City Comforts, the blog

I did not write this; I am merely quoting:

Concerning City Comforts, urban cartography says:

David Sucher's excellent City Comforts: How to Build an Urban Village was revised and dramatically improved last year. Often described as the bible - or one of the bibles - of urban redevelopment, Sucher's book is my favorite all-around primer on urban design. It is especially useful for those of us who have tremendous interest in urban planning but little in the way of technical training; the revised edition introduces quite a bit more easy-to-digest information for those of us without backgrounds in the field. As the reviews on Amazon suggest, it is absolutely a must-have for policy makers who don't have a formal education in planning.

After my own heart.

Inga Saffron asks:

Where were all the surface parking lots?

How long should a bridge last?

Give us more money --  "the sooner the better".

The state Department of Transportation (DOT) maintains that the 520 bridge, which opened in 1963 and underwent a major seismic retrofit in 1999, is near the end of its useful life, and must be replaced for the safety of people in the 115,000 vehicles that cross it each day.

The bridge is now 42 years old. Doesn't it seem to you that a bridge of that age should have many years of useful life left in it? It may well be true that the bridge needs replacement; on the other hand it might be a make-work project by the transportation engineering folks.

And no one comments on how odd it is that (at least in Seattle) we accept such rapid deterioration as to be expected.

You can't be both regulator and market participant at the same time

Excellent article by Steven Malanga on How Not to Develop the Far West Side (of Manhattan) in which he argues that allowing government to play an active role in development as a market participant leads to either inaction or bad development. At most, government should simply set down simple zoning guidelines, build (and not through gimmicks like Tax Increment Financing) common infrastructure and then get out of the way. I agree entirely. I believe, for example, that the ultimate argument for curbing the use of eminent domain in economic development has two prongs:
• government doesn't know how to foster development (much less actually do it)
and
• eminent domain is not required.

Horrors! No doric columns and also 'not, thankfully, some whizzy new "ideas store" '

While tracking down design critics to add to link list (left side) I ran across Jonathan Glancey's

Sense and sensitivity:

"Perhaps I might have liked to have designed a more obviously modern building at one stage, but as we pushed on with the project, I began to see how we might give shape to a building that could be modern without following fashion at the same time as being somehow traditional without being old-fashioned."

And that is just what the new building achieves. It is like a handsome modern barn, neatly crafted from handmade red bricks and roof tiles (from a yard in nearby Romsey), and making robust use of oak joinery. The brickwork of the south front is punctured by huge windows, which bring daylight into the furthest recesses of the essentially open-plan interior. These are fronted by handmade oak sun louvres that look terrific. So does the simple timber bench on the pavement in front of them. Designed as a stopping place for passers-by wanting to soak up some sun, the bench has inevitably found an additional role as a launch-pad for skateboards. It is tough enough to cope.

... Alton Library is not, thankfully, some whizzy new "ideas store": it is, quite simply, a great place to read and write. And it is a model of how to design and craft a functional new building in an old town suspicious of what modernising means: in Alton's case, junk, junk and junk again.

I'd like to see just a bit more of how the sidewalk meets the building but it certainly looks interesting. Am I mistaken that one can simply walk in?

Another point: I would challenge anyone to categorize this library as to "modern" or "traditional." The site plan is definitely "town" and take on no fraudulent "campus" air. Yet it is spare in decoration but with antique shape. So what is it? Modern? Traditional? Obviously it can't be "classical" because it has no coumns. Do you see that such distinction when it deals with style to the exclusion of site plan leads to an empty discussion?

Birds' eye view urban photos

Where do you get them?

I am going to redo my Urban/Suburban movie using photos taken from a birds' eye view.

If anyone has suggestions about where to find great aerials, please suggest. I am looking for images which are shot from low-enough altutude that the site plan is clear. The photos don't need to be free and I'll give a copy of City Comforts for leads (which lead to fruition.)

UPDATE: Sorry. I don't mean directly-above aerials but shots from the side -- maybe a thousand feet up, at a 45 degree angle and a thousand feet away? -- so that the lay person can immediately grasp how the structure, site and right-of-way are related.

Box Tank: performance trumps appearance

In a post on Alaskans Destined To Live In The Past:

Without getting into the merits of the Mayne proposal, or why projects like that proposed by the historicist Cusato propagate the myth held by the general public that a good architecture is an architecture that looks old (even though the general public continue to buy cars, iPods, computers, and fly airplanes that look new), it is the debate about what things look like, and whether that is really important that we're interested in. On this site we like to mention the various stylings of new Wal-Mart Supercenters, which range from Mediterranean to Art Deco. The various facade treatments applied to a standard big-box construction are either meant to be contextual, provide scale, look fancy, have meaning, or be unique. In fact the Battleship Blue Supercenter of 10 years ago was likely the most honest architectural expression of Wal-Mart's Discount Stores and Supercenters. Instead of the debates about what things look like (a topic that is more likely today given changes to media in the last twenty years) we should be talking more about what things do (how an architecture or urbanism operates, functions and performs). (empasis added - DS)

