space to support their livelihoods.

We believe that aggregating the way we meet our basic needs—eating, drinking, housing ourselves, clothing ourselves, and entertaining each other—makes common sense, is more efficient than zoning, and will build stronger connections between people of every race, class, sex, and orientation.



We believe that living close together and meeting our needs close to home makes getting around easier. By bringing the things we want and need closer to where we live we ensure less time traveling and more time living.

Finally, we believe that many of Seattle’s greatest economic an social problems—poverty, crime, homelessness, poor academic performance—can be significantly and positively impacted when people live closer together because, if nothing else, our proximity to each other makes the suffering of our fellow person intolerable.

We believe in building a Seattle that is close knit, efficient, and that is sustainable and self sufficient.

And we believe now is the time to get started building the city we want to live in.

Share

Next Page →