What's the proper question?

Reader Joe Wilson points me to Witold Rybczynski's review of a book on sprawl, wherein Witold offers:

What this iconoclastic little book demonstrates is that sprawl is not the anomalous result of American zoning laws, or mortgage interest tax deduction, or cheap gas, or subsidized highway construction, or cultural antipathy toward cities. Nor is it an aberration. Bruegmann shows that asking whether sprawl is "good" or "bad" is the wrong question.

Witold hints that there is a right question. Yet he neglects to suggest — and I know that he knows — its precise formulation. Of course readers of this blog know the question. And even  a bit of the answer. So no point repeating it...

UPDATE: Benjamin Hemric asks and answers nicely, in comments. Here's my own test:

Suburban expansion is ok so long as what you build out there at the urban fringe is something you can walk to and in.

UPDATE 2: The more I consider the test, above, the better I like it.

Comments

[Benjamin Hemric]

I haven't had a chance to carefully read the entire Rybczynski book review -- let alone the book itself -- but here are two tenative thoughts which I'm going to keep in mind if I get a chance to read the entire book review / book:

1) Generally I find myself agreeing with Rybczynski, but it seems to me this time that his conclusion (that sprawl has, more or less, always been with us; that it is an inherent part of urbanism) is "off" because Rybczynski (or the author of the book under discussion) is using a useless definition of "sprawl" (using "sprawl" to describe any less dense area on the outskirts of a city).

For those most likely to use the word "sprawl" (usually as a pejorative) the word -- by definition -- is used to describe outlying low-density areas developed after WWII that were shaped by automobile dependence. For those opposed to "sprawl" (and these are the people most likely to use the term in the first place), it does not describe -- by defnition -- those outlying low-density areas developed between WWI and WWII, that were shaped by trolley or subway lines and are thus more pedestrian-oriented.

2) Given what people ususally mean when they use the word "sprawl" (settlements that sprawl across the landscape and are anti-pedestrian because they are designed for people with cars) I think it is incorrect to say ". . . sprawl is not the . . . result of American zoning laws . . . or cheap gas, or subsidized highway construction . . " etc. These are indeed some of the factors that have shaped and continue to shape these particular outlying "urban" areas that exhibit "sprawl" (as it is usually defined).

[c.]

I agree -- low density isn't bad. It's actually inevitable. There will always be low-density areas (power laws and whatnot). But there's a huge difference between quality low-density (lovely English village accessible by train) and what we have.

[Brian Miller]

You know, David, that I agree with the three rules 100%. But, I think you are missing the broader issues of low density sprawl. Design can only do so much. If the land use patterns demand automobile use, then the three rules are just window dressing on the reality of every spreading suburbia.

Sure, the sprawling big box shopping center might have a few fake windows and doors right next to the street (and they will be fake), and the parking may be somehwat hidden (if the municipal zoning authority is vigorous enough), but everybody will drive there from their cul-de-sacs-the distance is too far to do anything else. There may be fake storefronts, but want's to walk along even a nicely landscqaped six lane arterial?

There is no transit, really (what transit there is is used only by the poor).

So. The rational developer or planner asks: since the only thing that really matters is facilitating car travel ("easy motorin'"), why try to dress it up? The three rules are pointless in a world where people commute LITERALLY 100 MILES so they can buy a bigger, newer house in a more "prestigious" subdivision. Pedestrian friendliness matters only to the tiny classed dubbed by Brooks "The Bourgeoise Bohemians." Maybe 10% of the population. Patio man doesn;t even notice if his WalMart or his Best Buy have pretty storefronts and sidewalks.

There. My rant for the week. I'm just not as blithe as you are about ever expanding suburbia. :)

[Roger]

Brian,

The only solution--the only one--for the 100 mile commuters is very, very expensive fuel, or very expensive cars. I don't think that would be a bad thing, but it's probably not going to happen.

In 1910, Henry Ford's Model T broke ground when it cost about $850, just about a year's salary for most people and about 20% of the cost of an average house (I don't know what that might be today, it depends on where you live, but here in Seattle maybe $70,000 for a basic car if housing averages $400K?). And I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect your average bank probably wasn't incredibly excited to give you a five year loan on that. His competitors cars averaged about $2-3000 which made them a toy for the rich. Running costs would have been much higher than today, too. No one was going to live 100 miles from home based on all that.

By 1920, that cost was down to $300 or so and both salaries and housing costs as gone up. The suburban age was on its way.

England, incidentally, is now suffering from the same sprawl problems that we are. I don't mind people living out in the sticks, but it should be a sacrifice to do so, costly, and a pain. The folks who find living out there vitally important will still do so, but the "ooh, we can get an extra 500 sq. ft. and a swirly-germ tub!" people will have to rethink their priorities, or make sacrifices.

That's why I feel that the "traffic problems" we have now are nothing of the sort. They're "people problems" that simply aren't solvable short of getting people to rethink how and where they live. "More roads, more lanes!" is the cry of the uneducated, and isn't going to make any difference. Frankly, I don't think mass transit is much better. The goal should be to make daily life independent from the need to travel much beyond the six-block walk to work or even the shuffle from bedroom to home office.

[Urbanist]

I haven't read Witold's review, but I have read Breugmann's book. I will have a review of it shortly on New(sub)Urbanism, but both Benjamin Henric's and David's impressions are spot-on.

Breugmann acknowledges that "sprawl" is ill-defined--in fact that is a large part of his book's argument--but he nonetheless goes forth in his book to "shatter misconceptions" about sprawl by conflating any critique of modern forms of suburbanization with (in his estimation) misguided "anti-sprawl activists."

For Breugmann, we get modern forms of suburbia simply as a result of the culmination of individual choice. He has absolutely no structural, political, or economic analysis and offers no real empirical evidence to support his assertions.

[Lisa Williams]

I've been talking to people about this subject quite a bit lately, as my town is considering zoning a small area as a "Smart Growth" district. These follow guidelines put forth by our state (Massachusetts) for density, transit-oriented-development, and mixed-use zoning. The parcel in question is currently an equipment yard for a company that pours concrete, and zoning it for "Smart Growth" would also mean that the town would get incentive payments.

I'm sometimes at a loss to describe "smart growth" succinctly. Does anyone know of a good one-page resource I could point to?

It'll be an interesting case because my town is not really capable of sprawl; we're 32,000 people in four square miles. In our case, a "smart growth" district helps us redevelop an area that's consonant with the urban residential patterns surrounding it, and helps us get better served by our public transit authority.

[JRoth]

I know this isn't really what Lisa is seeking, but I'd offer the following as the fundamental tenets of Smart Growth:

First, targeted growth. Identifying locations well-suited for growth, rather than relying on whichever farmer's heirs prefer cash to land.

Second, traditional planning. Essentially, mixed-use, Three Rules zoning. Not only does this result in more comfortable places, per our host, but it also leads to higher densities and more efficient land-use.

Third, not giving artificial advantage to growth vs. upkeep. No matter how cleverly done, new suburban development surorunding a shrinking city is not smart. To some extent, you have to respond to peoples' desires for new/new-fangled housing, but, as is pointed out above, public policies have strongly prejudiced new housing over old for over 70 years. Billions for highways, millions for transit, and thousands for pedestrians and cyclists is not a formula for smart growth.

I welcome responses/additions/corrections.

[Chris Burd]

Rybczynski's always worth reading, but I think he goes soft on development issues. His underlying attitude seems to be "this is how things are in North America; stop dreaming." I think if you put him on the spot, he would endorse a lot of new urbanist ideas, but I'm not sure he'd ever give them *effectual* support.

[Chris Burd]

Instead of talking density versus sprawl, we should be talking about the Urban Transect. Good urban design can create walkable village centre or a walkable centre-city highrise district. Bad urban design can screw things up at either density.

[Brian Miller]

NOt dismissing the transect (tm) or the basic ideas behind it, Chris. But, except for the affluent few, who will really be patronizing the "village center" when you can just drive to the next town or unincorporated area to shop at Wally World and Home Depot? And, I know that in scattered cases communities can force the big boys to fit into the village center or urban storefront. But, even in such cases, the wide catchment area for such stores means your village center is overwhelmed by traffic.

Design is an issue. But, so is the very structure of our economy. And, I have no answers to that other than "fight the good fight." :)

[Chris Burd]

You're right about the economics. The only spontaneously self-generating village centres I know of are on islands, where you don't drive to the bigbox stores off-island more than once a week.

However, you don't *need* to get everyone to do all their shopping in the village centre. The pleasure of having a village centre (or an urban village centre) is to have a kind of Jane Jacobs experience. (Yes, there may be practical advantages for that kind of urban planning - but one reason we want it because we like it.) The interesting thing is, you don't need to have a huge proportion of your commercial activity in a village centre to make it work. I'm thinking of the Quadra Village area here in Victoria. It's got maybe 40 businesses, but it's a functioning and definitely improving urban village. Half a mile away, over the border of sprawl-land, the nearest mall has probably 200 businesses, and doubtlessly takes in far more than 5 times the revenue. The cafe, bicycle shop, consignment store, appliance store, corner store, and Y at the end of my street probably take in 1 or 2 percent of my income (and I believe in shopping locally), but they provide a framework for the neighbourhood.

It's an uphill fight, obviously, and sometimes the closest you get to victory is a slowly lost battle. But sometimes you win.

[Brian Miller]

It's interesting how some more affluent liberal bastions in San Francisco view the big boxes: vehement opposition to large format retailers. I wonder how much sales leakage goes across the bridge to Emeryville (a former industrial slum reinvented as a formula retail enclave)? At the same time, Union Street and Fillmore Street and Upper Polk Street all seem to be quite pleasant places. How would a Target even work in such an environment? Again, it's the traffic. We can emphasize the three rules and design, but some stores are simply too big for urban settings.

[David Sucher]

Brian..."but some stores are simply too big for urban settings."

Like Saks Fifth Avenue? Or Macys?

[Brian Miller]

Those are dying (basically) old line merchants who are not typically located in the urban villages and neighborhood shopping streets I was focusing on.

But, maybe you're right that a few large format stores can work in some settings-where the transit networks are particularly dense and a traditional retail core has been retained or expanded (San Francisco, maybe even Seattle). It takes a unique circumstance (incredible densities like New York) or....EVILLLLLLLLLLL GOVERNMENT to force the issue.

I'm probably going too far in my pessimism. But, I still don't see much interest in a pedestrian-scaled Super Wal Mart. There is no pedestrian-oriented transit to support these stores-so they located in huge clusters by the freeway interchange, too far to do anything but drive to them. Even if they are located in a more finely grained setting, that can mean that setting is overwhelmed by the automobile traffic coming to the superstore. Putting the WalMart by the sidewalk won't change that fundamentally.

But-as they invade urban neighborhoods, maybe they will evolve, too.

[Nicholas Weininger]

Brian, my own San Francisco experience leaves me a little mystified as to what you mean by "too big" (large-format stores) and "dying" (Macy's + its ilk). What about the Home Depot that would be built in Bayview, for which it would be a great and much-needed boon, but for the blatant NIMBYism of the richer neighborhoods around it? What about the stores at Stonestown Galleria, which is quite pedestrian- and transit-accessible and surrounded by classic urban-ness? Are they too big?

As for "dying", neither the Stonestown Macy's nor the one in Union Square looked particularly moribund last time I was in them. And as for village centers: from Noe Valley, at least, it is a very easy drive to Stonestown or Serramonte, yet 24th Street ain't gonna die, nor are its property prices going to come down out of the ionosphere anytime soon.

