RUSSELL OLIVER russelloliver86@gmail.com 864.580.8217 Savannah, GA
EXCERPT: Urban Redevelopment Plan . City of Pembroke, GA
CONTEXT
PEMBROKE, GA
INTRODUCTION The City of Pembroke is located in northern Bryan County, Georgia and is the County Seat. The City encompasses approximately eight square miles and is designated as a historic railroad town. The City is situated near the City of Savannah (approximately 36 miles to the east); the City of Statesboro (approximately 25 miles to the north); and Fort Stewart (1 mile to the south, based on the installation boundary). The City sits at the intersection of three major highways - US 280, US 67, and SR 119. These arterials provide a regional transportation network that moves traffic both to I-16 and I-95.
The City’s population is 2,535 with 60% white, 35% African American, and 5% of other ethnicity. According to the US Census Bureau, the City’s per capita income in 2016 was $17,808 which is nearly $10,000 less than that of Bryan County ($28,209) and the State of Georgia ($26,467). The City also has a significant portion of the population (24.7%) below the poverty line, which has been a driving factor in the preparation of this Urban Redevelopment Plan (URP).
EXCERPT: Urban Redevelopment Plan . City of Pembroke, GA
HOUSING SURVEY PEMBROKE, GA
LEGEND
URP BOUNDARY BUILDINGS PARCELS EVALUATION LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
HOUSING SURVEY & ASSESSMENT To better understand the conditions of the Urban Redevelopment Area, the City of Pembroke GICH team members partnered with students from Georgia Southern University to conduct field analysis over a three month period from August to October 2013. The GICH team trained the GSU students in appropriate and suitable assessment methods and assisted with the execution and completion of the housing assessment. To collect data, GSU students and GICH team members worked in teams. Equipped with maps and lists of individual parcels, they drove residential streets to catalog the housing. During this windshield survey, the team recorded visibly apparent building conditions.
EXCERPT: Urban Redevelopment Plan . City of Pembroke, GA Information from the visual inspection survey included: • Address • Map/Parcel ID • Property Type • General Property Information
• Levels • Housing Unit Characteristics • Minor/Major Defects • Yard/Lot
• Curb Appeal • Hazards
SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT RESULTS Survey and Assessment Result Approximately one-third of residential lots are vacant or contain abandoned homes. Survey results revealed that 54 percent of the parcels are occupied while 29 percent are vacant/unoccupied. The results of the 971 parcels are shown in Survey and Assessment Result the Residential Parcel Occupancy Chart. An evaluation3% of properties was conducted13% during the windshield survey Occupied and defined by levels below. 54% 29%
13%
Residential Parcel Occupancy
3%
54% 29%
Occupied Vacant/Unoccupied Unknown For Sale / Unoccupied For Sale / Occupied For Rent / Unoccupied For Rent / Occupied
Vacant/Unoccupied Unknown For Sale / Unoccupied For Sale / Occupied For Rent / Unoccupied EVALUATION For Rent / Occupied
LEVEL I
No more than 1 minor defect, no major defects
LEVEL II
3 or less minor defects and/or 1 major defect
LEVEL III
4 or more minor defects and/or 2 or more major defects
Evaluation Levels
10% 8%
LEVEL I LEVEL II LEVEL III Unknown
16% 66%
The results demonstrate that 642 homes or 66 percent of the homes have a Level 1 ranking assessment. 72 of the homes had 2 or more major defects. Evaluation results are shown on the Housing Survey Map (previous page) and in the Evaluation Levels Chart.
EXCERPT: Sign Ordinance Update . Bryan County, GA 2. Principal building signs. Principal building signs on a nonresidential property shall comply with the provisions of this subsection and the restrictions for such signs shown on table 1 for the use applicable to the property. a. Planned centers. 1. For planned centers containing less than 50,000 gross square feet of floor area, each planned center tenant/occupant may have one principal building wall sign on the tenant space façade fronting on a dedicated public street, private drive or parking lot. The sign design, size and location on the building must not detract from the architectural design nor crowd or diminish the architectural design of the building in any way. These signs shall not exceed 60 square feet each (see image Figure-4).
