- 11:16 am - Mon, May 20, 2013
Highways to Boulevards in Long Beach, Part 2
The following post is Part 2 of a 2 part series on the Terminal Island Freeway in Long Beach, CA. CNU spoke with one of the leaders of this highway initiative, City Fabrick's Brian Ulaszewski, about the history, current redundancy, and possible future of the Terminal Island Freeway.
According to a 1958 master plan, Los Angeles was to have a dense grid of freeways expanding on the system we see today, to include a Beverly Hills Freeway, extension of the 91 Freeway into the South Bay, and converting Pacific Coast Highway into a freeway that connects coastal cities from Santa Monica to Orange County. 7th Street in Long Beach was to be converted into a freeway as State Route 22 continued west past the Veterans Hospital through the center of the city.
Did you get all of that?
The fact that these additional freeways went unrealized has rendered other portions of the system less necessary because of disconnectivity. The Terminal Island Freeway (I-103) spans 3½ miles from the Port of Long Beach to the Union Pacific Intermodal Container Transfer Facility [ICTF] which lies on a wedge of Los Angeles between the cities of Long Beach and Carson. The primary purpose of the freeway has been to move freight from the port to rail yards to the north. It was originally intended to extend to Union Station, fifteen miles north but stopped at Willow Street in West Long Beach.
Its intended use today? To be more than a little redundant.
Development of the 20-mile-long, multimodal Alameda Corridor in the 1990’s has made extending the Terminal Island Freeway unnecessary. The last mile of the freeway carries less than 14,000 vehicles a day, but unfortunately over half of those are freight trucks driving behind a half dozen schools and thousands of homes. Alameda Street [State Route 47] provides nearly as convenient a connection to the ICTF, and Union Pacific has even purchased land to better connect to the freight corridor.
When Pushing for A Better Road, Few Push Back
In the beginning, there was a lot of adversity to the proposal to remove the freeway based on perception; consider that Southern California is the “Land of Freeways.” But we (City Fabrick and advocates) provided a significant amount of quantified data on traffic counts for the Terminal Island Freeway in relationship to not only freeways removed in other communities but also compared to Long Beach streets that were redesigned for traffic calming.
While the Central Freeway and Embarcadero in San Francisco provide fairly stark differences to the Terminal Island Freeway, the real sales pitch came with familiar neighborhood streets that carry more traffic that were put on road diets or had roundabouts added.
The concept started with completely removing the Terminal Island Freeway but the plan was revised based on input to instead replace the freight corridor with a local street. We actually determined that integrating this replacement street into the local street grid could actually improve local traffic conditions by relieving pressure on the only other continuous parallel corridor in the area, while shipping truck traffic to a underused, newly created truck route. This creates the dual benefit of reducing congestion and obvious benefits to public health and community conditions created by relocating trucks a mile away from students and residents.
Removing the Terminal Island Freeway in West Long Beach makes practical sense because it can improve public health conditions, create opportunities for community amenities and reduce traffic congestion. Long Beach is a built-out city with limited opportunities to find new park space, and to find 20 to 30 acres of surplus public land to utilize for open space in an under-served community is to be taken advantage of.
Pictured: Underutiized land surrounding the Terminal Island Freeway
Shipping People, Not Containers
Over 40% of the container shipping entering the United States enters through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The communities surrounding the combined port complex, including Wilmington and West Long Beach bear the brunt of the environmental impacts from this national goods movement economy and its supporting infrastructure. These neighboring residents suffer significantly more health impacts than others in the region including higher incidents of asthma, cancer and lung disease.
West Long Beach is proposed to be completely surrounded by Billions [with a “B”] of infrastructure projects including three rail yards [2 new and 1 expansion], two new bridges and the largest freeway expansion project in the nation.
This community is already heavily impacts by the air, noise, visual and light pollution from this freight infrastructure which will only be expanded and solidified for at least the next half-century. As significant as the benefits can be from removing the Terminal Island Freeway in West Long Beach this will only mitigate a small portion of these impacts. There is a still a long way to go to balancing the needs of the nation’s goods movement and these geographically focused impacts.
