Additional Columbia Development Details

For those that have not seen it yet, Wordbones put up a very interesting post regarding James Rouse (Jim Rouse was not an Oracle) and how Columbia was developed. In my research I have uncovered some information that supports his post.

With respect to General Electric, Wordbones provides us with these details:

When GE decided to abandon Columbia and consolidate manufacturing operations in Louisville, Kentucky, Rouse adjusted his plans. Realizing that Columbia’s labor force was changing from what he originally expected, the company exercised its option to buy back the industrial park from GE and created Columbia Gateway Corporate Park.

I would like to add the financial details of how General Electric first came to Columbia. The following is from pages 304-305 of the book Columbia and the New Cities.

Financing on a Giant Scale

In order to snare the GE facility, Rouse not only paid for a four-mile railroad spur, but expanded Columbia beyond its original borders. He bought 2139 acres of farms and gravel pits adjacent to the new town for a staggering $19 million, more than six times the price per acre that he had paid for the new city’s original land only five years earlier. Since its original acquisition of land for $23 million, Rouse had filled several of the “holes” in his “Swiss cheese” land-holding for $2 million. With addition of the acreage for G.E. and an adjacent rail-served industrial area, Rouse has bought 17,868 acres for his new city at a total cost of $44 million, an average of $2485 per acre. General Electric got a bargain. The company announced that it paid only $3.8 million for its 1100-acre factory and warehouse site. Columbia’s expansion will add to the city’s ultimate profit despite its high cost, Rouse told his stockholders at their 1969 meeting. But the G.E. deal forced Rouse to reshape the entire financial structure of his new town.

So with respect to General Electric, Rouse bought the land for $19M, sold half the land to GE for $3.8M, and then years later bought the land back from GE. Each time the Rouse Company had to alter the financial structure of the entire city.

Moreover, Wordbones uses the General Electric transaction as an example of Rouse adapting to change. A few pages later in Columbia and the New Cities (p. 309) provides an equally compelling example:

As development progresses the differences between estimated costs and actual costs or between estimated and actual revenues force a constant rejuggling of decisions about when to invest, how much, and in which facilities. For example, when final cost estimates showed that Rouse would have to spend three million dollars more than was originally planned for one year in Columbia’s water system (even though the total cost of the system remained about where it had been figured), the increased interest cost on the extra three million dollars forced Rouse to defer several roads and put off other items of community facilities until later in Columbia’s life. Otherwise, he explained to me, in order to sustain his profit he would have been forced to crowd another six thousand dwelling units onto the land (which he could scarcely do under the zoning he had arranged.)

In a community that has been struggling with WWJRD, a partial answer is provided above. When confronted with unexpected, Jim Rouse considered increasing density and ultimately deferred road and public amenity construction. What is particularly interesting is those that oppose GGP plan before the county are loudly saying that regardless of what the future holds, the roads must be built and the amenities must be erected before any particular development phase is initiated. And to an extent, they have a point. Developing acres of farmland into a wondrous community allows a bit more latitude with respect to infrastructure and amenity phasing than a large infill development project. However, when confronted with WWJRD, they are clearly saying don’t do what Jim Rouse did.

Columbia and the New Cities. Breckenfeld, Gurney. Van Rees Press, New York. 1971

Hijacking the Community Interest

I am loathe to base a blog post on comments retrieved from the HCCA Yahoo-group; however, CoFoCoDo “spokesperson” Alan Klein has crossed several lines that spur comment.

In a message this weekend, Alan begins his comments on the New City Alliance with cynicism:

“I was waiting for this.”

He then remarks that the principals of the New City Alliance have some ties with groups such as Bring Back the Vision and Columbia 2.0. Alan states “They try to make themselves seem bigger than they are by creating multiple groups, but it is easy to see through the charade.”

I will let the folks at the New City Alliance speak to your broadsides Alan, but if what you say is true, you should be flattered. Is it possible to apply the same broad-brush strokes to the Howard County Community Association (HCCA), most of the CA Board of Directors, and CoFoCoDo?

