My latest Folio Weekly piece at
http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/43/
« | September 2007 | » | ||||
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
1 | ||||||
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
30 |
My latest Folio Weekly piece at
http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/43/
Regarding danger to the planet from global warming:
Puhleeze. Global warming will at worst be a minor inconvenience to the
planet. The planet has done just fine since everyone was a bacterium, and oxygen was a toxin. Killing off a few billion of us will hardly be a blip.
Of course, billions of dead people will put a serious crimp in our plans.
(from a listserv I'm on).
Was on a full JTA bus and actually had to stand for the first time since moving to Jacksonville a year ago!
I was visiting the Museum of Southern History on the Westside, and at 4ish took the P4 bus back to downtown, and it was clogged with people coming from the far Westside (apparently to change buses downtown, since most people did not leave the bus till then).
An article calling for zoning deregulation:
http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/40/
An article explaining how Jacksonville's zoning code yields sprawl (basically going over the same terrain that my scholarship addresses but in less technical terms):
http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/38/
An article describing life without a car in Jacksonville:
http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/36/
An article criticizing proposed highway expansion:
http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/33/
is available at
http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/39/
JTA wants to shift service from Baypine Road (the street where my employer, Florida Coastal School of Law is located) to Baymeadows Way nearby, despite the fact that Florida Coastal has 1400 students.
Why? Because the speed bumps slow the commutes of bus riders coming in from downtown.
Lesson- don't have speed bumps on any streets where people might want to ride the bus (i.e. streets with offices and jobs).
From now on, this blog will be focused on Jacksonville (my new hometown) since I now know enough to coherently discuss life here. To reflect this, the blog has a new title ("Lewyn Addresses Jacksonville").
Please note the Jacksonville-related links on the bottom left.
Defenders of sprawl like to claim that they are for "The American Dream."
But this is MY American Dream:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OzzflJTn_wE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sTOfV9oaPrM
At CNU XV, Barney Frank argued that smart growth supporters should support liberal Democrats, because Republican support for tax cuts and military spending leaves no room for smart-growth oriented programs such as public transit, HOPE VI, etc. I think this story provides some ammunition on both sides of the argument:
But see the following story from the LA Times (full story at
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget20jul20,0,5439437.story )
"State lawmakers appeared to be closing in on a spending plan late Thursday that would divert roughly $1 billion away from mass transit, forcing Los Angeles to put off plans for extending parts of the Expo light rail line and widening some freeways.
***
Democrats said they agreed to the big cut to transit funding in an effort to avoid having to take money away from schools and healthcare programs. Republicans justified the cut by noting that state transportation funding will continue to increase overall."
What grabbed me was the last paragraph: the Democrats wanted to cut transportation to fund public education and health.
This is why I don't think left-wingers are necessarily better than right-wingers on urbanism issues: just as the Right will always pick tax cuts and wars over smart growth-type programs when money is tight, the Left will always pick public education and health care.
Of course, if you think public education is a better use of money than tax cuts, you will probably vote for liberals anyhow: but you shouldn't be doing it because of their superior commitment to urbanism.
For what its worth, I do think there are differences among candidates- but I think the issue cuts across left/right lines. From what I've learned of the candidates, some are more oriented towards transit and urbanism than others: Richardson on the Democratic side has said some good things, and Romney on the Republican side has a good record. Bloomberg is very pro-transit but isn't likely to win as an independent.
I don't know enough about the candidates to know if any are really hostile to smart growth. However, I suspect most of the candidates just don't care much about these issues one way or the other. For example, I don't know of any evidence that these issues take up a single brain cell in the brains of Fred Thompson or John Edwards.
Obama and Giuliani SHOULD be good because they live in cities: but your zip code doesn't necessarily dictate your thought processes on these kind of issues.
I was the subject of an editorial in the Jacksonville paper today.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/061107/opi_175705775.shtml
The posts below discuss some of what I learned at the CNU (Congress for New Urbanism, www.cnu.org) conference in Philadelphia.
One interesting panel dealt with the question of how to keep streets skinny and walkable while satisfying fire departments. Dan Burden noted that fire marshals generally prefer 20 feet of space to accommodate fire trucks; he suggested accommodating them through midblock curb extensions; thus, a street can be 20 feet wide for motorists, but fire trucks can find extra space in the middle of the block so they can unload bulky fire equipment. John Anderson was less optimistic, suggesting that New Urbanists may need statewide fire code reforms in order to force public works departments to accept narrower streets.