Well put. And a passage which to my mind puts the tedious debate about "modernism" versus "classicism" in its proper perspective: largely useless if one is interested in simply having a comfortable city in which to live but great for arid and endless intellectual debates. The problem with Mayne's design (if indeed there is a problem) might be not how it looks but how it behaves and how it induces people to behave. (But, to make it clearer, I have formed no opinion about Mayne's propoal as I simply haven't seen any drawings which provide enough information on which to make a judgment though I should also admit that I am deeply suspicious of his work from what I have read and seen in photos.) Contrary to what some well-intended people would like you to believe -- that  "The future is classical" or that "Classicism" is the only response to startchitecture -- in fact the language of classical architecture: domes, arches, columns, etc. is not even remotely determinative in creating pedestrian-friendly cities. (And btw, I personally like that cute classical stuff very much.)

On reviewing the "elite" columnists

Update: A reader suggested that I add Francis Morrone to my list. I assure you, dear reader, and everyone else, that Francis would have been the first name on the list if his column appeared in a place accessible to people without subscription. Sadly, the NY Sun is making the grave error -- in my opinion -- of pricing its site by the quarter rather than, say, via micro-payments  for each article.

Bad decision for them and bad result for those of us who would like to read Francis on a regular -- rather than sporadic at 2 Blowhards -- basis.

Update 2: It sems to me that it is a courtsey to the reader to place updates at the top of the post -- rather than the bottom -- so people don't miss them. Do you agree?

•••

I happened to scroll through the column of Columnists offered by Arts & Letters Daily and what struck me was that -- so far as I know, and the purpose of this post is to solicit your opinion -- rarely does any one them have anything to say about the built & physical environment -- whether childish or sophisticated, whether one agrees or not.

Is that a fair assessment of this list? Or am I missing something?

Columnists

Eric Alterman
Anne Applebaum
Timothy Garton Ash
Bruce Bawer
Alex Beam
James Bowman
Robert Boynton
Samuel Brittan
David Brooks
Art Buchwald
William F. Buckley
Jon Carroll
Noam Chomsky
Alexander Cockburn
Joe Conason
Miranda Devine
E. J. Dionne Jr.
Michael Dirda
Maureen Dowd
Roger Ebert
Michael Elliott
Robert Fisk
Thomas Friedman
Robert Fulford
Frank Furedi
Malcolm Gladwell
Ellen Goodman
Victor Davis Hanson
Johann Hari
Jeet Heer
Nat Hentoff
Jan Herman
Jim Hightower
Christopher Hitchens
David Horowitz
Molly Ivins
Jeff Jacoby
Leon Jaroff
Robert Kagan
Tony Karon
Mickey Kaus
Michael Kinsley
Joe Klein
Martin Kramer
Morton Kondracke
Chas Krauthammer
Paul Krugman
Howard Kurtz
Norman Lebrecht
John Leo
James Lileks
Kevin Maney
Salim Mansour
Paddy McGuinness
Mark Morford
Robert Novak
Brendan O'Neill
Daniel Pipes
Katha Pollitt
Virginia Postrel
William Powers
Dorothy Rabinowitz
Jonathan Rauch
Roger Sandall
William Shawcross
Sam Smith
Thomas Sowell
Mark Steyn
Andrew Sullivan
Tunku Varadarajan
David Warren
Margaret Wente
George Will
Jonathan Yardley
J. Peder Zane

I guess I'd have to except Fulford, Postrel and Gladwell whose writings seem to be somewhat rooted in "the real." And don't get me wrong -- there are lots of smart people here: Sullivan, Appelbaum,  Hari, Garton Ash...maybe lots more. (Some however clearly listed as a favor.)

But in any case the vast majority seem to be so narrowly focussed, so "intellectual"...so in their heads as we would have said in the sixties that they don't seem to notice that there is a physical tangible world of buildings and streets around them. Or if they do ever consider something physical, say, American suburban patterns as Brooks does now and then, they do such a dreary job of it that they would be better off to remain silent. No? I have to admit that I am not very familar with every last one of them so correct me if I am wrong.

Why doesn't A&LD add some blue-chip (i.e. you can't be embarassed by them) names like Rybczynski, Goldsberger, or even Ourousoff? (As unimpressive as the last one seems to me to be, he at least tries to grapple with the built environment. Sorta.) I am quite sure that there are more scattered about. Neal Peirce, for example. While I am not an enormous fan of his perspective he does do a workmanlike job of covering state & local government where a great deal of the story is, in fact, land use and transportation. It would be healthy for A&LD readership's consciousness if such people were listed.

Overall, it's like CP Snow and the 2 cultures over again.

It seems to me that that people like Libeskind and Koolhaas et al get away with their arid verbalizations and be considered deep "theorists" about the built environment because the vast majority of the chatterers -- the big-time columnists represented by the A&LD list -- are inexperienced with even starting to think about how society is put together physically and thus bashful about engaging in any criticism of architects who they are told are "big." Btw, that's one opf the reasons that I believe PPS' initiative (covered earlier today) will go nowhere is because there is no core of columnists -- hey! maybe not even a very very few! -- who actually talk about the physical issues and are able to tie them back to other currents of our culture.

