Recently in Urban Design Category

Gas stations. They're everywhere. They are as critical a component of infrastructure as schools, parks, and sewer treatment facilities. Their functional and design elements - signage, lighting, site access, etc. - have a profound impact on the character of our most visible corridors. So how can this necessary piece of the puzzle complement, or at least not deter from, local character? Let's look at a few examples.

The Good

This example is from East Lansing, MI. It demonstrates several site and building design characteristics that help it blend in with the commercial corridor, rather than being an eyesore competing for attention:

• The pumping stations are located to the rear of the site with the primary building toward the front corner, bringing vehicular access away from the intersection.
  
• The public sidewalk that is less disrupted by curb cuts (about one-quarter to one-third of the total lot frontage).
  
• Cross-access is provided to the lot to the east, removing the need to enter back into traffic to go next door.
  
• Signage is very low, and the building and front yard landscaping screen the pumping canopy and light.

And despite this design approach, people still find the pumps!

 The Bad Typical

This is an example of a typical Chicago corner gas station. In this instance, the character of the development is more compromised for the sake of the automobile, although the urban setting dictates that the surrounding pedestrian network is maintained.

• The primary building is at the back corner of the site, and the pumps and canopy are front and center.
  
• Curb cuts occupy about two-thirds of the lot frontage, creating several vehicular/pedestrian conflict points (including at the location of a bus stop).
  
• A prominent monument sign is located at the primary corner, with another sign located at the southeast corner of the site.
  
• Alley access is completely unutilized and the glowing lights of the canopy impact adjacent residential development.
  
• Property edge landscaping and fencing provide at least some delineation between vehicular areas and the public sidewalk.
  

As a whole, this development model does the minimum required in terms of the overall functionality and character of the corridor.

 The Ugly

This gas station (location removed to protect the guilty) demonstrates perhaps the worst practices in gas station development:

• The canopy is located almost to the front lot line. This results in one continuous curb cut along the entire front yard.
  
• Site access is both unclear and unsafe, as newly filled vehicles pull into traffic and arriving vehicles seek an open bay.
  
• The canopy is so prominent that, from the southern approach to the site, the large monument sign is not even visible.
  
• Though there is access to the side street to the north of the site, it is unused because access from the primary arterial is uncontrolled.
  

In this case, there is no consideration for the pedestrian network or the overall character of the corridor.

As planners, we must remain realistic about what can be expected of development. It is probably unreasonable to think that gas stations will ever recreate the character of our intimate town centers. However, a better product can be realized with relatively simple standards for site planning and access, signage, lighting, and landscaping. I mean, if we're going to be paying $5 a gallon, we at least deserve that much!

3 Arguments Against Street Trees
We have been working on a comprehensive plan for a community where the City's engineer is opposed to landscaping within the right-of-way. He argues that the root system will penetrate into drainage pipes from residential sump systems and cause flooding. 

This is not the first time I have heard of an engineer opposing right-of-way trees.  A few years ago we were developing a comprehensive plan for a fast growing community where an engineer also prohibited landscaping in the right-of-way. His argument, however, was that over time the root structure of the trees would begin to heave the sidewalk upwards and create a "trip hazard". Nevermind the fact that there was no sidewalk requirement...

Yet still another argument I have heard is that trees cause variation in the heat/thaw cycle of pavement areas within their shadows which can cause a shortened life span for residential streets.

Pros and Cons
At this point you are probably thinking what every planner is thinking - are you kidding me? The answer is no, and communities and neighborhoods across the country are being deprived of this amenity in the name of "engineering" - really? 

I struggle with how these weak arguments can conquer the benefits of creating neighborhoods with big, majestic tree lined streets.  But, let's assume, for this a simple discussion, that all of these are valid arguments against street trees.  

As a firm we have conducted a lot of research on this topic, and have found a plethora of data supporting right-of-way trees. For example, the International Society of Arboriculture estimates that the improvement in curb appeal due to street trees increases real estate values by 5-20%.  This on top of less quantifiable factors such as the improvement to a neighborhood's appearance or character.  It's a case of first impression that happens to last a long time.  Mature trees are a lot harder to come by, and their benefits significantly outweigh, the occasional sidewalk repair or sump pump mishap. 

Changing Perceptions
How do we, as planners, overcome this impasse?  It starts by revising your codes and subdivision regulations to include street trees as a requirement. The arguments from engineers and public works officials can be mitigated.  We must champion the idea that we should be planning, designing and building the neighborhoods and communities that we all want to live in. So if that that means repaving the road a year or two earlier, or shoveling asphalt in 20 years to fix that "trip hazard" the tree roots will make, so be it.