Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Urban Canyon Effects - Noise

This graphic, from NY Magazine, shows how noise can be a problem in streets lined with tall buildings.

As we have more instances of tall buildings across the narrow streets from each other we will be subject to more noise. The sounds of city life - vehicles, air conditioners, people talking, music, etc. - will not dissipate as easily when there are hard surfaces that reflect the sound back and forth.

Since we have narrow streets in downtown Sarasota, there is not much we can do to prevent canyon effects. Duany suggested that stepping back buildings at the fourth story would mitigate these effects. Unfortunately our code makes this step back optional.

On the other hand, arcades are no longer allowed. Arcades magnify the canyon effects by narrowing the street even further.

Canopy trees can muffle noise by disrupting the sound wave patterns and absorbing some of the waves. However sunlight available may be insufficient for tree growth on some of our streets when we get more high-rise buildings lining each side of the street.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Planning Board Watch

The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend denial of an application by Morton's, requesting the future land use for residential property they own directly west of their parking lot be changed to commercial. Thirteen speakers, including the presidents of three neighborhood associations, spoke in opposition to the change. The Planning Staff recommended denial of the change.

The Planning Board voted to recommend denial of an application by the county to change the future land use of a parcel in Laurel Park from Community Commercial to Downtown Urban Mixed Use. The reasoning was that this would allow a zero setback for a 3 story building next to residential. The Planning Staff had recommended approval of this application.

Two other items on the agenda were postponed to February:

  1. Request to change the land use classification of the Ringling Plaza from Neighborhood Commercial and Single Family Moderate Density to Downtown Urban Mixed Use. The proposed change would allow 50 units per acre density (a proffered rezone petition would limit the density to 25 u/a or 243 units for the site) along with 154,000 sq ft of retail space. The Planning Staff has recommended approval of a portion of the site (the current strip mall portion) and denial for the current residential portion (a green buffer).
  2. Request to change the land of a 9 acre parcel on the east side of Payne Park from Multiple Family Medium Density (25 u/a) to Downtown urban Mixed Use (50 u/a). The Planning staff has recommended denial of this petition. A total of 460 units is proposed for this property (currently 140 are allowed).

Both of these changes are being considered for inclusion in the proposed change to the Downtown that would allow added density as a bonus if affordable housing was included. The density bonus would double the allowed units per acre.

Urban Canyon Effects - Light

This picture shows the 100 Central Building side that faces 1st St. Note the shadow on the building. This is the shadow of the Five Points Plaza Building. The picture was take at 1:30 in the afternoon on Jan 26.

It is apparent that the sun will never shine on the surface of 1st St on this block during the winter months.


The next picture shows the view east on 1st St at the same time. No sun, only shadow. Just like a canyon.












The final picture shows the opposite view down 1st St - looking west. Lots of sunshine and dappled shade under the oaks.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Roundabout Discussions

What goes around, comes around.


Thursday, January 26, 2006

Modeling Sarasota

With all the discussion about arcades, the rapid change of downtown (we haven’t seen anything yet - wait until the proposed buildings get built), Pineapple Square, etc., it is apparent that people are all looking at our changing town from a different point of view. Some people have moved here from large cities (New York, Boston...) and are comfortable with big buildings and traffic. Others have come from smaller towns or have lived in Sarasota for a very long time. It is difficult to visualize the proposed changes and harder yet to relate to your own past experience.

We have suggested before and will suggest again that the use of models will surely help in visualizing what changes are proposed. Models of new proposed buildings, in the context of the block (or several blocks) where they will be located, will help everyone visualize what is being proposed.

Several people have criticized the rendition we presented of a Main St filled with arcades. This was the best graphic rendition we could produce. A model would have been much better. We also find it interesting that while some criticized our rendition (notably Bruce Franklin), no one produced a different version. The point of the rendition was to give everyone a visual representation of what arcades could look like in the context of Main St. We would like to see some else’s version.

Models need not be expensive to enable everyone to see what is proposed. A visit to Carl Abbott’s web site (current projects) will show some models that give a very good three dimensional view of the proposed project. They show the height and volume; and when placed in context with surrounding buildings, they can show the proposed building in a manner that is easily understood.

We strongly suggest that Sarasota require models showing all proposed new buildings in relationship to the buildings in the nearby blocks. Using a standard scale for the models would make all comparable.

We can't help with making the proposed changes likeable. This probably relates more to individual preference and experience.

We would also like to say that our view point is from the perspective of one that is not involved financially with Sarasota's development. We understand that development is a significant part of the local economy, but we also know that the residents that live here deserve to be a singnificant force in determining what kind of city they wish Sarasota to be and what kind of changes will be allowed. Those involved financially with development will understandably have a different view of proposed development regulations than those not involved financially.

Clear views of the proposed changes and open, honest discussion with a strong dose of listening and trying to understand an opposing point of view will go a long way in building a strong community. All of us can agree that the most important thing is that we have a strong and vibrant community. Buildings won't do that for us. Diversity, discussion, listening and trying to understand a neighbor's point of view will build a strong community.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Selby Five Points Park


On Monday January 30 there will be a public workshop conducted by City Staff looking at possible redesign of this park.

The workshop will review:
  1. Workshop Purpose and Procedures
  2. History of the Park
  3. Current and Future Context (this and similar parks)
  4. Five Points Park Existing Conditions
  5. Use and Design of Similar Open Spaces
  6. Issues/Public Comment
  7. Next Step - March 30 Follow up Public Workshop

The City Staff is looking for direction for this park. Citizens have the opportunity to learn about the park and tell staff what future uses you would like to see the park include.

Take the time to attend this workshop and participate in this process.

The Workshop will be at Selby Library starting at 6 PM. It will last 2-3 hours.

Arcade Decision in the News

Recent news and editorial articles regarding arcades - published after the commission decision.

Editorial about design standards and arcades:

As for arcades, this city policy -- which incentivized the structures by allowing developers to build them over public sidewalks and top them with three stories of habitable space -- deserved to die. Though arcades can provide beneficial shelter, the city's policy came with too many drawbacks.

News article about linkage of arcades and the pace and intensity of downtown development:

The arcade issue struck a chord with dozens of people who turned out at Monday night's public hearing. But they didn't just talk about arcades -- they also vented their fears about the city's rapidly changing downtown.

News article about the Commission meeting to decide on allowing arcades:

"Please don't take the sunshine away from us," said Sarasota's Richard Suckow. "We don't want to walk through tunnels."

News article about arcades and design standards issues:

That vote on arcades (3-2 with Bilyeu and Shelin opposed, although Shelin said he opposed only because galleries weren’t included with arcades) was cheered by the 50 or more members of Save Our Sarasota – at least half of whom came forward during the public hearing and told the commission they wanted arcades banned over public property such as sidewalks.

Bob Ardren weighs in on "conspiracy":

Turns out Farmers’ Market manager John Matthews has rules forbidding religious or political booths – and he decided the arcade issue was a political one.

Matthews did tell the SOS people to please feel free to walk around and talk about their issue – as other political advocates do from time to time.

Chatting with Matthews later, he clearly was upset with having to exclude the SOS table. “Hey, I just want to run the market, not get involved in politics,” he pleaded.

Whatchathink?

Monday, January 23, 2006

Arcades Removed From Code

Last night the City Commissioners voted 3-2 to no longer allow arcades to be built over public sidewalks in downtown Sarasota.

Commissioners Shelin and Bilyeu voted against the motion to disallow arcades. Commission Shelin indicated that he was against arcades but did not vote for the motion because the option to allow galleries was not also removed.

Approximately 150 people attended Monday's City Commission Meeting to let let our commissioners know how they felt about arcades. Twenty eight people spoke.

Of the speakers, 18 opposed arcades and 6 indicated they thought an option for arcades should be retained. The other speakers discussed other code issues only (design standards).

Those that favored retaining arcades in the public space were primarily landowners, developers and land use lawyers working for developers.

Save Our Sarasota would like to thank everyone that participated in this community discussion. Many people called or wrote commissioners to let them know how they felt about this issue, others also attended the meeting and some of those spoke. Public participation and civic leaders that engage the public and listen make for a strong community.

Thanks to all.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Arcades

(We reprint Carl Abbott's recent editorial in the SHT)

Trees, not looming arcades, are best for Sarasota's downtown

Recently the Herald-Tribune published an article on arcades, which are now allowed in Sarasota's downtown core. It is important to understand that under the Downtown Code (Building Design Standards) as presently written, arcades are allowed to have above them up to three floors of living area projecting out and covering our public sidewalks.

These arcades are not appropriate for the downtown core for a number of reasons and specifically not for Main Street, which is very narrow.

Arcades can be appropriate, but only when the width of the street is generous enough in relationship to the height of the buildings along the street. For Sarasota, the main reason for allowing these four-story structures over the public sidewalk was to visually reduce the scale of the 10-story structures that can be built along Main Street. However, given Main's narrow width, a tunnel effect is being created. Trees along Main Street are the ideal solution for visually reducing the scale of the taller buildings.An advantage of arcades for Sarasota, we are told, is that the arcades will block sun.

Again, the existing trees give a much better solution of filtered sunlight and allow the sun when we want it in the winter. The arcades not only block the sun, they create dark, shadowed areas with poor security and limited visibility to shop windows. They also create wind tunnels. Where arcades are installed existing trees must be removed; we could lose most of the trees on Main.