At any rate, as a practical matter to try to remedy this situation, I have added a new link list: Big Name 'Design' Critics. (Left hand column.) If you have suggestions of main stream media people who cover this beat on a regular basis and whose work is accessible on the web, please suggest their names and their links

"Professor" Bainbridge is a quick learner

He writes:

DeLay has become an embarrassment to the Conservative movement...It's time to throw him to the wolves.

Better late than never.

Does "placemaking" have legs?

On learning that a mediocre "modernist" design proposal had been shelved, with popular dislike of the design as a factor, Michael Blowhard writes ...let's keep rooting, louder and louder, against bad buildings and bad urbanism...:

...Laurence Aurbach blogged about a perfectly hideous Thom Mayne proposal for a new Alaska capitol building. Good news: plans to build the new capitol have been put on hold. Finances seem to be the main reason -- but public dislike of the proposal also played a role. Moral: let's keep rooting, louder and louder, against bad buildings and bad urbanism.

Now how could I disagree. Root away. Even shrilly.

But I wonder if there is really an issue here around which any sort of political "movement" can be built? I think that if your issue isn't captured by one particular party or another and institutionalized in some form of partisan politics, then it has no legs. There is, I suggest, no such thing as an issue without partisan color. So where does this issue fall out? Can it/how does it find a place (no pun) for itself in the political landscape without attaching itself to one of the two parties?

Project for Public Spaces (PPS) is faced with this dilemma in its attempt to mid-wife the Birth of a Placemaking Movement as an explicit element of politics. Well of course concern for the built environment is and has been part of local, state and national politics for at least the past 30 years and has influenced and decided countless local elections and referenda. But PPS is attempting to go further and create a "Placemaking movement." How it would work is a bit fuzzy but here is part of PPS' political thinking:

There seemed a similar consensus that this is a non-ideological (or "post-ideological") movement that has genuine potential for common cause with groups all over the political spectrum. The foundation of Placemaking is the principle that the people living, working and hanging out in a certain place are the people who know that place best and should be centrally involved in making decisions about its future. This message appeals to both conservative ideals of decentralized government and progressive values of community empowerment. Though the current constituency of the movement is mostly left-leaning--and it may alienate some fervent pro-market conservatives--there is every reason to believe it will attract social conservatives and people in the middle of the political road.

While the purpose and overall import of these sentiments are benign -- though right off the bat it strikes me as supremely silly that people who "hang out" at a certain place should have much standing except as customers to make decisions about its future -- its overall premise strikes me as limp and naive and its rhetoric plaintive and even slightly pathetic. "Can't we all just get along?"

But maybe I misunderstand the political dynamics. Can "Placemaking" really have any political legs? Is it really -- on an on-going many-decade, as opposed to a one-issue coalition -- a fusion issue which can stand beside any other issue current political "issue"? And outside the political parties? Can it draw liberals and conservatives together in a long-term coalition? My own sense is "not even remotely."

The movements that last -- as recognizable political movements -- become part of one or another party. There was no right-wing Negro integration movement there is no left-wing anti-pabortion movement. Issues that have the power to motivate people to action become part of a political party. As the causes of and solutions to the abyssmal condition of most American places is so far from having any consensus, it strikes me as impluaible that "Placemaking" can ever be anything more than a focus for temporary coalitions. There is simply insufficient consensus about the nature of a "great place" much less any consenus on the means to create it. There are common denominators -- "walkability" the prime one -- but I really don't see the emergence of a political movement around "pedestrian orientation" much as I might like to.

The question of effective political action for better cities is a good one (and hardly new) but so far the PPS initiative seems confused. Popular opinion may well have been a factor in the failure of Thom Mayne's design -- but I suspect that the opinion was all over the map and if you tried to extract even few "placemaking" principles from that popular opinion, you couldn't as most of the reaction was probably purely visual and few among the opponents had a clear understanding of how the Mayne design was supposed to meet the street. Yet they oppoised it. (And I don't say without good reason.) But so much for any intellectaul basis for placemaking. It just isn't there because at the moment it is simply not a clearly understood matter.

I just went to a presentation on a "land trust."

It's an interesting institution.

On the one hand I of course appreciate the preservation of rich rural landscapes.
On the other, the one I learned about seemed to have a major effect of creating, in effect, an idyllic undeveloped preserve for the prosperous at, to some degree, taxpayer cost. (Of course we liberals could take the conservative approach and ackowledge that the less the Federal government has to spend, the less it can waste on subsidies for Large Capital. But that is another subject.) Does the general welfare benefit from keeping beautiful land beautiful? I guess so; there is one less valley to get screwed up by stupid development and I suppose as a holding action for the next few geneerations or so that I can buy into that. But I am not anti-development; you must know that by now; and so it offends me when I hear people talking as if it was a crime that a hundred houses a year are being built in this particular area.

