M-6 Corridor Growth and Sprawl

[twoshort]

I largely agree. While I love city living, it really just doesn't exist in GR. Further, there are some things about having a house with a yard that I'd hate to give up. I like having a private garage and room to work on my bike. In a condo where do you keep your messy stuff? Can you even change your own oil? Where do you wash your car?

But I love city life because I don't have to cut the grass or maintain anything. I love being able to walk places. I wish we had more places worth walking to in downtown GR.

Living in the city doesn't mean you have to live on Monroe Center. There are plenty of great grand rapids neighborhoods (east hills, midtown, etc etc etc) where you can have your yard, your garage, and your bike. And on top of all that you could walk to the bar, the bookstore, the coffee shop, and to dinner.

I can't FATHOM spending $45k on a lot in a corn field off of 108th St just so you can have privacy. Sick.

Wow, I just realized that is WAY off topic, but I'm still going to post it.

[francishsu]

It's just ridiculous to proclaim the sky is falling because of M-6. All the larger cities, even the ones that have relatively low amounts of sprawl have bypass freeways far more extensive than M-6. M-6 only happened after decades of planning. And there is no conflict with public transporation. You can have both. Even in the cities with the most established public transportation systems, the public transportation only accounts for a small percentage of all the traffic.

And to say that we should just have urban and rural with little in between is likewise ridiculous, as is bashing suburban living for not being as pedestrian friendly. Rural living isn't either. I've experienced both urban (Boston) and suburban living and I like both. I like driving on freeways and I enjoy public transportation as well.

[Mark Miller]

These articles, while on-point and fun to read, are very frustrating. Everyone makes it sound like a city or township or region can just say "ok, no more sprawl" and then it will go away. Its a simple look at a complicated problem, and these articles always avoid the real issues behind it all, and therefore offer no practical solution. "We really need to look inward more than we do," is barely even a starting point, much less a solution.

Its easy to focus on whats wrong, but I think everybody knows whats wrong. Its alot harder to figure out how to fix it.

I agree it is a complicated problem that has the momentum of 50+ years behind it and it is not going to just go away overnight, without a fight.

But, the cities and township have control over this sort of thing. They, more than anyone else.

If they do not want sprawl, they can create ordinances that reflect that desire. Of course they need to understand what sprawl is.

What is frustrating is the concept of rural character. I do not think that any townships out there really come out and say "we want sprawl", but what they do say is "we want rural character" and then they turn around and allow for highway commercial (with berms and buffers, of course) and 2-acre minimum lot sizes. It is their perogative and right to tell developers what is and is not allowed in their township. It is also their responsibility to educate themselves on what rural character is. It is clear that when the desire is "rural character" and the mechanism is not preserving it, then the mechanism (in this case, zoning) needs to be completely overhauled. Continuing to do something that does not work would be the equivalent of the medical profession continuing to practice lobotomies. It would be crazy.

The practical solution is to first decide what you want. Rural character with growth concentrated in hamlets and villages (that are mixed-use, walkable, etc) or suburban sprawl, composed of monoculture pods of housing tracts on 2 acre lots, strip malls, big boxes and the like. Those are the only two options in greenfields that desire development. Urbanism or the mixed up middle.

Once that is decided it is a relatively easy jump to regulate it through some sort of zoning. If they desire urbanism, then their current zoning needs to be thrown in the scrap heap. It is simple and the township can control this. They can also control development in other ways. Like if the desire is to save rural character, then do not run sewer and water to the area that is desired for preservation.

So in short the solution is really all about the townships desire for what they want their township to look like and then to convey that to developers and others in a fair and democratic way.

The solutions are out there and the things that do not work are also evident. What is now needed is for education to occur at the citizen and at the decision maker levels. And then, of course, the leaders and elected/appointed decision makers need to actually make the tough decisions.

[TheCityGuy]

And then, of course, the leaders and elected/appointed decision makers need to actually make the tough decisions.

Finally, someone hits it on the head. Too often development and planning professionals are told to go stick it when they attempt to change the status quo. I highly doubt the lay person understands the political game that planning and zoning has become, especially in the townships.

Now, in saying this, I'm not letting anyone off the hook. However, some people are asking to change development patterns that have been ongoing since WWII. It isn't easy.

GR Town Planner makes the most important point in that it is crucial to educate the decision makers.