On Saturday morning at CNU, there was a great panel on expressways, focusing on the removal of riverfront expressways that cut off downtowns from rivers.
Ingrid Reed spoke about her experience in Trenton, where she was able to challenge the status quo on two grounds. First, removing the expressway would create jobs, housing and prosperity, by freeing up riverfront land for commercial and residential development. By contrast, today riverfront land is cut off from downtown by the expressway, essentially blighting such land. Second, Trenton suffers from minimal traffic congestion, so the arguments against removing the expressway are weaker than they would be in a bigger, more congested city.
Cary Moon spoke about her experience in Seattle, where the city is trying to decide whether to build a new expressway to substitute for one damaged in a 2001 earthquake. Again, the argument against a new highway is based on downtown development: a riverfront connected with downtown is a prosperous riverfront bustling with parks, people and businesses, a riverfront cut off from downtown is Blight-O-Rama. Moreover, the experience of San Francisco (where earthquake-damaged expressways were removed without drastically harmful results) shows that highway removal need not result in gridlock.
Moon pointed out that the anti-highway case is stronger in Seattle than in other cities, because even if the city plans to build a new expressway, it will have a one-year transition between the end of the old road and the birth of the new: so Seattleites will already have had a year to adjust to a status quo without a riverfront expressway. Moreover, Seattle has another expressway running through its very narrow downtown.
Moon argued that the downtown expressway was not necessary to facilitate freight traffic, because only 4% of the expressway traffic was freight; most of the traffic was just local trips seeing a shortcut through downtown. Moreover, recreating the pre-expressway street grid might actually reduce congestion, because drivers idle in traffic waiting to get on and off congestion instead of being able to use the new streets that would emerge from the ruins of the highway. She also suggested building freight-only lanes for freight traffic and bus rapid transit to soak up commute traffic.
The ultimate result: in a recent referendum, voters voted against two expressway proposals (one above ground and one that is 1/3 underground)- partially because of anti-highway efforts, but partially because supporters of each freeway alternative eviscerated each other's proposals.
Norm Marshall (of smartmobility.com) disucussed the use and misuse of traffic models. Often, state DOTs use misleading interpretations of models to justify more roads. For example, the Washington DOT stated that downtown Seattle traffic would grow from 110,000 vehicles today to 130,000 in 2030. But buried in an appendix to a DOT report are statements suggesting the contrary.
Even when DOT claims about traffic are not completely false, their data projects are flawed in a variety of ways. Their pretensions of precision overlook the possible adjustments that could take place when a freeway is torn down or not built: in addition to changing routes or using public transit, drivers could take trips at different times of day or forego them entirely. Also, freeways (or their absence) create land use changes that increase or decrease vehicle trips- for example, by facilitating downtown development (if a freeway is torn down) or sprawl (if a new freeway is built). Even if a model could accurately forecast such adjustments, transportation models can't possibly forecast broader social changes such as energy prices or social changes such as telecommuting.
Marshall's bottom line: models might be useful to test different scenarios- but any model that pretends to tell you how many cars will be in downtown Seattle in 2030 is just a pile of rubbish.
Jeff Tumlin asserted that freeways export real estate value from cities to suburbs; their absence maximizes cities' property value. He used Vancouver as an example of life without freeways: while downtown vehicle trips increased in every other Canadian city since 1995, such trips decreased in Vancouver- even while total trips (including walking/transit/bike trips) increased by 22%!
Tumlin suggested that within a downtown, freeways may actually reduce capacity, because preexisting downtown streets are destroyed to build the freeway. In short, a freeway downtown is like a pig in a parlor- the right thing in the wrong place.
This afternoon, Andres Duany spoke about the relationship between cities and suburbs. He began by noting that contrary to popular myth, New Urbanists are quite involved in urban development; the only reason people think otherwise is that NU development fits into cities rather than sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb.
But most of his speech addressed how suburbs outcompete cities, and how cities can learn from suburbs. He focused on the following:
1. Amenities. The suburbs' major amenity is spare land: larger back yards, etc. In the mid-20th century, cities tried to compete by echoing the suburbs, with lower density, more parking, more greenspace, etc. This strategy failed miserably- why have a half suburb when you can have the whole thing? Instead, cities should focus on their chief amenity, the public realm. A healthy city has a better public realm, better streets, than suburbs. This is the one area in which suburbs cannot compete with downtowns. Density is necessary for this, but it is NOT sufficient- high density sprawl with no streetlife cannot compete with low density suburbia, which is why so many older suburbs are fading.