Moreover, Alan displays the plumage of hubris by stating that those with a view that differs from his own are opponents of the “community’s vision” and wish to hijack the “community’s interest.” Having lived most of my life in this diverse community, I am wary of any one individual that speaks for “the community.”

Alan, for more than three years, CoFoCoDo’s steering committee has directed you to appear often, (and at great length) in a variety of settings to convey their message to the people of Columbia. Now is not the time to jeopardize all their hard “behind the scenes” work. Rather than criticizing other’s ideas, provide a compelling argument for the CoFoCoDo steering committee’s point of view.

A Call For Columbia's 2nd Generation

My brothers and sisters, if you grew up in Columbia during the 70's or 80's, please read this essay by Michael Chabon:

Maps and Legends

Now, if you had an experience anything like that, please make plans to be at the Columbia Archives on Wednesday October 14, 2009.

The Columbia Archives is holding a series of seminars this month based on Columbia's four founding principles. To address the principle of "a place for people to grow," the Archives is focusing on those of us that grew up in Columbia and invited author and American University Professor Cindy Gueli to speak. Cindy grew up in Columbia and is co-author of a soon to be published book: The Next America? A New Town's Social Experiment. This book takes a look at the first generation that grew up in Columbia.

It's about time we all got together and remembered, shared and just plain had fun.

Once again, if you still live in Columbia, or Howard County, or even near Howard County:

Call or email the Columbia Archives to register:

(410) 715-3103

columbia.archives@columbiaassociation.com

October 14, 2009

The American Cities Building

7:00 PM

Coffee and Conversation after at Lakeside Cafe.

Note: Michael Chabon lives in California and is not expected to be anywhere near this event.

Marco Polo Saved by the CA Board of Directors

Last night, the Columbia Association Board of Directors voted unanimously to keep the Faulkner Ridge, Locust Park, and Talbott Springs pools open. That being said, pool attendance numbers across the city are downright anemic. Attendance numbers are significantly down at almost every pool in Columbia, including the "super pools," as compared to 10 years ago (and even 20 years ago).

For those of us that are a certain age and grew up in Columbia during the 70's, 80's or 90's; this is a difficult reality. The entire pool system needs to be looked at, and solutions need to be found. I'm ready to (pardon the pun) take the plunge, anyone else?

Marco...Polo...Screw You

I received word from throughout the Next American City that the Columbia Association has proposed shutting down...forever...three pools in Columbia:

Faulkner Ridge

Locust Park

Talbott Springs

No word on why CA has decided to withdraw from these communities, or how they decided to target these areas.

Something to keep in mind is that this is a proposal, so kickboards don't need to be converted to headstones...yet.

I also seem to remember that the last time CA hired a president from outside, pool closures were high on the list (no offense Phil, it's possible this scheme was in the works before you got here).

Questions Regarding Symphony Woods

The Columbia Association has put a lot of effort in promoting their plans for Symphony Woods. Through a series of public events, a website, local press, editorials and blog commentaries (here, here, and here) the Cy Paumier design has created a buzz around town. And what’s not to love; bringing sunshine into the park, an interactive fountain for the kids (and kids at heart), a place to have a coffee – maybe a sandwich (day or night). What I have heard, both at a public meeting and among friends and neighbors has been that the design is “nice.” Not amazing, not innovative, but a full-throated “it’s ok.”

What concerns me about the design is not so much the elements presented, but the unanswered questions the design creates.

The first question regarding Symphony Woods is the question of use. Given that Symphony Woods is underutilized, what is the appropriate amount of human activity? The Columbia Association/Cy Paumier plan does not currently address this question. This is not to say that this question has not been asked about parklands and forests. The United States Forest Service has been asking this question since 1936. As recommended reading, the United States Forest Service puts forth the book Parks and Carrying Capacity – Commons Without Tragedy. This book is authored by Robert E. Manning (published 2007) and retails for $35.

