Photo at left shows street trees along East Innes Street during the 1930’s.

Before World War II, trees were seen as an integral part of the essential structure of a street. Trees helped define the "room of the street" through which cars and pedestrians traveled. By contrast, in most suburbs today, trees are used largely for ornamental purposes or to provide a "picture frame" for a house. In other instances, the developer may be trying to achieve a maximum "wooded" look, and simply save as many existing trees as possible. Again, the focus is generally on the setting for the house, rather than the setting for the street.

changes are lamentable, in that positive social interaction with one’s neighbors has been replaced by a withdrawal to the big screen TV or private rear deck. The "neighborliness" and cohesion of many neighborhoods has suffered as a result. The apparent lack of interest in street trees is but one symptom of much bigger societal changes.

Salisbury’s leaders have been largely sensitive to the wishes of its citizens regarding street trees. Salisbury has much to be proud of in terms of its support for trees. In 1985, for example, Salisbury’s City Council appointed a Tree Board. This 7 member board, which meets monthly, has primary responsibilities for the planting, preservation and maintenance of trees on all public properties and in City rights of way.

For the past 14 years in a row, Salisbury has earned the distinction of being a "Tree City USA". To receive this honor, a community must demonstrate commitment to the preservation and advancement of trees through four specific measures:

1. The City must enact and enforce a tree ordinance
2. The City must have a tree commission (i.e. Tree Board)
3. The City must hold an annual Arbor Day Celebration
4. The City must spend at least $2/capita on trees and related support services*

The City thus has an outstanding legacy of support for trees upon which to build. The next logical step in moving forward would be the preparation of a city-wide street tree master plan. While this report can suggest general policies for inclusion in such a plan, it is recommended that a more detailed street tree master plan be prepared with considerable public input, careful planning, and implementation over many years.

Alternatively, if undertaking a master street tree plan for the entire city seems overwhelming, the City could approach the plan by addressing only the most critical parts of the community initially. A street tree plan for just the downtown, for example, would be a good place to start. Similarly, master street tree plans might also be incorporated into corridor improvement plans for certain major streets and gateways into the community. In addition to street trees, such corridor plans often address many other aspects of land use and development, including street access, parking areas, streetlights, landscaping, signage, etc. Regardless of the approach taken, several suggested policies for street trees are presented in the paragraphs following.

Many streets in Salisbury are lined with an uncoordinated collection of many different types of trees, shrubbery, grass, or nothing at all. While these items no doubt have been planted in the street plaza with the best of intentions, it is the lack of a consistent whole that detracts from the street appearance. The beauty and comfort of tree-lined streets comes from the consistent rhythm, spacing, and species selected for predetermined sections of streets. It is important that an entire segment of a street be planted with a single street tree species to create a sense of identity, distinction, and pride for that location. Different species may be at their best appearance during different times of the year, thereby encouraging different streets within the city to be "on parade" during their peak times.

To its credit, the City of Salisbury has a suggested list of "Large Trees" included in the appendices to the City’s landscape ordinance. This suggested list is clearly not intended to be all-inclusive, but does provide a good starting point for the identification of suitable tree species which could be selected for specific street segments. Obviously, the selection of a particular species will require careful dialogue with property owners along a given street segment. Further, strategic marketing and implementation of the City’s street tree planting program could be quite effective in carrying out this policy initiative. (See Policy ST-6).

It is out of this concern that many urban foresters suggest that limits be set to curtail the overplanting of a single species. In addition to this gross percentage limitation, it is also recommended that no individual neighborhood planning area of the city be planted out in just one species. Rather, it is suggested that particular street segments (at most, several blocks of a street), be planted with one species. In this manner, if another devastating tree disease should come along, an entire area of the city will not be made suddenly barren.

One of the most effective methods of improving the entire city at once, while at the same time unifying its character and historic charm, is to plant street trees in consistent fashion along major thoroughfares. As noted in the "Major Streets" section of this plan, central medians and plaza strips are recommended for most new or redesigned major thoroughfares in the city. It is also worth noting that the medians of new streets seldom have overhead utilities, thereby eliminating any potential overhead conflicts with full sized street trees.

