Greenways_ multiplying and diversifying in the 21st centry_Walmsley 2006

Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Greenways: multiplying and diversifyi ey∗ , New Y 2005 Abstract Building on the legacy of historic greenway planning in the U.S., several new initiatives have been taking shape and gaining recognition in the past decade. One is ‘Green Infrastructure’ planning which is a ‘must have’ inter-connected system of green spaces. Another is ‘Smart Conservation’—the counterpoint of another planning initiative that preceded it known as ‘Smart Growth’. Th functions, in to escalating open-space s clustered ‘pe sites’ and de All these inal concept sustainabilit at site, metr New Urbani Conservatio © 2004 Pub Keywords: G Traditional N 1. Introdu The spe tems in the tury has alr 84–91). Fu and transp ∗ Tel.: +1 2 E-mail ad 0169-2046/$ doi:10.1016/j is is the establishment of critical green corridors that should be preserved and maintained for predominantly ecological advance of or in conjunction with new development. ‘New Urbanism’ has focused on bringing order and coherence ‘Edge Cities’ on the urban fringe, based on walkable, mixed-use towns, villages and neighborhoods with integrated ystems. Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) are transportation plans for accommodating regional growth around destrian pockets’ linked by transit systems. Both New Urbanism and TODs have applied similar principles to ‘brown clining city neighborhoods. initiatives are different aspects of the greenway movement, expressing its many possibilities, enriching its orig- s, enlarging its credibility—if need be—and emphasizing its importance for and relevance to current issues of y and ‘green’ planning and design. The author, a teacher/practitioner, discusses recent U.S. greenway examples opolitan and regional scales for which he has been the principal planner/designer or a consultant, and compares sm and TOD methodologies and approaches to established greenway-planning practices and the premises of Smart n. lished by Elsevier B.V. reenway-planning innovations; Green Infrastructure and Smart Conservation; Conservation/Development; New Urbanism and eighborhood Development (TND); Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) ction ctacular spread of urban parks and park sys- U.S. during the second half of the 19th cen- eady been alluded to (Walmsley, 1995, pp. eled by rapid industrialization, urbanization ortation—trains, trolleys, buses and, ulti- 12 942 4706. dress: anthonywalmsley@prodigy.net. mately and irrevocably, the private automobile—cities grew by adding rings of suburbs around their centers. The resultant enlargement of the built area with its attendant over-crowding and sub-standard living and working conditions spurred reform-driven planners and landscape architects to propose parks and parkways in the major cities: New York; Boston; Chicago; Balti- more; Minneapolis; Atlanta; Louisville; Kansas City, Missouri; Cincinnati. By the early 20th century, these efforts were beginning to coalesce into a significant na- – see front matter © 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. .landurbplan.2004.09.036 Anthony Walmsl New York City Office, 119 Payson Avenue, Ste 4B Available online 31 May ng in the 21st century ork, NY 10034, USA A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 253 tional movement for linked greenway systems to guide urban growth and preserve access to the countryside. When suburbs “took off” after World War II for a variety of r governmen lending po neighborho planners o nomenon w book title e 1958). The pounded b Howard, g point that achieved. T the city—s a gentler a families—w ca. 1945 a taken 40 ye Instead, “Edge Citi centers, sc a scale hit crementally a nightmar traffic is fu quickly be blading and antly dange Green spac of place” h vironment The earl and others paved the lowed lots larger entit (PUDs), P and Planne although th abling strea preserved, and the infr be more co ability advo the wrong right thing 76). Even the best of the 1960s “new towns”—Reston, Virginia and Columbia, Maryland—though organized around neighborhoods were little better than planned rbia. C ces (a nd dia till low , Tabl st of at, des , and t netw merge proh ric pla , Mass , Flori espite gated idual nated other d com and l at, pro age s am (F comin ave b ast tw servat ‘Smar hborh ted D ssion s to do ies, to rban c ing an scales distri tial bu reen i ebster re as easons—cheap transportation, cheap land, t policies promoting highway-building, and licies favoring suburbs over inner-city ods—they proliferated faster than either r rural townships could control. The phe- as called the “exploding metropolis”—a dited by William Holly Whyte Jr. (Whyte, original idea of a “town-country” life pro- y British garden city visionary, Ebenezer ot side-tracked and compromised to the few, if any, of the promised benefits were he last suburb to truly offer an escape from