Future of Transportation in Long Beach
The City of Long Beach has been quite progressive with many of their transportation initiatives between the innovative bicycle facilities and placemaking projects. About the newly released Mobility Element of the City’s General Plan:
"With the updated Mobility Element, we are developing a plan that more thoughtful relates our transportation to land-use development based on the other elements of the General Plan [including Housing, Open Space and Land-use]. While this is about safely, efficiently moving people, commerce and communication, it is also about making sure the infrastructure serves those living and working in the City. So we are looking at context-sensitive design, health impacts and place-making as it relates to transportation." - Amy Bodek, Director of Development Services Department, City of Long Beach
One thing we try to focus on in the short term is the many nonzero-sum opportunities that exist in cities like Long Beach, between the existing wide streets, dense street grid and surplus infrastructure. The Terminal Island Freeway is just one of those win-win situations that we hope show the opportunities to reimagine infrastructure to better serve the community.
CNU would like to again thank Brian Ulaszewski for his contributions to this post and his ongoing efforts to rescale and reconnect streets in Long Beach.
- 10:59 am
Highways To Boulevards In Long Beach, Part 1
The following post is Part 1 (original post: To Remove a Freeway on cityfabrick.org) of a 2 part series on the Terminal Island Freeway in Long Beach, CA.
Many communities nationwide are now debating removing or reconfiguring their regional infrastructure to better serve local needs. From Portland, Oregon, to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, we find examples of communities removing concrete culverts or steel viaducts to replace them with beautiful tree-lined boulevards. In some cases there is a qualitative motivation to improve a community’s surroundings; in other cases what predominates is a quantitative analysis regarding the costs of maintaining, removing or replacing aging infrastructure.
For instance, the Park East Freeway was a mile-long spur of Interstate 794 running through the city of Milwaukee. The original plan called for this freeway to reach the downtown waterfront, but community backlash against the destruction of neighborhoods prevented the plan from being completely realized. In 2003, city officials eventually decided to remove the mile of the freeway that had been built (and was carrying 54,000 vehicles daily). What motivated this decision was the realization that demolishing the aging freeway would cost $25 million, but rebuilding it would have cost four times as much. Concerns over congestion were misplaced: the reestablished street grid largely absorbed the traffic, while additionally creating nearly 40 acres of land for private development.
The sales office for an upcoming mixed-use high rise being built on the former Park East Freeway. Flickr/ richmanwisco
While the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco is one of the more familiar examples of freeway removal, the parallel demise of that city’s Central Freeway is less widely known. Both freeways were products of the national mid-20th-century urban renewal trend, and both were abruptly halted as the negative impact on the city fabric became apparent.
The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake had caused heavy damage to the Central and Embarcadero freeways, necessitating their closures. Instead of rebuilding the elevated freeways, city officials decided to replace them with multimodal boulevards integrated into the surrounding street network. The 150,000 vehicles that travelled on those freeways daily have since found alternative routes, while the communities formerly in their shadows have enjoyed new investment, not to mention public amenities on the land formerly occupied by the freeways.
Patricia’s Green is a park that was created on the former land of the Central Freeway in San Francisco. Flickr/Edwardhblake
These examples from Milwaukee to San Francisco and beyond hold lessons for Long Beach. According to the most recent traffic flow data (from 2001), the Terminal Island Freeway carries a daily average of about 14,000 vehicles. In comparison, Fourth Street in the Retro Row area (between Cherry and Junipero Avenue) carries approximately 16,000 vehicles a day. Fourth Street does so with one lane in either direction, parallel parking, bike sharrows, sidewalks and street trees, hardly necessary of a Freeway with grade separations, on and off ramps.
