Urban Planning

396 petitions

Update posted 2 days ago

Petition to Tower Hamlets Development Committee


What’s the story? Sainsbury’s have submitted plans to Tower Hamlets Council for an over-sized development of their megastore in Whitechapel, east London. Whitechapel is a diverse and ever changing area, which makes its character all the richer. However the proposals, based primarily on cashing in on high value apartments, causes irreversible harm to the surrounding community and environment.  1. Disproportionate Scale The development is radically out of context with the surrounding low-rise Whitechapel area. The proposed 28 storey tower (101m) would be the tallest building in the 3 mile stretch between at Aldgate and Canary Wharf. Even the eight ‘smaller’ blocks of up to 15 storeys (59m) would introduce a density beyond Council guidelines. The enormous tower will block daylight to hundreds of homes and businesses, and overlook countless more. 2. Damage to Local Heritage The scheme will overwhelm the historic setting of the Whitechapel Market and Stepney Green Conservation Areas and their 52 listed buildings. The tower also intrudes significantly on the Grade 1 listed Trinity Green Almshouses, sited just 100m to the east of the site. The current proposals demonstrate little evidence of how this remarkable context has influenced the design, which Historic England has described as “substantially harmful”. 3. Lack of Affordable Housing Of the proposed 559 residential apartments only 89 apartments (16%) are to be ‘affordable’, falling far short of the Council’s targets of 35-50% to align with the London Plan. A tiny 6% are family dwellings, making the mix wholly inappropriate for this part of Whitechapel, and doing little to address the wider London housing crisis.  What can I do? Please support this campaign by signing this petition - it takes just a few seconds, and please spread the word! Opposition has been raised by Historic England, the Georgian Group, SPAB, the Victorian Society and the East End Preservation Society but we need much more support to ensure the development is rejected by Tower Hamlets council. You can send your objections to Tower Hamlets Council to (ref:PA/15/00837), and join the Friends of Trinity Green at where you can find a template letter objection. STOP SAINSBURYS, SAVE WHITECHAPEL Thank you for your support. 

Friends of Trinity Green
6,657 supporters
Update posted 1 week ago

Petition to Sally Bagshaw, Goran Sparrman, Jenny A. Durkan, Mike O'Brien

7-Blocks in the Heart of Seattle Set to Disappear

By signing this petition you can help stop a landfill and conserve long-term opportunity for new uses for Battery Street Tunnel, in Seattle’s highest-density neighborhood. Seattle can’t afford to throw away 2.75 acres of valuable public space. What's the Better Alternative? Battery Street is situated in the heart of Seattle's Belltown neighborhood which connects three popular destinations – Pike Place Market, Seattle Center/Space Needle, and South Lake Union.  The shallow tunnel runs 7-blocks and offers 120,000 square feet (2.75 acres) in the right-of-way that could be used for open space, public recreation, stormwater collection, social service programming, bike and pedestrian transit and revenue-generating private-public partnerships. A landfill eliminates all possibility for future beneficial use: Filling the tunnel is environmentally irresponsible and inconsistent with Seattle's commitments to sustainability and climate action under the Paris Climate Agreement and the Chicago Climate Charter New York, Seoul, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Detroit, Paris and London are among dozens of "Healthy Cities" reusing aging infrastructure for public benefit.  (See our website for more information about projects that are transforming communities) You Can Help "Kill the Fill" This petition appeals to the City of Seattle to stop the landfill and mothball the Battery Street Tunnel so experts can explore new uses that bring positive social change, economic impact, and regional environmental benefit. Seattle can’t afford to throw away valuable public space by permanently filling the tunnel.  Please sign this petition to "Kill the Fill" and conserve this valuable opportunity.

Recharge the Battery
1,334 supporters
Update posted 1 week ago

Petition to City of Rocklin, CA

Stop High Density Housing At Sierra College/Rocklin Rd Intersection(400 Oak Trees Destroyed!! 400 Extra Cars on Your Travel Route!!)

