City Comforts, the blog

We still have the Viaduct to kick around and distract us

Some comments on a blog here.

@1: David, we've heard you say many times that you believe the viaduct will be retrofitted. But what do you believe OUGHT to be done with the viaduct?

Posted by Henry Miller Lite | April 30, 2008 9:57 PM

———

#12, Henry Miller Lite.

Short answer:

Ideally, I too would like to see the Viaduct disappear. But I think we are stuck with it. There is no practical alternative. And that's not such a bad thing.

— Repair the damn thing, save the money and use imagination to make it a plus for the downtown rather than a negative. (Yes it is possible and people who can't see it should reconsider. There are many ideas of what one could do. I've written about some of them on my blog. My favorite one is to copy what they did in Paris to an old viaduct. What's tragic about the media -- I am looking at you, _Stranger_ — is that it has played along with WSDOT's basic assumptions and not challenged the government "experts" -- sound familiar? think Iraq.)

— A surface boulevard is a fetching idea, except that I think it would create far more of a barrier than does the current Viaduct.

— A high bridge along the lines of the Millau in France would be great but there is neither the imagination nor the governmental skill/vision.

What is going to happen is just what Mr. X says is happening: REPAIR. Government plays along with the surface/transit fantasy and then when it is obvious that there is NO regional consensus, it throws up its hands and says "Well we have to do something! So let's just repair!"

•••

But yours is a very good question, and I am glad that you see the difference between what I (or anyone) would personally prefer and what the political dynamics will give us. You ask a very layered question. Some of my response:

Priorities.
First of all, I put the issue of the Viaduct in the context of all the possible "good things" which we could do with $3 billion in the city of Seattle. (And remember that the initial budget for this "emergency" were up in the $10-12 billion range, so the issue was even more extreme 5-6 years ago.) Putting it in the context of city-wide possibilities, improving 1.5 miles in one neighborhood just doesn't make sense. Is tearing down the Viaduct a "good idea?" In the best of all possible worlds, of course it is. But when consider the costs versus the benefits to the daily lives of 600 thousand people, it's not even on the table.

Governmental ability
There is no way that state/local government is capable of the enormous transformation required by the liberal herd fantasy (i.e. the "surface/transit" option). In order to replace the Viaduct you'd need to re-route traffic which bring on its own law-suits. Then you have to increase the size of the bus fleet. Etc Etc Etc. Taking out an artery like the Viaduct and expecting the traffic to just filter away is not an experiment which local politicians will take when they realize that they are betting there own careers on the opinions of traffic engineers and Stranger reporters. It's a huge disruption and we are not capable of doing a project of such scale with grace. This is not Dubai and we have SEPA. To give you an idea of the fantasy world in which tear-it-down people live, they rejected what was their only chance: "Repair & Prepare."

Truth in government
We have been lied to. There is no emergency. The Viaduct needs repairs but those repairs have been blown up as an excuse for an expensive project which would not pay for itself under norla cost/benefit criteria. The Viaduct is our local Iraq war. A bad situation -- a dictator in Iraq and a road needing repair -- is used as an excuse for a wild-ass, poorly-conceived and pointless adventure. So that's probably more background than anything else but the context of this project is governmental dishonesty.

Posted by David Sucher | April 30, 2008 11:10 PM

Concerning "fit"

As with clothing on a person, the fit of building is particular to its site. Along with parking impacts, "fitting-in" is one of the most contentious issues with infill i.e. what does it mean? Does it mean copying the neighbors? (And that's assuming that the existing context offers any remote reason to copy.) How far do you have to go? How far can you go? Libeskind finally got his permit but the neighbors were sure not happy about this proposed addition to the Victoria & Albert Museum, which though it may surprise you, I think could have been made to work nicely and to "fit in" in the largest sense of complementing & complimenting its neighbors:

There is a role for spice, the exception to the rule, the raisin in the oatmeal. But iconic buildings (or attempts at them) can be easily be overdone — you just don't want too many raisins in the oatmeal, just Goldilocks amount, or else the exception will devour the rule. And it's also a bit embarrassing to hear someone say that they want to build or esign an "iconic" building. What lack of insight into what makes an icon. Icons are recognized, nor designed.