As I sat there listening, one thing that flashed through my mind is that I am sure that at the end of the presentation they will ask me for a donation so that they can buy land which will, despite anyone's intentions, make it too expensive for me to ever be able to buy a cabin in that area. By preserving land in that valley they will restrict supply, make private land such a rare resource that only digital millionaires (we still have many) can afford it...and they want me to help support that with my own dollars. Irony.

But what else to do? Overall, this land trust matter is something I will have to think about; I basically favor them. After all, if people want to donate development rights so that their land is preserved, well what is wrong with that? Nothing of course...But when you look at the potential for abuse and manipulation, at the potential for self-dealing, at the effect of simply making land more valuable by (puporttedly) giving it away...Well I don't know enough to make a judgment and it may well vary trust to trust. Lots to learn on this issue. It may well be that as with many things in life, nothing is perfect and you have to weigh the gain against the pain.

But one thing I pretty-much know for sure is that buying land in an area where there is an active, energetic land trust is probably a very good investment. It would be nice to Google Map their locations.

For those interested, this blog --  Nature Noted --specializes in following the land trust world.

Hmm...

Blogs Will Change Your Business.

I wonder how blogs etc etc are influencing share values

It seems to me that extremely focussed newsletters and blogs like Starbucks Gossip would have an influence on the stock market.

Well if nothing else they are fun to read.

Slope? or cliff? 2

When you read a headline that says The end of oil is closer than you think you get a bit concerned. Especially when there is a sub head which reads:

Oil production could peak next year... Just kiss your lifestyle goodbye

But it starts to seem irresponsible for The Guardian to pose the issue that way when the article itself offers a very different perspective:

"Don't worry about oil running out; it won't for very many years," the Oxford PhD told the bankers in a message that he will repeat to businessmen, academics and investment analysts at a conference in Edinburgh next week. "The issue is the long downward slope that opens on the other side of peak production. Oil and gas dominate our lives, and their decline will change the world in radical and unpredictable ways," he says.

I accept that we wil hit peak oil in the next few decades or so -- the consensus of informed opinion certainly seems to think so. (Or at least that's the impression one gets.) And rising prices will certainly change things, though I don't see why in "radical and unpredictable ways." In fact it seems somewhat predictable. As prices rise people will seek substitutions in the form of more efficient vehicles & processes etc etc and/or more efficient locations (cities & close-in suburbs, temperate climates etc). There are a range of adjustments and I guess, to be fair, many we can't see so the specifics are "unpredictable," just as the rise of the desktop computer or IPod was unpredictable. Some may in fact be "radical" but I see a coming rhetorical wave of  "the coming new age of feudalism" etc etc (Yes I really did hear that in a no surprise Jim Kunstler interview) and such talk is a bit premature and I think counter-productive. Listen for yourself at Jim Kunstler on The Long Emergency

Again, as John Quiggin notes:

Still, the evidence is against the idea that higher energy prices would bring the economy to a grinding halt. Rather, the response so far seems to be a textbook case of orderly adjustment, as people gradually shift away from gas-guzzling vehicles, look again at energy saving options and so on. So far the response has been small, but over time (if supply declines and prices stay high) more substantial responses can be expected.

Yes, there will be changes and many may be welcome. Some not. But the great danger, as I see it, will be political attempts to either hasten or delay the adjustments which people faced with rising oil prices will take on their own. My sense is that the greatest danger will be hurried and immature political action.  The world economy is so vast and with so many billions of actors that it seems to me that key public policy should be to make energy accurately priced  and with as little manipulation of supply or demand as possible. We want the "peak oil" price signals to penetrate the market as easily.

Now where does that leave me on such thing as energy-consumption standards for cars, appliances, buildings etc etc? Well frankly a bit confused. Do I think that there is a key role for such political interfernce with demand? Well yes. Definitely. Maybe the resolution has something to do with how far ahead those changes are ahead of global energy prices? I mean, why require too far ahead of the "natural"pressure which rising prices will provide? The reality is that we have a managed economy right now and so the question is mostly a matter of degree: how heavy? or light a hand? I don't know for sure and I guess I am not alone, as this is the nub of the energy debate.

But what I do know I am just enough of an old 60's hippie optimist to believe that our world is awash in love and energy and that somehow, amidst this benificence we will muddle (and better) our way through.

Has Mayor Bloomberg ever actually been to MOMA?

Did you see this puff passage in the April 4 New Yorker in an article about Mayor Bloomberg and a football stadium? The Mayor is setting forth his perspective on NYC.

He pointed to another, less obvious sign that the city was doing well: architectural trends: "In the seventies we built buildings that filled up the entire city block, had very few entrances and an atrium in the middle so you never had to leave. There was a feeling that the outside was dangerous. Today, go look at the new MOMA..."

At that point I stopped reading and went back to the beginning of the paragraph to see if where I thought he was going was indeed where he was going. It was. I went back to reading, holding my breath, as if I was watching a man move along a slippery window ledge which I knew was just about to end, in his disaster:

"...There was a feeling that the outside was dangerous. Today, go look at the new MOMA...The designs bring the outside in: they are open, and you can walk right through. That is a bunch of professionals giving you some views of the future..."

The paragraph goes downhill from there.