An LA developer with zero investment in the natural beauty of Rocklin plans to build 9 three-story apartment buildings, 195 apartments, approx 400 new residents near the intersection of Sierra College/Rocklin Road. Being planned for the first quarter of 2015 - act now!! An extra 400 cars are expected to exit onto the already busy Sierra College/Rocklin Rd intersection each day from this new construction. Apartment direct entry/exit located both on Rocklin Rd, and Water Lily Ln. It will be hell on your commute! 400 oak trees will be destroyed along with the natural habitats of many birds and other wildlife.  10 acres of land flattened, natural hills and landscape demolished. This high density housing project will also bring increased crime and decreased safety for our homes, families and children, in addition to increasing noise and other forms of pollution.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DO ANY OF THESE ISSUES AFFECT AND  CONCERN YOU!?  ACT NOW!!!! PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO PETITION AGAINST THIS DEVELOPMENT (AND GIVE A REASON FOR YOUR PETITION IF POSSIBLE). Read more below!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE IMPACT TO ROCKLIN’S OAK TREES - THE CITY’S FAILED PROMISES In the past, Rocklin City has recognized the value of oak trees as a valuable natural resource for the area with their oak preservation guidelines stating; "Oak woodlands constitute a valuable natural resource for the city.  They also provide habitat for many wildlife species.  They contribute to the City's beauty and varied scenery.  They also provide shade in parks as well as developed areas. Oaks enrich the soil and protect watersheds and streams from erosion". They have a clear and  strong message, demonstrating how they will honor their commitment to "....address the decline of oak woodlands due to urbanization.....".  However, with this proposal they do not appear to be honoring that commitment.   The project will completely destroy 400 oak trees, and will flatten 10 acres of land.  The natural beauty and wildlife will be replaced by 9 very large three story buildings, housing approx 400 residents. This will contribute to noise, light and other pollution, possible crime, decreased safety for our homes, family and children. Is the City paying lip service to us all as residents?  In reality, the city allows developers the options simply pay into a fund to mitigate the loss of these trees.  This mitigation fund collects money and stagnates….. With over $1.3 million accumulated in this fund already, it would appear that very little is being done to truly preserve these precious trees. INCREASED TRAFFIC Those who use Sierra College and Rocklin Road on a regular basis strongly believe that the proposed entry and exit routes into the development will cause significant delays to travel time and increased congestion.  After all there will be approx. 400 extra cars entering and exiting the Sierra College Blvd intersection from the apartment complex. They will be entering just around 100 feet from two of the entrances of the intersection (north from Sierra College, West from Rocklin Rd), on this already very busy intersection. It’s clear to see how this will disrupt commuter traffic and the major trucking/transport companies, for whom Sierra College Blvd is essential route.  A traffic impact study is being conducted for this development. These studies assess the impact of developments upon the traffic systems, such as intersections. However, the experiences of residents/commuters and their opinions about the current state of traffic, and how they feel the changes will impact upon delays and safety, are not taken into consideration as part of such studies.  Furthermore, this traffic analysis study is conducted by a third party company hired by the developer, which though entirely compliant with the State guidelines, gives a general feeling of uneasiness, lack of confidence, and a feeling that there may be partiality within whole process.

David Vickers
1,216 supporters
Update posted 1 week ago

Petition to California Governor, California State Senate, California State House

NAME IT THE EMPEROR NORTON BRIDGE (Preserve Existing Names — Just Add This One)