[Will Cox]

Funny. Saks didn't look like it was dying the last time we went to look at the Christmas tableaux in the windows. When we went to the City to see Beauty and the Beast, and my daughter broke a heel, the only spot I could think of to look for children's shoes was on Fifth Avenue. Would you believe that H&M on Fifth doesn't have a children's section? Children's Place had shoes, but nothing in her size. We eventually found something passable at the Gap.

Sounds like generic mall retail to me, with no problems surviving in an urban environment.

There is both governmental and economic impulse to suburbia. The economic impulse is reduced cost, whether in housing or in finding all of one's goods under one roof. The government sets the rules for where and how to build, and subsidizes transport, whether roads and parking, or buses and trains.

If all goes well, we'll be moving further out, to a cluster development in Dutchess County where we can walk to a park, to a pool, to the Dunkin Donuts and Stop & Shop, and, provided we want to cross NYS Route 55, to the library. But I have to drive further to work. That's quite a switch from our situation now, where we have to drive everywhere.

A pedestrian-scaled super-de-dooper Wal-Mart would be nice; it would be more connected.

[JRoth]

I *think* that people are suggesting that Brian has said a few things about modern retail that he hasn't. First off, Gap and the like have little to do with his point. Some chains - Gap, Starbucks, Benetton - thrive just as well in (certain) neighborhood commercial districts (NCDs) as in malls. Likewise, large department stores have existed for 125 years in central business districts, and still exist there in most cities. Manhattan has recently gotten an influx of modern, big box stores (which are a very distinct form from old-fashioned dept. stores), but Manhattan, as always, is a special circumstance due to a density that doesn't exist anywhere else in America - more people pass daily a given block of Midtown than live in most American cities.

But here's the point. Or the points. National retailers like Gap tend to drive out locals, not so much through direct competition as through real estate market distortion. Those retailers want premium space, and pay premium prices. If a NBD attracts a critical mass of nat'l retailers, it becomes profitable for landlords to raise rents and raze old buildings, creating a street where only nat'l retailers can afford to locate. Textbook examples of this are Shadyside in Pittsburgh and Coconut Grove south of Miami (interestingly, both were run-down districts colonized by hippies & bohemians around 1970). For better or worse, that's what happens, but it's irrelevant to urban form.

Only the blindered can think that the traditional dep't store is thriving. Marshall Fields, Wannamakers, Kaufmanns, Burdines, and a dozen others are about to blink out of existence after this Christmas. Macy's has bought them all out, and while some stores will remain, the segment will lose probably 1/3 of all current locations. And that's ignoring the Gimbels and Hornes that are already gone. A few will persist indefinitely, but it's a fallacy to think that most cities still offer the large-scale urban shopping they did even 25 years ago (as recently as 2003, Pittsburgh's CBD had 4 classic dep't stores within a 5 minute walk; we're down to 2).

Finally, the entire model of big box stores depends on anti-urban conditions: highway access, copious free parking, and large floorplates. Occasionally they will make concessions to get into really attractive markets (see Target in Manhattan), but the norm - 99% of the time - is either suburban locations or urban locations that replicate suburban conditions. Thus, we in Pittsburgh have a new Home Depot - on a former Sears site - just up the street from a NBD. But, despite being built up to the sidewalk line on one side (plus a little bit on the other two sides), it is in no way an urban building, and it is where it is because the urban fabric had been so torn by misguided '60s redevelopment that what is fundamentally a suburban Home Depot fit nicely in a city neighborhood. But it in no way supports the street life that is the very essence of a NBD.

All of which - I think - supports Brian's points.

[Brian Miller]

jroth, you have far more eloquently described the situation than I clumsily did. I'm not claiming that all traditional urban retail centers-and big stores are dead. Just most of them. Too often, sprawl apologists say things like: well what about downtown San Francisco? What about NYC? These are not the typical case.