Observations of those parts of the city where street trees appear to be most effective and beautiful, reveal consistent tree species planted no more than 30 to 40 feet apart on center. Spacing at this interval eventually provides for the canopy over the street that is so universally admired.

Salisbury’s award winning landscape ordinance, adopted in 1996, requires that new commercial and multi-family developments meet specific landscape standards, including the provision of trees, as part of any approved development plans. This ordinance has done much to make Salisbury’s commercial and multi-family developments more visually appealing, and the City of Salisbury a greener, more beautiful community. It is yet one more example of how Salisbury has been at the forefront of community planning for cities of its size.

street trees than any other part of the City. During the early part of the 20th Century, when the first major push for suburban growth became prevalent, street trees were viewed as a critical element of new neighborhoods. Real estate advertisements of that period proclaimed that "street trees were already in place" waiting for the new residential lots to be filled with houses. At that time, street trees were not viewed simply as optional ornamentation, but rather as an integral part of the foundation of any good neighborhood. After all, weren't people leaving the city to get closer to nature?

Sometime after World War II, the significance of traditional street trees to new subdivisions all but disappeared, perhaps owing to the lack of sidewalks and a re-direction of outdoor activity to the backyard. At the same time, the advent of air conditioning reduced the need to design homes and neighborhoods for natural cooling. Regardless of the cause, it is unfortunate that street trees are no longer a standard element of many of today's new developments.

This plan therefore recommends that development standards for new neighborhoods include the planting or preservation of street trees in accordance with the policies of this plan as well as an overall street tree master plan. Under this arrangement, developers would be required to install street trees just as they are required to protect or install pavement, water and sewer lines, utilities, etc. to meet overall public standards for those systems. To assure compliance with this requirement, the installation of trees could be tied into the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or coordinated with the construction of sidewalks.

Just as the City may call upon developers of new neighborhoods to provide for street trees, so should the City encourage existing neighborhoods and streets to be retrofitted with street trees. In this regard, the City has an existing street tree-planting program, but it is not well known. Under the program, requests from property owners for a street tree are handled on a case-by-case basis. When a request is approved, a tree is provided and planted for the property owner by City crews at a discounted cost*. At present, there is no written material or brochure describing the street tree program or what the City offers to the typical property owner. Given the very reasonable price of the service, the City might very well be overwhelmed with requests, if the program were to be publicized. Nonetheless, a balance must be sought which would encourage existing neighborhoods and property owners to follow through on the opportunity, without breaking the budget of the City.

To maximize the impact of the street tree planting initiative and to properly budget limited program dollars, it may be necessary to make the program available to only certain parts of the City in any given year. This approach should also be effective in creating demand for the program (i.e. Take advantage of this limited time offer!), and in allowing the City to specify the type of tree species for designated neighborhoods in

accordance with the city’s street tree master plan. If a particular neighborhood declined to participate, or if the landscape character of the neighborhood simply did not lend itself to street trees, the City would just move along to the next street or neighborhood.

Sara Ebenreck, 1989
citing research by the Lawrence Berkeley Lab

As our modern day subdivisions, commercial properties and street layouts have become more automobile oriented and less pedestrian oriented, so too have our systems of lighting streets. As a result, there is today a predominance of streetlights designed to serve the primarily the automobile, and a far lesser number of those compatible with pedestrian activity. Many factors come into play when discussing the contrasting differences between automobile-oriented streetlights and pedestrian scaled streetlights. These factors include the placement of streetlights relative to the street and sidewalk, the height and distance between streetlights, the type of lamp employed, and the cost of purchasing, installing, maintaining and powering the streetlights. The following policies address each of these issues.

This policy encompasses several factors:

Still, many older parts of Salisbury are not as automobile oriented as the newer suburbs. These older neighborhoods have sidewalks that would be greatly benefited by pedestrian scaled streetlights. They also have mature street trees, which can easily block the light from a taller streetlight, creating many dark voids in the neighborhood. Policy SL-1 requires that where new or redeveloping neighborhoods or commercial areas have sidewalks or other areas of pedestrian activity, pedestrian scaled streetlights shall be employed.