The Tunnel Effect: We can see this starting to happen -- realize that the full run of Main Street can have 10-story buildings. Go to Main between the Orange Blossom Hotel and Epicure Café and look toward Five Points. The 1350 Main St. high-rise condo has constructed its four-story arcade over the sidewalk. Imagine this same configuration extending up both sides of Main with a very limited number of trees remaining.

Arcades are not only opposed by the "Save Our Sarasota" group; they are also opposed by a number of professional groups, including the Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects' Government Affairs Committee, the Sarasota Architectural Foundation and architects from all over Florida who took part in a charrette on this Sarasota Downtown Code.Currently, arcades pose a strong incentive for developers to gain extra square footage over our sidewalks. Under the current code every building is required to have a 12-foot setback (recess) for all levels above the fourth floor. Building an arcade on Main Street, where the sidewalks are 12 feet wide, would give a developer an advantage, as most of this required 12-foot setback is over our public sidewalk and has little effect on the marketable area of the main building. With a building without an arcade, the result is a significant loss of marketable square footage. The code, in effect, penalizes building proposals without arcades and rewards developments that incorporate arcades over our public sidewalks.

As an architect and planner, I have worked in Sarasota for more than 40 years, and I welcome positive, creative changes that can happen here. I have taught planning and architecture in a number of universities, including Harvard's Graduate School, and I am fully aware that to become a vibrant small city, we must have a dense urban core.

However, arcades should not be allowed in our downtown, as they compromise the quality of streets -- as with our Main Street.The city commissioners said the Downtown Code is open to change. I understand that the commissioners are concerned with the stark building condition that is happening along Fruitville Road, our main downtown connector corridor, and that they are considering widening the sidewalk and planting trees. I applaud them for recognizing the problem and taking action.Arcades now allowed on Main Street would create a similar, greatly magnified, stark/harsh condition that should be stopped now.

We have in our small city an amazing number of exciting and creative arts. Our built environment can also be exciting and creative. Downtown can be a vibrant, alive urban space filled with people, trees and sunlight -- an exciting environment that our children and grandchildren can enjoy.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Another View

Joan Altabe, former architecture critic for the SHT, is writing for the Bradenton Herald. Her latest column comments on Sarasota's "big sculpture debate".

A thought provoking comment from her column:

Which raises another question in need of discussion. Should a town [Sarasota] that calls itself an art town fund a replica? Not that anyone should be surprised by the desire to replicate. Outdoor sculpture signaling Sarasota's two leading art institutions are duplications: The Ringling Museum copy of Florence, Italy's "David"' by Michelangelo, and the Ringling School of Art and Design's knock off of New York's "Cube" by Isamu Noguchi. Unaccountably, both art institutions use these replicas as emblems for themselves.

Then there is Sarasota's architecture, which offers one replica after another of Addison Mizner's Mediterranean mish-mash, which put Palm Beach on the proverbial map, not Sarasota.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Sarasota's History

This month's issue of SRQ has an excellent article by Jeff LaHurd. The article takes readers on a "walking tour" of downtown Sarasota. In this tour a number of buildings that have an important story about Sarasota's history are described. As we all know, the number of these buildings remaining downtown is dwindling as redevelopment continues.

The Chicago Sun Times has an interesting article about Chicago's "system" for saving important structures in this city known for its architectural excellence. In addition to Chicago's Landmark designation (described below), buildings can be given a "color code" that triggers a city commission review prior to any proposed demolition. This system seems to work for those buildings not yet having the Landmark status.

Chicago's Landmark designation was created in March, 1987, when the Chicago City Council adopted an amendment to the then existing landmarks legislation that resulted in a major expansion in the City’s powers to protect historic resources. While there have been some amendments, the ordinance has remained largely intact over the past 15 years. The major innovation of the ordinance is that it gave the City the authority to prevent the demolition of designated landmarks. It is now very difficult, though not impossible, to destroy a designated landmark. This single provision has given the city the power to preserve its architectural heritage. Moreover, it has given the public interested in preservation a goal – move the City to designate buildings as landmarks and these important buildings will be retained and revitalized. The original ordinance did not provide such protections nor instill any confidence in the action of local government (from The Politics of Preservation).

Sarasota should consider options like these for preserving more of our historically significant buildings. Redevelopment pressure is not likely to lessen and we need to act now while some of our important structures still exist.

Readers should pick up a copy of SRQ and read LaHurd's article. It is worth every penny of the magazine's price.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Homeless in Sarasota

There has been a lot of talk recently about the National Coalition for the Homeless recent ranking of Sarasota as the "meanest city in America". Their full report can be found here.