Too bad none of them read this forum.

[Mark Miller]

It's just ridiculous to proclaim the sky is falling because of M-6. All the larger cities, even the ones that have relatively low amounts of sprawl have bypass freeways far more extensive than M-6. M-6 only happened after decades of planning. And there is no conflict with public transporation. You can have both. Even in the cities with the most established public transportation systems, the public transportation only accounts for a small percentage of all the traffic.

And to say that we should just have urban and rural with little in between is likewise ridiculous, as is bashing suburban living for not being as pedestrian friendly. Rural living isn't either. I've experienced both urban (Boston) and suburban living and I like both. I like driving on freeways and I enjoy public transportation as well.

I have not proclaimed that we should just have rural and urban, but rather an entire spectrum of human habitat, which has been elegantly portrayed in the transect model as designed by DPZ.

This allows for those that want to live on larger lots in a sub-urban context. What it does not allow for is conventional suburban growth with monocultures podded off in segregated enlaves.

It allows something for everyone.

What conventional suburban development (CSD) does not allow for is this diversity. If I want a new house on a 2-acre lot, that is a front loaded snout house with vinyl siding and some obligatory brick on the front along with a few junipers for landscaping then CSD is awesome. Especially if I want to get in may car for every single thing that I do, even if it is in an adjacent pod across a detention pond.

However, if I want to live on a small lot or in a townhouse across the street from a village green and I also want to be able to have my kids walk to school or be able to walk to the store, then my options are very limited within the framework of CSD. So therefore anyone who desires these things does not have the choice.

As far as being able to have both the highway and a viable public transit system, it is hard when you have just spent 1 billion dollars on one and have no money left for the other. There is no balance in that regard.

[torgo]

I agree it is a complicated problem that has the momentum of 50+ years behind it and it is not going to just go away overnight, without a fight.

But, the cities and township have control over this sort of thing. They, more than anyone else.

If they do not want sprawl, they can create ordinances that reflect that desire. Of course they need to understand what sprawl is.

What is frustrating is the concept of rural character. I do not think that any townships out there really come out and say "we want sprawl", but what they do say is "we want rural character" and then they turn around and allow for highway commercial (with berms and buffers, of course) and 2-acre minimum lot sizes. It is their perogative and right to tell developers what is and is not allowed in their township. It is also their responsibility to educate themselves on what rural character is. It is clear that when the desire is "rural character" and the mechanism is not preserving it, then the mechanism (in this case, zoning) needs to be completely overhauled. Continuing to do something that does not work would be the equivalent of the medical profession continuing to practice lobotomies. It would be crazy.

The practical solution is to first decide what you want. Rural character with growth concentrated in hamlets and villages (that are mixed-use, walkable, etc) or suburban sprawl, composed of monoculture pods of housing tracts on 2 acre lots, strip malls, big boxes and the like. Those are the only two options in greenfields that desire development. Urbanism or the mixed up middle.

Once that is decided it is a relatively easy jump to regulate it through some sort of zoning. If they desire urbanism, then their current zoning needs to be thrown in the scrap heap. It is simple and the township can control this. They can also control development in other ways. Like if the desire is to save rural character, then do not run sewer and water to the area that is desired for preservation.

So in short the solution is really all about the townships desire for what they want their township to look like and then to convey that to developers and others in a fair and democratic way.

The solutions are out there and the things that do not work are also evident. What is now needed is for education to occur at the citizen and at the decision maker levels. And then, of course, the leaders and elected/appointed decision makers need to actually make the tough decisions.

Agreed. Many townships need to recognize that 2 acres does not preserve rural character. Preserving rural character means 20 or 40 acre minimum lot sizes. No subdivisions, no site condos, no utilities. This is where the political game comes in. As we've discussed before, if you tell a 65 year old farmer (who is more powerful than you might think) he can't do anything with his land, he's not going to like it, because in many respects he is losing a lot of money.

Very few townships are willing to take on that issue, because the politicians will get killed, and the Townships will get sued a hundred times over and go broke paying their attorneys.

Ann Arbor has taken what might be a good approach. Both the City and Township levy a special millage and use that money to buy farmland near the city. That way, it can't be developed. But guess what? They are being sued.

