North Druid Corridor Plans For All Kinds of Growth
Decatur Metro | November 15, 2009 | 11:15 amDeKalb commish Jeff Rader alerts his constituents of a North Druid Hills LCI (Livable Centers Initiative) Kickoff at the DeKalb International Student Center (formerly Kittredge Magnet School) at 2383 N. Druid Hills Road from 6:30-8:30pm on November 17th.
The plan itself (PDF) has noble, New Urbanisty goals, but seems to walk an awkward line between wanting to maximize driving efficiency – into and through the corridor – while also developing the kinds of density that should promote more pedestrian activity.
And while I recognize compromise as essential component of any real-world “initiative” or plan, any infrastructure that attempts to promote a sidewalk lifestyle, while simultaneously making driving MORE convienent seems doomed to disappoint both drivers and peds alike.
DM, can you clarify? This looks to me like just an application for an LCI grant so that the county can actually *create* a plan. That typically involves spelling out the problems and need for a plan, as well as illustrating any conceptual work that’s been done so far, but doesn’t identify any concrete proposals (which is, presumably, what the money would be used for).
Is there some other actual plan you’re referring to or is it just this application?
I’m mostly referencing the application “issue statement”.
While I recognize the mention of a secondary grid network, sentences like “It will mean reducing the number of curb cuts, distracting signage, adjusting signalization, and increasing movement options” seem to aim for more efficient driving. Also there is no mention of alternate forms of transportation other than bus or taxi stands.
So, the question that comes to mind is can one simultaneously promote more efficient (and yes I read that as “faster”) driving AND strive for dense, vibrant centers? Maybe I’m just being a bit too optimistic and not pragmatic enough this morning, but I get the feeling there are some elements here that just aren’t compatible.
I find the Edgewood Complex both challenging to drive in AND walk in. One problem is the lack of regular metal stop signs so that when you go through intersections (some of which are four-way and some of which are two-way) you can tell whether or not the other drivers have a stop sign. Instead they use wooden square signs (some of which are for stops). From a pedestrian perspective the place is horrible. Crosswalks do not follow natural flow and are poorly marked. There are SO many barriers to walking around most of the complex. I love Target (and having a RuSan’s around for fun) but this seems to me what you’re talking about regarding the “worst of” both worlds. Is it just me?
No, it’s not just you, altmod. (Or maybe it’s just you and me.) Edgewood seems to be a good (and instructive) example of how not to do it. In all but the most gruesome weather, it’s feasible distance-wise to park once and walk to multiple destinations. But crossing the main artery on foot (the one that runs from Moreland Ave. to Target) can feel as scary as the Buford Highway looks (I’ve never tried the latter on foot). Driving through typically feels like a life-size game of Asteroids. (Am I dating myself?) I keep wondering if the traffic plan for the whole complex could be revamped in a way that encourages and rewards parking once and walking all over the place.
In ten to fifteen years our kids are going to look at all the resources we wasted on subsidizing even more automobiles in dense urban centers then rightly ask.. what the hell were we thinking?
Buses, Rail, Trolleys and bikes are the only things that should be driving around urban centers like that. With a delivery alley around back.
Not for nothing, but there are plenty of examples of places that serve pedestrians and cars alike – it doesn’t always have to be an either/or, and I think it’s unrealistic to plan for dense urban centers that only serve pedestrians. I can understand the fear when we’re talking about Edgewood as our best example, but dear God, DuPont Circle anyone?
You’re right, Bo. I think there might be a misreading of the application here. Reducing curb cuts, distracting signage, adjusting signalization, and increasing movement options are all pedestrian-focused design criteria, not auto-focused (though, done right, they can be of benefit to both).
At the same time, there’s no denying that that stretch is a primary transportation corridor. The problem is assuming that, because it’s such a miserable corridor livability wise, the only solution is to flip 180 degrees and retrofit for peds instead. But that ignores reality.
This is a design challenge, not an either/or. Parisian boulevards process darn near I-85 levels of corridor traffic *through design*, yet people pay top dollar to live along them or sit on their sidewalks drinking coffee. It is possible to create a primary corridor that serves all modes of travel, from foot to car. I hope they get the grant (if they haven’t already) and pull this off.
When did I say it was an either/or?
Parisians have 1 or no cars. We all have two. If we don’t small strides to make driving less convenient then how will we ever move towards denser urban space? (Note I didn’t say “make a 180″, etc) Is this one of those underground tunnel situations?
But if “increased mobility” is actually ped-friendly, then I did read that portion of the application incorrectly. So, I guess we can all still hope to have our cake and eat it too.
Doesn’t thinking two things aren’t compatible (traffic efficiency and ped-friendliness) suggest that we may have to choose one or the other? That’s what I was reading as an ‘either/or’.
I wasn’t referring to how many cars Parisians have or how much they drive. I was talking about the traffic efficiency of their boulevards, which process a tremendous amount of through traffic daily — comparable or in excess of our gnarliest arterials — yet provide a very desirable, ped-friendly environment.
Alls I’m sayin’ is that if it’s possible with the right design — and other cities show it is — skepticism about meeting the needs of both peds and cars before any real design work has been done may be premature. What can I say? I’m an optimist.
Point taken…I guess my reading of “efficiency” as “faster speeds” was my main mistake. Hopefully they can accommodate all parties (to a point) and show us how it’s done.
I’m just curious to know whether anyone is even considering bringing up the words “road diet” in this conversation. Perhaps N. Druid isn’t the place to do that…but where is?
Urban centers are attractive because of their human-scaled proximity. This proximty is created by keeping autocentric land uses minimized. You cannot enhance small scale proximity and support automobiles/ That’s called a shopping mall and there are lot’s of dead ones around.
Road dieting doesn’t have to be a restriction on cars but merely a reallocation based on realistic projections of the next 20 years.
With the long term economic repurcusions of world oil production peak last July unfolding we are starting to measure the long term REDUCTION in automobile miles driven on our roads.
We have a precious and short lived opportunity to rescale our infrastructure and create civic places to attract shopping dining and living on a personal (pedestrian) scale.
Frankly, personal automobiles won’t be a part of that future.
Scott – said much better than I could. I actually thought about Paris or Manhattan as examples of this but didn’t want to stretch so far as to use them in a discussion of Toco Hills
But I totally agree that efficient roads and pedestrian friendliness needn’t be mutually exclusive thanks to good design. The two concepts that may be mutually exclusive are Atlanta and Good Design.
One thing that Edgewood and Toco Hill have is traffic. Lots and lots of traffic. That is because both centers have an excellent mix of shops that attract lots of shoppers.
And maybe you want to walk around Edgewood but I go to buy bags of mulch and soil conditioner and dog food and kitty litter. Hard to juggle those with your latte while strolling a walkable landscape.
The reason for redeveloping North Druid Hills is the same reason that the Stone Mountain Freeway Extension (aka Presidential Parkway) was almost rammed down our throats-developers see a large swath of very desirable land in private hands and need some reason to move out those people and build, build, build.