In the larger scope of issues, this policy may seem to be quite particular. But few people are aware of the dramatic differences in the types of streetlight lamps employed in our urban areas. Some create a nighttime ambience that is quite attractive to the human eye, while others produce a light that might best be left in a science fiction movie.

As street lighting technologies have changed over the years, and pressures for greater lighting efficiency have escalated, corresponding changes have occurred in the types of light fixtures and lamps used in electric streetlights. Up through the mid-1970’s, for example, the most common streetlight fixture in use was the low-pressure mercury vapor lamp. This lamp throws off a decidedly bluish light, but has the advantage of imparting mostly natural colors to people and objects. Its main disadvantage is that, as the lamp grows older, it slowly loses its brightness. Thus, an entire street or neighborhood served by mercury vapor lamps can grow gradually darker over time without area residents knowing exactly why.

In the mid-1970’s, a second major type of street light fixture entered the market. The high-pressure sodium vapor lamp has the advantage of being extremely bright and quite cost effective. It also maintains a consistent level of brightness until it burns out, thus avoiding the diminishing brightness problems associated with the mercury vapor lamp. Its chief disadvantage is the objectionable light it casts, causing people and objects to take on unnatural colors that have been described as stark, almost eerie. This is the lamp that has been most commonly in use in Salisbury for the past fifteen years.

pure, white light and therefore produces an excellent color spectrum in people and objects. Not surprisingly, several automobile dealerships on Jake Alexander Boulevard have employed metal halide lamps to show off their car inventory in the most favorable light. This is the type of light, currently on the market, that is most consistent with Policy SL-2.

At present, Duke Power operates and maintains the vast majority of streetlights in Salisbury. To do this with some degree of standardization and efficiency, the power company maintains its own list of approved manufacturers of streetlights. For streetlights not on the approved list, Duke Power assesses a one-time surcharge for initial installation, and applies a higher monthly rate for the operation and maintenance of "non-standard" streetlights.

With deregulation of the electric utility industry on the horizon, it is probable that changes will be forthcoming in terms of who and how streetlights are provided. An example of such change occurred recently regarding the provision of streetlights in a section of downtown Salisbury. The City had occasion to look deeper into the streetlight issue when considering new pedestrian-scaled streetlights for the 200 block of East Council Street. Initially, the City approached Duke Power with a request for a certain type of pedestrian scaled streetlight with a metal halide lamp. Duke responded with a proposal for an "equivalent" streetlight (from within its own inventory) for an initial surcharge of about $5000 per streetlight.

Project managers for the City found that they could purchase a better quality street light elsewhere for about $1800 per streetlight. As a result, the City elected to purchase and install its own streetlights. Further, Duke had proposed to charge the City $7.50 per streetlight for operation and maintenance of the pedestrian scaled streetlights, compared to $6.60 for the standard 24 foot pole. As a result, the City decided to install electric meters and reimburse Duke Power only for the actual cost of electricity. The City has determined that actual electric consumption amounts to about $2 per month per streetlight. While this amount does not include maintenance and replacement costs, it does contrast rather strongly with the $7.50 per month charge that Duke Power had proposed. It is reasonable to believe that some portion of Duke Power’s monthly charge reflects its bias against streetlights other than their "standard issue" 24-foot fixture.

or other problems that would create a maintenance headache. Similarly, if Salisbury were ever to become a major player in the operation, maintenance and replacement of streetlights, the City would want some assurance as to the quality of the streetlights for which it would be accepting responsibility.

Policy SL-3 requires that the City and Duke Power come together to agree upon an approved list of manufacturers of streetlights for use in Salisbury’s planning jurisdiction. It implies that Duke Power should be determining its approved list of streetlights in accordance with the City of Salisbury’s wishes, rather than the other way around.