How do you get healthy streetlife? Mixed use. Without mixed use you have lunch-only restaurants in downtowns that die after dark.
Bring in activities used every day. Focus on (and subsidize if necessary) activities used regularly, NOT activities used once in a while. Yes to movies and restaurants used every day. No to football stadia used 8 times a year, or festivals that occur once a year.
2. Comfort- Cities must not only be safe, they must feel safe. It is not even enough to be as safe as 1950 Detroit, with less street crime than today but still plenty of beggars, trash, graffiti etc. Cities must feel as safe as suburbs do today. How does this work? Start with a few blocks; create more surveillance, both with cameras and by individual municipal officials. (On the other hand, in marginal neighborhoods where this is least practical, appeal to the risk-oblivious).
3. Schools- If you want families, you have to have schools which appeal to suburbia. If not, forget about families and appeal to singles and empty nesters. (Duany didn't speak about how to fix schools- wisely, given the complexity of the topic).
4. Predictability- Investors like predictability; suburbs provide predictability by ensuring that if you comply with their master plan, you can build instantly. To be fair, large suburban developments do require developers to run a political gauntlet. But smaller developments are permitted virtually instantly, because there is a master plan that allows development as of right. By contrast, in cities even smaller developments require NIMBY-fighting and lawyers. A strong plan is the remedy for this - cities should create comprehensive plans that allow development as of right and thus ensure that developers don't have to worry about rezoning, NIMBYism etc. In other words, given the ubiquity of zoning, planning actually means MORE property rights, not fewer, in an urban environment.
5. Retail- A lot of New Urbanists deplore out of town chains. But out of town chains often have better product selection and more appealing packaging, lighting etc. than "mom and pop" stores. A business district without national chains can't compete with suburbia. (It is not clear whether Duany thinks this is equally true of "Big Box" retail such as Wal-Mart).
6. Private governments- Suburbs have private governments (homeowners' associations, etc.) that are smaller, and thus more responsive, than city governments. If cities can duplicate this they will be more appealing.
The good news: just as traditional urbanism is infecting the suburbs, good government is infecting cities through business improvement districts that function as private governments.
At a panel of developers, someone pointed out that several cities had neighborhood planning boards, and that they were "institutionalized NIMBYism."* I knew that Washington and Atlanta have neighborhood planning units, but I had always wondered what their function was. Now I know.
This illustrates a broader problem in planning theory: to what extent should neighbors have disproportionate impact in planning policy? The dominant American practice has been that neighbors should have an almost absolute veto. But this practice (institutionalized in the neighborhood planning boards) can and should be attacked from both the environmentalist left and the libertarian right. Libertarians should oppose the NIMBY veto on development because it means more regulation and thus more infringement on property rights. Environmentalists should oppose the NIMBY veto because it typically means less infill and lower density, thus leading to more sprawl development in outer suburbs with fewer neighbors to object.
The difficult question, for me is: what institutional mechanisms can we create that eliminate the NIMBY veto instead of magnifying the voice of NIMBYism?
*NIMBY= Not In My Back Yard
The CNU panel on comprehensive plans contained two very different perspectives: one on planning for a not-yet-built-out semirural area, and the other on planning for a big city.
Two panelists spoke on the latter, Matt Raimi (who discussed a mature Los Angeles suburb) and Steven Hammond (who discussed Sacramento). Both focused on mapping out existing neighborhood patterns and using visuals to show possible change. They emphasized that in a mature community, comprehensive plans will essentially reflect the status quo (a depressing possibility in many communities!). Raimi noted that his communities didn't react negatively to density as long as the city doesn't increase density in exisitng residential areas. Although Hammond was less blunt, he pointed out that the Sacramento plan will create numerous "neighborhood types" reflecting the status quo.
Given the planning system's bias in favor of the status quo, how can a plan promote more compact growth? Hammond emphasized (1) identifying "new" (that is, undeveloped) land within the city, and (2) allowing mixed use and higher intensity on streets that are already built for commerce and mixed use. (I wonder if such change would be enough to accommodate market demand for new housing, or whether people would still be forced into suburbia by housing shortages...)
More unusual was Marcela Camblor's presentation on planning in a 28-square mile area at the northern fringe in St. Lucie County- kind of the northern fringe of South Florida (since St Lucie is the county just north of suburbanized Palm Beach County). A few years ago, the county was stuck in an impossible situation due to the stupidity of prior generations of planners: the area in question was outside the urban service boundary, and was zoned for agriculture. So surely the comprehensive plan would be similarly phrased, right? WRONG! Instead, the comp plan provided for "business as usual" sprawl with one acre lots- a fact that incensed existing residents, who moved there precisely to get away from suburbia and to find a rural area.