•••

Sandy Ikeda discussed "fit" here. Karen wondered about it here. Now Jon Swerens likes to how the issue is handled in San Jose, California, where while it's not quite my "Let 'er rip," official policy is that cloning is not essential to fitting-in. The key element (as I read it) is simply similar site plan:

New construction may do so by drawing upon some basic building features — such as the way in which a building is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the street and its basic mass, form and materials — rather than applying detailing which may or may not have been historically appropriate.

Read it:  Traditional neighborhoods and modern architecture.

Listening to Sam Zell

He was on a panel at  Milken Institute Global Conference, reports Felix Salmon, and it looks like Sam may have drunk the new urbanist kool-aid:

Zell then got into an interesting conversation with Bobby Turner, of Canyon Capital Advisors, about demographics and urbanization. Turner, channeling the likes of Ryan Avent and Richard Florida, said that consumer preferences are going to move away from the suburban lifestyle as transportation costs soar.

Zell agreed, pointing to enormous growth of housing in what he called "24/7 cities", putting a lot of that growth down to the societal deferral of marriage.

But as cities become ever more expensive and the suburbs become ever cheaper, he was asked, won't corporations move out to the suburbs? No. Motorola rented 200,000 square feet of office space in downtown Chicago last year, he said, even as they have over half a million vacant square feet not far away in McHenry county. If the employees are moving to the cities, then the companies are going to have to follow suit.

 

Memo to Dan Savage & Company

Maybe you folks should get encourage your readers to get out to bars. Like this one in NYC :

DEBATE AT LOLITA BAR on...urban planning?

Go, New York driver, go! Next week, regardless of whether you see Speed Racer, you must see a debate on New York’s hottest automotive topic (and one that sources say may yet be revived by Mayor Bloomberg with special help from Gov. Paterson):

Should Manhattan Streets Have Congestion Pricing?

YES: Charles Komanoff, economist who has prominently weighed in on transportation, energy, and environment issues throughout the City’s long congestion pricing battle (see his writing at Komanoff.net)

NO: Doug Dechert, controversial journalist devoted to “puncturing the pretensions of the plutocrats” who’s irked New York Post with his reporting in New York Press on the Page Six corruption scandals (see the archives of ScandalMonger.net)

Maybe even sponsor such discussions.

I am no particular fan of congestion pricing for Seattle and think it's a will 'o the wisp wonkish fantasy. But I am a big fan of intelligent civic debate and The Stranger promotes more such conversation than any other medium in Seattle, and especially about, believe it or not, urban  planning issues.

Another take on Dubai real estate from a local

The Sorry State of Real Estate in the UAE.

Another issue plaguing the real estate sector that is quite interesting is the copy cat culture that is about to make our beautiful city of Dubai into a Sameville mini-me of other cities around the world. There is more than one project that promises to replicate the Eiffel Tower of Paris for example, as if copying individual landmarks wasn’t enough one project even threatens to replicate the entire city of Lyon in Dubai[7]. A contender for the most profuse project award has to be the Falcon City of Wonders that promises to replicate “the Pyramids, the Eiffel Tower, the Taj Mahal, the Great Wall of China, and the Leaning Tower of Pisa”[8]. Tatweer also has its own replication process going on within the Bawadi project. Don’t people realize that what has made Dubai great is the spirit of entrepreneurial originality? Shall we wait for a project that promises to replicate the entire city of Abu Dhabi in Dubai or maybe the holy shrine of Mecca?

That from a blog by an emirati. Good to see that locals are also concerned with not only the pace but more importantly the long-term quality of development.