pace, greenery and, theoretically at least, nd more humane environment for raising as perhaps Park Forest, Illinois, planned nd hard to find fault with in a photograph ars later (Fig. 1). during the 1960s to the 1980s, whole new es” sprang up with their own employment hools, shops, housing and institutions, on herto unimagined. Most of them grew in- without any overall plan; today, they are e to get around. Everyone has to drive; all nneled into a few “collector streets” which come congested. Walking, jogging, roller- bicycling are all difficult and often unpleas- rous. Mass transit is slow or non-existent. es are residual and discontinuous. A “sense as been obliterated. The damage to the en- is catastrophic (Fig. 2). ier efforts of Clarence Stein, Henry Wright in the “greenbelt” towns (Stein, 1956, 1966) way for amended zoning controls that al- and properties to be amalgamated into ies, permitting Planned Unit Developments lanned Residential Developments (PRDs) d Mixed-Use Developments (PMUDs). But, ey allowed comprehensive planning, en- m corridors and other natural features to be buildings of compatible uses to be clustered, astructures of streets and service systems to mpact, it was still, in the words of sustain- cates McDonough and Braungart, “making things less bad instead of working on the s”. (McDonough and Braungart, 2002, p. subu servi bus a out, s 2000 a ho habit lands stree and e tually histo head West D segre indiv domi and aroun lakes habit front progr short that h the p ‘Con and Neig Orien expre thing of cit the u of liv at all shed, essen 2. G W tructu olumbia had an impressive array of social traveling library, a medical plan, local mini- l-a-ride car systems), but was still spread- -density, and still auto-dependent (Beatley, e 2.1 in p. 30). Such low density created environmental problems: loss of sensitive truction of productive farm lands and forest high economic and infrastructure costs (i.e. orks, utility lines, social facilities, and police ncy services). The ‘rules’ to be followed ac- ibited designing in the manner of admired ces such as Annapolis, Maryland; Marble- achusetts; Santa Barbara, California; Key da. their anti-urbanism—the emphasis on uses, hierarchical street systems, and parking that produced land-use plans by streets, traffic and parking—Columbia new towns did organize development munity-wide greenway systems, creating inear parks that preserved woodlands and vided a high level of amenity and valuable ites, and supported a strong recreational ig. 3). Nevertheless, their urban planning gs gave rise to a flurry of new initiatives een taking shape and gaining recognition in o decades: ‘Green Infrastructure’ planning; ion-Development’; ‘Smart Conservation’ t Growth’; ‘New Urbanism’; ‘Traditional ood Development’ (TND) and ‘Transit- evelopment’ (TOD). All of them are s of McDonough and Braungart’s “right ”. They have not only expanded the concept wns and communities by totally re-writing odes and stressing a more ecological form d settlement, but made greenway planning from the region, metropolitan area, water- ct, neighborhood and individual parcel, the ilding block behind every project. nfrastructure planning ’s New World Dictionary defines infras- “the substructure or underlying founda- 254 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 1. Park Forest, Illinois, planned ca. 1945 and photographed in 1986, is an example of a post-World War II suburb that has aged well (from Craig, Lois, in Suburbs: Design Quarterly 132, 1986, p. 4). A.W alm sley /Landscape a nd U rban Planning 76(2006)252–290 255 Fig. 2. Tyson’s Corner, Fairfax County, Virginia is a classic case of an “Edge City” at full development (from “Edge Cities” in Landscape Architecture, December 1988, pp. 48–75). 256 A.W alm sley /Landscape a nd U rban Planning 76(2006)252–290 Fig. 3. Typical of early New Town plans of the 1950s–1960s, Columbia, Maryland created finger lakes by damming stream valleys and creating community-wide linear park systems. But the low density and spread-outness of the plan frustrated true urbanity and resulted in little better than planned suburbia (from The Rouse Company). A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 257 tion, especially the basic installations and facilities on which the continuance and growth of a community depends”. Most people associate infrastructure with roads, sew ture) or ho infrastructu Today, peo tructure tha of a comm “Green “Our natio connected lands, wild ways, park farms, ranc spaces tha ecological and contri America’s McMohan, The name that we mu thing nice of natural s ation sites; save critica regeneratio that will ta 1996, pp. 2 The Pre ment ident strategic ar to sustaina Council on frastructure ment and, t it in the 19t ways in the “Green least three • Ecology emphasi • Bigger cludes la as key la • Framework for Growth—Green infrastructure can shape urban form and provide a framework for growth. It works best when