So how could planners accommodate the collective desire for ruralness? Changing the comp plan to conform to existing zoning was out of the question for legal reasons; apparently, the county had already given developers reason to rely on the concept of SOMETHING being built, which means developers could challenge a "no build" comp plan in court. (I think the county's lawyers could have given a fascinating talk on the legal issues involved).
So the planners chose a smart growth plan as a remedy-allow developers to build, but only in "towns" and "villages" (500 acre parcels, with 60-75% of the land used for open space, and no maximum densities in the rest of the parcel). Camblor asserted that under this plan "sprawl is illegal"- no more 1 acre lots, just building within the towns and villages.
But how could such a plan respect developers' property rights? The plan provides for transferable development rights; if you don't own 500 acres of land, you can sell your right to develop smaller parcels to someone else who can aggregate those rights to build a town or village.
One concern: would this really be able to accommodate all market demand for housing? If density was truly unregulated, the plan might work. But the plan also contains height limits, which is kind of a hidden density regulatoin.
At CNU, I listened to Witold Rybczynski's keynote speech, which discussed his new book on real estate development (Last Harvest). A few interesting points:
1. He said: "For my generation, housing was architecture and architecture was housing." No wonder mixed use was taboo- if retail isn't "architecture", you're not going to push to put it near the houses!
2. He said that "We use words like 'sprawl' precisely to dehumanize the process." What is more dehumanizing (and less accurate) is sprawl advocates' use of generalities about "the American people" and "the American dream" to describe new sprawl development. How often have you heard the claim: "The people want sprawl! The people want the outer suburbs!" But when sprawl advocates say "The people" they really mean "The people who are now moving to the newest suburbs."
But those "people" are a small segment of the total population; most people are staying put at any given time. For example, when I lived in Buffalo, the newest "hot" outer suburbs, Clarence, Lancaster, and Orchard Park, had less than 10% of the region's population. About 30% still lived in the city of Buffalo, and at least that many lived in the first-ring suburbs adjoining the city (Amherst, Tonawanda, Cheektowaga, Lackawanna, and West Seneca). Are they not "people"? Are only new movers to new suburbs human beings?
And even these "people" don't necessarily want to live in sprawl. They may live in sprawl because they can't afford older suburbs (unlikely in a cheap region like Buffalo, but common in more prosperous regions). Or they may live in sprawl because their older suburb or city neighborhood is decaying (more likely in declining regions like Buffalo, less common in more prosperous regions).
3. He said that both NU and sprawl development are easier in the South than in the Northeast because people are more optimistic about the future, and thus about development. Is it really true that development is easier in the South? Or is development easier in smaller regions with more open land closer in? And is NIMBYism really less common in the South? I'm not sure - interesting avenue for further research, though.
4. He said that buyers in the project he researched (a greenfield NU project) were driven by "community" - that only the most social people were interested in living in this kind of project, and that people who thought they had enough friends were more interested in conventional big-lot suburbia. Is it community that drives people to NU or walkability? I would speculate that Rybczynksi is right in describing greenfield NU with not very much within walking distance, less right in describing more urban development. But that's just an educated guess.
I just got back from the Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org) conference in Philadelphia.
At one of the small group sessions, I heard a wonderful phrase describing what's going on in Philadelphia and some other cities: "BosTroit"- like Boston downtown (i.e. walkable, prosperous) and like Detroit in most of the outer neighborhoods between downtown and suburbia (i.e. poor, losing population).
For example, Philadelphia has a very strong downtown (like Boston) but is not quite as prosperous in the rest of the city, except for neighborhoods like Chestnut Hill just a mile or two from the city limits- thus, it is a "BosTroit" city.
By contrast, Buffalo exemplifies another postwar model: a weak downtown, and a city that gradually gets more and more prosperous (at least in one direction) the further from downtown you get.
Jacksonville seems to mix the two: before gentrification, it looked like Buffalo. But the intown neighborhoods have been improving for a decade or two, and the downtown is beginning to revitalize. But the 50s suburbs are in deep trouble: not walkable enough to benefit from intown gentrification, not new enough to be appealing to suburbanites.
I am going to be posting on this blog a bit less in the future; instead I will be putting new smart-growth related posts in the Congess for New Urbanism salons at www.cnu.org