The traffic flow for this city-owned right-of-way is projected to further decrease, given the Union Pacific Railroad’s proposal to expand the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility, a rail yard at the north end of the truck corridor. They are slated to shift all trucks serving the ICTF to the Alameda Corridor less than a mile to the west. Based on this projected reduction, traffic on the last mile of the Terminal Island Freeway would dip significantly below 10,000 vehicles a day.
In comparison, Third Street in Alamitos Beach, which carries a similar amount of traffic, recently had its third travel lane removed by city planners in order to add bike lanes. Such a low volume of traffic north of Pacific Coast Highway could readily be accommodated by a neighborhood-type street. The remaining 30 acres of public property could then be transformed into badly-needed open space on the Westside, buffering residents and schools from port infrastructure to the West.
There are a burgeoning number of successful examples demonstrating the economic, social and environmental benefit from removing unneeded elements of a regional freeway network. At first glance removing parts of a freeway might seem drastic, especially in Southern California, but in comparison to the successful interventions described above in Milwaukee and San Francisco among many others, the Terminal Island Freeway is relatively mundane. With careful investigation and thoughtful discussion, we could discover magnificent opportunities for the denizens of Long Beach to benefit from our reimagining the city’s over-built public rights-of-way.
The Long Beach City Council voted this past week to apply for funding, appropriately through the Environmental Justice planning program of the California Department of Transportation. Though the unanimous decision- with no public speakers, council comment or staff report was anticlimactic- a broad coalition of institutions, community groups, environmental advocates and major stakeholders are signing onto this initiative. As just one component of the Yards, removing the Terminal Island Freeway in Long Beach will be a bold step for a brighter future in West Long Beach.
- 12:40 pm - Wed, May 1, 2013
Interview with Scott Ogilvie, Saint Louis
This Spring, Scott Ogilvie, Alderman of Ward 24 in Saint Louis, spoke with CNU about ongoing efforts to replace I-70 with an urban boulevard.
Alderman Scott Ogilvie’s political slogan says much about how he has engaged the public around highway removal: “A Responsive Voice for the 24th Ward”. A youthful presence in the community and among his fellow aldermen, Scott is committed to meeting people in their home and neighborhoods and voicing their issues with the Board of Aldermen.
He’s both a representative and reporter, embedded in City Hall.
Since being elected, he’s taken a careful, thoughtful look at development subsidies (especially for retail and sports venues). His goal? To push initiatives that would reform and improve the structure of city government and challenge some of the unwritten rules that govern the Board of Aldermen. We asked him a few questions:
What is your vision for downtown St. Louis (and the I-70 corridor)?
The vision for a boulevard conversion of I-70 is based on successful projects in other American cities like San Francisco, New York, and Milwaukee. It was our hope to follow in the footsteps of these model projects.
When did you introduce your proposed I-70 Resolution?
In the fall of 2012 I introduced a Resolution at the Board of Aldermen calling for the conversion of the downtown portion of Interstate 70 into an at-grade boulevard. The Resolution was intended as a vehicle for promoting discussion of this transformation in the context of a large planned public and private investment in the adjacent Gateway Arch grounds and nearby areas.
I-70 has severed the downtown business district from the Arch grounds and Mississippi River for 50 years. In the context of the aging highway infrastructure and planned investment, it seemed like the perfect time to have a thorough public conversation about the potential to transform the livability of the area by removing the highway.
I-70 was recognized as a barrier by some forward thinkers even as it was being built in the 1960‘s. The vision for a downtown St. Louis not severed in two by I-70 is one that is shared by many St. Louis residents. The CityArchRiver Foundation, which has spearheaded the planning process for the area, held an international design competition beginning in 2009. Removing I-70 featured prominently in the public comments on the designs.
Unfortunately, CityArchRiver remained agnostic on highway removal and it was not included in the final design. A lid will cover one block of a depressed section of the highway and improve pedestrian access to the Arch Grounds. However, with the highway still in place a real transformation of the area will have to wait.
Why introduce this now?
A highway conversion project is a major investment, even if it is ultimately more cost-effective than maintaining elevated urban highways. A convergence of public and private efforts meant that a significant investment will be made in the area beginning this year. That investment could either be targeted to correct the heart of the problem - the highway - or to work around it.