the framework e-iden d suit cMoha ashing rincip anning res: reen listica een i verse nction relate reen rategi unicat stems ross m ace e vernm rcel s reen i ement stems anned lveme nizati reen i prima re sys nded an wi ces ha reen i nserv ilt in pe an astruc n.” (W 5–11 e Flo land wide ers and utility lines (the “gray” infrastruc- spitals, schools and prisons (the “social” re)—collectively, the “built infrastructure”. ple are talking about another kind of infras- t is critical to “the continuance and growth unity”—“green infrastructure”. infrastructure” has been defined as: n’s natural life support system—an inter- network of waterways, wetlands, wood- life habitats, and other natural areas; green- s and other conservation lands; working hes and forests; and wilderness and other t support native species, maintain natural processes, sustain air and water resources, bute to the health and quality of life of communities and people”. (Benedict and 2002a, quote on p. 6). “green infrastructure” implies something st have instead of green space that is some- to have; it emphasizes the inter-connection ystems instead of separate parks and recre- and it demands responsible intervention to l lands and actively practice conservation, n and/or stewardship, instead of something ke care of itself (Van der Ryn and Cowan, 1–22). sident’s Council on Sustainable Develop- ified green infrastructure as one of five eas providing a comprehensive approach ble community development (President’s Sustainable Development, 1999). Green in- has borrowed from the greenways move- o some extent, shares a common origin with h century historic legacy of parks and park- U.S. But it is pointed out that: infrastructure differs from greenways in at major ways: versus Recreation—Green infrastructure zes ecology, not recreation. versus Smaller—Green infrastructure in- rge, ecologically important ‘hubs’ as well ndscape linkages. pr an M W five p to pl tructu 1. “G ho gr di fu un 2. G st m sy ac sp go pa 3. G pl sy pl vo ga 4. G a tu fu th vi 5. G co bu ty fr tio 11 Th Mary state- tifies both ecologically significant lands able development areas.” (Benedict and n, 2002b, p. 13). ton DC’s Conservation Fund has identified les of green infrastructure which are similar , designing and financing the other infras- infrastructure should be designed lly—like our transportation system, nfrastructure should be designed to link green space elements into a system that s as a whole, rather than as separate, d parts. infrastructure should be laid out cally—like our electric power, com- ion and water systems, green infrastructure need to be laid out strategically to connect ultiple jurisdictions and incorporate green lements and functions at each level of ent—State, regional, community and cales. nfrastructure should be planned and im- ed publicly—like our built infrastructure , green infrastructure systems should be and implemented with input from and in- nt of the public, including community or- ons and private landowners. nfrastructure should be funded up front as ry public investment—like other infrastruc- tems, green infrastructure systems should be up front with other essential services, rather th money that is left over after all other ser- ve been provided. nfrastructure should be the framework of ation—just as roads, sewer lines and other frastructure provide a framework for the d location of different land-uses, green in- ture should be the framework of conserva- almsley, Mednick & Benedict, 2002, pp. 8, 120). rida Greenways Commission, 1994, and the Green Print Program, 1997–2001, are two initiatives that have embodied these princi- 258 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 ples. During the same period, the New Jersey Conser- vation Foundation (NJCF) and the New Jersey Depart- ment of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP’s) Green Acres Prog veloping a the State of New Jer Redevelopm a hierarchy was no com and, in its been scatte assist in fo Greenway four region • Highland • Piedmon • Pineland • Delawar Landsat urbanized Delaware ing two g York City w Coastal Pla northeast). pies the ce seaside res Sprawl ous challe 1.35 millio 4.65 millio oped. Land of 16,000 a ernor Chris acres in co overwhelm Where sho should be a sprawl, as w leading que ographic In nology, ab data from where avai augmented gional wor As an advisor to the NJCF, I suggested that their Green Infrastructure Assessment (GIA) consist of a readily understandable three-step process, nevertheless ting in e told 3: is Inv is Ide is Im e thin P2 + P ucture will b Spac nvento pace reserv orests ays; m erved Fig. 5 .2 mil dentify ropos .e. Fed lans; unici rofit o Fig. 6) magin ng sig ecreat nd P2 otenti nfrastr ays w esiden nd Li riority endat rom G expert enga ning W one i 00. O ram have been following their lead in de- “Garden State Greenways” Vision Plan for New Jersey. sey already had a State Development and ent Plan that encouraged