Maybe I’ll blog our write you a comment, maybe I’ll see you on the 9th of July.
June 25 - Smash Mouth
July 2 - Gilby Clarke (of Guns N’ Roses and Supernova)
July 9 - Better Than Ezra
July 16 - Tonic
July 23 - Josh Gracin (American Idol 2003)
July 30 - Bo Bice (American Idol 2005)
August 6 - Sugar Ray
Anyone else notice more and more mopeds around town? The prerequisite to ride still seems to be limited to A. being Italian and B. being involved with a restaurant, but I wonder if it is a trend that will grow.
Sometimes I think the best way to gauge the wrong direction Stamford should be heading is to sample Topix posts on Stamford Advocate articles. In response to a recent article on the Stamford Light Rail study a poster dismissed the idea of even pursuing the feasibility study phase because Stamford is, in his opinion, a “car dependent city”.
At best that sentiment could just be a commentary on a current condition in the city, although I would argue that’s not necessarily the case everywhere in Stamford. The downtown, in spite of some of its faults, is not car dependent. Other neighborhoods like Glenbrook, Springdale, the East Side, West Side, & South End have steered their trajectory by varying degrees towards non-auto exclusivity proving total auto dependence can be lessened across Stamford’s varying grades of Stamford’s urban and suburban character.
If the suggestion of Stamford as a “car dependent city” is considered an ideal natural state and something worth protecting, that’s both a sad and dangerous position to defend. The idea of a car dependent city in itself is something of a oxymoron. Cities by definition have a higher density of building and population that allow a citizen to function without a car as multiple uses - homes, shops, work, function closer together. A car dependent city takes a suburban condition, the need to drive everywhere, and marries it to the population density that comes with a city. Approaching it from an abstract angle, the car dependent city of strip malls and cul-de-sacs is a place not worth caring about. There are ways though of framing it in terms perhaps the more auto-centric minded can more easily come to a consensus on. It doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out lots of people, driving lots of individual cars equals gridlock. If all the other cultural, social, economic, environmental, health, and societal benefits of a system of living not slave to individual automobile transit aren’t enough, gridlock alone should be enough to convince people to consider integrating and encouraging some alternatives that move people about without relying exclusively on individual auto transit. The arguments against almost always look at these alternatives as novelties dropped down as traffic lane blockades rather than a potential agent of change in some new equilibrium.
There are a number of steps Stamford can take or is taking to diversify transit across different levels – moving people in and out of the city, between city neighborhoods, and within neighborhoods, that can drastically improve quality of life. These will be humbly be laid out in a series of posts called “BlogStamford Solves Stamford’s Transit Issues” Stay tuned.
The Mill River Park restoration seems to finally be underway. The MRP Collaborative's recent newsletter gives some details about the final design of phase one improvements as well as a construction sequence of how the wall will come down and the river will be reshaped.
Check out the newsletter for more info volunteer opportunities & events.
Downriver RBS has built a section of riverwalk behind their new headquarters that I assume will open once the last of construction ends. This will be of more use once other sections of the riverwalk are built out and connected. Right now I think one would feel kind of shady walking back and forth behind a corporate headquarters.
Adjacent to that stretch RBS bought up a block of multifamily homes and has stated they will extend the trails a block north to Division St after they demolish homes. Any plans they have for the property beyond that (housing, offices?) remain a mystery for now.
The Mill River Park isn't the only major park underway in town this summer. The Advocate recently reported that the city approved plans for Harbor Point's "central park" in the South End and is set to break ground. 
A park within a 10-15 walk all housing is the mark of a great city. These a both great steps forward for Stamford.
As Stamford Talk reported earlier (and I failed to mention intentionally to lessen competition) the new Buffalo Wild Winds on resteraunt row on Lower Summer is offering a year of free wings to the first 100 customers thru the door starting tomorrow at 11am. My flavor of choice is "weak sauce" because I'm about to go to bed.
As of 12:30 I can report the line is about 30 deep. These dudes have their place secure. 
My chick asked if "there was any issue with putting up pics of a minors online".
Yes Virginia, if they are clothed I assume we're cool.