[allbusiness]

I think it's important to consider that expressways and bypasses don't necessarily cause urban sprawl. It's interchanges that cause it. For instance, the people who are complaining about the proposed US 31 bypass around Holland and Grand Haven are "concerned" (even while some of them are negotiating options with farmers in the proposed path) about all the farmland that will be destroyed by new roads, gas stations, restaurants, subdivisions, etc.

I always challenge the naysayers by saying, "Fine, then let's just go from south of Holland to north of Grand Haven with no interchanges, no exits and no entrances". That usually shuts them up. A true bypass would simply route "through traffic" around the urban area. There is no need to impact the landscape more than a 300-400 foot right of way. Witness the Indiana Tollway or the Florida Turnpike. Rural environment all the way.

And no one can argue that we don't need a 2nd crossing of the Grand River. Most Ottawa County drivers will agree that the 20 mile stretch of county between US 31 and Eastmanville is ridiculous -- especially if there is construction on either bridge...and there always is!

By the way...it'll never happen that way. The same people (including township officials) arguing against sprawl today will be the ones making money from selling off their family farm to accommodate the interchanges along the way.

[Mark Miller]

I think it's important to consider that expressways and bypasses don't necessarily cause urban sprawl. It's interchanges that cause it. For instance, the people who are complaining about the proposed US 31 bypass around Holland and Grand Haven are "concerned" (even while some of them are negotiating options with farmers in the proposed path) about all the farmland that will be destroyed by new roads, gas stations, restaurants, subdivisions, etc.

I always challenge the naysayers by saying, "Fine, then let's just go from south of Holland to north of Grand Haven with no interchanges, no exits and no entrances". That usually shuts them up. A true bypass would simply route "through traffic" around the urban area. There is no need to impact the landscape more than a 300-400 foot right of way. Witness the Indiana Tollway or the Florida Turnpike. Rural environment all the way.

And no one can argue that we don't need a 2nd crossing of the Grand River. Most Ottawa County drivers will agree that the 20 mile stretch of county between US 31 and Eastmanville is ridiculous -- especially if there is construction on either bridge...and there always is!

By the way...it'll never happen that way. The same people (including township officials) arguing against sprawl today will be the ones making money from selling off their family farm to accommodate the interchanges along the way.

That is exactly it. If it is a bypass, then remove the interchanges. But the township officials would never go for that. They see the dollar signs of a quick buck on all the "growth" that can occur.

When M-6 was being planned, a few well meaning citizens spoke to exactly this issue. They were most likely labeled as some sort of socialists or communists as a result.

[Veloise]

Living in the city doesn't mean you have to live on Monroe Center. There are plenty of great grand rapids neighborhoods (east hills, midtown, etc etc etc) where you can have your yard, your garage, and your bike. And on top of all that you could walk to the bar, the bookstore, the coffee shop, and to dinner.

...

I'm in East Hills, and I have 8 bikes. Off-alley parking out back (could wash the four-wheeler there if I wanted to). Plenty of room for messy projects like bike maintenance, spray painting, PVC pipe cutting.

This is less than a mile from DT. My favorite walking street these days is Fountain, with a variety of beautiful old homes. In a week I'll be campaigning a different little side street.

[francishsu]

I think the interchanges are a good point. West of 131, I do question the need for the 8th Ave. and Wilson Ave. exits. Byron Center could even be questioned too, but I think it more reasonable. But there could very well have been more interchanges: Clyde Park, Division, Eastern.. overall I think they did an OK of picking the interchanges.

As for the cost of M-6 diverting preventing LRT/BRT, I don't buy into that. There's no LRT/BRT solution that could solve the primary problems addressed by M-6. Keep in mind that they also managed to finish M-6 4 years ahead of the original plan. With regard to the timeline of the LRT/BRT planning, I think it actually works out nicely because M-6 is done and we can move on.

[francishsu]

I have not proclaimed that we should just have rural and urban, but rather an entire spectrum of human habitat, which has been elegantly portrayed in the transect model as designed by DPZ.

This allows for those that want to live on larger lots in a sub-urban context. What it does not allow for is conventional suburban growth with monocultures podded off in segregated enlaves.

Sorry, but I'm not quite getting that diagram. What's the makeup of businesses in T3? Where do the big box stores go? What kinds of roads to you see in each zone? Are there any freeways/highways?

[Phizzy]

But there could very well have been more interchanges: Clyde Park, Division, Eastern..