Unfortunately, the later option has prevailed, and tens of millions of dollars will be spent getting people over the existing highway. The end result will fix some of the present issues but to many of us, it feels like a half measure.
Speaking of major investments, are there other projects in the works?
In 2014 another major public investment will come online - an Interstate 70 bridge north of downtown over the Mississippi River. This new bridge will make the downtown stretch of I-70 relatively unimportant to regional traffic flow, and re-enforce the idea that boulevard conversion is a reasonable endeavor. In fact, the investment in the bridge can be effectively leveraged only by removing the highway downtown, opening adjacent land to development while simultaneously improving quality of life for downtown residents, workers, and tourists.
Do you believe your proposed Resolution will eventually take effect?
The goal of the Resolution was to bring together representatives from The Missouri Dept. of Transportation, the Mayor’s Office, and downtown stakeholders and have an open discussion about the opportunities and challenges of removing the highway. Unfortunately, as a member of the Board of Aldermen without seniority, my resolution was never allowed a hearing. While the conversation didn’t happen in an open forum at City Hall, removing I-70 is still a goal for many residents of the region. My feeling is that it will ultimately happen when key leaders make it a priority.
- 10:32 pm - Thu, Mar 21, 2013
Interview with Paul Lecroart
In the fall of 2012, Paul Lecroart, Senior Urban Planner for the Institut d’Aménagement et d’Urbanisme de la Région Ile-de-France (IAU), Paris (Urban Planning & Development Agency for the Paris Region), sat down with CNU to discuss the Projet Berges de Seine (Seine Banks Project).
“The Seine riverbanks are a major 8 mile-long highway going from the Western districts of Paris & suburbs to the Eastern districts & suburbs. The riverbanks are divided into two highways, the Right Bank Highway (RBH or Voie Express Georges Pompidou) and the Left Bank Highway (LBH). Today, the average traffic is about 40000 vehicles a day on the RBH and 25000 on the LBH, both are limited to just over 30 mph.”
We first asked Mr. Lecroart to briefly describe the planned roadway transformations along the Seine:
“Right Bank Highway: create an almost 2-mile long “urban boulevard” out of the highway with 6 new pedestrian-crossings with traffic lights giving direct access to the waterfront, connection with pedestrian bridges across the river connecting major sites, create a new 0.6 mile sidewalk on the river bank, offer space for a riverside café and 5 new leisure-culture boats.
Left Bank Highway: remove the 1.6 mile expressway and parking lots to create a new 10-acre reversible urban space for leisure, culture and nature, including 5 new artificial islands with all sorts of night-and-day activity, create 2 new urban logistic port areas.”
Mr. Lecroart highlights the primary considerations that drove removal and the aim of the Projet Berges de Seine:
“Give the Seine back to the pedestrians, Parisians, and visitors alike. Develop and diversify activities on the banks such as leisure, culture, civic, and economic activities related to the river. Enhance a unique World Heritage UNESCO listed landscape, part of the identity of Paris. Reinforce the presence of nature in the city.”
Stakeholder support is crucial in projects such as the Seine Banks Project. Resident engagement and support was achieved through “open public debates, exploratory walks, many public meetings in different districts, public workshops, children’s workshops, and finally a formal public hearing process [conducted in October 2011].” The Mayor also eventually received support from “major State Agencies such as Port of Paris, the Police Prefecture, and the Ministry of Culture in charge of heritage and architectural preservation of the Paris Landscape.”
One of the greatest hurdles to transportation reform is always the community’s fear of traffic congestion. In the case of the Seine Banks Project this was no different and “was addressed through a specific joint traffic impact study between the Paris Urban Planning Agency (APUR) and the Police Prefecture.”
When asked what advice Mr. Lecroart would offer to another city that is undertaking a similar project he gives the following suggestions:
“Go for it! In the last 10 years (2001-2010), car-use and traffic has decreased in the inner part of the Paris Region, public transportation has increased so has walking and cycling: this is good news for the future.