NOTEThis petition about the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge does not call for a wholesale re-naming of this bridge system for Emperor Norton. Rather, it highlights a naming solution that simply would add a name like "Emperor Norton Bridge" for the system, which Emperor Norton decreed in 1872. In this scenario, the existing names and signage for the system and its constituent parts ("spans," tunnel, pedestrian/bike path, etc.) would remain in place. The "Emperor Norton" name could be memorialized with a single prominent overhead sign on either end of the bridge and perhaps other such signs at a handful of key bridge approaches around the Bay Area. This solution is consistent with the State of California's precedent and current practice of giving multiple names to certain state-owned bridges. : :    : :    : : August 2013Updated September 2013 to reflect actions by the California State Legislature "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge." It's a name straight out of bureaucratic central casting. A clunky, hyphenated mouthful of a moniker that tries to please everyone — but winds up pleasing few. It's little wonder that, as soon as the bridge opened in 1936, local residents cropped the name down to the handier "Bay Bridge." Still a fundamentally technical, descriptive name that lacks poetry — but two syllables are better than eight. After 80-plus years, though, the original name has earned its place. "The Bay Bridge" is here to stay. And yet... For generations, the Bay Bridge has had a second name — a parallel name, if you like. This second name — which some consider to be the bridge's real name — never has graced any official highway sign. But it lives in the hearts of many.  It's time for the bridge's historical name to share the marquee with a name that has a history of its own. A name that speaks to a deeper history. A name that finally honors the bridge's original 19th-century visionary.   In short: It's time to make the alias official — time for the State of California to add an honorary name for the Bay Area's "workhorse" bridge and, in so doing, to recognize that, before the first survey for the structure was begun in the early 1920s, this bridge was, and shall remain... The Emperor Norton Bridge.  The San Francisco pioneer, Joshua Abraham Norton (c.1818–1880) — the self-styled "Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico" — was considered eccentric, and so he was. Some considered him certifiable. But Emperor Norton also was a visionary. He was: an adversary of corruption and fraud of all kinds — political, corporate and personal; a persistent voice for fair treatment and greater legal protections for marginalized and immigrant communities — including Chinese, African-Americans, Native Americans and women; a champion of religious unity who saw the dangers of religious puritanism and sectarianism — and advocated against it; an advocate for fair labor practices; a defender of the people's right to fair taxes and basic services, including well-maintained streets, streetcars, trains and ferries; an exponent of technological innovations that advanced the public welfare; and a general ambassador of his adopted city, who embodied and heralded the values of tolerance and the common good that came to be identified with San Francisco, Oakland and the Bay Area. In January 1872, Emperor Norton issued a proclamation that declared, in part: "Whereas, we observe that certain newspapers are agitating the project of bridging the Bay; and whereas, we are desirous of connecting the cities of San Francisco and Oakland by such means; now, therefore, we, Norton I, Dei gratia Emperor, do hereby...order that the bridge be built from Oakland Point to Telegraph Hill, via Goat Island [now Yerba Buena Island]." In a second proclamation, in March 1872, the Emperor specified that the bridge should be a suspension bridge [emphasis added]: "The following is decreed and ordered to be carried into execution as soon as convenient: That a suspension bridge be built from Oakland Point to Goat Island [now Yerba Buena Island], and then to Telegraph Hill; provided such bridge can be built without injury to the navigable waters of the Bay of San Francisco." He repeated this decree with a third proclamation, in September 1872 "ordering the citizens of San Francisco and Oakland to appropriate funds for the survey of a suspension bridge from Oakland Point via Goat Island; also for a tunnel...." [See the Resources section below for a link to view all three proclamations, as they originally appeared in The Pacific Appeal newspaper. In adding, for consideration, the possibility of a cross-Bay tunnel — something he originally had called for in a separate proclamation in June 1872 — Emperor Norton anticipated by more than a century the 1974 opening of the Transbay Tube, which carries four of the five lines of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system under the Bay.] : :    : :    : : In essence, the Emperor's vision for a cross-Bay bridge came to pass in 1936, with the opening of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. In fact, the "bridge" is a bridge system composed of two bridges "hinged" by a tunnel. The monumental Western crossing, or "span," connecting San Francisco to Yerba Buena Island, is a suspension bridge, as the Emperor specified. The original Eastern crossing, connecting the island to Oakland, was built as a more conventional (at the time of its construction) cantilever-and-truss bridge. The new Eastern crossing that opened in early September 2013 is a different kind of suspension bridge than the Western crossing. But, in its way, the new crossing brings to full flower Emperor Norton's original vision of 1872, and makes it an especially appropriate time to finally name the entire Bay Bridge for him.BUT, WAIT, DIDN'T HALF THE BAY BRIDGE RECENTLY GET NAMED FOR WILLIE BROWN?!!Well, yes and no. It's true that, on 12 September 2013 — following an earlier 68-0-10 vote by the California State Assembly — the California State Senate, on a 26-7-6 vote, passed a non-binding resolution (Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 65,  or ACR 65) to designate the Western crossing of the Bay Bridge — the "San Francisco side" — as the "Willie L. Brown, Jr., Bridge," for the former California Assembly Speaker and former San Francisco mayor. But the state continues to recognize "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge" as the name of the entire bridge system. Indeed, the 2016 Named Freeways, Highways, Structures and Other Appurtenances in California — the most recent edition of the authoritative listing produced regularly by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (see Resources, below) — has separate and independent listings for both the "Willie L. Brown, Jr., Bridge" (p.149) and the "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge" (p.171) The former is listed with a citation for ACR 65; the latter is listed as "Not Officially Named." In other words: For naming purposes, the State of California places these two things — (1) the constituent "spans" of the Bay Bridge and (2) the bridge as a whole — on two separate planes. Which means that the naming of the Western crossing of the Bay Bridge for Willie Brown and the naming of the entire Bay Bridge system for Emperor Norton is not an either-or proposition — it can be both-and. Put another way... In effect, the Willie Brown name now functions as one "subtitle" of the larger landmark. And a future naming of the Eastern crossing would be a second subtitle. But the main title of the landmark — "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge" — remains. Addressing this main title is the opportunity and the imperative highlighted in this petition to name the Bay Bridge for Emperor Norton. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A WHOLESALE RE-NAMING OF THE BAY BRIDGE FOR EMPEROR NORTON? Not necessarily. Today, the state of California has at least 30 bridges that have two or more "main titles." Some two-thirds of these bridges have had their additional name(s) authorized by the state legislature 20 to 60 years after the bridge's original name had been in use (see Resources, below).  A number of these multi-named bridges are multi-bridge systems in which — as is being proposed here — the legislature has given component bridges their own names and has given the larger bridge system more than one name. Following these precedents and practices, it should be possible to simply add an official "Emperor Norton" name — say, "Emperor Norton Bridge" — to stand alongside the "Bay Bridge" name. The "Emperor Norton" name could be memorialized with a single prominent overhead highway sign on either end of the bridge and perhaps other such signs at a handful of key bridge approaches around the Bay Area. In this scenario, the existing names for the bridge and its constituent parts, together with all existing highway signs for these names, would be left in place.  A BAY AREA EMPEROR WITH A BAY AREA VISION It's been widely recognized, since the opening of the Bay Bridge system in 1936, that the entire system — both Western and Eastern crossings, connected in the middle by Yerba Buena Tunnel — is a remarkable feat of architecture and engineering. But it's not solely Emperor Norton's 1872 calls for the technological achievement of a Bay-spanning bridge connecting San Francisco with Oakland that warrants the Bay Bridge system's bearing his name. What must be kept firmly in mind is that, in calling for a cross-Bay bridge, Emperor Norton also was planting the seed of inspiration that would enable those after him to water and reap the deeper possibility of what such a bridge could do — namely, to nurture the two-way commerce of goods, ideas and influence between people on both sides of the Bay. From this perspective, the Emperor can be seen as an early, if unwitting, visionary of the whole idea of a local "regional economy." Indeed, whatever the Emperor's specific intentions in calling for a cross-Bay bridge 140-plus years ago, it seems undeniable that a major result of the Bay Bridge system has been to facilitate and nurture such an economy, to the benefit of people on both sides — and that, without a bridge system connecting San Francisco and Oakland, we would not mean the same thing by "Bay Area" as we do today. To be sure, Emperor Norton often is identified as a San Francisco figure. But, the truth is that the Emperor actually spent quite a bit of time and was well-known in the East Bay, making weekly ferry visits to Brooklyn, Calif. — present-day East Oakland, which he is said to have considered his "summer capital" — and to Berkeley, where, at the new University of California, he was warmly received by students; attended (and occasionally gave) public lectures; and routinely reviewed cadets. The Oakland Tribune published Proclamations from Emperor Norton and reported on his participation in meetings of the Oakland City Council and the Alameda Board of Supervisors. Indeed, in a February 1875 editorial, the Tribune wrote approvingly of the Emperor as a political buffer — a kind of mayoral "figurehead...who can reside on both sides of the bay at once, and who would have no insignia of office to procure in case he were elected." It was in May 1872, while staying in Brooklyn — soon to be annexed to Oakland — that the Emperor issued one of his most significant decrees, calling for "the cities of Oakland and San Francisco to make an appropriation for paying the expense of a survey to determine the practicability of a tunnel under water; and if found practicable, that said tunnel be forthwith built for a railroad communication." An early forecast of the Transbay Tube. ::   ::   :: Emperor Norton's prescient proclamations calling for both a bridge and a tunnel across the Bay have blossomed, in the hearts and minds of succeeding generations of Bay Area visionaries, into a profound recognition that Oakland needs San Francisco — and that San Francisco needs Oakland. In particular, the century-and-a-half-old vision for a bay-spanning suspension bridge that unites the people of San Francisco, Oakland and the East Bay via Yerba Buena Island — a vision that has shaped the lives of generations of the area's residents and visitors, and that has been advanced further than ever before with the opening of the new Eastern crossing as a suspension structure... It is Emperor Norton who set out and popularized this vision. In recognition of this — and whatever name(s) might be given to the components of the bridge, i.e., the West Bay Crossing, the East Bay Crossing and Yerba Buena Tunnel...  This petition calls on the State of California to authorize and recognize a second name for the bridge system as a whole — the larger entity known as the "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge." Name it the Emperor Norton Bridge. JOHN LUMEASan :    : :    : :To learn much more about this project, visit :   : :   : :This petition is the impetus for a nonprofit launched in September 2013: THE EMPEROR'S BRIDGE CAMPAIGN Web site — http://www.EmperorsBridge.orgFacebook — — :    : :    : :Resources Media coverage of this petitionWALL STREET JOURNAL — — — & & SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN — & FRANCISCO CHRONICLE — & — ANGELES TIMES — SQUID — JOSE MERCURY NEWS (and others) — & DAY SACRAMENTO (local CBS morning show) — ZAWINSKI (Mozilla and Netscape co-founder) — & THE RAW STORY — LOCAL — Emperor Norton's 1872 "Bridge" Proclamations (as originally published)6 January 1872 — March 1872 — September 1872 — Articles on Emperor Norton Short Documentary Film on Emperor Norton Named Freeways, Highways, Structures and Other Appurtenances in California (2016) California State Bridges With Multiple Names State Transportation Committee Policies onMeasures Naming Highways or StructuresSenate — (direct download)Assembly — Text of Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 65("Willie L. Brown, Jr., Bridge") Analysis of ACR 65 by the State of California's nonpartisan Office of Legislative Counsel

John Lumea
5,767 supporters