Home Depot in Bayview? Sure-classic NIMBYism. But, you could hardly call that industrial wasteland in the immediate vicinity traditional urbanism? And, once they build it (if, I should say), 95% of the customers will drive there. This might work ok there-the store is next to a freeway interchange. But, turning to the "three rules," the typical developer, heck, the average customer, would say: why make this pedestrian friendlyz? It's a truck route next to the freeway. Give me lower prices!

As for Stonestown. Sure, its in a first generation suburb where the pattern of development is much denser, more finely grained, than say, Antioch. We don't build the Sunset District anymore. We build lollipop loop roads, no transit, eight lane suburban arterials. None of the fundamental structure, the basic economics, will be changed by the three rules.

[Will Cox]

Modern retail follows a particular site plan not because that is its nature, but because that is the cheapest and easiest to build within existing zoning regulations. It requires no creative effort.

The history of retail is better covered by others, but allow me to note that the department store was an innovation in retail, and supplanted the general store or travelling peddlers as the population concentrated in larger towns and cities. Folks who did not live in town would travel to town to shop, or they would purchase from catalog retailers such as Sears. Department stores fill a particular economic niche, as does the five-and-dime. Some are now defunct, not having survived demographic changes. Others have changed their names and retail styles: Dayton's became Target. Kresge's became K-Mart, and recently merged with Sears, which started life as the original catalog retailer. Some of the economic incentives which make hypermarkets and malls efficient are regulatory, e.g. tax depreciation rates. Others are environmental: the weather of given region may encourage staying within a climate-controlled building during certain times of the year. Now instead of traveling to town, we travel to the store.

But I do not expect to be able to walk from my home to the nearest department store or hypermarket. I do expect to be able to walk from my home or place of employment to the nearest convenience store or, as we call them in the Bronx, bodegas. I do expect to be able to walk from one store to the other, regardless of whether that establishment is a Wal-Mart or a Cracker Barrel or Jane's Lingerie -- without crossing a parking wasteland or interstate highway. I expect a connected world.

People drive across the parking lot from Wal-Mart to Applebee's because its dangerous to walk. They drive across the parking lot from Wal-Mart to Applebee's because there are no sidewalks. They drive between each individual store's immediately adjacent parking lot because it is dangerous to walk. They drive between each individual store's immediately adjacent parking lot because there are no sidewalks.

There are no sidewalks because the ZONING REGULATIONS did not require them. There are multiple, disconnected parking lots because the zoning regulations DID require them.

This is not an economic problem.

[Brian Miller]

Will Cox: You have far more faith in the willingness of suburban Americans to walk than I do.

Not that your basic point is incorrect-walking acorss a "Power Center" is horrendous and discourages the activity. I'm not sure it's "caused" by zoning, though. "Allowed" and facilitated,perhaps.

Still, the Zoning Ordinances do not "require" pedestrian walkways because the companies building "supercenters" kick up a huge fuss when required to do ANYTHING beyond the very basic. A sin of omission rather than another evil imposition of the government. As for the separate parking lots? Perhaps. Still, I would be willing to wager that most commercial builders will insist on their own parking lot. A few may be willing to combine parking (and flexible cities will allow that, certainly.)

Still, while cynical about misplaced government regs, I lack your wonderful libertarian faith that "the market" will implement David's vision automatically if us pointy head bureaucrats just got out of the way.

[Benjamin Hemric]

Living in Manhattan, I rarely go to malls. But a few weeks ago I happened upon a very successful "in-city" mall in Queens, near where I grew up, that does a pretty good job of 1) providing parking, while 2) still pretty nicely fitting within an urban context (mostly apartment houses, with some row houses and single-family detached homes).

Of course this was done with multi-level parking decks, which are obviously a lot more expensive than just an asphalt paved lot. But for developers, it apparently can be worth it in areas of medium-high density. And the end result was a nice mall that is situated on a major, walkable boulevard and is also easily accessible by bus and subway (a major subway line runs beneath the boulevard).