If we want to go further, we must go beyond what the traffic models tell us, increase dramatically our shared-car use (beyond HOV), and work on institutional arrangements at the metropolitan/regional level to better combine land-use and transport policies.”
“The LBH project was opened to the public in September 2012 and it is already a great success, particularly on sunny weekends with hundreds of pedestrian walking or sitting on the newly opened river banks.”
The project is small, with only a very short section of the expressway being removed, but it is a good start. To Paul and his colleauges, it is now time to think at the metropolitan level, where dozens or even hundreds of miles of expressway need to be redesigned if we are serious about sustainable development, public health and livability in the Paris Metropolitan Region (PMR).
This summary was written by CNU Project Assistant Kate Witherspoon.
- 12:07 pm - Fri, Mar 8, 2013
Interview with Ian Lockwood
CNU had a wide-ranging conversation with Ian Lockwood about his work on the Riverfront Parkway in Chattanooga, the impact of freeways on cities, how the freeways got there, and what the city ought to be like. Read our previous Highways to Boulevards post with on San Francisco’s Central Freeway here.
When the Riverfront Parkway in Chattanooga was converted into a boulevard, Lockwood was involved in reconnecting the street grid and helping provide pedestrian access to the riverfront. The end result? A more walkable city and a rejuvenated riverfront.
“[Chattanooga] lacked access to their key resource which was the water front. Once the street network was restored, the City was much more walkable, lots of stores opened up, investment flowed in, and people loved it. All the conventional traffic engineers’ predictions of the sky falling didn’t happen, and the city became much more vibrant.”
According to Lockwood, the rise of the freeway caused a historical shift in American planning, wherein longer trips in and out of the city were prioritized over shorter, intra-city trips. This shift is linked to a shifting attitude of cities and their purpose.
Limited access riverfront highway
Newly constructed boulevard
Traditionally, cities were places for people to come together for social and economic exchange, exchanges that benefited from proximity and access. Streets were the places for the activity of the city; they were where people lived, shopped, and interacted.
As freeways encroached into cities, the social elements of the city and many street functions were disregarded, in keeping with the modernists’ theories of simplification. Instead of multifaceted places of economic and social exchange, cities became viewed as central business districts and transportation conduits for suburbanites. Long automobile trips and high design speeds were given priority in transportation, disadvantaging local trips, access, and traditional social and economic functions.
The construction of freeways in the city export value from the city to places outside of the city, benefiting those living farther away and harming those closer in.
Lockwood explained the challenge of moving away from an automobile centric view:
“We need to replace those obsolete and damaging value sets with values that are pro-city…I hesitate to use the word balance because I don’t really think there is a balance in cities when motor vehicles are part of the equation. I think it’s more an issue of priorities. If walkability and cycling and transit are priorities they need high-level design and policy support. The automobile and the incomparable individual benefit of automobiles is so compelling on an individual level that we can’t allow rather twisted supply and demand-type forces to take place because you end up with the Houstons and Phoenixes of the world. That is automobile congestion has been mistakenly interpreted as a “demand” for more automobile use and a supply of wider roads.
A more enlightened view would conclude that there is a demand for better choices and more options for transportation modes, housing choices, etc. We don’t live in a fair system; the highway, oil, highway-building, tract home developers, and big box interests tilt the playing field against cities. If cities really want to be great cities they need to really prioritize non-automobile ideas if they want to be increasingly competitive economically and socially while being environmentally responsible.“
Specifically on fixing the damage caused by freeways in cities, Lockwood emphasized that it’s also important to stop currently ill-conceived freeway projects (and not just focus on removal). When pursuing these projects, his advice is “to keep your eyes on the prize” as these projects can take a long time. He also asks leaders to keep in mind the basic purpose of the city, which is to foster social and economic exchange. From here flows the proper role of the transportation system in cities: to reward short trips and transit trips.
