[Grovenet] What makes a city livable? Was: ACTION ALERT: Call for Measure 37 Suspension & Hearings

[David Morelli]

On Dec 11, 2006, at 9:59 PM, Marian Cakarnis wrote:

> Seems to me the Corvallis you like so much was designed in a way  
> that focused more on long-term planning than much of the short-term  
> get rich quick mentality that seems to rule these days.  Otherwise  
> we wouldn't have neighborhoods where no one has any sense of  
> privacy and the kids have no place to play in their own yards and  
> end up playing in the street.
>
> I've often wondered how neighborhoods would look if housing was  
> more proportional to lot sizes instead of having the zoning  
> strictly limiting lot sizes.  For example, if a lot size of 3000  
> square feet could have a maximum house size of 1000 square feet.   
> To have a 3000 square foot house, a 9000 square foot lot would be  
> required.  Housing could not be more than 30% of the lot size.   
> This would provide far more privacy than many of the newer  
> subdivisions that are currently built and would provide more areas  
> for trees and greenery.  Just a thought....

I would guess that the same attitudes and principles that existed  
elsewhere existed in Corvallis as it was growing.  Speculation,  
planning, development, self interest, public spirit, benevolence,  
generosity, and all the others were there, and likely in similar  
measure to what was here in Washington county.  I expect that there  
were at least three significant differences.  Time, population, and  
location.

Time, because we are comparing the Corvallis of a few decades ago  
with the Washington county of today.
Population, because we are comparing what was largely a agricultural  
county at the time to Washington county which has moved away from an  
agricultural base to something else.
Location, because Corvallis like Bend, Tillamook, and McMinneville  
are the urban centers of their world.  They are not suburban centers  
caught in the ebb and flow of a larger urban center.

You could make an analogy of our solar system, I suppose.  If you are  
too close to the "big star" (Portland), not only are you caught in  
its rigid grasp, you are bathed in its energy which can strip you of  
your own atmosphere. Too close and you are smothered.  Too far and  
you free economically.  If you are far enough away and big enough  
(Eugene) you can almost be your own "almost star" with you own mini  
system.  A city that is far enough from both to be independent, while  
being close enough to tap some of the energy can have its own unique  
pleasant environment.

As you are imagining alternative neighborhoods, try this.  Walk in  
the oldest parts of town, where lots started in increments of one  
acre and were divided over time into a mish-mash of lot sizes and  
shapes, with a variety of house sizes and styles sitting on that  
variety of lots.  To a large degree, the mandates of increased  
density is killing the larger lots and the quality of diversity that  
comes from the mixture, so that will also go away over time.

So, one alternative for those developments on the neighboring hills  
that combines compact, efficient development with open spaces and  
play areas is "green roofs" over daylight basements.  So instead of  
limiting the overall house size, imagine that the above ground  
portion was limited to your 30% of lot size, while the "daylight  
basement with green roof" could cover the other 70% and you wouldn't  
see it.  There would be energy savings as well.

Just another thought ...

David