From the report:

The Meanest Cities

Although some of the report’s top 20 meanest cities have made some efforts to address homelessness in their communities, the punitive practices highlighted in the report impede progress in solving the problem. The top 20 meanest cities were chosen based on the number of anti-homeless laws in the city, the enforcement of those laws and severities of penalties, the general political climate toward homeless people in the city, local advocate support for the meanest designation, the city’s history of criminalization measures, and the existence of pending or recently enacted criminalization legislation in the city. Over the past year, the practices in the following top 5 meanest cities stand out as some of the worst examples of inhumane city treatment of homeless and poor people:

#1 Sarasota, FL.
After two successive Sarasota anti-lodging laws were overturned as unconstitutional by state courts, Sarasota passed a third law banning lodging outdoors. This latest version appears to be explicitly aimed at homeless persons. One of the elements necessary for arrest under the law is that the person “has no other place to live.”

Homelessness is a national problem and many communities are looking for ways to help. Sarasota has excellent resources for helping people. We have the largest facility (Salvation Army) in Florida for providing beds, No one has ever been turned away from this facility. Services for treatment of chemical dependency and mental illness are available for all. Meals are provided in abundance.

While there is always more that can be done, Sarasota surely ranks high on the list for providing assistance for the homeless.

If this topic interests you, take a look at the report then talk to a few of the service providers in Sarasota. You may even wish to volunteer in some way.

Sarasota Herald Tribune Comment on Arcades

The following is from today's editorial in ths SHT concerning arcades. Be sure to read the entire editorial.

At a public hearing Monday, city commissioners should dump the baggage-laden arcade policy, under which the city incentivizes the structures by allowing developers to encroach on the public space over arcades. The policy, approved as part of the downtown master plan, carries more risks than rewards.

We agree with the opinion offered here.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Trees and Downtowns

A couple of paragraphs in todays "Seen & Heard" column in the SHT related recent research that tree-lined streets in downtowns make customers more comfortable shopping and were willing to spend more in these areas.

This research and many more similar reports are described at the University of Washington website.

The SHT article starts by saying: if you want customers to spend money and time in your business - plant a tree.

Good advice for sure!

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Recent Communications Concerning Arcades

From Ken Shelin in response to an e-mail I sent to all Commissioners asking them to not allow adcades over the public sidewalk, as well as asking to mandate building stepbacks at the fourth floor:

Dick,

I agree with you and oppose the construction of arcades on the public rightof way. If a developer wants to build it on his own land I don't have a problem with that as they did at the Five Points Plaza. I also agree with you about stepbacks at 4 stories and voted for similar provisions in thecode while on the Planning Board.

Happy New Year!

Ken
------------
From the Sierra Club:

Dear Commissioners,

As chair of the Sarasota Conservation Committee, I would like to express our views regarding the upcoming public hearing to address arcades in the downtown core.

The new city code that permits arcades to be built over the public sidewalks in the downtown area and gives away the air space above as an incentive and density bonus of buildable space to developers is seriously flawed and the city needs to change this policy at the earliest possible date.

This will result not only in the elimination of trees from our downtown streetscape, but will create a canyon effect along our narrow downtown streets. While large buildings are appropriate in parts of our downtown core, historic Main Street is not the place for massive, towering and encroaching architecture.

Sarasotans have repeatedly expressed a desire for a human-scale in our city that would prevent us from becoming another Naples or Fort Lauderdale. Residents should not have to "fight for smart designs that protect what Southwest Florida is all about: sunlight, fresh air,creativity, and a laid-back grace that says no to concrete canyons."

SOS and others presented their views at a public hearing of the Planning Board, which voted unanimously to recommend arcades be eliminated fromthe code. Now we need to acknowledge and support their recommendation.

Sincerely,Gayle ReynoldsManatee/Sarasota Sierra Club
------------
From Control Growth Now:

Honorable Commissioners:

Control Growth Now joins many others in urging you to amend the City of Sarasota Downtown Zoning Code to eliminate provisions which allow developers to extend their buildings into public air space and over public sidewalks, by the use of arcades.

These arcades unduly increase the mass of buildings and create a “tunnel effect”, thereby reducing the ambiance and livability which citizens value in downtown Sarasota. They have the effect of entirely eliminating the requirement that buildings be set back, as a portion of the intruding arcade counts as the setback.

They also destroy valuable street trees which must be removed to make room for these arcades. Street trees are both aesthetically and functionally important to our quality of life.

Perhaps most important, these arcades constitute a government giveway of public property, that being the air space above the sidewalks. We oppose the practice of public subsidies of development, whether in the form of cash donations, inadequate impact fees or (as here) grants of public property.

Again, we urge that you amend the Zoning Code to eliminate or severely restrict the use of arcades, perhaps allowing them only where the building itself does not extend into public air space and where street trees would be protected and preserved.

Thank you for your considerations.

Dan Lobeck
President, Control Growth Now

Monday, January 16, 2006

Downtown Code and Design Standards

Last week we met with John Burg, City Planning staff, to gain a better understanding of design standards. Previously we had met with several of Sarasota's architects. We have also attended the Planning Board Meeting where the design standards were discussed.

What we have found is that unless you deeply involved with architecture and urban design it is difficult to determine what the code should (or should not) mandate.

The Sarasota Herald Tribune today has an excellent commentary on the proposed design standards. Basically they conclude that some design standards should be used to prevent the worst case design and that there appear to be options available that allow excellent design to be used in Sarasota. They also note that we should give the proposed design standards a chance - a test run if you will - to see if they do indeed encourage good design and architecture.

Sarasota has a great history of pushing the envelope in architecture. We believe that this legacy should continue. Hopefully this will help push in that direction.

We also think that it would be good for Sarasota if there was a regular source of knowledgeable architectural criticism commenting on Sarasota's latest building boom. This would be good education for all of us.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Where the Heart Is - Spending Locally

The New Year: a time to think about making things better and doing something good.........

This is an interesting article that touches on WalMart, chains, spending locally, and similar topics.

It ends with:

But beyond the disgusting aspects of an American sameness, it’s simply smart money to invest in local businesses — in real people, in your real neighbors — instead of putting your hard-earned dollars into a corporate black hole that sucks it right off to Arkansas or California or New York. Invest in our community. Invest in a future.

Why not make a New Year’s resolution to think a little harder about how and where you spend your money?

This is a theme we have followed and will continue to follow. Our local businesses provide a unique Sarasota. We enjoy the fruits of their efforts and are greatly enriched by their decision to live in and improve our community. Sometimes the enrichment comes in the form of an excellent meal that may add a pound or two - but that is another resolution.

We echo the authors suggestion: make an effort to patronize our local businesses, reinvest in our community by patronizing their establishments.

Post script: An earlier posting described the local restaurants efforts to educate customers about this issue.

Friday, January 13, 2006

On Arcades: An Architect's View

Apparently there are a few people out there that read this blog that think arcades over public space are either OK or preferred when compared to open air, sunshine, trees and awnings or umbrellas for protection from rain when required. While I am sure we cannot convince everyone I would ask that you consider Carl Abbott's comments as published in our newspaper (Sarasota Herald Tribune yesterday):

Article published Jan 12, 2006

Trees, not looming arcades, are best for Sarasota's downtown

Recently the Herald-Tribune published an article on arcades, which are now allowed in Sarasota's downtown core. It is important to understand that under the Downtown Code (Building Design Standards) as presently written, arcades are allowed to have above them up to three floors of living area projecting out and covering our public sidewalks.

These arcades are not appropriate for the downtown core for a number of reasons and specifically not for Main Street, which is very narrow.

Arcades can be appropriate, but only when the width of the street is generous enough in relationship to the height of the buildings along the street. For Sarasota, the main reason for allowing these four-story structures over the public sidewalk was to visually reduce the scale of the 10-story structures that can be built along Main Street. However, given Main's narrow width, a tunnel effect is being created. Trees along Main Street are the ideal solution for visually reducing the scale of the taller buildings.

An advantage of arcades for Sarasota, we are told, is that the arcades will block sun.

Again, the existing trees give a much better solution of filtered sunlight and allow the sun when we want it in the winter. The arcades not only block the sun, they create dark, shadowed areas with poor security and limited visibility to shop windows. They also create wind tunnels. Where arcades are installed existing trees must be removed; we could lose most of the trees on Main.

The Tunnel Effect: We can see this starting to happen -- realize that the full run of Main Street can have 10-story buildings. Go to Main between the Orange Blossom Hotel and Epicure Café and look toward Five Points. The 1350 Main St. high-rise condo has constructed its four-story arcade over the sidewalk. Imagine this same configuration extending up both sides of Main with a very limited number of trees remaining.

Arcades are not only opposed by the "Save Our Sarasota" group; they are also opposed by a number of professional groups, including the Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects' Government Affairs Committee, the Sarasota Architectural Foundation and architects from all over Florida who took part in a charrette on this Sarasota Downtown Code.

Currently, arcades pose a strong incentive for developers to gain extra square footage over our sidewalks. Under the current code every building is required to have a 12-foot setback (recess) for all levels above the fourth floor. Building an arcade on Main Street, where the sidewalks are 12 feet wide, would give a developer an advantage, as most of this required 12-foot setback is over our public sidewalk and has little effect on the marketable area of the main building. With a building without an arcade, the result is a significant loss of marketable square footage. The code, in effect, penalizes building proposals without arcades and rewards developments that incorporate arcades over our public sidewalks.