Perhaps the reason there isn't an interchange at Clyde Park is that it is practically impossible given its close proximity to the M-6/US-131 interchange. Same reason could probably apply for the absence of an interchange at Division.

Satellite view.

[francishsu]

Perhaps the reason there isn't an interchange at Clyde Park is that it is practically impossible given its close proximity to the M-6/US-131 interchange. Same reason could probably apply for the absence of an interchange at Division.

They could have built the interchange so that you could end up on 131, Clyde Park or Division. There's plenty of examples of an exit ramps with multiple destinations. In the end, they opted not to do it.

[GRDadof3]

They could have built the interchange so that you could end up on 131, Clyde Park or Division. There's plenty of examples of an exit ramps with multiple destinations. In the end, they opted not to do it.

Why would there even need to be an interchange at Clyde Park or Division? You're basically 1.5 miles from the 68th interchange on 131.

In regard to the advantage of taking trucks off of other thoroughfares, couldn't this have been taken care of by adding a "truck lane" in each direction to 44th Street, or to I-196? I'm just trying to think of solutions that don't require adding more highways that won't be able to be maintained in the future. The ones we have can barely be maintained now without sending the State into dire straits.

Generally speaking, the truck traffic in Grand Rapids is nowhere near I-94 from Battle Creek to Chicago.

[francishsu]

Why would there even need to be an interchange at Clyde Park or Division? You're basically 1.5 miles from the 68th interchange on 131.

Oh, I agree there's little reason to have it. But at least one person I think asked why there wasn't an exit to Division. And I wouldn't be surprised if some business interests pushed for the idea of a super-mega intercharge there.

In regard to the advantage of taking trucks off of other thoroughfares, couldn't this have been taken care of by adding a "truck lane" in each direction to 44th Street, or to I-196?

A truck lane on 44th street sounds like a nightmare to me anyways. Yes, expanding I-196 would have been an alternative, and I bet that they did consider that. Out of curiosity, I'd like to see their analysis on that. I bet the economic cost of that would be quite high, considering construction and disruption. As I said before, one of the nice things about M-6 is that it actually cuts the distance too, reducing transportation costs. But I will concede that I-196 expansion is a viable alternative. Until I read some analysis on it, I don't have a strong opinion on that.

[Mark Miller]

Sorry, but I'm not quite getting that diagram. What's the makeup of businesses in T3? Where do the big box stores go? What kinds of roads to you see in each zone? Are there any freeways/highways?

The diagram needs to be codified, which would essentially be calibrating it to local standards. One method in which this has been codified is through the smart code, also a product of DPZ. But keep in mind local calibration is essential.

The general smartcode document deals with RETAIL building functions in the related zones:

T1, Natural: prohibited

T2, Rural: prohibited

T3, Sub-urban: restricted*

T4, General urban: limited use

T5 and T6, Urban Center and Urban Core: open use

*"Restricted retail: the buiding available for retail use is restricted to one block corner location at the first story for each 300 dwelling units...this specific use shall be limited to the neighborhood store or food service seating no more than 20."

In other words small buildings, in a limited amount.

Huge amounts of retail are not appropriate within the zone and should be in the more urban zones of T4, T5 and T6, including big box retail.

In the idealized world of the transect, the retail services that are in the more urban zones are still connected to the sub-urban zone within the matrix of the whole habitat. T3 is not stand-alone podded off development as much of CSD currently is.

The big box issue is a complex issue, but sticking a big box in T1 through T3 and even T4 would most likely be referred to as a transect violation.

The transect is an ordering mechanism, which allows a place for everything and everything in its place.

As far as street and road types, they are also tied to each of the zones. For instance, in T3 Sub-urban, you may find rural roads, standard roads, and residential roads, but you should not see standard streets, commercial streets, or avenues. Likewise you may be more likely to see rear lanes in lieu of alleys, depending on where in T3 Sub-urban that you are. The street terminology is defined within the smartcode, so that one would no what a "standard road" and how it differs from a "standard street".

Civic space is also calibrated. For instance it is not appropriate to put a plaza or a square in T3 Sub-urban, but it is appropriate to have a green or a park. These are further defined in the smart code.

All of this stuff is a matter of public record. The smartcode document can be downloaded in PDF form from a variety of sources. One of which is at a company called Placemakers.