development in of hamlets, villages and towns. But there plementary vision for Smart Conservation absence, open space protection efforts had red, highly localized and uncoordinated. To rmulating a New Jersey Open Space and Vision Plan, the State was sub-divided into s: s/Ridge & Valley; t/Inner Coastal; s/Outer Coastal; e Bayshore (Fig. 4). images reveal that New Jersey is the most State in the U.S. Two great rivers—the and the Hudson drain southwards, locat- reat conurbations Philadelphia and New here the Piedmont uplands descend to the in at their fall line (running southwest to A large reservation, The Pinelands, occu- nter of the Coastal Plain before the line of orts along the Atlantic shore. and landscape fragmentation are a seri- nge to the State: approximately 29% or n acres (about 5500 km2) of New Jersey’s n acres (about 19,000 km2) has been devel- is being converted in New Jersey at the rate cres (about 65 km2) per year. Former Gov- tie Whitman pledged a goal of a million new nservation in the next 10 years, which was ingly endorsed by a margin of 2–1 in 1998. uld it go? And what currently open lands cquired to minimize the impact of existing ell as the potential for future sprawl? These stions could only be addressed through Ge- formation Systems (GIS) computer tech- le to document and evaluate voluminous the State, from 22 county agencies and, lable, from about 540 municipal entities, by information locally derived from re- kshops and preservation organizations. daun can b and P • P1 • P2 • P3 W P1 + frastr that Open P1 I s p f w s ( 1 P2 I p i p m p ( P3 I i r a p i w r a p m f “ To Visio state, of 20 its complexity and ramifications. The story in three maps we have come to call P1, P2 entorying the Present; ntifying the Proposed; agining the Potential. k that superimposing the three maps, 3, will begin to reveal a potential green in- network of inter-connected open spaces e the basis of a defensible Greenway and e Vision Plan. rying the Present, shows existing open and greenways, i.e. all lands presently ed—Federal parks and refuges; State parks, and refuges; county parks and green- unicipal parks and refuges; non-profit pre- lands; trails and rails-for-trails; and the like ). These amount to 26% of the state, or lion acres (about 4850 km2). ing the Proposed, shows all lands already ed for immediate or eventual preservation, eral and State open space and greenway county open space and greenway plans; pal open space and greenway plans; non- pen space and greenway plans; and the like . ing the Potential, shows all other lands hav- nificant ecological, scenic, cultural and/or ional value not currently included in P1 , that could be imagined as having the al to become part of a continuous green ucture—one providing a network of path- ithin walking distance of every New Jersey t. They could include Green Acres’ “Buffers nks” (Mednick, 2001); National Heritage sites; abandoned rail corridors; the recom- ions of “Visioning Workshops”; the results IS analysis; and the recommendations of s” and workshop panels (Figs. 7 and 8). ge the public and involve their participation, orkshops were held in four locations in the n each region, during the summer and fall ver 120 representatives of county and mu- A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 259 Fig. 4. For th boundaries an Pinelands/Ou available (from nicipal gov servation g transparent were overla gestions fo (Fig. 9). Meantim dependent site suitab illustrated ment Area 900 km2), l tan area an parts of five and Union. • Land Us • Road De • Riparian • Ridge L • Forest P e New Jersey “Garden State Greenways” Vision Plan, the state was subdivid d prior New Jersey Conservation Foundation (NJCF) studies: (1) Highla ter Coastal; (4) Delaware Bayshore. Working region-by-region allowed the w NJCF). ernments, State agencies and nonprofit con- roups participated. At the workshops, large copies of P1 and P2 at a scale of 1:72,000 id with a clear transparency on which sug- r P3 were marked and noted in wax pencil e, the NJCF was proceeding with an in- analysis of GIS data, producing maps of ility using the inputs of selected criteria here for a trial area, Watershed Manage- #6 of 350 sq. miles or 224,000 acres (about ocated in between the New York metropoli- d northwestern New Jersey, and covering counties: Essex, Morris, Somerset, Sussex Typical criteria included: e/Land Cover Value; nsity Value; & Lake Corridor Value; ine Value; atch Value; • Floodpla • Habitat V • Compos Very Go The me ples comin tionists, ge tects, wildl species, an cluded: 1. Protect “hubs”; 2. Maintai 3. Protect and non 4. Provide quality; 5. Provide complex ed into four regions, based on physiographic province nds/Ridge & Valley; (2) Piedmont/Inner Coastal; (3) ork to proceed faster or slower as information became in Value; alue; ite Suitability graded down from Excellent, od to Good (Fig. 10). thodology reflected five design princi- g from ecologists, biologists,