As an architect and planner, I have worked in Sarasota for more than 40 years, and I welcome positive, creative changes that can happen here. I have taught planning and architecture in a number of universities, including Harvard's Graduate School, and I am fully aware that to become a vibrant small city, we must have a dense urban core.

However, arcades should not be allowed in our downtown, as they compromise the quality of streets -- as with our Main Street.

The city commissioners said the Downtown Code is open to change. I understand that the commissioners are concerned with the stark building condition that is happening along Fruitville Road, our main downtown connector corridor, and that they are considering widening the sidewalk and planting trees. I applaud them for recognizing the problem and taking action.Arcades now allowed on Main Street would create a similar, greatly magnified, stark/harsh condition that should be stopped now.

We have in our small city an amazing number of exciting and creative arts. Our built environment can also be exciting and creative. Downtown can be a vibrant, alive urban space filled with people, trees and sunlight -- an exciting environment that our children and grandchildren can enjoy.

Web site: www.carlabbott.com

Save Our Sarasota looks at issues facing our community, researches the issues as best we can, formulates a position based on our research then relates this view to the community and our civic leaders. We understand that everyone will not agree with our view and that is OK. We only ask that people look at our arguments and evaluate our position with an open mind.

We think Mr. Abbott has come to the same conclusion we have when considering arcades over the public sidewalk in our downtown. Mr. Abbott is one of our community's outstanding architechts and we value his viewpoint.

We especially like the last sentence in his editorial: Downtown can be a vibrant, alive urban space filled with people, trees and sunlight -- an exciting environment that our children and grandchildren can enjoy. We hope this vision becomes a reality.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Arcade D Day Coming Up

On January 23, the City Commissioners will decide whether to remove the option of allowing arcades over the public sidewalk, along with the developer "incentive" of 3 stories of habitable space above the arcade (also over public space).

Save Our Sarasota has opposed allowing arcades over public sidewalks because it takes away light, air, and space that belong to all of us. Arcades preclude the existence of shade trees. Arcades also worsen the canyon effect that will exist downtown as more 10 story buildings are built. This will make the street seem even narrower as well as lessen the length of time each day that sunlight will shine through to the street.

Shade trees are a necessary key for an enjoyable pedestrian environment; they give shade in the summer, filtered sunlight in the winter, they soften the concrete facades of the buildings, they muffle sound, they improve air quality.

Trees are a hallmark of towns and small cities. We need trees in our downtown.

We would ask all that are interested in making sure that arcades are not allowed to cover the public sidewalk attend the Commission hearing at City Hall on Monday Jan 23 and let the Commissioners know your wishes.

You could also call or write Commissioners.

Contact information is at the City website. You can call 954-4115 and leave a message for all Commissioners. E-mail addresses are:

Mary Anne Servian
Fredd Atkins Fredd_Atkins@sarasotagov.com
Danny Bilyeu Danny_Bilyeu@sarasotagov.com
Lou Ann Palmer LouAnn_Palmer@sarasotagov.com
Ken Shelin Ken_Shelin@sarasotagov.com

Arcades may be OK on private property, but they are not OK when they cover public sidewalks.

Do your part and tell the Commissioners to remove the option of arcades over the public sidewalk from the Downtown Code.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Kowal on Sarasota

There is an interesting story about Sarasota sculptor Dennis Kowal in the December issue of "Laurel Park News" - the Laurel Park newsletter. The story was written by Chris Jaensch.

Part of the story discusses Kowal’s work and how he has been "strongly influenced by living in Florida.....he gets inspired by the intensity of the light here."

Kowal "has strong feelings about rampant growth and development both in Sarasota and Florida." He calls the issue in Sarasota "creeping exclusivity" and "feels that Sarasota is in danger of becoming a huge gated community with no place for the creative class." He says "artists are leaving in droves because they can’t afford to live here."

While he chooses to live in Laurel Park for a variety of reasons, he mentions proximity to urban amenities, walkability to downtown, the eclectic character of Laurel Park and, of course, the fact that his two daughters (Jolie McInnis and Denise Kowal) live nearby as being high on his list.

The article indicates that Kowal believes some of these positive attributes are in jeopardy. "For example [he] thinks that human scale is being violated in the downtown area, by buildings that go right up to the sidewalk edge. This damages the pedestrian experience within the city center."

We certainly can relate to Kowal’s feelings about the issues and the dramatic changes happening in Florida and Sarasota. He has identified many of the issues we have been discussing this past year.

While we may not have the answers, it would be great to know that the people we have elected to guide our community are listening to the citizens and working to address these issues.

Kowal’s work can be seen in a number of Sarasota locations (currently he has a sculpture in the Sarasota Season of Sculpture show on the bayfront). More information can be found at his website.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Unconditional Surrender

Friday's SHT editorial compares the height of the sculpture "Unconditional Surrender" to the height of the hi-rise buildings being built in downtown Sarasota. The point is that there is a lot of discussion about the height of the sculpture but not much about the height of the buildings.