The current pricing scheme from Duke Power, and thus the City of Salisbury, favors taller, automobile-oriented lights over shorter, pedestrian-scaled lights. Consider a small neighborhood, for example, requiring 10 automobile oriented (24’ tall) streetlights. This same neighborhood may require 20 pedestrian scaled (12’ tall) streetlights. Compare the following costs charged to the City of Salisbury by Duke Power for automobile oriented versus pedestrian scaled streetlights in this hypothetical neighborhood:

Auto-oriented, standard 24’ pole

Pedestrian-scaled, basic 12’ pole

Auto-oriented, standard 24’ pole

Pedestrian-scaled, basic 12’ pole

purchase and installation costs associated with the standard 24 foot streetlights. This system of charges would not change under

However, as noted in the narrative for Policy SL-3 above, Duke Power and thus the City also apply surcharges to the monthly operation, maintenance and replacement (OMR) charges for non-standard streetlights. These extra charges are assessed by adding a surcharge to each property owner’s utility bill on the "benefited street". Policy SL-4 suggests that the true differences in cost between standard 24-foot poles and pedestrian scaled 12-foot poles are not significant enough to warrant two or more different monthly rates. Rather, if the property owner(s) or developer are willing to install streetlights of a better quality or appearance, they should not be penalized with a higher monthly OMR service charge.

In addition to Duke Power’s pricing scheme, there are other "institutionalized" factors that tend to work against pedestrian scaled streetlights and in favor of automobile-oriented streetlights. Nationally recognized streetlighting illumination norms, for example, have as their primary objective the safe movement of vehicular traffic (rather than the comfort and safety of the pedestrian). Standards set by the Illuminating Engineering Society have become the minimum criteria for municipal street lighting, and are employed by cities, in part, to avoid liability claims of negligence for inadequate street lighting. Policy SL-4 takes the position that pedestrian scaled streetlights, when properly spaced, should have no adverse impact on liability, and provide for improved pedestrian safety and comfort.

Given a requirement for streetlights, it would not be surprising that proposals would soon be forthcoming requesting permission to install streetlights on only one side of the street. This is particularly true in new developments where the developer may be able to reduce his infrastructure costs by installing underground wiring on one side of the street only. This is somewhat akin to proposals for installing sidewalks on one side of the street only. Several arguments against the one-sided treatment of streets have already been presented in the narrative for Policy SW-4 on Sidewalks. Here, it might be added that street lighting on one side only, particularly when involving more frequently spaced pedestrian-scaled lights, creates a visual imbalance in the street corridor. Further, such lighting has a tendency to illuminate one sidewalk quite well while leaving the opposite sidewalk in the dark.

Most citizens of Salisbury, if asked about whether they would prefer that utility wires be above ground or below, would undoubtedly prefer the latter. This perspective is certainly recognized by most developers and homebuilders in Salisbury, who routinely place utilities underground in new subdivisions. Even so, much of Salisbury was developed before the undergrounding of utilities was the common practice, so a very large part of the city is criss crossed with overhead utilities.

Despite an intuitive sense that underground utilities are preferred by most people, the overhead utility issue received only modest attention at the town meetings held for the comprehensive plan. Clearly, in the minds of most citizens, there are other more pressing issues facing Salisbury than the desire to relocate overhead utilities underground. This may be just as well, given the level of complexity and cost involved in putting existing overhead wires underground. Complicating factors during conversion are many and include:

—utility service interruptions must be minimized,

—existing water and sewer lines may need relocation, etc.

Since the costs of converting the entire community from overhead to underground utilities are prohibitive (barring some major technological advancement), the following policy recommendations suggest that priority areas be identified in advance, further, that three criteria might be employed to facilitate gradual or partial conversion, consistent with those priorities.

Since undergrounding of existing overhead utilities is so expensive, and there is so much area affected, a master plan for undergrounding is recommended to identify specific areas with special priorities. Priority areas deserving of undergrounding might include critical scenic spots, historic streets of particular significance, visitor oriented commercial districts, and locations involving important views. And, as in the case for street trees, plans for undergrounding of utilities may be incorporated into master streetscape or highway corridor plans, where applicable. While this need not be an elaborate plan, the relative costs of undergrounding could be estimated for each priority area, along with some notion of the benefits and merits.

The preparation of such a plan would not require widespread community involvement early on, but could take the form of a more general, technical document. This would be similar in nature to the priority setting systems that many cities use to determine repaving schedules for city streets. Implementation of any component of the plan, however, would require intensive involvement to coordinate service interruptions, ground disturbances, potential traffic reroutings, etc. Such participation during implementation would require the full cross-section of the interests involved, including utility companies; residential, commercial and industrial property owners; the City of Salisbury; the State Department of Transportation, and others.