Abu Dhabi has issues with "third places" too

From a new Abu Dhabi, UAE newspaper, The National: Shisha confined to city’s outskirts.

Abu Dhabi Municipality has outlined proposals to shift the traditional shisha cafes away from family neighbourhoods in the city centre and into designated locations. Omar al Hashemi, the head of the municipal offices division, said the proposal was part of long-term plans designed to regulate the industry, combat traffic congestion and alleviate parking problems around the cafes.

It all comes down to cars, congestion and parking. To paraphrase Tip O'Neill: "All local politics is parking." 

Shisha appear to be the "third places" of the Middle East where neighbors (I assume mostly men) meet and smoke water pipes. I assume that the government of Abu Dhabi is going to be gentle in disrupting the social ties which revolve (I also assume ) around such places. An extremely rapid pace of change is socially destabilizing. It may make honoring such traditional places all the more important for a government which seeks a peaceful and stable future. I'm not saying that shisha may not create their own issues  but diplomacy in dealing with such traditional venues makes sense.

Of course there may be some very good reasons as the article further along alludes to "large groups congregating in the evenings" so there may be additional public safety issues. This article from the neighboring emirate of  Fujairah enriches the story.

•••

As a side-bar to the first article above was the following Question to Readers:

Should shisha cafes be moved out of Abu Dhabi residential areas?

Shisha cafes may be moved out of residential areas in the capital under a series of long-term plans to better regulate the industry. Abu Dhabi Municipality has outlined proposals to shift the traditional shisha cafes away from family neighbourhoods in the city centre and into designated locations.

Is this a good idea that will improve people's health? Or will this leave parts of the city without places for friends and family to socialise?

My pondering: Does asking such a question of a governmental action (a proposal at that) start the ball rolling on citizen participation? It's a small local issue, to be sure. But ever since I got back from Saudi Arabia and the UAE I have theorized that if democracy ever comes to the Middle East it will come via land use disputes in which middle-class homeowners complain about proposed development. Does even asking people to opine start them thinking that they can truly influence government?

Here's another example of how public involvement starts: Control the blasts.

Former Mayor asks good question

Does Seattle work any more?

My response:

I wish Royer had offered some suggestions about what to do. There's a global context to his observations about our inability to make decisions (unless forced through by a large institution). That's the impending need for us to actually make decisions about some critical resource issues such as (would it surprise you) transportation.

We are going to be faced with some real problems in the next few years and I don't think our local government (forget about the Feds) is up to the task. It worries me. When I see a place like Dubai able to decide that it needs public transit and then act on it while we stand around "coordinating" it makes me concerned for our future. And then I see China able to build a simply massive airport from inception to finish in five years. Is there an inherent advantage to authoritarian regimes which will allow them to outlast us? And adopt sustainable practices while we discuss? Is democracy not sustainable in time of crisis? Royer raises some profound issues.

We are going to be faced with some serious issues of mixed economics and ecology in the next decades and I wonder if even at the local level we are up to the task of meeting them.

Mind you, I am not in the least arguing for some sort of "dictatorship of the wise" — wise folk rarely get elected or seize power. But I am perplexed at the political context of our ecological dilemma. It looks fairly grim as I see no clear way out except for us to "get smarter," which is a pretty lame prescription. Perhaps we'll be able to take effective action but it will obviously be at the last moment.

My own prescription btw is as much free market as possible. There is no more convincing way to force change than rising prices. So government should do very little to cushion us from the shocks we are starting to undergo, (except "vulnerable populations" of the old, disable and very young.) No band-aid attempts at "affordable housing" for what are middle-class people. So no subsidies for gasoline, for example. The quicker we realize that what we are doing ecologically is not affordable economicaly the better.

What an odd claim

Tyler Cowan asks How good would the abolition of zoning in New York City be?.

And answers that in general:

Without zoning our cities would be denser, more eco-friendly, cheaper to live in, more able to produce economies of agglomeration, and more immigrants would benefit from American prosperity.

