Abstract Draft

This is my first rough draft. Any and all constructive criticism appreciated.

Coving

What makes coving cool? Why should we look at this type of planning? Just look at up the hill to the area above Hugh Allen Dr. Here we see failure of urban design not only were there several problems with the development of the area i.e. the condemnation of several homes due to the fact insufficient research of the land was done to determine the effect of water run off from the above development on areas further down but also its just plain ugly and not at all unique.

Coving is the answer. The name comes from coves of green spaces among the homes which are made possible by winding roads and staggered setbacks. It was originated by urban designer Rick Harrison. His design intent was that no two houses look directly into each others windows.

This starting point is fundamentally different from the one used in conventional planning. Which starts with the presumption there is some “ideal” form of the city, whether derived from planning theory or a collective, local visioning process. By contrast, the market oriented approach —rather than relying on abstract visions of what a community should “look like,” vague concepts of “good” urban planning, or idealized notions of the planning process—begins by recognizing that residents, both current and future, will determine whether a neighborhood or community is desirable. The consumer-oriented focus of market-oriented planning is placed at the center of any discussion of the role of public policy in growth management.

A coved layout reduces construction costs by reducing roadway, thereby lowering paving and utility-line costs. The reduction in road surface adds usable land for lots and parks. Other benefits are increased pedestrian safety due to less road and fewer intersections. Individual properties also gain aesthetic value from the separate meandering setback lines, sidewalks, and roadways.

When designed incorrectly, coving has been cited as having several disadvantages: greater set-back from the street, larger lots, reduced usability for mixed application, decreased walk ability, decreased street and pedestrian connectivity of a tract to its surroundings, increased suburban sprawl, leaving little or no public open space, and allowing more soil runoff and less communal open space than alternate development types such as urban cluster and new urbanism.

Designing coved developments is technically difficult. Specialized software is used and designers need several years of experience to become proficient. The design isn't feasible for skinny tracts of land, and house footprints need to be less than 85% of the lot size.

Clustering

Cluster development preserves open space and natural resources, while creating a unique sense of place. However clustering is close to conventional ways of urban planning and doesn’t incorporate the undulating patterns that coving does. It will be looked at as a comparison to use as opposed to coving.

Clustering (also called Compact Development) refers to Land Use patterns in which related activities are located close together, usually within convenient walking distance. Clustering improves accessibility by reducing travel distances and improving transportation options. It is an important part of land use management strategies including Access Management, Location Efficient Development, New Urbanism, Smart Growth and Transit Oriented Development.

Clustering to the location and mix of activities in an area. For example, simply increasing population densities in a residential-only area may do less to improve accessibility clustering destinations such as schools and shops in the center of the development. Rural and suburban areas have low densities, but common destinations such as schools, shops and other public services can be clustered in villages and towns. This increases accessibility by making it easier to run several errands at the same time, increases opportunities to interact with neighbours, and creates transportation nodes (rideshare stops, bus stops, etc.).

Conventional

The convention or grid plan (or gridiron plan) is a type of city plan in which streets run at right angles to each other, forming a grid. The grid plan dates from antiquity; some of the earliest planned cities were built using grids. Grid street patterns are generally considered to be less expensive than a street hierarchy plan because road miles are needed to serve the same population. Pedestrians have an easier time connecting to other parts of neighboring neighborhoods and commercial businesses. Obstacles such as cul-de-sacs and busy intersections with high speed traffic that hinder or discourage pedestrianism are rarely present. The grid also enhances pedestrian access to mass transit. Recent studies have found higher traffic fatality rates in outlying suburban areas than in central cities and inner suburbs with smaller blocks and more-connected street patterns. One of the greatest difficulties with grid plans is their lack of specialization, most of the important amenities being concentrated along the city's main arteries. Often grid plans are found in linear settlements, with a main street connecting between the perpendicular roads. House numbering can be tailored to the grid.

Questions

Infrastructure needs to be sustainable.
Which one of these methods will work best in Kamloops?
Will they even work here?
Why do we even need to look at different methods?