City Comforts, the blog

A new book on The Three Rules of Urban Design

Several days ago I surprised myself. I mentioned in passing to a friend that I was just about to order a new printing of City Comforts because the first printing (of the second edition) was sold out. The friend asked if I would ever write another book. For the past few years my stock answer to that question has always been — and it's a common question — "No. I am a one-book pony. I've said what I have to say in City Comforts."

So when I answered my friend with "Yes. I think I will take the 'Three Rules' chapter from City Comforts and expand it into a book of its own," I was far more surprised than she was.

But that is what I am planning to do. Expand and examine the 'Three Rules' in greater, even mind-numbingly greater, detail. And I ask for your help.

I would very much appreciate hearing every possible critique of the 'Three Rules.' Click here to download the chapter. Praise it if you like. But I am even more interested in hearing the reasons why I am full of it, why the 'Three Rules' is naive, incomplete, simple-minded and overall just plain wrong and/or misleading. Let me have it. Bring it on, in the words of our bumbling leader. Tell me in as much detail as you are able why I should drop this project immediately and not embarrass myself any further by my clueless rantings.

Truly excellent criticisms (in my sole judgment) will receive a copy of the new book. Criticisms so superb that they persuade me to change my mind and drop the project entirely will receive my undying gratitude and dinner at any restaurant you like (in Seattle) or elsewhere as our respective schedules might allow.

But amidst the levity I am in earnest and would appreciate hearing any criticisms, questions or any other help & hint.

•••

Btw, If you prefer to phrase your comment as a question, that's even better.

Also, I don't make the offer of dinner for persuading me to change my mind as a joke. Writing/photographing a new book will be a great deal of effort, even financial expenditure, over many months, maybe even a year or so. The world certainly doesn't need more books. And there is minimal payback in either money or love. So someone would be doing me a great favor by showing me the error of my ways.

Fewer trees in Seattle now? Or more?

Knute Berger repeats this "fact" about Seattle:

Thirty-five years ago, tree canopy covered 40 percent of the city. Today, that's down to 18 percent.

The only problem is that the study from which this "fact" is supposedly derived is not about Seattle proper but about a vastly larger region.

The study by American Forests is somewhat unclear about its spatial scope but in any case there is no question that the study area is vastly larger than the city of Seattle per se. According to it:
• The main study covered 3.9 million acres from Tacoma to Everett
• It also analyzed a smaller study area of 422,000 acres of "Greater Seattle."
• Seattle itself is about 53,000 acres.

So it appears that to claim -- based on this particular study -- that Seattle's tree canopy has gone from 40% to 18% of the land area in the past 35 years cannot be supported as the study did not cover the city of Seattle but the whole region.

And that's consistent with my own observations. For anyone who has lived in Seattle for the past 40 years and has been watching the physical environment, it's not credible that "Thirty-five years ago, tree canopy covered 40 percent of the city. Today, that's down to 18 percent. "

The numbers on their face are dubious; just go look at a map of Seattle in 1967 and compare it to one of 2007. You'll see that there has been very very little platting of vacant land — because in 1967 the city was pretty-much built out. Combined with the public tree-planting programs and those part of development and I would bet that the there are more trees within the city of Seattle proper now in 2007 than there were in 1967.

(Of course unknown for sure is whether this particular study is the one on which the City is basing its Plan.)

Now does any of this mean that we should not plant more trees? Or not take care of the ones we have? Or not be concerned about the form & design of suburban expansion? Of course not. But it does mean we should beware governments (and gullible echo-chamber journalists) offering "facts."

Is the ebook reader finally here?

Amazon's Kindle

•••

My quick take: No. I gather that it won't read PDFs so no dice; I won't even consider buying one as PDFs are the lingua franca of the web and it's crazy to not be able to have them available on a portable device. (PDF stands for Portable Document Format.)

Maybe it's one of those times

Glenn Greenwald offers some interesting comments on Ron Paul and his fundraising success.

....circumstances often dictate political priorities. Individuals who historically may not have been attracted to "limited-government" rhetoric and all of the specifics it traditionally entails may find that ideal necessary now after six years of endless expansions of intrusive federal government power.

The overall gist of his post, interpreted simplistically, is that preservation of democracy in the USA may be more critical than preserving worthy Federal programs and that reaching out to Americans across the aisle (here liberals to conservatives) may well be timely. And liberals should take Paul seriously not just for his maverick position (in the Republican Party) on the Iraq War but because of his concern that the war on terror and the decades-long bi-partisan approach to foreign policy endanger freedom at home. Here's a striking quote from Paul:

“The American Republic is in remnant status,” he says. “The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into military dictatorship, and few seem to care.”