Here's the contingency plan.Four years after the earthquake. And it is still "sketchy!"

In September 2004, with respect to the Seattle Viaduct, which everyone fears will tumble down in the next earthquake and to catastrophic effect, I asked Where's the Contingency Plan?

It's good to see that people at WSDOT listened and responded to my criticism but it would be nice if they produced a plan which met with a bit more respect.

From a newsletter by Seattle City Councilmember Richard Conlin (his committee has City jurisdiction.) The Councilmember writes, in language unusually direct for a public official, as follows:

VIADUCT EMERGENCY CLOSURE PLAN

On Monday, February 28, the Transportation Committee began its work on the Safety and Transition Plan for the Alaskan Way Viaduct/Seawall Project with a public review of the Draft Emergency Closure Plan prepared by the Washington and Seattle Departments of Transportation.  We knew that the Emergency Closure Plan was still fairly sketchy, and improving it is a key goal of the Safety and Transition Plan Resolution that I developed.  However, both the public who attended and the Committee members were surprised at the lack of specifics that one would expect in a workable plan. (italics added - DS)

We learned that, while there was a general plan in place, very few specific preparations have been made, particularly in the event that a closure lasts more than a few hours or days.  The proposed vehicle detour route described in the documents is characterized in one place as having “…an almost jarring complexity. Every element of the loop route will need to be examined for improvements that reassure the driver that they are traveling on a coherent route.”

Specific plans for adding and rerouting bus services have not been developed.  The report notes surface Alaskan Way has been designated for both transit and freight routing in the event of a closure, and that “It would also be preferable during a closure not to mix truck and transit routes where possible…” but specific ways to avoid that have not been selected.

While clear signage advising people that the Viaduct has been closed and specifying alternative routes will be required, arrangements for ensuring that portable variable message signs and flashing beacons can be obtained have not been made.  This poses the possibility that these devices will not be available for deployment if they are located at private businesses that are also impacted by an earthquake.

There was also a lack of clarity as to the lines of authority for emergency management.  While a police incident commander on the scene would make the initial decision to close the viaduct, there are several entities that would have responsibility for coordinating follow-up decisions, and the lines of communication and preparatory work were not as clear to the Committee as we believe would be necessary in order to successfully manage this emergency.

This public review strongly reinforced the need for continued work and oversight on the Emergency Closure Plan.  The Departments are working to develop a more detailed and effective plan, and will report back to the Committee in early summer.  We hope it is a plan that will address these issues and alleviate some of the concern that many of us felt when we heard the presentation in February.

It's appalling that WSDOT officials communicate one explicit message -- that the Viaduct is in imminent danger of collapse -- while simultaneously communicating the implicit message that there is actually slim likelihood of a catastrophe failure through their inaction and then flawed work done only after criticism from a nobody citizen i.e. me. After all, if the danger had really been so serious, don't you think that the WSDOT chief would have asked for an emergency plan immediately? I would hope so.

A sign that the liberals are going to blow it?

Like just about everyone else in the blogosphere, here and here as just two examples, I read The Unregulated Offensive by Jeffrey Rosen in the NYT Magazine this past weekend.

Just to give you a flavor of the article itself, the latter blogger plugs the article with

...the true ultra radicals want to destroy Congress's power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Should they ever realize such a dream, the consequences would be more dire than you could ever imagine. Rosen lays it out in full, chilling detail.

At any rate, what struck me about the article was how naturally Rosen (and the latter blogger, too, impliedly) seem to get on the wrong side of the eminent domain issue and assume that the argument for limitations on eminent domain are part of some wicked conspiracy to get rid of the EPA, etc etc:

During the current term, the Supreme Court has heard three cases involving questions of economic liberty that, according to Greve, represent the most significant tests in a decade of the power of the Constitution in Exile movement. Kelo v. New London, which was argued before the court in February, concerned Susette Kelo, a woman who sued the city of New London, Conn., after it used its power of eminent domain to seize 90 acres of property, including her house. The city planned to turn the parcel over to a private developer in order to increase the tax base and revitalize the city. Chip Mellor's organization, the Institute for Justice, represented Kelo, whom the institute's lawyers had sought out because she seemed like a sympathetic victim. Standing before the justices, Kelo's lawyer, Scott G. Bullock, asked the court to reject the claim that as long as the state could point to a plausible public purpose for the taking of private property (like increasing the tax base), it could appropriate people's homes. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, however, seemed unimpressed by the suggestion that courts should second-guess the economic judgments of legislatures.

Of course I don't doubt that many of the people who supported Kelo in her legal battle would very much like to see a massive roll-back..so maybe the intent is there. But so what?

Rosen is wrong to think that this is an important property-rights issue in the sense that refinement and limitation on governmental power to declare what is a "public purpose" -- "Public purpose" is anything we say it is! -- is either illiberal or would aid the dismantling of other regulations. I'd say that limitations on condemnation are social justice & "good government" issues in which justice is on the side of those who seek limits.

I am not sure in fact why conservatives think that this is "their issue." Certainly, big-business conservatives who are in bed with local interests (of both political parties) have the ability to use eminent domain etc etc must surely be absent. Are there really so many libertarians? I just don't see that a limitation on the definition of "public purpose" cannot be created without bringing down the whole structure. I mean, is there no principled way to distinguish the underlying "public purpose" of a zoning law which restricts steel plans to heavy industry zones from the "public purpose" which a town might use to justify condemning your junker  house to transfer it to me for free so that I can build (let's assume I am a rock star) my own home/recording studio? Do liberals really want to argue for the latter? I hope not and I hope that they are lining up behind Jane Jacobs on this one. (An amicus brief was submitted on her behalf.)   

Let me put it another way: liberals have got to stop thinking that everything that a group of individuals who are constituted at some particular point in time as "The Government" have any sort of lock on wisdom. I was in fact, dismayed, to see that Rosen would buy into the government (i.e. anything goes) side. If it would reassure the liberals, let's remember that eminent domain (along with other gimmicks such as "tax holidays" and Tax Increment Financing) are simply
1. not needed for economic development
2. often very unfair in its application.

And it's bad politics. The Democrats should get out front on this one and make certain limitations on government -- didn't Bill Clinton tell us that "The era of big government is over! -- part of its mantra.

The Supreme Court -- as "the least intrusive branch" may not want to limit eminent domain -- but I think it's a very appealing issue for politicians in swing districts who have to win over one side or another. The "true liberal" position (I say) is to limit governmental power so that insider deals to political cronies (they are always "cronies." aren't they? -- it's hard to avoid hackneyed language) are made more difficult. Why some liberals assume that any restriction on eminent domain is part of some grand conspiracy -- and should be opposed on that basis -- simply floors me. Better to acknowledge the intent of the other side to tear down regulation but be willing to agree that sometimes -- as in eminent domain -- the specific policy-position which ensues is the intellectually- and morally-correct one. Liberals should all be lined up in vast crowds behind Kelo. Where are the liberals on this one, in fact? I hope I am wrong but I am not aware that this eminent domain issue is seen as one of ours but one of theirs. I hope I am wrong. But I just don't hear much chatter about it and then when I see Rosen's assumption that being for limitations on eminent domain is a "bad thing" I get worried. So As a liberal, I've put in my suggestion on how to approach the issue:: A "least intrusive means" test for zoning?

Just remember, the house that the government condemns might very well be yours -- unless you are rich and well-connected. (Even Robert Moses rerouted parkways to avoid certain estates.)

•••

Btw, if you are interested in the amicus briefs in the Kelo case, don't miss this post by Laurence Aurbach.

A cliff not a slope? Possible? Sure.

One comment on my recent post about oil made sense:

...there is a scenerio where there could be a cliff.

If on the downside the production is artificially boosted by working fields to the absolute max to try and maintain production the result of this short term effort will be damage to the fields. This could render the remainder unobtainable. This could lead to a plateau as production is maintained artifically leading to a cliff as the damaged fields dramatically decrease in production.

My response:

Ender's general point is well-taken though whether that specific scenario is technically plausible I have no idea. But I am sure that there are scary possibilities out there. But most, I suspect, are the result of political action designed to hasten (as in producer boycotts) or  delay (as in the example above) the inevitable rise in prices. They are exogenous political factors not inherent to a social reaction to a declining resource.

As one general rule about which both Right and Left can agree is that the key natural resource policy is to have the price at the gas pump accurately reflect all costs. Obviously there wil be arguments about what "all costs" means but that is OK so long as we all agree as a basic policy that our goal is to have markets which are as accurate as possible. Government policies aiming to subsidize gas to keep voters happy is indeed a prescription -- gut reaction, here -- for weird blowback.

2005 Sierra Club Election

I try to take my civic responsibilities seriously and so I pay attention to things like the election for the Club's Board of Directors.

Anyone reading this post have any knowledge about the folks who are running? I am sure that they are all good people -- but maybe some one or another stands out as being truly wise? And competent? Anyone care to offer any endorsements?

As to the ballot measures, I have actually made up my mind on them but as I haven't yet sent in my ballot (or voted on-line) I'd be curious to hear opinions.

Priceless -- it's "about the architecture."

Pelli to Design Themeless Casino.

Unlike the faux castles, pyramids, jungles and city knockoffs that make up the giant themed resorts along the Strip, this project will be about the architecture, said Pelli, former dean of Yale University's School of Architecture.

"When you don't have a theme, the attraction of the building has to rest in the beauty of the architecture," Pelli said.

•••

A number of years ago I was planning a weekend trip to Las Vegas. I mentioned to a friend that I didn't gamble (and in fact I didn't play even a dime that weekend). He said, "Then why in the world go?"

"For the architecture -- and hiking," I said. And it was true, more-or-less.

For me it is not the Las Vegas architecture which intrigues but the fact that "The Strip" is becoming -- believe it or not -- a pedestrian-oriented environment where people go to see each other faire le promenade. Whether Las Vegas will understand this potential -- or see it as a threat since it gets people out of the "gaming" rooms -- I don't know.

Speaking of the devil.

Gas-Saving Tips from the Sierra Club.

Ten Things You Can Do to Save Money at the Pump

1. Drive Smart! When you drive aggressively, you waste gas and put others at risk. Observe the speed limit, avoid rapid acceleration and braking, and maintain a constant speed on the road.

2. Keep Your Car In Shape. A well-tuned car burns less gasoline. So make sure  that you get your oil and air filters changed regularly, and that your tires  are always properly inflated.

3. Change Your Commute. When you sit in rush hour traffic, you are burning  gas and going nowhere. If possible, try to adjust your work schedule so that  you can avoid rush hour traffic. Even better, and if your employer allows it,  think about telecommuting.

4. Use Public Transportation. Look into the public transportation options  in your area, and use them as much as possible.

5. Try To Combine Your Errands. According to the Department of Energy, several  short trips taken from a cold start can use twice as much fuel as a longer,  multipurpose trip covering the same distance when the engine is warm.

6. Go for a Ride or Walk. Rather than drive your car to the corner store or  a friend's house, walk or ride your bike there.

7. Car Pool. Carpool or use ride-share programs if you can. This might also  enable you to shorten the time of your commute by using High Occupancy Vehicle  (HOV) lanes.

8. Pack Light. According to the Department of Energy, a loaded roof rack on  your car can decrease fuel economy by approximately five percent. Also, every  100 pounds you carry in a car reduces a typical car's fuel economy by one to  two percent. So, when you go on vacation or a long car trip, put everything  you can in the truck, and pack light

9. Think Hybrid. The most fuel-efficient vehicles on the road today are hybrid-electric  cars. A hybrid combines an electric motor with a conventional, but cleaner,  gasoline-powered engine. Over its lifetime, a 50-mile per gallon hybrid Toyota  Prius will use half as much gas, and release half as much global-warming pollution,  as a 23-mpg Pontiac Grand Prix.

10. Consider Sharing. Rather than buy a new car, sign up  for membership with a car-sharing program such as Flexcar or Zipcar. These  programs  allow you to  reserve and drive cars by the hour -- and they cover the cost of the vehicle,  insurance, gas, parking, and maintenance.

It's not so much that it's an ugly wall but that it's a wall. Period.

M. Blowhard provides a

nice Witold Rybczynski quote about what it's like these days to walk down 54th St.:

The effect of 196 unrelieved feet of corrugated aluminum is extremely unpleasant. It looks like the sort of temporary hoarding that is used to keep people from falling into an excavation at a building site, but without the posters and fliers.

The worry I have with using that partricular quote from Rybczynski is that some people might think he is suggesting (unless they read the whole piece) that if MOMA had simply offered a nicer-looking wall -- maybe some cool, individually hand-painted tiles -- then it would be OK.

Wrong.

In fact the wall is actually -- no surprise -- a very attractive piece of matter as a wall. To my eye -- and I walked right beside it -- the wall doesn't even remotely look like a construction fence as it is very smooth and clean and a first-class piece of construction. The only problem is that it's a bad location for a solid, impermeable, view-blocking wall. It degrades an interesting street. No matter how well the wall looks and no matter how well-constructed, it's a wall. And I believe that is what Witold believes as well and that particular quote shouldn't lead anyone to think that a bad idea even when well-executed becomes a good idea.

Topic of the day: oil

Matt Yglesias wonders why some bloggers worry about Gas Prices.

The panic around the blogosphere, if there is one, and I actually hadn't noticed much of a huff, which is indicative of something, is because bad news sells.

But the important thing to remember about "peak oil" is that the downhill side of peak oil is a SLOPE not a CLIFF. There is no reason to think that we'll wake up one day and there is NO oil; it will simply get expensive. Even artificial political shortages created by oil leaders are self-bounded because they need to sell us the oil just about as much we need to buy it.

The practical answer to higher oil prices? It's pretty simple: smaller cars.

Update

I posted last week on the accusation of accusation offered in a sloppy, off-hand way by The Architect's Newspaper.

Following up on FvB's suggestion I phoned the paper to inquire and asked for an editor.
The receptionist asked my identity and reason for calling.
I said "David Sucher following up on the Vidler/Krier matter."
She said, "Excuse me for a moment."
On returning, she said "They are formulating a response."

"...formulating a response."

I left comments...

I left comments at The Scourge of "Tuscan".

Maybe it should be The Scourge of Too Much Leisure?

Dubious Pulitzer

This is one of most important stories of the past year?

Portland weekly paper gets Pulitzer.

...pursuit of a rumor that Goldschmidt, a revered former governor and one of the most respected politicians in Oregon, had sex for three years with his children's baby-sitter while he was Portland mayor.

He was Portland Mayor in the seventies. His acts were reprehensible and, I assume, criminal. So I don't doubt that the story is newsworthy. But a Pulitzer? I guess sex sells everywhere.

UPDATE: Here's a link to the winning story from Willamette Week --The 30-Year Secret. Judge for yourself whether it deserved a Pulitzer. Of course that would depend on the standard for  awarding a Pulitzer. No doubt the story is newsworthy. But what does it teach? What systemic issues does it reveal? That famous men can be criminal jerks? That's not even remotely newsworthy. This story strikes me as a prurient-interest story with no large social significance. No?