The smart code has also been calibrated locally by the Grand Valley Metro Council and can be found in PDF form at their website.

These are excellent examples of solutions to the problems of CSD. And whether people agree with them or not, they are solutions and very few other people are providing solutions. The smartcode is not necessarily an ideal document, but other solutions to this problem just flat out do not exist. It is one of the best available.

[torgo]

These are excellent examples of solutions to the problems of CSD. And whether people agree with them or not, they are solutions and very few other people are providing solutions. The smartcode is not necessarily an ideal document, but other solutions to this problem just flat out do not exist. It is one of the best available.

The only other feasible solution that comes to mind is a TDR or PDR program. But this is not even ideal, as state law is unclear, and the effectiveness would likely be subject to market forces. But at least it satisfies those who want to preserve real countryside and the farmers who want the money they have in their land. A sucessful program could maintain the viability of farmland and redirect money and housing stock into areas that would benefit most. But its still largely theoretical...jeez I feel like I am in college.

[GRDadof3]

The smart code has also been calibrated locally by the Grand Valley Metro Council and can be found in PDF form at their website.

These are excellent examples of solutions to the problems of CSD. And whether people agree with them or not, they are solutions and very few other people are providing solutions. The smartcode is not necessarily an ideal document, but other solutions to this problem just flat out do not exist. It is one of the best available.

Here's the linky for those interested in learning more:

http://www.gvmc.org/landuse/formbasedcode.shtml

[francishsu]

Ok, I've spent some hours reviewing the GVMC SmartCode and learning more about Transect planning. My "conclusions":

First, I will preface this to say that I am particularly supportive of highways for long distance traveling. Transect doesn't cover it, but if New Urbanism does suggest that all expressways are evil, then I will never support it.

One of its goals is slowing down traffic in general, and a highway certainly does not achive that goal. However, Transect acknowledges that there are going to be special uses that will not fit into the T1-T6 models. Examples are hospitals, college campuses, industrial parks, airports and even big box shopping. Hospitals, airports, and industrial parks special use districts I think are ideally suited for locating very near to limited access freeways exchanges. One idea that I might support as part of a broader strategy would be basically redoing highways that are not limited access, but are high speed. Examples would be East Beltline, US-31 in Holland, etc.

From the documents I read about GVMC SmartCode, special use districts are not addressed, and expressways are only mentioned something that can occur at all Transect levels. I would recommend that GVMC publish more information on their position on expressways, their uses and when expansion is warranted under a SmartCode zoning.

As far as the different levels go and their characteristics, I think there are some very good ideas there. But as far as their influence on my view of M-6, there is no influence. M-6 is not going to prevent a township, city or county from adopting form-based zoning. And adopting such zoning would not make M-6 useless at all. The Metro Health Village would be an example of a special use along M-6 that I would consider to be perfectly reasonable. As for the big box shopping of Kalamazoo, well I would prefer to blame Gaines Township over the state of Michigan for that.

I read that Byron Township is working on a new land use plan. Wyoming just recently drafted theirs, but I haven't looked at it yet. For people supporting Transect, this would be a good opportunity to give feedback. Wyoming will be asking for it from all the surrounding areas. I hope that the time I spent learning about this, and my analysis, does not fall on deaf ears here.

Oh, I just remembered. I did read one article on Transect that had an excerpt that I found a bit interesting and odd at the same time.

From http://www.newurbannews.com/transect.html:

In other respects, development options and freedom increase with the new code. Under conventional zoning, a developer with 100 acres may have no choice but to build one kind of residential at a consistent density. Under the new code, the developer could opt to build a village

[GRGyp]

Why would there even need to be an interchange at Clyde Park or Division? You're basically 1.5 miles from the 68th interchange on 131.

In regard to the advantage of taking trucks off of other thoroughfares, couldn't this have been taken care of by adding a "truck lane" in each direction to 44th Street, or to I-196? I'm just trying to think of solutions that don't require adding more highways that won't be able to be maintained in the future. The ones we have can barely be maintained now without sending the State into dire straits.

Generally speaking, the truck traffic in Grand Rapids is nowhere near I-94 from Battle Creek to Chicago.