The editorial says:

Sarasotans ....... should look up -- way up -- to a larger aesthetic argument looming on the horizon: the spate of lofty buildings proposed or already under way in the downtown. Far more massive and up to six times taller than "Unconditional Surrender," these developments will greatly impact the visual environment.

To be sure, big buildings aren't unexpected in a downtown core. But Sarasotans have repeatedly expressed a desire for a human-scale city that, above all, won't become "another Fort Lauderdale."

To avoid that wretched comparison, residents will have to fight for smart designs that protect what Southwest Florida is all about: sunlight, fresh air, creativity, and a laid-back grace that just says no to concrete canyons.

These principles matter, whether the subject is a work of art or a new residential tower. They help define character -- a quality as important to a city as it is to a human being. Without it, Sarasota won't improve over time; it will simply mutate into a monstrosity.

We agree with the assessment; Sarasota has always been about character and sense of place. Somehow we are morphing into a generic city of hi-rises with limited views of sky, land and water. The views that we are seeing are concrete canyons.

Why has Sarasota unconditionally surrendered to the lure of big dollars, big buildings and big development? We know there is much sentiment for retaining our character, sense of place and human scale. The last few months have been a mad scramble by the developers to get a place at the table of 18 story developments with little regard for the character of our city.

Our commissioners know the sentiment of the citizens, yet they continue down the road of the concrete canyon. Apparently they have surrendered.

Save Our Sarasota has not surrendered. We will continue to tell our story; a story of Sarasota's rapidly disappearing charm, loss of signature buildings and places, giveaways of public space, and the poor design considerations that have benefited the developers at the expense of the public. We believe that the commissioners need to be held accountable for the dramatic changes that have occurred in Sarasota.

We will continue to "fight for smart designs that protect what Southwest Florida is all about: sunlight, fresh air, creativity, and a laid-back grace that just says no to concrete canyons."

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Sarasota Historic Church Tour - This Saturday!

The Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation is sponsoring a Historic Church Tour on Saturday, Jan 7, 2006, from 11 AM to 4 PM. The churches pictured below will be open and volunteers will be present to tell you about the history of these important places. Rosemary Cemetery is also included in the tour.

The First United Methodist Church is located on Pineapple St in downtown Sarasota

The Bee Ridge Presbyterian Church is located at 4826 MacIntosh in southeast Sarasota.

The Church of the Redeemer is located on Palm Ave. in downtown Sarasota.


St Martha Catholic Church is located on Fruitville Rd.

First Presbyterian Church is located on Oak St, just east of 301.

Rosemary Cemetery is located on Central, between 6th and 10th Streets.

Tickets for the Tour are $15 and may be purchased at any of the participating churches on the day of the event (Jan 7, 2006).

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Reclaiming trees - Reprint

The following article appears in the current issues of Urban Land Institute.

The article is extensive and gives many suggestions for improving tree cover in municipalities. The City and County of Sarasota have taken steps toward protecting and preserving our trees. Even though we have lost significant tree cover in the last decades, we can reverse this trend.

Urban Land - November/December 2005 - Feature
Reclaiming Trees
by John E. Cutler

The failure to adequately protect and care for public trees is resulting in a staggering loss of urban forests.

In the last few years, a 300-year-old historic live oak in San Antonio, Texas, was cut down on a hill that was leveled for a Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, and 200 acres in another part of town were clear cut by another developer for a mixed-use project.

Indiscriminate tree cutting can often mean higher energy consumption for nearby residents and businesses, an increased threat of flooding during storms, and worsened air pollution. Tree removal sometimes can actually lessen a developer’s profits, because trees mean higher property values.

Some municipal governments also clear cut trees with little thought about the future. This past September, 83 large trees in Tracy, California, were chopped down for a new civic center that will be constructed on the site.

Then there are the utility companies. Centerpoint Energy in Houston, for example, has stated its plan to cut down 57 of 81 live oaks on one block of Newcastle Drive, reflecting its policy of removing anything in its
transmission corridors that might grow over ten feet in height.

Centerpoint Energy’s policy is the rule, not the exception, in the United States.

Nowadays, urban trees—particularly the large mature ones that have survived the rapid development of the last few decades—face a new threat: infill redevelopment. Such redevelopment may involve the expansion of an existing house, or the demolition of a smaller home and construction of a larger residence on the same lot.

Or it can mean the demolition of a smaller commercial structure and the construction of a much bigger building on its lot.