Not only does this mall not involve long walks across a parking lot, but it's only a short, pleasant walk to two other "quasi-malls" that are located nearby. One was originally a circular "Macy's," designed by SOM in the mid-1960s. It has a parking lot that wraps around each level of the store and is accessible via a helix. The other was originally a discount department store, "Alexander's," that originally had an enormous (at least for New York City) parking lot in the back. In subsequent years, the store was expanded backwards into the lot. Both of these quasi-malls (they've been enlarged and subdivided since their department store days) are also along the same boulevard and subway line.

One of the neat things about the "real" mall, "Queens Center," is that it is cut in half by an existing city street, so that the top two (or three?) floors or the mall bridge over the street. The area beneath the "bridge" isn't too bad, as the street is a busy one and there are entrances into the mall beneath this bridge. Plus the street is enlivened by what appears to be a curious hold-out, Modell's{?} (which is a local sporting goods chain) from a previous era. (It seems to me that the mall was built around this store as the store is not accessible from within the mall and is kind of slummy for a mall store. But the sporting goods store is shown on maps posted inside the mall as being part of the mall.)

Although the mall does not have exterior street level retail and the parking decks form a blank (but not unattractive) rear facade, the structure basically gives off the appearance of being a large, handsome urban department store. And, the "side" and "back" facades of the store are probably no more anti-urban than the "back" facade of "Macy's" on Herald Square. Also, to be fair, this area was never "truly" urban to begin with. In the 1950s and 1960s, this area was a small kiddie amusement park that had a one-story discount retail establishement off to the side and in the back. And many of the apartment houses surrounding the mall were built on empty lots, all at once in the late 1940s(?), 1950s(?) and 1960s (?).

Another interesting aspect of this situation is that Queens already had two major existing walkable "downtowns" (Jamaica and Flushing -- which had their own independent existence before being gobbled up by NYC in 1898) when this new, extemporaneous "downtown" began taking shape in the late 1950s. But the old downtowns, particularly Jamaica, experienced a big decline in the late 1950s as people began to abandon medium-small walkable downtowns in favor of suburban shopping (with easy parking).

For those interested, here's the URL [?] to the info page of Queens Center Mall:

http://www.shopqueenscenter.com/about_us

[Benjamin Hemric]

P.S. -- The website of the Macerich Company (operators of the Queens Center Mall) has much the same info as the other website mentioned above, but with some interesting photos and maps/floor plans.

* Photos of the Site:

http://www.macerich.com/pages/redevelop/photos/index.jsp?development=5#

(Some of the photos at the bottom of the page, show the mall before its expansion.)

* Maps/floorplans (listed under "Lease Plan" on the website):

http://www.macerich.com/pages/redevelop/leaseplan/index.jsp?development=5

[Will Cox]

Brian, the market does not operate in a vacuum. Buyers and Sellers -- or developers, retailers and customers -- work within the framework provided by the law. In the case of the built environment, this framework is local ordinance in the form of a zoning code, or state ordinance in the form of the building code. Taxes provide incentives to pursue one method or the other.

The builder will act to reduce his costs as much as possible, but is most concerned with his profit. Complying with the exact requirements of the law is cheaper than seeking approval from the Planning Board for an alternative.

The typical zoning code says, like the City of Fairfield Code, Chapter 25, Section 34.4, very simply, that each business must provide said number of spaces for a estimated number of "trips" that the business will generate. Suppose I have a delicatessan next door to a gentlemen's club. The code will require that we each provide parking for our patrons. Because we are required to do so, we will build that into our cost estimate, and construct the lot. The code does not permit us to accept the risk of turning away customers who might not find a spot. The code assumes that we'll negatively impact the public space if we do not provide parking. I think that we'll lose business.

Most codes do not say that our parking should be connected by an alley. Nor do they say that we should build a sidewalk. Nor do they say that we should place the parking behind or beside the building. Nor do most provide -- as does Fairfield's Chapter 24, Section 34.5 -- for reductions in the number of spaces if I share my lot with my neighbor. They do say that we should set the building back from the street. Why should I build a sidewalk if I am the only property owner to do so?

