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.

Witold Rybczynski asks a good question:

Witold Rybczynski asks Why do they award the Pritzker Prize to just one person? (basically the same question I asked here in Look what I built):

The Pritzker Prize promotes the fiction that buildings spring from the imagination of an individual architect—the master builder.

It galls and amuses me too when I read an article which states that "X architect built Y." The architect did no such thing but acted as part of a team, though presumably the team captain.

Times change. And not always for the better.

The housewife explorers who climbed the Himalayas

The routine was to drive through the day (except in Iran, where it was so hot they drove through the night). They drove through France, Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan to India (and, on the way back, through Afghanistan), passing the time, singing. 'Each day brought a completely original and impromptu contribution,' wrote Deacock, including, 'pompomming from an imaginary harpsichord'. They took it in turns to drive, while the others rested their feet on the windscreen - the floor was boiling hot from the overworked exhaust pipe. 'For propriety's sake the driver would shout "Legs!" as anything appeared on the road.'

Most nights they would camp - in the shadow of Mount Ararat; in the Indian vice-consul's courtyard in Zahidan; on the lawn of a foreign news agency in Kabul. One of the interesting things about the trip to modern eyes is the ease with which the women breezed through Iran and Afghanistan. No sane tourist would visit Kandahar today and yet, 50 years ago, the women were welcomed there, as honoured guests by the Pakistani consul.

That was exactly my thought as I was reading this charming account.

I am still getting visits and comments about Deaf Smith County Peanut Butter

Deaf Smith County Peanut Butter. That's a post from four years ago and I stil get hits via Google.

Nice to know that I am not the only one who misses it. Wish I could find an authoritative explanation of why it was so good.

Man on horseback ain't gonna be no New Urbanist

Is Catesby Leigh arguing for a man on horseback? That's how his article on new urbanism in City Journal seems to conclude .

As planner-architect Angelo Alberto observes, to transform fast-growing Washington Township in New Jersey’s Gloucester County from a metastasizing urban blob into a city, you would need a founder—a leader who recognized that traditional urban blueprints were more conducive than sprawl to an enhanced quality of life as well as to the embodiment of a community’s civic ideals. Such a leader would have the guts to scorn the bureaucratic minutiae of “process” politics and stake his authority and prestige on a principled judgment: “This is how we should build here.” Grounded in vision and culture, such leadership could build a community for future generations informed by the noble achievements of the past. Its wellsprings would run deeper than “cool,” deeper than “green.”

The New Urbanists, though, worry about inanities: whether the phrase “gizmo-green” is pejorative, for example. They need to get beyond marketing strategy, eco-hype, and trendy buzzwords, and focus on the formidable task of cultivating political leaders across the ideological spectrum who have the gumption to redeem the nation’s urban landscape—one community at a time.

I share Leigh's frustration at the slow pace of progress. But I am skeptical whether it's a matter of leadership. We  have a thing called democracy. And the sort of people who emerge to become leaders reflect the common will. Unfortunately, Americans — decent people that we are — have been living amidst dreck for the last three generations and the vast part of our population (I have no doubt the majority)  have no idea or understanding of "cityness." So a turn to a better build environment is not a hook by which a great leader can attract them. If we get any sort of man on horseback, he will be more along the lines of a know-nothing (and proud of it!) Rush Limbaugh.

Consider the Madrona travesty I discussed here yesterday. It's a perfect example of new urbanism. Nay, it's better. It's genuine old urbanism. in a neighborhood of high demographics — lawyers, doctors, architects, university professors etc etc. Yet even in such a neighborhood we have people who have no understanding of any kind of urbanism whether old or new.

What compounds matters is that the New Urbanists, as an organized group, have made things entirely too complicated for people to understand. Rather that attempting to simplify by using the "Three Rules" or something like it, they launch themselves into what many of them think is a wholesale social transformation and come up with intellectual systems (accurate as they may be) with names like The Transect. The only sound-bite which has been attached to New Urbanism has been by its enemies and it is a destructive one: "white picket fences."

No, I fear the problem is far deeper than lack of "leadership." Leaders can only lead when people are willing to follow and I see no sign of that if you use Seattle as a model.

Paying attention to what counts: comfort

I've criticized Paul Goldberger on this blog (for exaample: Look what I built) for using more ink describing the personalities and apparel of architects than the environments they design and thus diverting the interested-but-uninformed public to focus on trivia.

But in this review he hits what is at least a triple:  he talks about the buildings themselves and the feelings & behavior they induce in the user. In the case of a new airport terminal  a key feeling & behavior is  being able to grasp and navigate a vast and unfamiliar space clearly and without uncertainty. That sort of comfort is particularly important in an airport where so many stress-inducers some together in one spot: the expense of a trip, the uprooting from one's normal world, the security screening which reminds us of 9-11, perhaps foreign customs and people, and not least of all getting up into the air in a thin metal tube. So yes, airport designers should consider comfort.