Nothing about tooth decay?

Nonetheless I'd like to hear him back up such a sweeping claim.

RFP for web design & e-commerce

Any web design & e-commerce expert reading this blog? Someone who might be interested in a small but I think interesting project? I am planning to fuss around with this blog and its associated City Comforts sales page to better integrate them and make them more effective etc etc. and etc. I don't have the knowledge and technical skills to do it on my own. If you might be interested in talking about this work, please get in touch with me by email.

•••

Just as an aside while I am thinking about books and the web etc etc...

You'll notice I have a list in the sidebar titled "Supported Books." (Right side toward the bottom.) When I first set  it up some years ago, the author's web page was not de rigeur, and so I thought such pages were worth noting. Now, it would be a waste to note one unless it was  particularly germane to this blog as the author's web page is just about standard right now. There are even designers who specialize in web site for authors. See the excellent Authors' guide to blogs and writers' websites. Just about every author has his/her own site.

Then consider that the definition of a "book" is going to change very rapidly very soon. The practical, affordable e-book reader with wi-fi capability will emerge in the next few years (probably from Apple as an expanded iPhone, but who knows.) The ebook ceases to be a fixed, static object once it is printed, (save for new editions which require a complete repurchase.) The "ebook" becomes a dynamic on-going and brand new medium.

Combine the new medium with widespread web presence of authors on their own sites. And my guess is that we'll see emergence of the idea that a book (especially non-fiction) should be "supported" by its author or his team after its sale.  Software is supported after sale. Why shouldn't certain kinds of question-generating non-fiction also be supported? (I don't know if fiction is as amenable; of course maybe it's even more so as people are hungry for information about celebrities.)

Support to "registered" readers (having actually bought the book rather than having borrowed it) could consist of at least three elements:

1. Updates — the author modifies text in response to his own or others' research or to events in the world. For example, I would update City Comforts, The Book to take into account the apparent success of the Paris bike rental program. In such a system, updates to the book might be downloaded directly to the ebook reader, just as software updates are made available.

Of all the categories I can think of, there should be particular demand for continual updating of travel guidebooks because the information is constantly changing. One on-line travel agent recommends searching out people who have just come from your next destination because 

[w]e've found travel book information is generally 1 1/2 - 2 years old for the best, most traveled routes. In more remote areas, the books will be further out of date. So talk to your fellow travelers and learn about their adventures in around-the-world travel.

It seems to me that one of the biggest losers as ebooks emerge will be printers who have a large clientele of travel guide publishers. Such publishers should do fine so long as they don't resist the ebook.) 

2. Outtakes — the hard-core enthusiast in a subject would be interested, to mix metaphors, in material left on the cutting room floor, materials which for one reason or another (opften just length) didn't make it into a final edition meant for print (because I suspect we'll have parallel printed edition for quite a while.) I probably have several dozen examples of the same type of city comfort detail but with enough variation to make it useful to another specialist. Nature guidebooks could show plants as they change throughout the season.

3. Access — the author(s) of a more technical book — say one on building boats — might create a private on-line forum for registered users where the author was available to answer questions. Or perhaps to an opt-in and paid email newsletter.

Now where all this goes, or at least where City Comforts goes with it,  I have no idea. But the changing definition of the book and the synergy of the web and the ebook will offer some interesting opportunities. So that's what I am thinking about.

 

What am I missing about New Urbanism's Transect?

(Please read this post carefully and to the end before commenting. Thanks.)

•••

Summary added after writing the post:

1. I agree with the Transect.
2. I agree with Form-Based Coding.
3. I am bewildered why so many people assert (but without explaining) that there is an essential theoretical, didactic or practical link between the two.
4. This post is not an attack on New Urbanism.

•••

I received static on what someone took to be my dismissal here of the the Transect. Of course I didn't intend to dismiss the substance of the Transect at all and in fact allowed that it might well be accurate. I was  only trying to poke a bit at its jargony Star-Trekky name; I hadn't really thought about the Transect enough to offer  an opinion one way or another about its substance, so I didn't.