Closer to home, the Maryland State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) employs the concept of carrying capacity in managing Deep Creek Lake. In their assessment of Deep Creek Lake, DNR defined carrying capacity as follows:

Carrying capacity relates to the ability of the lake or buffer strip to support various uses by people. There are two types of carrying capacity. Social carrying capacity relates to a level of use beyond which the recreational user's expectation of a quality experience is not realized. Physical carrying capacity relates to the level of use which the resource can sustain, beyond which irreversible biological or physical damage occurs to the point that the resource is no longer suitable or attractive for recreational or other uses. The optimum carrying capacity is the level of use that does not exceed an area's physical or social carrying capacity.

Given this rich, and heretofore ignored, field of study, the question regarding Symphony Woods becomes, “What is the optimum carrying capacity of Symphony Woods?” The data related to answering this question is scarce.

Currently, Symphony Woods can be characterized as a wooded parcel, generally in poor condition, which requires continuous maintenance to retain its artificial structure. In the area where the park is planned, the (current) preferred groundcover is grass. The establishment of underbrush and understory tree canopy is actively discouraged; thereby preventing a healthy forest environment.

The only data point known regarding overuse is related to the Wine in the Woods festival. If thousands of people in the woods, over several days, is detrimental to the trees, how many people can visit the park daily without damaging the trees? This question is a subset of the carrying capacity question and has not been answered in any manner by the Columbia Association or the Symphony Woods Park design team.

If there is little data on the environmental carrying capacity of Symphony Woods, there is less data related to social carrying capacity. Social carrying capacity is also more complex, in that if a park drops below a minimum number of people, new visitors may have anxiety entering an empty, or nearly empty park. The effect is that visitors may be discouraged to use the park because, of all things, lack of use. At the opposite end of the spectrum would be a park populated to the point that visitors perceive it as overcrowded and are discouraged from entering.

The social carrying capacity is critical because the proposed design elements are targeted toward increasing the social carrying capacity in Symphony Woods; however, the magnitude of the effects are either not known or not well communicated. John Slater, a member of Cy Paumier’s design team has called the design elements “magnets” that will attract people. The obvious question is, “How strong are those magnets?” How does “magnetic field strength” translate into carrying capacity? If the trees are cleared, the grass planted, the fountain, café, and parking lot constructed; will there be enough people attracted to the park to sustain it as a gathering place?

I bring these questions to the table because they speak to the basis of the park design. If the Columbia Association wants to increase usage in Symphony Woods, and the Cy Paumier design brings in a dozen people a day, could that be construed as exceeding expectations? For an improvement of general open space in Columbia, Cy’s plan may be exactly the type of planning needed. Given the location of Symphony Woods in downtown Columbia, it is a very important piece of real estate. For me, the criteria for success would be as follows: At some future date, after the park is constructed I call a friend of mine and we are trying to find a place to get our families together. A place where the adults can hang out and the kids can play. If my friend says to me (or vice-versa) “Why don’t we meet over in Symphony Woods Park? Then the place is a success.

Sign of the Times

Has anyone noticed the new Owen Brown Village signs?

These signs are maintained by the Columbia Association. Over time, they have been replacing signs in the city. Sometimes the new signs closely approximate the original design. For instance, here is one of the original Running Brook Signs:

Compare the above sign with this sign that was installed last year:

In other cases, the new sign is completely different from the old sign. For example, this sign outside the Locust Park Neighborhood Center is consistent with the original neighborhood stucco-and-brown-board-with-white-lettering signage in Long Reach.

The Long Reach neighborhood signs have all been replaced with the following style:

The Columbia Association has also been placing a standardized sign indicating different amenities throughout Columbia:

Although some signs are not very well maintained:

At times, there have been stumbles. The Town Center sign below was originally pink:

That's where I am right now with the Owen Brown signs. There is something about them that seems a little bit off.

The white lettering on a deep blue background, a hint of red...maybe it was a departure from the the earth tones that dominate our sign-scape. I thought about it, but that wasn't the problem. There is something about the white-on-blue with red piping...and framed in gray.

The other day I was in Laurel, and it all came together.

Was James Rouse an Urban Thinker?

The planning website Plantizen is conducting a poll of who are the great urban thinkers. James Rouse is on the list, but currently languishes with twenty votes at the time of this writing. If you can take the time to visit the poll website and cast your vote.