Golderberger writes that one of the best new airports anywhere is in Beijing does exactly that:

Foster has achieved what no other architect has been able to: he has rethought the airport from scratch and made it work. Foster has done for airports what the architects Reed & Stem did for train stations with their design for Grand Central, a building whose greatest achievement is not its sumptuous main concourse but its orchestration of an intricate web of people, trains, taxis, and passing automobiles into a system that feels straightforward and logical, as if the building itself were guiding you from the entrance to your train. Foster, likewise, has established a pattern so clear that your natural instinct to walk straight ahead from the front door takes you where you need to go. The sheer legibility of the place would be achievement enough, given its size. (italics added)

Foster seems to have remembered comfort. Goldberger has noticed and has done what the expert critic is supposed to do: explain the hidden subtelties which, outside of our own expertise, just pass us by unseen. The critic's job is to help us to see. So good for both Foster and Goldberger for recognizing that a large element of comfort in a city (or anywhere, really) is knowing where you are. 

Could a bike rental scheme similar to the one in Paris work in Seattle?

Read the story: JCDecaux and Clear Channel Outdoor battle over urban bike-schemes.

Vélib' (for vélo, or bicycle, and liberté, or freedom) has since taken Paris by storm. More than 10,000 bikes have been installed at 750 docking stations, which is half of the scheme's eventual capacity, says Jean-Fran�ois Decaux, the son of the founder and co-chief executive of the family-controlled firm along with his brother, Jean-Charles. The bicycles have been used by 4m people so far, who have clocked up 100,000 rides a day. Last week Jean-Fran�ois was in Moscow for talks with the mayor, who is keen to introduce a similar scheme there. The mayor of Chicago also expressed interest in importing V�lib' during a recent visit to Paris.

Pretty exciting stuff. I have no idea if such a scheme could work in such a hilly city as Seattle. Any ideas?

Travesty in Madrona

click

It seems to me that the travesty is not the building illustrated above but is the objection to this perfectly-reasonable urban neighborhood proposal. Unfortunately Seattle is  filled with many well-meaning but poorly-informed people.

More about this example see No Density In My Backyard.

The rendering above shows the mixed-use building proposed for 1126 34th Ave in the Madrona neighborhood. As reported here and here, there has been significant opposition to the project from the neighbors....Apparently the overarching complaint is that the building is too big — “enormous compared to its neighbors” according to the Madrona News. True, it is taller than the one and two story buildings on that side of the block.

It's a three story building (commercial at grade with two residential/commercial floors above ) and the top of the parapet is about 35.5' above the sidewalk, hardly a large building but this is Seattle, and Madrona is particularly Seattle. So some neighbors are against this project because it is too big. And people think we are going to be able to deal with the challenges of making our city sustainable. Sheesh.

•••

A particularly noteworthy element in the design, so far as I can tell from the plans, is the use of some sort of  "green wall" steel grid set off from the building structure to which plants will be attached and grow. Terrific idea! (and very expensive.)  I think that the Henry Branch Library on Capitol Hill has such a growing green wall if anyone is curious to see how it looks.

•••

Update:

In response to a comment from Fnarf concerning the City granting the permit: I suspect that the City _will_ simply issue the permit; in fact it would shock me if they don't. This project appears to comply with the letter of the Land Use Code as well as its spirit and many broader City Goals; and there are some level heads down at DPD.

But the idea that such a worthy building would be even remotely contentious is disturbing. This sort of project is exactly the sort of thing we should be building all over Seattle. The Mayor and other politicos should be calling up the developer and architect and urging them on. The neighbors should be saying "Fabulous!"

Good grief, haven't folks in Madrona ever heard of climate change? And the need for us to lower our carbon footprints? etc etc (I assume that I don't have to draw out the connection for readers of this blog.) Plus, the even more important point, urban walkable neighborhoods are more fun.

I don't mind the City and the neighbors (i.e. individuals with a legitimate interest in a well-designed project)  demanding that the plans be thought-through carefully. That adds value for everyone in the long run. But there should be no doubt whatsoever from the outset that the developer should be allowed to build per the code. Design Review shouldn't be a back-door way to try to stop a project, which it too often is in the minds of some neighbors.