As noted in the major streets section, Salisbury's major streets are the community's windows to the world. In addition to visitors and prospective business interests seeing the community for the first time, residents of Salisbury would be benefited by enhancements to what are often regarded as some of the least attractive aspects of the city. If the City is to embark on a commitment to street tree planting along its major thoroughfares, then every consideration should be given to the relocation of overhead utilities from these same thoroughfares. Specifically, as existing thoroughfares are widened or redesigned, provision should be included in the construction plans for the undergrounding or relocations of overhead wires.

Of all streetscape elements in the city's older commercial areas, overhead utilities are among the most visually damaging to an attractive, pedestrian-scaled environment. In this regard, the City has worked slowly but steadily to underground the utilities in the heart of the downtown area. Former conglomerations of overhead electronic gear have now been replaced by turn-of-the-century pedestrian-scaled streetlights. This is clearly befitting of the significance attributed to Salisbury’s downtown area by both residents and visitors to the City.

This same commitment to undergrounding should be extended to other strategic areas of the downtown that have a clear pedestrian orientation. Also in this regard, as Salisbury’s other older commercial areas seek higher levels of visibility through economic development, they would be logical candidates for such action.

An "opportunity program" for conversion is suggested to take advantage of situations as they arise when existing overhead utilities must be altered, changed, or relocated. Periodically, utilities must change their overhead facilities to increase capacity, update obsolete equipment, or replace it when it is worn out. These are the opportunities to look for, and plan ahead for, as changes occur. Other opportunities for conversion present themselves when a street is improved or relocated, when major building renovations occur, and when a low-density residential area is planned for conversion to commercial or more intensive residential uses.

1) Introduce carefully selected streetlights and street light standards. In Great Britain, for example, the onset of streetlights along a major thoroughfare is an unmistakable announcement that the motorist is leaving the country and entering the city. So deliberate are the British in using this technique, that legal speed limits are understood to drop immediately upon the sighting of streetlights. (Also see Streetlight Polices SL-1 to SL-5)

2) Introduce sidewalks and bikeways. At least theoretically, areas inside the city limits should be developed at a higher, walkable level of intensity than the surrounding countryside. Higher density development, in turn, calls for sidewalks and bikeways. The presence of a sidewalk is a natural indicator of an urban setting, while the introduction of bikeways along either an extra wide outside lane or as a separate parallel path, connotes a commitment to alternative forms of transportation. (Also see Sidewalk Policies SW-1 to SW-5 and Bikeway Policies B-1 to B-6)

Kenneth T. Jackson, 1985
on entryways into small towns in the 1920's

no single item that can radically alter the appearance of a street than the introduction of consistently spaced, canopy-creating street trees. In much the same way that a new coat of paint can hide a world of defects, street trees can make up for much of the visual blight associated with commercial strip development. (Also see Major Street Policies and Street Tree Policies)

4) Introduce curb and gutter. Curb and gutter has historically been associated with city streets. In addition to its engineering and traffic containment advantages in the urban setting, the installation of curb and gutter renders a clean and definitive shape to the street and the sense of formality desired in a city. (Also see Street Policy S-13)

5) Show contrast in signage through enhanced sign controls. Commercial signage is second only to the visual quality of parking areas in establishing the image of a commercial strip. A sudden change in the character of signage, therefore, from the garish mish mash of overdone, competing, pole mounted signs and billboards, to low-key, monument style or building-mounted signage can have a startling, positive impact on new arrivals to a city. (Also see Commercial Polices C-11 and C-13)

(6) Put overhead utilities underground. While the Utility Poles and Wires section of this report deals exclusively with this item, it is worth remembering that the absence of utility poles and overhead wires makes a noticeable statement to the motorist first entering a city. (Also see Utility Poles and Wires Policies U-1 to U-4)

(7) Bring buildings up to the street and put parking behind. This item was previously discussed under the Commercial Areas section of the plan. The point to be made here is that by pulling buildings up to the street, a sense of street enclosure and space is created through which the motorist then travels. This technique, used in combination with street trees, is in stark contrast with the sea of asphalt perspective seen along several of Salisbury’s major thoroughfares today. (Also see Policies on Newer, Existing Commercial Areas)

(8) Use welcome signs only where a distinguishable change in the streetscape is apparent. Historically, welcome signs have been the method of choice to announce a point of entry into a community. Where there is a distinguishable change in the character of the streetscape, such signs can be appropriate; where there is no distinguishable change, a welcome sign can appear trivial and may be best avoided.