So while I tend to agree with Rybczynski and Bruegmann "that sprawl is not the anomalous result of American zoning laws," those laws do dictate the form that development takes. Just look at the differences between Loveland, Ohio, Setauket, New York, and Henrico County, Virginia.

If we're to have regulations, and we will, then we may as well have regulations that encourage an environment convenient to humans, not just to cars. The cars don't have to make a left turn across a four-lane highway in order to visit the next shop; humans do.

Oh, and people will walk. They'll park a half-mile away from the Wal*Mart entrance. But they also value convenience. They'll circle the mall interior for hours, but circle the exterior for 20 minutes looking for a convenient parking spot during the Christmas rush.

[Will Cox]

I'm halfway through Robert Caro's monolithic The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. The recent history of suburbia is as much political as economic.

[Brian Miller]

Will: you do make some good points.

I believe most developers would still most certainly provide their own parking lots. The perception of easy parking is pretty important in the design of shopping centers. Large format stores pretty much require a large parking field. There are of course exceptions, and I would probably not disagree with your call for additional flexibility.

for a very interesting discussion vis a vis the City of San francisco's proposal to impost MAXIMUMS on new residential towers in downtown San Francisco, check out "San Francisco
Cityscape" on the web. The first item has a lengthy debate about parking requirements (somewhat from the opposite perspective, but intriguing nonetheless.)

As for why we do not require parking behind the building? It's not standard operating procedure for suburbia. Many shopping center and regional retail developer would protest vehemently against such a requirement. In some areas, it might even be a crime safety issue (we have some challenging neighborhoods). :) We are actually moving gingerly towards this kind of requirement for new commercial development. We have a separate "Design Guidelines" document that in fact tries to draw upon some of David's (and others')ideas. Imperfectly, and its not in the Zoning Code, but we do recognize the problem and are begininning to address it. A couple of our newest shopping centers have storefronts.

Another problem in Fairfield (which cannot be easily seen from the codes alone) is that the public space that would be impacted by an underparked commercial site is pretty much limited to narrow single family residential streets nearby. Our main commercial arterials are all purely engineering-driven traffic sewers. No on-street parking at all-which reduces the demand for on-site parking fields. (I actually sent an e-mail out once stating that if we really want to urbanize/infill/civillize our commercial core, we should replace traffic lanes with on-street parking. I was laughed at, of course. The traffic volume is just tremendous).

And, of course, there is nothing to separate the pedestrian (at least most California suburbs build sidewalks!) from traffic roaring by at 45 miles per hour. No place for bicyclists. No place for outdoor seating or the other amenities David's book illustrates so well. No. We have TRAFFIC FLOW. And, the sad thing is, any radical solution would require interfering with this traffic flow or requiring a pretty substantial "take" from the adjoining properties. A difficult situatiojn to retrofit.

Hey, I'm actually being positive yet realistic here. :)

These are indeed decisions made by the public sector. We have facilitated

[Brian Miller]

Ah. I just saw the alley comment.

Our Public Works Department HATES alleys. As probably do the Police. And, property owners are always asking us to close the alley that runs behind a few blocks of the one commercial street with some remnant alleys. :)

(I like alleys. A great place for deliveries and other unsightly things. Still...they're another uphill battle.)

[Will Cox]

The lots don't need to be connected by alleyways behind the buildings; a cut-through on the border of the lot would do. The danger in alleyways is disconnecting them from the rest of the environment.

Maybe the DPW would like alleyways if you called them service roads.

[Brian Miller]

Ah. We have done that.

In several cases, though, the property owners have installed bollards to block off the cross access.

[Adam Villani]

I've noticed that Best Buy stores, in particular, almost always have fenced-off parking lots. Even if parking lots are in front of buildings, they should be connected. Not only for the sake of pedestrians, but so that cars can move from one store to another without entering and exiting the road via a driveway, clogging up traffic.