This inteview and summary were conducted by CNU intern Tim Huff, Master’s candidate in the UIC MUPP Program.
- 1:08 pm - Wed, Feb 20, 2013
Interview with Jeff Tumlin
CNU sat down with Jeff Tumlin to discuss the removal of San Francisco’s Central Freeway and subsequent conversion into Octavia Boulevard. Read our Highways to Boulevards post on Milwaukee’s Park East Freeway here.
How did the removal of San Francisco’s Central Freeway impact its surrounding neighborhood (Hayes Valley)? Jeff Tumlin is a principal at Nelson & Nygaard with over 20 years experience and focuses mainly on helping cities use transportation investment to improve quality of life and further economic development.
In terms of the removal of the Central Freeway, Jeff Tumlin worked on the neighborhood plan for Hayes Valley, a plan that thoroughly examined the local impacts of removing the Central Freeway (supplemental information on San Francisco’s Central Freeway can be found here).
Jeff described the changes in the neighborhood: “A big increase in housing unit production, a significant increase in jobs (around 23 percent) largely due to increased retail activity and the small secondary office market, a huge increase in transit trips (about 75 percent), and an increase in home values in the blocks around the removal of approximately $118,000 per unit.”
Nonetheless, these encouraging changes also resulted in new community concerns, issues such as gentrification and neighborhood affordability.
Jeff shared a few key insights learned from his experiences dealing with freeway removal. The first (and also iterated by Peter Park in our first Highways to Boulevards series) is the public process. Public meetings can help residents to imagine what the space could be without the freeway. In addition, the public process can help engage those who are opposed to the project, allowing them time air their grievances and work through their objections. Jeff Tumlin also noted that opposition to the project dissipated quickly once the project was completed and fears over potential negative impacts never materialized.
In terms of projecting impacts to traffic, Jeff Tumlin emphasized that current traffic modeling is not capable of accurately assessing the impacts of removal. In the case of the Central Freeway, models predicted back-ups stretching all the way to Sacramento after removal. Instead, traffic dispersed through the street grid, transit trips greatly increased, with only a minor, acceptable increase in travel times.
Because of these limits to assessment, Jeff Tumlin emphasized the importance of taking a systems approach to analyzing urban transportation systems. Instead of each road being analyzed independently, it is essential to look at how the grid as a whole operates.
One of the other key lessons Jeff Tumlin shared was of the importance of land value capture. Freeway removal projects tend to open up land for development and can dramatically increase local property values. Effective use of value capture strategies, such as the creation of TIF districts, can help fund removal and development in new areas made available through freeway removal.
As transportation budgets continue to be strained, these strategies become an evermore attractive option for funding removal and can help pay for reinvestment in the community.
This interview and summary were conducted by CNU intern Tim Huff, Master’s candidate in the UIC MUPP Program.
- 10:35 am - Wed, Feb 6, 2013
An Interview with Peter Park
CNU recently sat down with Peter Park, Milwaukee’s former and Denver’s current planning director, about his experiences removing the Park East Freeway and spurring economic growth in downtown Milwaukee.
The removal of the Park East Freeway can trace its roots back to Milwaukee’s 1999 Downtown Plan. During our conversation, Mr. Park stressed the importance of having a plan—not just a “project”—as Milwaukee’s Downtown Plan laid the fundamental groundwork for the eventual removal of the freeway. The Downtown Plan set forth a vision of Milwaukee’s downtown land and illustrated how the removal of a freeway could transform Downtown Milwaukee into a more vibrant place.
An integral part of the formation of the downtown plan was a series of charrettes to engage the public and seek their input on the plan. In terms of planning, Mr. Park drew a distinction between “plans” and “projects”. Projects tend to be things for which there is immediate funding and impetus to complete, while plans are visions for what could be even if they don’t have funding.
In the context of the Park East Freeway, the idea and plan for removal was around for a few years before funding was sought and achieved. This allowed for stakeholders to have a legitimate voice in the process—the plan could be modified significantly over the span of a few years. When funding is already allocated for project, the scope for change is narrowed because the clock is ticking on the project’s commencement and completion.