When towns are small, young, and relatively well defined, the traditional monument style, landscaped welcome sign is quite appropriate to announce an entry into a different and distinct place. This technique breaks down entirely, however, when such a welcome sign is placed at the edge of a busy highway where the city's political jurisdiction ends, but where the character of development continues on unabated. Such a sign becomes easily lost amid the chaos of businesses, parking lots, and competing commercial signage oftentimes found in such locations. Therefore, welcome signs should generally not be employed to announce an entry point in the midst of continuous, urban strip development. (At best, a standard "Salisbury City Limits" sign may be all that is warranted.) On the other hand, if the specific point of entry corresponds to a creek, bridge, or definitive limit of development or break in the landscape, the traditional welcome sign can contribute positively to the image of the community.

Alternatively, the establishment of coordinated city/county development controls for major thoroughfares, the appropriate expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction, or the timely annexation of new areas while still in their development infancy, would all be helpful.

To fully understand this recommendation, one must have a clear idea of what is meant by an architectural gate, however. First, what gates are not. Architectural gates are not obstructions. They do not cause traffic to stop, or even inhibit traffic movement for that matter. Nor do they swing closed, or even have elements capable of being closed. These are the differences between the modern entry gate of the late 19th/early 20th century and medieval gate designed to close out unwanted intruders. (Interestingly, today, in the early 21^st century, many new suburban subdivisions and planned unit developments have adopted a new form of the medieval-type gate- electronically controlled gates which are intended to lock out all but residents and their invited guests. This form of exclusive isolationism at the neighborhood level is not encouraged by this plan.)

or arts events, special announcement banners might be placed across the gateway.

As revealed at the town meetings for this plan, most city residents point to East Innes Street and the recently developed sections of Statesville Boulevard and Jake Alexander Boulevard as having some of the most objectionable forms of development in Salisbury. Salisbury is not alone in this regard, as hundreds of cities across the country are struggling with the same plight of automobile oriented strip commercial development.

As is the case with most issues of this magnitude, the problem is multi-faceted. Since the turn of the century, building materials and

techniques have been becoming increasingly homogenized throughout the United States. At the same time, the real estate development world has grown small, with development techniques and formulas being adopted by most of the major retail chains. Evidence of this can be readily seen in formula-based discount stores, motel chains, video rental outlets, fast food restaurants, freestanding drug stores, and many other types of buildings.

Development regulations, emphasizing separation of land uses above all else, and with little or no concern for building architecture or scale, have done little to prevent the spread of "Anywhere USA" along commercial strips throughout the country. Meanwhile, the banking industry and real estate finance community have, over the years, also become entrenched in real estate formulas for commercial success. Occasional upheavals in the real estate and banking industries merely add fuel to the fire of conservatism in development (i.e. doing only what has been done successfully in the recent past).

These factors are especially discouraging to report in a community with the rich history and significant architectural resources of Salisbury. If the substantial loss of the city's identity and character is to be prevented, both the public and private sectors will need to reconsider the methods and priorities of the present system of development. The following recommendations are an attempt to create some inroads in this regard.

Communities that are depressed economically and fighting a hard battle for new investment may feel that asking for a higher standard of design might prevent new businesses and development from coming in. While this argument may have some merit in economically depressed communities, it is clearly not the case in Salisbury, where demand for new residential and commercial development continues to be strong, and promises to become even greater as pressures for growth reach out from the rapidly expanding Charlotte metropolitan area.