Also remember that this piece of highway is a beltway. You're going to have less exits than a business route type of highway like US-131 on it as result. A beltway is designed more for through traffic, not local traffic. So your exits are going to be spread out over 3 to 6 mile spreads and not every mile. I highly doubt you ever see new exits popping up on M-6 from Kalamazoo Avenue to the west, because that simply not the function of a beltway. In all honesty, I can only see one addition exit possibility on M-6 and it's over on the airport side of the beltway. If growth starts up around the commercial terminal on the east side of the airport, I could see a interchange added on at Thornapple River Ave or 48th Street. More likely Thornapple River, since 48th St is getting close to the I-96 interchange.

And as much as I love to see lightrail added to Grand Rapids, I think a complete beltway around the city is needed as well. Grand Rapids is growing as area enough to support the maintenance, and plus you a beltway open to ease traffic issues when you need to completely shutdown US-131 for resurfacing, or when they start to expand I-96 / I-196 to three lanes through the middle of town. The M-6 corridor allows for things like this to happen.

I-96 / I-196 is going to have to go to three lanes through town at some point if people continue to move back into the city. US-131 is also 20 years overdue in having the concrete completely removed and replaced. The wearing surface on the concrete is completely gone now and the state will spend more money patching the holes in the concrete as water and ice start to break it up over the next 20 years, then it will ripping it up and laying a completely new driving surface down. Projects that large would be nearly impossible to do without M-6 to divert traffic around it.

In opinion, Grand Rapids was about 20 years overdue for the M-6 bypass. Yes, it needs more mass transit with light rail as an option, but it also needed a bypass in place for redundacy purposes that allow for more intense projects to occur on the existing freeways running through town. GR simply will not grow with two business route type freeways running directly through it, and no bypass in existance.

[Mark Miller]

Ok, I've spent some hours reviewing the GVMC SmartCode and learning more about Transect planning. My "conclusions":

First, I will preface this to say that I am particularly supportive of highways for long distance traveling. Transect doesn't cover it, but if New Urbanism does suggest that all expressways are evil, then I will never support it.

I do not think that the New Urbanism suggests that all highways are evil. But the difference in the way that roads, streets, boulevards, avenues and even highways are dealt with, is extremely different in the world of New Urbanism than it is in the conventional surburban development world.

The mantra of "one size road fits all" is evident in almost all highways, commercial streets and even suburan roadways. That is why we end up with the exact same cross section of a county road, whether it is out in the cornfields or whether it is the mainstreet of a small town. Freeways are no different. 131 is the roughly the same in downtown GR as it is 30 miles north or south. New Urbanist would strive to try to get contextual street design implemented, so that as the highway goes through town, it becomes a more humane thoroughfare.

There is nothing wrong with highways, but they do need to be context sensitive. Highways could connect hamlets and villages within a rural townhip, like the image below. The connections could also be something a bit more sustainable, like light rail. Yellow represents nodes of neighborhoods making up villages and hamlets. The white and green is preserve and reserve areas. This is of course another DPZ diagram.

One of its goals is slowing down traffic in general, and a highway certainly does not achive that goal. However, Transect acknowledges that there are going to be special uses that will not fit into the T1-T6 models. Examples are hospitals, college campuses, industrial parks, airports and even big box shopping. Hospitals, airports, and industrial parks special use districts I think are ideally suited for locating very near to limited access freeways exchanges. One idea that I might support as part of a broader strategy would be basically redoing highways that are not limited access, but are high speed. Examples would be East Beltline, US-31 in Holland, etc.

Districts are things to be avoided. Most of the items listed as districts could in fact be connected to the urban fabric, with the possible exception of airports. College campuses (central campus of University of Michigan) can and should be connected to the urban fabric. Big boxes should be tamed and humanized and placed within the proper context. Hospitals should be within the fabric, they should not be miles and miles from an urban center and only accessible by automobile.

Districts are sometimes those things which are currently in place and have become violations of the transect.

Highway interchanges could be town centers, made of of neighborhood(s).

So in 100 acres, a developer can build something that encompasses nearly the entire spectrum of Transect levels?

100 acres should be able to encompass all zones. Everything is built off from the neighborhood. The neighborhood is about 1/2 mile diameter circle (based on 1/4 mile radius for 5 minute walk).

There is about 40 acres per neighborhood. A single neighborhood or partial neighborhood is a hamlet. Two or three neighborhoods could be a village and a bunch of neighborhooods is a city.

300 acres would be better to get better transitions.