Chicken Tetrazzini! Jerry Springer may be the flagship, but don't forget we are also getting Maury with the NBC filming moving into the Rich Forum downtown.
No, not of your sister (FACE!), but of some of the cool stuff actually happening around town.
I mean, how did Willie Nelson not sell out on Tuesday at the Palace? Did Billie Bob Thorton as the opener scare you away? Fair enough. Comedian Stephen Lynch is performing tonight at the Palace at 8p. Music comedy, but probably as far from Weird Al as you can get. Funny as hell, not very PC.
You can also show some love to two of the concert series coming through the Rack & Roll the first & third Fridays of the month. The shows thus far have brought some kick ass original music to relatively modest crowds.
This Friday the RLP Indie Rock Series brings Kittens Ablaze and The Motorcycle Industry starting at 9p. Pack this one you little mother f'ers! If you can successfully point me out there I will buy you a Captain Lawrence or other libation of your choice (no top shelf people, bloggin' don't pay).
I was thinking about StamfordTalk’s post about aggressive Fairfield County drivers on my walk to the train yesterday. Personally I don’t think FC drivers are any more or less crazy than anywhere else I’ve been in the US. As a runner I’ve faced down enough insane drivers all over whose personalities I doubt are as fundamentally hostile when they are not strapped into their one ton metal appendix.
I don’t think it’s a question of personality that makes someone an antagonistic driver, ex. assholes = asshole drivers, nice people = nice drivers. There’s nothing in the water making our drivers personally any more insane, but there may be something in the pavement.
I’m from the school of thought that the majority of drivers take their cues from the environment they are in and act accordingly. So in a city like Stamford what are some of those cues? Roads the width of runways. Mutli-lane raceways (I counted one intersection point today terminating in 7 lanes!) Undefined pedestrian space. I don’t think you can seriously expect drivers NOT to drive uncivilized in these conditions.
Whenever speeding is mentioned many times the first reaction is why aren’t cops out giving tickets. That’s a rather short sided approach though. Set a speed trap and you may stop speeding for an afternoon, define streets physically with cues antithetical to speeding and you control the problem along with a number of positive side effects thrown in to boot.
The answer to the problem may be a concept sometimes referred to “livable streets” or “complete streets”, a viewpoint that streets in cities or neighborhoods are more than a means to move cars as quickly as possible from point A to point B, but a civic space that is at once both “a place” and a means of transit not exclusive to individual automobiles.
Complete streets aren’t a series of hard and fast rules, but more a toolbox of options that when used in different combinations can have a transformative affect. Reducing the number and width of lanes on a street can control speed. Adding dedicated bus, bike, or light rail lanes can move large numbers of people in safety, reduce the number of cars on the road to control congestion, and move existing cars on the road more efficiently by separating alternative transit use from auto lanes. Roundabouts (not rotaries, big difference) can eliminate the number of annoying stops at lights or signs that often frustrate drivers into speeding up. Raised crosswalks, mediums, and sidewalk bump outs can make it easier for pedestrians to cross traffic. On street parking discourages people from crossing in the middle of the road. Wide sidewalks, street trees, furniture lighting, & art create a more pleasant social experience that encourages walking instead of driving for short trips. I found a link through Streetblog to this post that has a interactive feature to illustrate the difference between what is unfortunately a normal American street and a “complete street”.
Some of these tools are addressed in Stamford’s recently completed city-wide traffic calming plan. There is a map on the site where you can see the various proposed treatments. Stamford would do well though to adopt a “complete/ livable street” policy like New Haven has. Many of the main arteries like Tresser, Washington, Broad, Atlantic, & East Main could all benefit from a full complete street transformation. The Urban Transitway currently under construction actually incorporates some elements of the complete street with sidewalks, bus routes, bike lanes, street trees, etc.
If that doesn’t work, by all means load up your paintball guns.
Photo is from Good Magazine.