Design guidelines that establish some minimal level of character can be very simple. Such standards may address nothing more than a "build to" line, roof form, building proportions, and windows facing the street. These minimum criteria can be highly effective in creating compatibility among seemingly diverse architectural designs. If these few elements are specified, other items such building materials, architectural style, and even colors pale in significance, and need not be specified unless a higher standard of compatibility is justified by historic significance or exceptionally high visibility (Also see Policies for Commercial Areas).

In every community, there are normally a number of especially significant locations that have a high degree of visibility or strategic importance. These locations may include major intersections, individual buildings of historic significance or, in the case of Salisbury, special areas such as the West Square Historic District, Livingstone College, and North Main Street.

Salisbury has been a leader statewide for many years regarding the special protection given to historic areas of the city. However, some strategic individual locations in the city have yet to receive the special consideration or protection they deserve. Examples include points of arrival in the city, including major street intersections with I-85 (While Innes Street has been the subject of much attention and proposed corrective actions to date, Jake Alexander Boulevard at I-85 could benefit from a higher degree of preventative protection. (Correction is much more costly than prevention.)

Due to the outstanding significance of these locations to the overall economic and aesthetic value of the city, special development standards are warranted. This may include standards regarding minimum lot size, land use, building form, parking areas, exterior lighting, signage, landscaping, public spaces, and the like.

For reasons similar to the above recommendation, the city should also identify a limited number of important views and vistas for special protection. Examples might include views of the intersection of Innes and Main Streets to and from various directions, and views from the downtown to the surrounding landscape to the east. In the latter case, buildings should not be allowed to be constructed which would destroy such scenic and historic vistas.

Over the last 40 to 50 years, the practice of placing significant structures, outdoor places, and objects in the context of their site, has given way largely to the real estate forces of minimum cost/ maximum profit and (in the short term) optimum traffic flow.

once embodied the pride of a particular district in the community, are now assigned a similar fate. It is unfortunate that the costs of maintaining the sprawling suburban infrastructure of streets and water and sewer lines are bankrupting public coffers. How much better off our communities would be if these same monies could be used for public buildings and outdoor spaces of more lasting and inspirational significance.

The private sector has also largely abandoned a commitment to "community" in favor of commitment to the individual property. Site plans cater mostly to

the convenient circulation of the automobile, with building placement dictated more by site circulation and parking than by building placement for community appearance.

This plan recommends that as street layouts for new neighborhood planning areas are designed, the termination points of some streets (normally "t" or "y" intersections) be reserved for buildings, outdoor spaces and objects of significant community value. Such uses might include schools, libraries, churches, public squares, etc. Similarly, private sector buildings of unusual merit or purpose should be placed in locations that anchor a street end or vista, and give bearing and direction to citizens and newcomers alike.

Normally, this can be accomplished by one of two methods: physical design and name recognition. Physical design can mean saving a significant tree, small pond, brook, rock outcropping, etc. and incorporating these items into the design of the development. It can also mean saving an historic structure and creating a thematic design around it. Such a design might include architecturally compatible buildings, coordinated business and informational signage, thematic streetlights and benches, etc.

Name recognition means picking up on some historic person, event, or other colloquialism unique to the area of the development. The entire development can be named accordingly, as well as its individual streets, park sites, etc.

In many respects, Salisbury has been blessed with a richness of natural and architectural resources unmatched by any city of its size in North Carolina. Nowhere is this more evident than among the many significant structures of the historic downtown area. Obvious choices include the Salisbury Community Building, Rowan County Court House, the Old U.S. Post Office,

St. Lukes Episcopal Church, Salisbury Train Station, and the Grubb-Wallace Building. Where appropriate, tasteful architectural lighting can bring such structures to life, illuminate the nighttime city, and enhance downtown area security and safety. Also, in some instances, certain sizeable residential structures may be candidates for architectural lighting.

In addition, the grandeur of large street trees can be capitalized upon with tasteful lighting. Not only is such lighting attractive, but it, too, can supplement street lighting in deterrence of crime and the promotion of public safety.

Finally, the city's bridges and overpasses, offer an outstanding opportunity to create a year-round visual impact unmatched in the nighttime city. Salisbury can take its cues from major cities as markedly different as San Francisco, Cleveland, and London, which have found architectural bridge lighting to be popular sources of pride among permanent residents and of considerable interest to visitors from cities not so blessed.