A  correspondent, however, made the reasonable suggestion that  I look into the Transect. So I did. And I hold to my sentiment about the name, which is not particularly important. But my conclusion as to the substance is now bewilderment.

Here's a description of  the Transect:

A transect of nature is a geographical  cross-section of a region intended to reveal a  sequence of environments. It helps study the many symbiotic elements that contribute to habitats where certain plants and animals thrive.  

Human beings also thrive in different habitats. Some would never choose to live in an urban core, and some would wither in a rural place.  To provide meaningful choices in living arrangements, the rural-to-urban Transect is divided into six T-zones for application on zoning maps. These six habitats vary by the ratio and level of intensity of their natural, built, and social components. They are coordinated by these T-zones to all scales of planning, from the region through the community scale down to the   individual lot and building.

And it goes on, somewhat portentously:

A transect was first used for biogeographical analysis by naturalist Alexander von Humboldt in the late 18th Century. In the late 20th century in Miami Beach, Andrés Duany and his brother Douglas identified a rural-to-urban transect of the built environment from the T-1 beach through T-3 and T-4 neighborhood fabric to T-5 and T-6 mixed use corridors.

The Transect says that there is gradient in the intensity of human settlement, all the way from the nomad's tent to the Burj Dubai. Of course that is true and obvious. How can one disagree? Are we really expected to believe that no one had ever before noticed that there is a gradient of intensity in human development? The word sub-urban itself suggests such a gradient. The geographer von Thunen wrote about central places and rent gradients in the first half of the nineteenth century. I would bet that there are 18th-19th century novelists or diarists, going back to the Romans, who describe in detail a journey from urban hustle-bustle to wind-on-the-lonely-beach.  (Poets, too? Think Wordsworth?) The gradient of intensity of human activity from, say, Times Square to Mount Marcy is self-apparent. Most importantly, our current Euclidean zoning codes already reflect the understanding of that gradient (or transect, if you prefer) though of course crudely and with the wrong result by my standards. Even the most sprawl-inducing contemporary land use codes express the idea that cities have centers and that human activity decreases in intensity outward from those centers.

I can see the criticism that post-WW2 planning simplified the transect and removed whole levels and that the form of these centers are uncivil etc etc  One might also argue that there is a good and bad profile to transects and that a good city needs every level. But it seems to me that setting up such a large system to get across such a basic point (there is gradient in the intensity of human settlement) is a waste of energy and diverts attention from the task at hand.

But the man behind the Transect, Andrés Duany, has proven himself to be an innovative thinker. (I have no doubt that urban historians will see him — along with Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and a very few others — as a seminal figure in the urbanism of our era, of far longer-lasting importance than any starchitect now working.) So obviously I might well be missing something big. Someone please help me out. Surely, for example, there must be a fair-handed discussion of The Transect out there? Critical but coming from basically inside the tent?

So call me a skeptic but not unpersuadable.

•••

Btw, the definition of the Transect above is taken from SmartCode Central and I want to separate my bewilderment about the Transect from criticism of "form based codes" as described at SmartCode Central. See also Form-Based Code. (Btw, that last site doesn't even mention The Transect anywhere so maybe others agree that it is not essential.)

I don't know enough about "form-based codes" yet to opine, but my preliminary sense is that "form-based codes" are exactly the right way to go. And that should be no surprise as The Three Rules is itself is an extremely abstracted (but to the point) form-based "codelet." Form-based codes shift the focus to a desired end-state rather than merely offer a set of procedures which have far less-clear design goal.  So of course I suspect I will be in sympathy with the larger and more complete versions found at such places as Form-Based Code and SmartCode Central.

•••

Here's a nice slide show on the subject with the title For those who don't understand the Transect.... Lots of lovely pictures but the narration is missing so one can't hear John Massengale's explanation.