On February 10, 2025, the Richardson City Council is scheduled to hear a zoning application to build a 275 unit apartment building smack dab in the middle of downtown. Some people might be opposed to this because it's yet another apartment building. Not me. I'm OK with the use. It's the form of the apartment building that I think is a disaster for future development of downtown.
From the "PD Planned Development Main Street/Central Expressway Form Based Code" that has regulated downtown development since 2016: "The vision for the Main Street Sub-district is to create a multi-generational eclectic "heart" for the community based on a mix of uses and cultures...A pedestrian-oriented, more walkable environment is desired throughout the Subdistrict...Additionally, Polk Street should be designed to accommodate bicyclists traveling through the Sub-district to provide an alternative to traveling along Belt Line Road/Main Street."
I oppose this zoning change for two reasons:
Breaks Street Grid
The zoning change would eliminate McKinney Street between Polk Street and Kaufman Street in order to accommodate a 580 foot long block holding a single apartment building, without so much as a public pedestrian cut-through.
The map above is from the "PD Planned Development Main Street/Central Expressway Form Based Code". It shows the tight grid mandated in downtown Richardson. Not only is McKinney Street (the green street running roughly N-S) central to this plan, the plan envisions future extensions of McKinney Street north and south to extend the tight street grid as downtown grows. It also envisions a future extension of Kaufman Street east of Greenville Ave as downtown grows east beyond its historic footprint.
According to the code, "The regulating plan depicts proposed streets which are intended to improve circulation within an area, provide for smaller block sizes to promote increased walkability for pedestrians, and provide additional access opportunities for properties. It is anticipated that these proposed streets will likely be constructed at such time when properties experience redevelopment." Cutting McKinney Street right in the heart of all this in order to build a single apartment building almost two football fields long destroys the grid.
Why in the world would we grant a developer's request for bigger block sizes, worse circulation, and less walkability? Just because a developer asks us to? What could his incentive be? Could it be he knows he can lease his apartments no matter the harm it causes to the future of downtown?
Let's back up. Why is keeping a tight street grid good for a downtown even if it doesn't "pencil out" for a single apartment building developer?
- A tight grid creates shorter blocks, making it easier for pedestrians to navigate and reducing walking distances. This encourages foot traffic, which benefits local businesses and enhances the sense of community.
- A grid provides multiple routes to a destination, distributing traffic and preventing congestion. It also improves accessibility for vehicles, bikes, and public transit.
- A grid can accommodate changes over time, such as new developments or shifts in traffic patterns. It also allows for mixed-use development, creating vibrant spaces with residential, commercial, and public uses.
- A tight grid often aligns with historical patterns in downtown areas, preserving a sense of place and continuity. It also allows for human-scale design, creating an inviting atmosphere.
- Shorter blocks and frequent intersections can slow vehicle speeds, making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists.
None of that is news. It's not even mine. I asked ChatGPT, "How important is it to keep a tight street grid in a downtown redevelopment?" and the above is what it generated after examining its massive database. Urban planners understand this and have been saying as much for years. A lot of people have been thinking the same thing, which is why ChatGPT thinks so, too. The consultants that the City of Richardson paid a lot of money to develop our zoning plan thought so. We praised them then. Why toss their recommendations now? Did they suddenly become stupid?
No Mixed-Use
I also oppose this zoning application because it contains no vertically integrated mixed-use. An apartment building on Polk Street should have retail/commercial store fronts on the street, facing the existing retail/commercial store fronts across the street, increasing retail density and creating a critical mass of retail downtown.
Why might an apartment developer not want to include retail? Again, could it be he knows he can lease his apartments no matter the harm it causes to the future of downtown? That it might be harder to fill retail spaces? Not impossible, just harder. The just-approved "Nest" wellness village south of Kaufman Street in downtown shows there are developers who think there is a place for more retail. Downtown needs not just more residential density. It also needs more retail density. Polk Street needs more residential AND retail density.
Broken Zoning Process
I've said this before, but the zoning process in the City of Richardson is broken. This case is another chapter to that story. How much time and money did the City of Richardson spend on consultants, public "summits", and City Council reviews developing "PD Planned Development Main Street/Central Expressway Form Based Code" only to be asked to tear out the heart of it in a single Council meeting? I urge the City Council to reject this application and direct Staff to work with the property owner on a revision that preserves the plan that we agreed to, for reasons that include more than just one developer's maximum profit on one project? Ask him to come back with a plan that "pencils out" not just for him, but for the City's broader interests as well.
"A single long block,
Breaking streets, choking the grid.
Bad short-term thinking."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment