Less Parking

Apropos to the post below, it seams as though some cities are beginning to rethink the unhelpful and backward urban policy of minimum parking requirements for new construction.

 

Like nearly all U.S. cities, D.C. has requirements for off-street parking. Whenever anything new is built — be it a single-family home, an apartment building, a store or a doctor’s office — a minimum number of parking spaces must be included. The spots at the curb don’t count: These must be in a garage, a surface lot or a driveway.

 

D.C. is now considering scrapping those requirements — part of a growing national trend. Officials hope that offering the freedom to forgo parking will lead to denser, more walkable, transit-friendly development. […]

 

Parking requirements — known to planners as ”parking minimums” — have been around since the 1950s. The theory is that if buildings don’t provide their own parking, too many drivers will try to park on neighborhood streets.

 

In practice, critics say, the requirements create an excess supply of parking, making it artificially cheap. That, the argument goes, encourages unnecessary driving and makes congestion worse. The standards also encourage people to build unsightly surface lots and garages instead of inviting storefronts and residential facades, they say. Walkers must dodge cars pulling in and out of driveways, and curb cuts eat up space that could otherwise be used for trees. […]

 

”We’re forcing people (through parking requirements) to invest in spaces for automobiles rather than in spaces for people,” she said. ”There’s no way to recover that use.”

 

Excess off-street parking is insidiously destructive public policy; it’s bad for the environment (more greenhouse gases), bad for cities (more traffic), bad for neighborhoods (dangerous and inhospitable curb cuts) and bad for buildings (less space for people).

 

As a resident of a dense urban neighborhood, I can confidently say that neighborhoods (and blocks) are safer and more vibrant when stoops and storefronts are active and cars stay on the street.

 

That’s not to say there should be no off-street parking whatsoever, just that it should be geared toward appropriate scale development and, as the article suggests, should stipulate reasonable maximums rather than minimums.

 

This is a good step, and other creative driving disincentives, along with an imperative policy towards better transit, would go a long way to creating healthier, happier and more pleasant communities for people outside of their cars.

 

Parking Space

It’s quite possible you missed it, but yesterday was Park(ing) Day here in New York City. That’s “Park”, as in public green space.

 

The concept is simple: find an empty parking spot on your local street and feed the meter, but rather than steer your ride into the spot, roll out some sod, unfold a lawn chair, open a book and…relax. Voila, instant park!

 

Part activism, part installation and part good use of space, this gesture cleverly illustrates just how much of the public urban fabric is dominated by the automobile, to the detriment of various constituencies.

 

To be fair, New York City has made some promising moves in this regard by requisitioning a few lanes of traffic here and there for use by pedestrians and bicycles, as well as actively promoting the occasional closing of streets for better public use; all of which is hopefully part of a broader civic trend in recognizing that cities exist, first and foremost, for the convenience, pleasure and welfare of citizens, and policies favoring automobiles often run counter to those needs.

 

You and Whose Money

Exciting architecture!  But, who’s going to live in it?

 

A Constructive Example?

China seems an awfully problematic place to turn when looking for inspiration to jumpstart the still shameful rebuilding efforts in New Orleans.

 

However one feels about its other policies, the Chinese government is clearly not afraid to invest in the future of its cities…

 

Meanwhile, three full years after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, much of the city remains a wasteland…

 

…

 

Yet the kind of visionary urban plan that could address these issues in a bold and thoughtful way has yet to materialize. Instead, some of the country’s greatest architectural minds are inventing the future in cities like Beijing, Shenzhen and Dubai, where their talents are more appreciated

 

You’d think forced evictions, inadequate compensation, repression of dissent and official corruption would be enough to disqualify China as an model example of anything, much less the monumental physical, economic and social task of rebuilding a predominantly poor and black American city.

 

One might even infer the ability of the Chinese to “invest” in their cities in such an impressive way may be inextricable from their “other policies”. Policies so problematic that even some of those “greatest architectural minds” often stop to consider what it means to sell their talents to an “appreciative” client like China.

 

Small Town Values

It’s long been conventional wisdom that one political party (rhymes with ublican) truly understands the “small town values” of Americans, while the elites in the other party, drunk on their chardonnay and lattes, are simply incapable of relating to the average, hard working family. This cynical and transparent (though rather useful) political maneuver has served the GOP very well, even as they have used the governing powers gained by this nonsense to systematically undermine the livelihoods of those very small town voters.

 

You’d think this long discredited trope would have faded from our discourse by now, but of course, you’d be wrong. The GOP has now dressed the meme of “small town values” up in bear skin and whale blubber and trotted it back out in front of the cameras, as if no one would notice. Thomas Frank, in today’s Wall Street Journal, calls bullshit on the charade:

 

Small town people, Mrs. Palin went on, are “the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food and run our factories and fight our wars.” They are authentic; they are noble, and they are her own: “I grew up with those people.”…

 

Leave the fantasy land of convention rhetoric, and you will find that small-town America, this legendary place of honesty and sincerity and dignity, is not doing very well…

 

…For decades now we have been electing people like Sarah Palin who claimed to love and respect the folksy conservatism of small towns, and yet who have unfailingly enacted laws to aid the small town’s mortal enemies.

 

…they have permitted fantastic concentration in the various industries that buy the farmer’s crops. They have undone the New Deal system of agricultural price supports in favor of schemes called “Freedom to Farm” and loan deficiency payments — each reform apparently designed to secure just one thing out of small town America: cheap commodities for the big food processors. Richard Nixon’s Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz put the conservative attitude toward small farmers most bluntly back in the 1970s when he warned, “Get big or get out.”

 

In his excellent book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan goes into some depth about the legislative undermining of the New Deal agriculture supports and the consequent devastation that continues to burden farmers and farming communities across America.

 

So it shouldn’t be surprising that the National Farmer’s Union gives Barack Obama a 100% legislative rating on issues relating to small farm agriculture, while John McCain receives 0%.

 

That’s zero. Zip. No legislative help whatsoever, from Mr. “I chose a moose shooter as my soul mate”, regarding the values and interests of farming communities; otherwise known as small towns.

 

What is it going to take for people to vote for leaders and policies that exhibit and foster the very values that everyone seems to breathlessly champion, rather than simply voting for the most entertaining teevee personality?

 

Don’t answer that.

 

Funding Transit through Energy

It’s a bit of a pittance in the grand scheme of transportation funding, but the political tide really does seem to be shifting:

 

On Monday, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said a measure that would provide as much as $2 billion in grants and other funding for public transportation appears likely to be included in energy legislation that could be voted on next week…

 

The legislative push comes as high gas prices are spurring Americans to drive less and use public transportation more…

 

The increased demand is straining many transit agencies, which are already coping with higher prices for fuel, steel and other commodities.

 

An encouraging sign, to be sure, that public transportation is finally gaining a greater appreciation from both commuters and lawmakers. Another decade or so of sustained interest (i.e. panic over high gas prices) and we might just be on our way to some first class travel options in this country.

 

Collisions for Science

So here we go – either some ambitious scientists will learn a whole bunch of really cool stuff about the universe, or all humanity will instantaneously be swallowed up by a teeny tiny black hole. It’s anyone’s guess…

 

…the Large Hadron Collider…is scheduled to rev up for the first time on Wednesday at roughly 3:30 a.m. Eastern time following 13 years of planning, $8 billion in spending and immeasurable anticipation…

 

Update: So far so good.

 

More and Faster Trains

From the (shamefully) centrist Progressive Policy Institute comes a very sensible proposal: develop a number of regional high-speed rail corridors in the U.S. to relieve pressure on both roadways and runways:

 

In the short term, passengers have two choices: fly less, or pay more for an inferior service. But if the United States is serious about fixing the air-travel mess — not to mention congestion on our roadways — there is a real, long-term solution: high-speed rail (HSR).

…

With the airline industry cutting routes and raising fares, the cost of a gallon of gas racing past $4, and the unemployment rate rising, the time for a major investment in high-speed rail may finally be here.

 

The realization of any such long term high-speed rail plan is a long way off, but there’s no time like the present for crafting ambitious policy towards that goal. However, translating that into legislation is another matter altogether, and negotiating HSR development with the intractable auto and airline industries will require clear-headed and far-sighted political leadership.

 

(PPI link via Yglesias)

 

The Problem with Reality TeeVee

This insightful post from Atrios illuminates a vague, low-grade dread I’ve been feeling since the presidential campaign turned from cynical to farcical:

 

…While chatting a man came up and discussed registering to vote, but seemed more interested in proudly trumpeting his Hamletesque indecision as a mark of principled independence or something. Apparently had Obama chosen Clinton, but, well, now he likes Palin…

Anyway, he was clearly a member of that segment of the population for whom politics is just another reality TV show, and his vote is simply about which of the candidates is his “favorite” and who will spend the next 4 years entertaining him as the star of The Presidency…

It’s probably completely rational for many people to approach politics this way. They’re in a class and at a point in life such that actual policies are unlikely to impact them directly very much. Add in a touch of narcissism and a lack of empathy, and the choice really does come down to who you want to see on the teevee.

 

More hope, less teevee.

 

Barn Razing

What does it mean that barns are disappearing from the rural American landscape?

 

On the one hand, it’s likely a reflection of the rapid urbanization found not just in the U.S., but globally. But perhaps more insidiously, it’s a predictable result of the economics of the global, industrialized food chain.

 

The Hundlings watch, they say, as the biggest farmers secure more and more land, the youngest ones, like themselves, fail to afford any, and the locals go on fretting that everyone has moved away.

 

“They sit and complain there’s nobody in the small towns anymore, there’s nobody in our schools,” Mr. Hundling said. “And then they go and rent it to the guy that’s already farming 10,000 acres and lives 30 miles away, 40 miles away, 100 miles away.”

 

Those distant farmers, Mr. Hundling said, are unlikely to pack the local restaurant. Nor will they likely fill the school bus near Mrs. Fort’s house. Or slow the disappearance of Mr. Scott’s prized barns.

 

Save the barns. Eat local.

 

Wind is the New Solar

There’s a piece in yesterday’s Times on the growing interest in small wind turbines; these are wind powered devices that can be used by individual homes or businesses to generate a portion of their own energy.

 

That’s an exciting idea in principal, though in practice it seems roofs may not be the best place for this type of device:

 

But many experts caution that rooftops, while abundant, are usually poor places to harness the breeze. Not only are cities less windy than the countryside, but the air is choppier because of trees and the variation in heights in buildings. Turbulence can wear down a turbine and make it operate less efficiently…

 

“In an urban environment, more times than not you’re better off with a solar panel,” said Mr. Stimmel, of the wind industry association.

 

Another problem is that microturbines are not really cost-effective:

 

These tiny turbines generate so little electricity that some energy experts are not sure the economics will ever make sense.

…

“Rooftop wind economics are abysmal, since the resource just isn’t there,”…

 

OK, they kinda-sorta work and they’re unlikely to pay for themselves…so, what explains their popularity?

 

The spread of the big turbines and a general fascination with all things green are helping to spur interest in rooftop microturbines, creating a movement somewhere on the border between a hobby and an environmental fashion statement.

 

Ahhh, they’re cool and fashionable.

 

Sticking a designer wind turbine on your roof (if you an afford it) certainly makes a statement with your friends and neighbors (and it may actually generate a small amount of electricity), but it risks framing the very real need for personal environmental action in the language of fashion, which is a slippery slope to fad. The climate problem is way too huge and serious to be solved by a revolving door of “green” accessories.

 

Grassroots campaigns empowering people to make better personal choices are extremely important, but empowering government and industry to make those choices on a gargantuan scale is the only real hope for managing the climate crisis in the long term. This starts with people and communities certainly, and it’s fine if it starts on your roof…so long as you climb up there next to your sexy microturbine and demand better policies.

 

Speedier Buses

Giving priority to mass transit with dedicated lanes and preferential traffic signals makes a lot of sense. And it also makes the buses run faster, which makes the people happy!

 

Buses travel in red-painted lanes that are off limits to other vehicles during busy times of day, and additional police officers are deployed to keep the lanes clear. Traffic signals…have been equipped to communicate electronically with the buses, allowing, for example, a green signal to be extended for a few seconds to let a bus through or shortening a red signal’s time.

 

A trip from end to end on the Bx12 route that previously took close to an hour now takes about 12 minutes less, a time saving of 20 percent…

…

“They need to do all the buses like this,” she said. “It’ll make life a lot easier.”

 

VP Environmental Cage Match

 

As I become more familiar with Joe Biden’s policy positions, he seems increasingly to be an eminently reasonable and credible fellow. Evidence his environmental stance:

 

I’m… in the best position to make it clear to the United States Congress that this is not merely an environmental issue, it is a security issue. I held hearings this year pointing out that if we do not do something of consequence about global warming, drastically and soon, we literally are going to find ourselves reconfiguring our entire military to deal with occasions for new wars, which are going to be about territory and arable land.

…

To deal with global warming, you have to change the attitude of the world, particularly China and India, the two largest developing nations. But in order to do that, to have any credibility, you have to begin here in the United States by capping emissions, increasing renewable fuels, establishing a national renewable portfolio standard, requiring better fuel economy for automobiles.

…

These measures would put us in a position to be able to actually attempt to lead the world. But we have no credibility right now.

 

OK, that’s fairly solid, pragmatic reasoning – certainly headed in the right direction given the gravity of the problem. As Daily Kos frontpager Plutonium Page puts it:

 

His ideas are not perfect, but they are more than a good start, and will be a sound way to kick off the next four years.

 

Enter moose hunting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

 

“I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won’t ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices.”

…

“Alternative-energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop.”

…

“When I look every day, the big oil company’s building is right out there next to me, and it’s quite a reminder that we should have mutually beneficial relationships with the oil industry.”

…

“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location,”… But, she added, “I’m not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.”

 

Ok then.

 

Game, set, match.

 

News in a Box

My first impression of the new Grimshaw designed bus shelters and newsstands popping up around the city has been an unqualified “meh”.

 

It seems the stainless and glass boxes would feel more at home in Toronto say, or some European second city, than on the streets of Manhattan and Brooklyn; and it’s hard not to immediately imagine the gleaming boxes adorned with graffiti, broken glass, and the other scrapes and bruises of New York life. They look vulnerable and high maintenance.

 

The Times discusses another important aspect of the new stands: the implications to the newsstand operators. It sounds like they may be getting the short end of the city’s lucrative contract with Cemusa:

 

Before 2003, newsstand operators paid the city a licensing fee, but owned and paid for their newsstands and, under certain circumstances, could sell them. Now the newsstands are owned by Cemusa, and operators pay a two-year city license fee of $1,076.

 

Some 280 current operators are being given new newsstands, free of charge, and Cemusa is responsible for maintaining them. But the newsstand operators do not share in advertising revenues…

 

Michael Hajovsky, who has owned newsstands for two decades, runs a pre-Cemusa stand on 46th Street and Broadway… He is still angry that his two stands “were confiscated without any compensation by New York City,” he said. “In a couple of years I would like to retire,” Mr. Hajovsky, 66, said. “But now I’m no longer an owner, I am a renter, and my pension is very small.”  [Emphasis mine]

 

Disinvesting the operators from their stands seems like a terrible long term move. Couple that with questionable design (at least in terms of function and upkeep), and these designer boxes may end up being bad news.

 

Whitewashed Modesty

The piece in last week’s New Yorker on Santiago Calatrava was interesting enough, but was it me, or did his self-effacement border on disingenuous?

 

“Architect’ comes from the Greek, and means ‘the one who commands the workers,’ ” he says. “The name of the architect gets forgotten. I learned this very early: that the day before the opening you are responsible for everything, and the day after the opening you are nobody. That is part of the job: you have to take your bag and your tools and go and build something else.”

 

That’s a beautiful idea, one that I can certainly appreciate, but Santiago Calatrava?

 

Today’s top architects, including Calatrava, are hardly anonymous: the real-estate trade press in New York refers to the prospective PATH terminal at the World Trade Center as “Calatrava Station.”

 

And:

 

…over lunch in the Café Calatrava, a ground-floor restaurant in the prow of the pavilion, which, a couple of years ago, was renamed in the architect’s honor. (“We called to ask him if we could use his name,” Elysia Borowy-Reeder, the senior director of communications, told me. “He said sure. I think he thought it had always been called the Café Calatrava.”)

 

The modesty bit is charming to a point, but he is clearly far from the introverted, anonymous artist that he professes. Santiago, you’re a Starchitect® for crying out loud! Go with it!!

 

Ionic, or Ironic?

OK, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this Slate piece is meant as sarcasm, (though I’m not so sure Mr. Rybczynski is predisposed to irony)…

 

The real surprise is that a campaign based on change eschewed Gehry-esque billowing-cloud shapes, Libeskindian jagged shards, and even stainless-and-maple Starbucks moderne. Is Obama a closet Classicist, or is this merely another measure of this contradictory politician?

 

…because of all the vapid over-analysis of the Mile High columns, this one might actually win an award for stupid.