The planning process can also help diffuse potential opposition by lowering the “temperature” (it’s just an idea being discussed, not something that’s necessarily going to happen immediately). Combined with a vision for the site, this allowed local business to look beyond their immediate concerns (How are my customers going to get here without the freeway?) and acknowledge the long-term benefits (a key to any plan).
While the Downtown Plan help generate support in the City of Milwaukee—the Plan was strongly support by then mayor John Norquist (and current CEO of CNU)—State and County approval was necessary to remove the freeway and provide funding. Governor Thompson was initially opposed to the freeway removal; however, his mind was eventually changed.
Mr. Park attributed the success in gaining the necessary local- and state-level support to two concepts: visioning and planning. Park and his team were not advocating for the removal of the freeway. Instead, they were advocating for a vision of the city that was set on the human scale and more economically vibrant. By presenting an optimistic vision for the city, they were able to engage people who may have been initially skeptical, encouraging them to envision what the city could be and what could take the place of the aging freeway.
Ultimately, the two keys to the successful removal of the Park East Freeway can by summarized as having a positive vision of what could be and planning (and all that entails) well in advance to make it a reality. As Mr. Park said, “It’s amazing where political will and public support can take you.” It seems, much farther than than any freeway.
This interview and summary were conducted by CNU intern Tim Huff, Master’s candidate in the UIC MUPP Program. Originally posted on cnu.org.
- 10:44 am - Wed, Jan 30, 2013
Highways-to-Boulevards Video Contest
Hello Transportation Advocates:
We’d like to share with you a great opportunity to demonstrate how urban freeways impact your community. CNU wants to hear your urban highway story, so enter a short video in CNU’s Highways-to-Boulevards Video Contest! We want to know how and why your urban freeway of choice affects your community and what you envision in that highway’s place (Hint: It doesn’t have to be a boulevard).
CNU will post video submissions on cnu.org for tow months and share the videos with Highway-to-Boulevard advocates, like you, throughout the country. Plus, CNU will award the three most compelling videos with prizes!
1st Place: $500
2nd Place: $250
People’s Choice Award: $250
Honorable Mentions (5): CNU Advocate Memberships
In addition to the above prizes, a “People’s Choice” award will be given at our annual Congress in Salt Lake City, Utah on May 29 to June 1, 2013.
The deadline for submission is March 3, 2013. Contestants will be rewarded on May 3rd, 2013 based on creativity, originality, and properly addressing the contest’s central theme. For a complete list of rules and for the entry form visit cnu.org/highways/videocontest.
- 4:26 pm - Mon, Jan 7, 2013
CNU 21: Living Community Registration Now Open
Registration for CNU 21: Living Community is now OPEN. Take advantage of our Early Bird rates by signing up before April 24th, 2013.
CNU 21 Living Community will be held in gorgeous downtown Salt Lake City , May 29 - June 1, 2013. Living Community balances the demands of physical, social, economic, and environmental values by connecting people to place and awakening in us a stewardship for our land and each other.
Stewardship is tangible. It is measured by how well we care for the people around us, the places we make and the land that hosts us. This year’s Congress will delve into these issues, contemplate the role of cities within nature and place within cities.
Join Plenary Speakers Richard Louv, Sarah Susanka, Chuck Marohn, Andres Duany, and many, many more at CNU 21. Register today!
- 3:14 pm - Mon, Oct 1, 2012
Wanted: Artwork for CNU Charter Book
Want to get published in the new CNU Charter Book (McGraw-Hill, 2013)?
Give us your best shot! (or drawing, illustration, rendering, etc).
Please include a short caption: what principle does your photo/illustration show?
Deadline: November 1, 2012
Resolution: at least 300 dpi at target size
Black and white only (you can submit color, but they will be converted to B&W). Please only submit your own material or material for which you have (or can easily obtain) the copyright.