Figure-4
2. For planned centers containing 50,000 gross square feet of floor area or more: i. Each such planned center’s primary tenant/occupant may have one principal building wall sign on the tenant space facade fronting on a dedicated public street, private drive or parking lot. The sign must not detract from the architectural design nor crowd the architecture of the building in any way and shall not exceed 160 square feet (see Figure 5). ii. Each such planned center tenant/occupant other than the primary tenant/occupant may have one principal building wall sign facing the main street. The sign must not detract from the architectural design nor crowd the
EXCERPT: USBR 1 U.S. Bicycle Route 1 is a developing route corridor that runs through 13 eastern seaboard states between Maine and Florida that connects urban, suburban and rural areas using a variety of cycling facilities. State departments of transportation (DOTs) nominate routes for numbered designation through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Planning study is underway of the existing bicycle route that will provide an intial assessment of the corridor and potential alignments for USBR #1
Russell Oliver . Work Samples . 864-580-8217
“the new public gathering spot is the result of a public-private partnership between the City of Spartanburg, the Masonic Corporation, Upstate Forever, HubCulture, and several private contributors who wish to remain anonymous.�
Russell Oliver . Work Samples . 864-580-8217
WALL STREET SPARTANBURG
Russell Oliver . Work Samples . 864-580-8217
Arc GIS examples. Dekalb County - Atlanta, GA
COMMUNITY
Emory
Scottdale Senior Center
Six Marta stations are located with the Study Area. The Decatur Marta Station is located in the center of downtown Decatur. Marta’s East Lake and Avondale transit station lie on west and east boundaries of the city. The CSX railroad runs east to west throughout the site. Features such as Activity Centers, Senior Centers, and Parks are shown within the map.
Avondale Estates
Kensington Station
Decatur
Avondale Station
Indian Creek
East Lake Helene S. Mills Senior Mulltipurpose Facility
Edgewood-Candler Park
Inman Park Reynoldstown
DeKalb/Atlanta Senior Center
South DeKalb Senior Center
Study_Area Bus Routes MARTA STATION
Senior Centers
MARTA Rail Rail Road
Parks
Expressway Major Road
Activity Center
Street Dekalb County
0
0.5
1
2
3
Miles 5
4
POPULATION The pattern of high population densities within the study area are shown highest Kensington Station (6,561) with the City of Decatur next with 5,345 and the Edgewood-Candler Park station displaying 4,644.
Study_Area
Total Population 2010
MARTA STATION
1
2
3
TRANSIT USERS The highest amount of workers using public transit can be found at the sixth and final station in the study area with close to 26% of the population using the Marta Rail or Bus to travel to and from work. It is not surprising that the densist area of population has the highest amount of workers using public transit.
Workers Using Public Transit
Study_Area
0.5
Russell Oliver . LAND 6910 . GIS FINAL 1/3 Data Source: Atlanta Regional Commision / crimemapping.com
1
2
3
9% 5.
7% %
-2
-2
0.
6% 5.
.8
0.
-1
%
-1
.7
.5
%
20
Dekalb County
10
5.
Rail Road
0
15
% 0%
Major Road Street
3%
-5
.2
Expressway
4%
MARTA STATION MARTA Rail
4
Miles 5
61
47
,5
,0
-6 8
04 6,
45
96 ,6
Miles 5
4
-6 7
69 5,
95 ,9
,3
-5
-5 6
6 34
99 4,
5,
93
44
-4 5
64
43
,2
,6 -4 4,
,9
-4 4
4 29
94 3,
4,
41
92 ,5 3,
59
3
-3
91 ,8
,2
-3
-3 2
2 24
89 2,
3,
89
40
-2 1
54
39
,1
,5
-2
-2 0
19
2,
0 84 1,
2,
88
,8
,4
-1 9
48 1,
87
,1
-1 8
-7 4
1,
Dekalb County
0.5
8
64
Street
0
78
Major Road
-1
Expressway
13
MARTA Rail
37
Rail Road
Maps from Practicum (2015)
Top: Map created in Arc GIS and with Adobe Illustrator. Bottom: Map created with 3DS MAX and Adobe Illustrator
Church Street Connector Cycle Track: Converse Street
East Main Road Diet
64
East Main Connector
PROPOSED DESIGN OVERVIEW
Rail Trail Extension
Renderings created with 3DS MAX and Adobe Photoshop. Building textures are from on-site photographs.
Renderings created with Lumion, Sketchup and Adobe Photoshop. Building textures are from on-site photographs.
AR SANDBOX !
The augmented reality (AR) sandbox allows users to create topography models by shaping real sand, which is then augmented in real time by an elevation color map, topographic contour lines, and simulated water. The system teaches geographic, geologic, and hydrologic concepts such as how to read a topography map, the meaning of contour lines, watersheds, catchment areas, levees, etc.