“Heritage trees on smaller lots are subject to an increasing threat of removal by the new real estate building trends,” says Dave Dockter, a city of Palo Alto, California, planning arborist. “Trees are ill-protected by obsolete ordinances that didn’t envision this [infill] development trend.”

As real estate development continues across the country, and as many jurisdictions fail to adequately protect and care for public trees, the scale of loss of the nation’s urban forests—the trees along streets, in parks, on business campuses, at civic buildings and schools, and in the yards of private residences—is staggering.

A recent study conducted by the nonprofit Washington, D.C.–based American Forests conservation organization of 448 urban areas in the United States found that the number of America’s urban trees declined by 21 percent over the last ten years. Denver has only a 25 percent tree canopy, while both Boston and Washington, D.C., have a 22 percent tree cover. Milwaukee has an 18 percent tree cover, with San Diego having only 13 percent. American Forests recommends a 40 percent average tree canopy for urban areas: 15 percent in commercial districts, 25 percent in urban residential neighborhoods, and 60 percent in suburban areas.

Meeting the American Forests organization’s recommendation, however, is a daunting task. If the United States wants to increase its total tree cover by just 10 percent, for instance, it will have to plant and maintain 1.7 billion new trees.

According to the American Forests study of urban areas, if the United States had maintained the tree canopy that existed in the early 1990s, it would have saved $234 billion over the last decade just from avoiding the environmental and health costs discussed above.

Urban forests are threatened by disease, neglect, vandalism—and development. But the ordinances and landscape codes that are supposed to protect trees often do not. Many jurisdictions frequently grant variances to tree ordinances and landscape codes to developers and companies, allowing them to cut down mature trees, almost continuously. This past September, for example, a grove of mature pine trees was demolished in Hartford, Connecticut, to make way for a small restaurant/retail complex. Some jurisdictions “protect” greenfield sites by requiring new developments to keep 10 percent of the existing trees—everything else faces the bulldozer and chainsaw.

Also, many municipalities are easily swayed by developers. In Shelby, Michigan, for instance, a contractor complained about the city’s requirement that all the trees on his project sites be inventoried, which would have cost him $25,000. In addition, the contractor could pass that cost on to his clients and their homebuyers, because mature trees mean higher property values. But the township waived the requirement anyway.

Most jurisdictions that do require developers to replace any trees they cut down, do not require exact replacements, but rather “equivalent” replacements. For example, a mature 15-inch-caliper tree can be
replaced by three five-inch-caliper trees, or by five three-inch caliper trees. But their small size prevents them from replicating the full air pollution, stormwater management, heat island mitigation, and property value benefits of the single mature tree.

Monday, January 02, 2006

How Much Is Too Much?

The headline on Dec 29 loudly proclaims "3 new 17-story towers".

Once again a developer has announced plans for another building - this time it is 3 buildings - that are well above the 10 story limit promised by our commissioners. They keep saying 'if we hadn't changed the code we would have a downtown filled with 18 story buildings.'

This raises the question as to why the code was not put in place when it would have done some good.

After a number of delays, caused by inaction and lawsuits, the commissioners finally approved the code this summer. Then they decided that the code should not be put in place until Jan 1, 2006. They believed that the developers needed added time to get plans on the books. They wanted to be "fair" and didn't want to exclude anyone from building an 18 story building. Apparently 5 years was just not enough time to put a proposal in place.

All the time this was happening the commissioners keep saying, "We did a great job by changing the code to limit height to 10 stories."

Well, after Jan 1 comes, we still have 2 more 18 story slots to fill.

What a great plan this has turned out to be.

Seems like the downtown has been filled with 18 story buildings.

Five years ago Sarasota was looking forward to a somewhat human scale, pedestrian friendly down town. The conceptual graphics showed awnings and trees with some 10 story buildings here and there. Buildings were stepped back at the 4th story. The community participated in a process that defined what we wanted our downtown to be.

The reality has turned out to be mostly 18 story buildings (or well above 10 stories), with the option of having 4th story stepbacks to minimize the canyon effect because of our narrow streets and the option of an arcade covering the public sidewalk and giving the space above the arcade (3 stories) to the developer as an incentive while cutting off the sun and space for trees.

Along the way we were treated to a porte cochere jutting out toward the middle of the street, zero setback buildings on Fruitville with a narrow sidewalk, a proposed extension of Marina Jack's lease for 42 years (let's hurry up and cut off any competition or mention of public interest), a loading dock design for Whole Foods that requires full sized trucks to drive across the sidewalk on the other side of the street to back into the space allotted.

Not a very pedestrian friendly or human scale reality. Yet we are told that these "changes and deviations" were required by the developers.

Our commissioners like to tell us that they keep a balance between commercial, residential, developer and public interests. Our recent history in downtown has shown that the commissioners have tipped strongly toward the developer interest. Little balance is apparent.

What we have now is too much!