Clearly, Jim is a man with excellent judgment.

From Jim's online bookstore, in association with AMAZON.com.

I have this book... The "devil is in the details" as far as urban design goes; and this book is FANTASTIC! I recommend that you purchase multiple copies of it to give to your planning commissioners or appeals board members.

Do you believe everything you read on a blog?

UPDATE 3: I have temporarily (?) closed comments because I do not intend to have this post become a forum for gossip, inuendo etc. My intention from the outset, and still, was to make sure that neither Vidler nor Krier were unjustly characterized. But I have just received one comment -- innocently intended I am quite sure -- which might be seen as spreading disparaging rumor, hearsay etc. As that comment might have possibly initiated a splendid cascade of story, rumor, invective etc I have taken it down at least for the moment. For the sake of simplicity, my simplicity as I will be travelling away from my home base in the next few days -- and until I receive some response from "The Architect's Newspaper" -- I am closing comments with the knowledge that my action will not stop the discussion, as so many of my friends & commentors have blogs of their own.

UPDATE 2, which I am putting at the top to make sure no one misses it:

Dean Vidler responded to my email and writes

"I did not state that Krier had Nazi sympathies nor did I or would I ever imply such a thing. The issue was entirely architectural and concerned Krier's long held allegiance to classical style, as evidenced by his published monograph on the  classical architecture of Albert Speer."

Frankly, I am not surprised. The idea that a man of Vidler's stature would offer such loose talk -- unless he really had the goods --  seemed improbable. And the reporting offered by The Architect's Newspaper in itself struck me as flimsy and not something on which to rely. What? No followup question after the Dean of a prestigious school accuses someone of Nazi sympathies? In itself cause for caution. I have pursued this for two linked reasons:
1. Nazis and Nazi-symps should be rooted out and exposed;
2. False accusation (and spreading of false accusation) is abhorrent & dishonorable.

As well, I have written to editor@archpaper.com to make sure that the Newspaper is aware of the Dean's response.

•••

A few sentences hidden in this Posting by and about Leon Krier were so pregnant and yet so unsourced that it piqued my curiosity and catalyzed this email:

Dear Dean Vidler:
You are referred to (as you no doubt know) here in this Blog Post as follows:
"Recently, Anthony Vidler, the Dean of Architecture at New York's Cooper Union, accused Krier of harboring Nazi sympathies."
I have a blog of my own: City Comforts and will be posting on this issue.
I am curious to know
1. If you indeed did say something to that effect about Krier (about whom btw I know little and care less; my only concern is that there is some level of veracity in the blogosphere.)
2. On what basis you would make such a statement (if indeed you said it.)
Thanks very much,

As I could only write to Dean Vidler indirectly through a general email address at Cooper Union, I have no way of knowing if this email will ever reach him. So if someone out there actually knows the Dean I would appreciate if you would direct his attention to this post. The whole issue -- the general lack of attention paid to Vidler's remark elsewhere, Krier's vague response, the notion of accusing someone of conflating Classicism and Nazism as a way of supporting Classicism -- well the whole thing is curious, weird, odd and I have no idea what of it is accurate.

There seems to be some agenda on the part of the blogger but I am not quite sure I can make it out. The gist of it is to enhance Classicism by insisting that Modernists attack Classicism because of some purported Nazi connections. Since I had never in 30 years of observing the architecture scene actually heard anyone attack Classicism on that basis (i.e. because of Nazi connections) and the post itself offers no such links to corroborate such a view among Modernists (but only claims that they exist) I am a bit befuddled about the efficacy of this line of support for Classicism.

UPDATE: Btw, it's somewhat beside the point and just an aside, but the idea that one could somehow discredit Classicism (either its architectural or its site form) because the Nazis used its vocabulary strikes me as preposterous and so intellectually weak that I am boggled that any serious thinker on the built world would ever present it seriously. It's just not a serious argument and offers many logical and historical flaws. In fact, that is what puzzles me as odd about this whole business --  could anyone be so dense to discredit Doric columns because of Hitler By that same token we should prohibit the reading of Goethe. Or maybe even the speaking of German. It's an idiotic argument from the ground up. Even Modernists aren't so dumb as to make it. No?

"Sustainable" & Whole Earth Catalog

The Whole Earth Catalog/Review was/is one of my very favorite things and I am saddened that  like the leaves of autumn, it seems to have disappeared. That's probably to be expected; there is an evolution and life-cycle for all beings, institutions etc etc. I am remined of the WEC/R by this post at 2blowhards.com and thought I'd bring up a little broadside I put together in 1993 when it was obvious that the Whole Earth was fading. Download the Whole Earth Review broadside.pdf or read it here (click to enlarge ):

New PDF of Three Rules Chapter

Thanks to my web maestro, C. Juarez, we now have a fresh PDF of Chapter 3 (from City Comforts) which explains The Three Rules of Urban Design.

Read!
Enjoy!
Poke holes! (try)