Image Source: Russell Oliver . Athens, GA
! ! 1
!
GOAL
Simple Diagram of sandbox layout.
The goal of this project is to develop a real-time integrated augmented reality system to physically create topography models which are then scanned into a computer in real time, and used as background for a variety of graphics effects and simulations. The final product is supposed to be self-contained to the point where it can be used as a hands-on exhibit in science museums with little supervision.
Project Details
The driving software is based on the Vrui VR development toolkit and the Kinect 3D video processing framework. Raw depth frames arrive from the Kinect camera at 30 frames per second and are fed into a statistical evaluation filter with a fixed configurable per-pixel buffer size (currently defaulting to 30 frames, corresponding to 1 second delay), which serves the triple purpose of filtering out moving objects such as hands or tools, reducing the noise inherent in the Kinect's depth data stream, and filling in missing data in the depth stream. The resulting topographic surface is then rendered from the point of view of the data projector suspended above the sandbox, with the effect that the projected topography exactly matches the real sand topography.
! 2
Hardware Requirements An AR Sandbox requires the following hardware components:
! •
! •
! • ! •
! • ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
A dedicated PC running Linux (operating system) with an Intel Core i7 CPU, a Nvidia GEForce GTX 970 graphics card and at least 2 gb of ram.
A Microsoft Kinect 3D camera. The AR Sandbox software, or rather the underlying Kinect 3D Video Package as of version 2.8, supports all three models of the first-generation Kinect (Kinectfor-Xbox 1414 and 1473 and Kinect for Windows). All three are functionally identical.
A digital data projector (BenQ MX620ST Projector)
A sandbox (inside dimensions 30” x 40”) with a way to mount the Microsoft Kinect camera and the digital projector above the sandbox.
Sand. Recommend Kinetic Sand.
3
RUSSELL OLIVER WRITING SAMPLES russelloliver86@gmail.com 864.580.8217 Athens, GA
BEYOND THE CAR: INTERCONNECTING DOWNTOWN SPARTANBURG TO ITS EDGES by Russell Griffin Oliver (Under the Direction of John F. Crowley)
! ABSTRACT
! This practicum aims to provide a pedestrian corridor design and bike implementation plan offering expanded transportation choices in the City of Spartanburg’s downtown area. The unique ability of downtown Spartanburg to serve a variety of functions — commercial, residential, transportation and institutional — provides an opportunity to enhance downtown’s role as the city center. This implementation plan centers around critical connections for pedestrians and cyclists to enter into the urban core.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION.......................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................... v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 Background...................................................................................................... 2 Social Benefits................................................................................................. 5 Public Health Benefits.................................................................................... 8 Environmental Benefits.................................................................................. 11 Economic Benefits.......................................................................................... 14 2 GREENWAY MOVEMENTS IN SPARTANBURG............................................ 17 City of Spartanburg Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program................. 17 SPATS Project Funding Trans. Improvement Program............................. 17 SPATS Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan.................................................... 17 City of Spartanburg Downtown Master Plan.............................................. 18 Spartanburg County Growth Management Audit...................................... 18 SPATS Long Range Transportation Plan..................................................... 18 Spartanburg County Comprehensive Plan.................................................. 19 Spartanburg County Unified Land Management Ordinance................... 19 SPATS Enhancement Master Plan................................................................ 20 Spartanburg County Tourism Action Plan................................................. 20 Spartanburg Area Active Living Assessment.............................................. 21 Palmetto Trail.................................................................................................. 22 A Greenway for Spartanburg......................................................................... 22 vi
3 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS............................................................................................ 23 Community Surveys....................................................................................... 24 4 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................... 26 5 CASE STUDIES....................................................................................................... 28 Pedestrian Plan, Cambridge, MA................................................................. 28 Small Town Traffic Calming, Oneonta, NY................................................. 31 Old Town Improvements, Eureka, CA......................................................... 34 6 SITE INVENTORY.................................................................................................. 39 Streets / Sidewalks........................................................................................... 40 Traffic Patterns................................................................................................ 43 Parking.............................................................................................................. 44 Street Trees....................................................................................................... 45 Vacant Lot........................................................................................................ 46 Vacant Buildings.............................................................................................. 46 Environment..................................................................................................... 47 Institutions........................................................................................................ 48 Community Identity........................................................................................ 49 Commercial Identity........................................................................................ 49 Infill Opportunities.......................................................................................... 50 Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections............................................................. 52 7 SITE ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 54 Streets / Sidewalks............................................................................................ 55 Traffic Patterns.................................................................................................. 57