The Advocate reports today the city has rejected plans for a 12 story residential complex on Summer/ 4 story complex on Franklin St. The abridged version of the dispute is as follows. To build in downtown Stamford, a developer needs to set aside 10% of the residential space for affordable housing. On the plots in question, to build to the developers desired height & density requires a “bonus” from the zoning board, which requires a higher percentage of affordable housing. In this case that’s 24%. Developer wanted a compromise, city did not – looks as if the project is dead.
Dumb move from my perspective. Let’s put aside the fact Summer St, a series of squat, single use ugly buildings and a streetscape that is essentially dead most hours of the day, could have really benefited from this type of development (going out on a slight limb not having seen the plans) and look it from a broader angle.
What is the current zoning on Summer St? Are 12 stories appropriate? If the answer is yes, why the need for this “special bonus”. If the answer is no, then we should not allow developers to buy the city off and create something out of character and relation to the neighborhood under any circumstances. Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective to develop a serious of guidelines for buildings that speak to form – height, density, setbacks, etc, aimed at promoting the desired character or that neighborhood and stop making each building proposal some back and forth haggle.
The second issue here is affordable housing. The 10% affordable requirement is a noble aim to include lower income brackets in the city fabric. I think it’s important to recognize though it’s basically just a gesture, you are never going to fully satisfy the demand for affordable housing with 10% in each development. Even when the percentage required slides higher what’s the real gain? In this instance the difference between what the developer wants to put forward and the city wants in affordable housing is just 13 units. If an increase in density drives a higher percentage of affordable housing we end up with the current state of housing in downtown Stamford.
1. Fewer projects moving forward keeping more units from entering the market and creating any real competition in pricing.
2. The projects that do move forward are almost always exclusively high end luxury with token affordable units and nothing in the middle.
Excessive affordable housing requirements is hurting everyone in any kind of middle income bracket by keeping downtown housing stock low allowing landlords to keep rents artificially high due to lack of competition and only encouraging construction of housing at a very high point of entry. If more residential housing downtown was built, older or more out of the way buildings would not be able to compete with newer, perhaps more centrally located buildings and begin to naturally form a housing stock affordable at a number of income levels.
The best approach the city can possibly take is to encourage quality buildings designed to last that enhances the character and vibrancy of their neighborhood. Haggling over 10 or so affordable housing units today sets back housing issues for the city for decades. The proposed Summer St building might service one income level today – but an entirely different one 20 years from now. I’m not advocating eliminating the affordable housing requirement, just recognize it as the nice, albeit limp gesture it is and not let it close the market to new housing for anyone other than the “have nots” and the “have alots”.
I'm not terribly impressed with Phase 1 of development at Harbor Point's Yale & Towne in the South End.
Everyone seems pretty excited for the new Fairway Market, and perhaps rightfully so in an underserved retail area, but the design and use of space was largely ignored in the excitement of something actually moving forward in a down economy.
Fairway Supermarket corner (Y7 on the map below) is designed more as a suburban style development, - a one story, single use building opening to a sprawl of surface lot parking, uninviting with little relation to the street, mostly dependant on cars to access. In short, not very much in line with the sustainable, walkable community Harbor Point hypes on their banners. 
The surface parking may be temporary and could be slated for development in future phases. At best the parking lot next to the store could be replaced later with a structured garage with ground floor retail and playing fields and/or courts on the roof. If nothing else the parking lot can remain a temporary blank canvas on the urbanscape.
The actual supermarket building is another story, that’s a wasted opportunity the neighborhood will be stuck with for some time to come.
A good deal of hype was devoted to windows vs. blank walls for the street facing facades when approving the plan. If you are critiquing the structure from the perspective of urban design, that’s criticizing the deck chairs on the Titanic. Blank walls won out by the way to produce this inspiring piece below, keeping in mind this is the “good side” they are choosing to highlight. 
The bigger picture is what the building could have actually been in addition to Fairway. It could have incorporated the parking garage into the actual building (think our downtown Target), freeing up the adjacent lot for another use. It could have went higher than one story and included affordable housing on a second or third floor. A little imagination beyond the typical supermarket model could have went a long way, instead they dusted off the same set of plans that could have just as easily been built in some strip mall in Texas.
Copyright 2007-2010 BlogStamford