vii
Parking.............................................................................................................. 57 Street Trees....................................................................................................... 58 Vacant Lot......................................................................................................... 59 Vacant Buildings.............................................................................................. 59 Environment.................................................................................................... 59 Institutions....................................................................................................... 60 Community Identity....................................................................................... 60 Commercial Identity....................................................................................... 60 Infill Opportunities......................................................................................... 61 Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections............................................................ 61 8 THE PLAN............................................................................................................... 62 Key Map........................................................................................................... 63 Proposed Design Overview........................................................................... 64 North Church Street Connector................................................................... 65 East Main Street Connector........................................................................... 69 East Main Street Road Diet........................................................................... 75 Converse Street Cycle Track.......................................................................... 78 Rail Trail Extension........................................................................................ 83 9 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................ 88 Key Map........................................................................................................... 91 APPENDICES A Survey Results............................................................................................ 92 B West Main Street Project.......................................................................... 131 C Spartanburg Video Interviews and Footage.......................................... 132 viii
Chapter 1 Introduction The purpose of this practicum is to provide a pedestrian corridor design and bike implementation plan offering expanded transportation choices in the City of Spartanburg’s downtown business district. This plan is in reference to the existing Spartanburg Downtown Master Plan and is intended to provide guidance for implementation of proposed connections. The genesis of this project evolved from working with the city as an assistant planner under the direction of the Planning Director, Stephanie Monroe.
! These networks not only accommodate a region’s access and mobility needs, but also help determine the location, type, and form of land development.1 The automobile has
dictated the form and function of street networks over alternative modes of transportation within the City of Spartanburg. The physical and social costs associated with this pattern of growth are well documented, as are the benefits of alternative forms of transportation walking, biking, light rail, etc. The formation of alternative transportation systems may nullify current interests to design streets with a focus towards the automobile. Therefore, bike and pedestrian centered networks represent the ability to generate development strategies that will resolve some of the physical, social, and economic difficulties that the City of Spartanburg faces.
! 1”Congress for The New Urbanism,” Transportation Networks, http://www.cnu.org/networks
1
Aerial of Downtown Spartanburg. July 2014 . Photo by Author
Background The City of Spartanburg, SC is a diverse community of families, students, artists, professionals, and retirees. Spartanburg has a municipal population of 32,888. The central business district (CBD) is located within downtown Spartanburg. The City of Spartanburg is home to institutions of higher education including Wofford College, Converse College, The George - USC Upstate College of Business & Economics, Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine, and Spartanburg Community College.
! In November 2012, Partners for Active Living (PAL), in partnership with the City of Spartanburg, Spartanburg County, the Spartanburg Area Transportation Study (SPATS) and the South Carolina Initiative of South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), commissioned a trails and greenways plan for Spartanburg County, South Carolina. The purpose of the Plan was to provide a blueprint for connecting Spartanburg’s existing park and trail facilities to each other and to local residents. The Plan is a framework for a connected network of off-street trails, integrated with the on-street network, to facilitate walking and biking as viable transportation choices and recreation opportunities throughout the metropolitan area of Spartanburg.
2
With these recommendations, areas with a relatively higher density were targeted as supporting developments that should be linked to downtown Spartanburg. Those areas include Wofford College, Converse College, The George - USC Upstate College of Business & Economics, Spartanburg Community College Downtown Campus, and the Converse Heights Neighborhood. Attention to Spartanburg Community College Downtown Campus was added after initial meetings with the City Manager and Planning and Engineering Departments because of it’s recent placement downtown. Social Benefits of Pedestrian/Bikeway Connectivity Urban streets do not have to act only as thoroughfares for motor vehicles, but can double as public spaces. These places are where people walk, meet, shop, and generally engage in a diverse array of social and recreational activities that, for many, make urban life enjoyable.2 Place attachment refers to the emotional connection people have for a
particular place. for example, the place where someone was born, or where he/she now lies and works. 3
! In an article titled “Physical and Psychological Factors in Sense of Community,” researchers explored the relationship between neo-traditional development and sense of community. In particular, they focused on the built environment’s role in fostering a sense of community. In doing so, they compared Kentlands, a new urbanist development, with a nearby conventional suburban development named Orchard Village in Gaithersburg, 2Dumbaugh, Eric. 2005. Safe Streets, Livable Streets. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 71, No. 3.
3Knez, I. (2005). Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived climate. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(2),
207-218.
5
Maryland. Elements relating to sense of community, community (or place) attachment, community identity, social interaction, and pedestrianism, were explored through interviews and survey responses. Each of the four elements were positively influenced by the presence of green space.4 A description of these domains is provided because of their
use as design elements for the East Main & Church Street Corridor Plan for the City of Spartanburg.
! ๏ Community (or place) attachment refers to residents’ emotional ties to their neighborhood. Community culture, familiarity, sense of history, sense of ownership, and social ties all provide a sense of belonging. ๏ Community Identity is the connection residents feel to the community as a result of the built and natural features of the neighborhood. Residents feel as if they can relate to the unique qualities or particular character of the neighborhood. ๏ Social Interaction between neighbors and non-neighbors, participation in community groups and social support networks create a bond to others and the community itself. ๏ Pedestrianism refers to a community’s walkability and street side activities. Conduciveness to walking, reliance on the automobile, important amenities within walking distance, and human scale street-scape design are all important qualities of pedestrianism. “Walking in the community brings residents closer to the community
4Kim, Joongsub and Kaplan, Rachel. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of community. New Urbanist Kentlands and
Nearby Orchard Village” Environment and Behavior, 36 (3), 313–340.!
6
Chapter 3 Stakeholder Meetings
!
Meetings were held with the City of Spartanburg’s Engineering Department, Planning Department, Economic Development, and the City Manager. During our meetings, we would discuss and align opinions about design implementation alternatives. Particular attention was focused on Church Street, East Main Street, and the Mary Black Rail Trail. Church Street and East Main Street are viewed as the two major arterials into downtown and will require a lighting plan, improved street-scapes, and improved infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists. The Mary Black Rail Trail is a must for the City to attain its desired bicycle-friendly status and will be a major supporting network to pedestrian/ bicycle traffic into the downtown area.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 23
Survey Participants . June 2013 . Photo by Author
Community Surveys A Pedestrian/Bikeway Study was conducted during the summer of 2013 under the auspices of the City of Spartanburg. The purpose of the survey was to determine the transportation network needs and priorities of citizens of Spartanburg and use the analyzed data to inform a newly designed network for the city of Spartanburg. Individuals who participated answered questions about walkability, safety, traffic conditions, and elements within the downtown area. Involvement in the study was voluntary, and the published results are presented in summary form only. The identity of participants is not associated with their responses in any published format. The survey was constructed based on advice from Tim Carter (Engineering Administrator at City of Spartanburg) and Jean Crowther (Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner at Alta Planning + Design).
24
Data gained from this survey ended up as a summary of qualitative information, which was informative and useful in determining design decisions.
! Video and audio interviews were conducted with business owners, professionals, and pedestrians within or in close-proximity to the downtown area. Data gained from this type of face to face survey provides a useful supplement for field observation and helps develop a rich data set for successive analysis. This medium helped witness various forms of knowledge, connections and shared perceptions that escape traditional mapping techniques.25 Â
! Survey results showed that most people used the North Church Street and East Main Street connectors, drive an automobile, visited downtown for restaurants, and generally felt unsafe at night.26 Findings from this survey provide useful information on improving Â
safety and walkability to downtown Spartanburg.
! ! ! ! ! 25 26
Appendix C Appendix A
25
East Main Street Connector Current issues: Improvements along East Main Street were installed when a decision was made to add chicanes (wiggle) to the road to permit the inclusion of angled parking on each side for customer convenience. This arrangement was a response to the current conditions at the time, which prohibited motor vehicle travel down the pedestrian-only Main Street. As such, business owners were “terrified that customers would be scared away if they couldn't find a space in the front ofthe store.” The “wiggle”, however, has not proved effective as first thought. According to field observations and interviews with public officials (Sgt. Lee Raines), “the traffic calming chicane fails to encourage safe driving and obscures views down East Main to Morgan Square.” Primarily, it does not encourage good driving behavior while also visually discouraging people from traveling down the City’s most prominent corridor. Those traveling downtown, especially visitors, are not given a clear, rational picture of the route. This design dissuades people from using the street as they opt for a more straightforward alternative. Ultimately, the current design has a negative impact on the businesses clustered along East Main Street, diminishing the streets role as a destination. Little to no pedestrian oriented street-scape exists on East Main Street beyond Converse Street heading toward Converse College. Broad Street effectively isolates Richardson Park as an inaccessible public space surrounded by roads. This short roadway connection is not essential to the proper functioning of the downtown street network.
! 70