Update 2:

Btw,  that seems to me to be the fair quid pro quo: the developer is assured of being able to build per code (with "if, and & buts" only in extremis) BUT the neighbors (under the organized aegis opf the City) get serious input on the details the building's design. That's the larger political context and trade-off. The developer is assured of getting a permit (and rather quickly — far quicker than now) AND neighbors (not neighborhood) get a meaningful chance to influence the proposal's details and finishes etc etc

Update 3:

As Dominic Holden aptly puts it in The Stranger:

Jeez, persnickety neighbors, that block is an arterial zoned for mid-rise, mixed-use development—because 34th and Union is the neighborhood center. That parking lot’s destiny was to become a multi-story, multi-use development. The proposal could have sucked. But, instead, it’s beautiful, using natural materials and an environmentally sustainable design. Count your blessings.

 

Shorter version

Shorter version of Jean Nouvel, Community Boards and their proper interaction:

Site plan trumps architecture.

Putting it yet another way, what happens more than 30 or so feet off the sidewalk is of only secondary importance.

7 PM , April 18, 2008, Seattle, Washington

Jean Nouvel, Community Boards and their proper interaction

Sandy Ikeda raises an interesting question here in relation to a dispute over a proposed building. (I know the neighborhood but not the proposal.) He says:

Now, we’re not talking about construction inconveniences or environmental problems or the like, which are indeed the legitimate concerns of a community board, but rather how the structure fits in with the existing built environment – a purely aesthetic judgment. The Empire State Building certainly didn’t “fit” its neighborhood in the on Fifth Avenue and the 32nd Street when it was built (and it still doesn’t), but few would claim that its current location was a mistake nor that it detracts from its surroundings. Builders of large projects today are required to conduct environmental impact studies – so can “aesthetic impact studies” be far behind? (italics added)

Well of course the idea of an “aesthetic impact" statement is horrendous and should be resisted. But the question's supposition — "how the structure fits in with the existing built environment – a purely aesthetic judgment" — is a bit incomplete because we have to decide what elements we think need to "fit-in" and it's not quite clear what Sandy is talking about. My own view is try to keep "aesthetics" out of it as much possible and to focus public attention on how the building behaves and how it induces people to behave.

•••

Anyway, the short answer to Sandy's question is Yes and also No. Here's how I start to deal with it i.e. what is legitimate, appropriate and wise subject of  discussion when it comes to buildings, either by government through coercion or "the community" through lobbying. So here goes:

There are two key ways to describe a structure and both are essential:
1. plan view - what it looks like if one is directly above, and then
2. elevation - what it looks like if one is directly in front of the structure looking head-on.

(Two important asides:
• Yes, there other ways of graphically explaining a building such as section but I think that the first two get to the heat of the matter.
• Site plan  is largely coterminous with building plan in high-density areas (at the extreme a place like mid-town Manhattan) because the building usually covers the entire site or close to it, (which is both the cause and effect of high land prices, btw)

I suggest that plan view is a matter of such high concern that adopted government code trumps architect's preference. For most high-density urban sites there is a correct and an incorrect way of siting the building and that is in my opinion to (more-or-less) follow the "Three Rules."    The architect must deal with these Three Rules (which should be the basis for all codes aiming to create an urban place) as a rebuttable presumption. That means that he starts designing with the Three Rules and varies only from them when there is a smoking good reason. And at that point, community input is critical to help the planning authority figure out whether rhe variance makes sense from a planning perspective. (There is no special pleading for aesthetics. Sorry buddy.)

However when it comes to elevation, unless the neighborhood is one of historic, "listed" buildings worth preserving as an ensemble, the architect should be free to do whatever he and the client desire and can afford. There is no need for elevation to fit-in so long as plan does. Let 'er rip, I say. (Note: Principles for location of entrances — car and person — and amount of ground-floor fenestration are part of plan and should be designed to a code presumption with possibility to rebut.)   

So the architect should be able to design whatever bizarre and unusual elevation he can devise. Go for it, Daniel! Have at it, Rem! Et toi aussi, Jean! But the plan view (the principles, at least) are out of the architect's ken. And of course out of the Community Board's purview as well, except if the architect seeks variances from the Three Rules.

So, if I were setting things up, the Codes would be so prescriptive as to plan that there is not much to discuss unless a variance is sought. Likewise, elevation is at the designer's discretion so long as certain basics (such as "No mirrored glass at sidewalk") are followed.

In all this I am assuming that basic height restrictions and massing are set and largely reflect transportation constraints. I like simple, predictable codes for a host of reasons. I think that once you get into substantial zoning bonuses, incentives and bargaining you create a situation in which the problems generally outweigh the benefits, especially if your goals are urbane street-scapes and honest government.

So that is how I resolve Sandy's question about how much freedom to give the designer: very little on plan and a lot on elevation, and community input only important when variances from a prescriptive code are sought.

Comment away and I will attempt to refine these ideas; and they really need far more than one post to explain.

•••

Just in case anyone is curious about my stress on administration of codes: I spent the first seven years of my career as a planner, examining proposala nd trying to figure out whether they had anything to do with the goals of Washington State's Shoreline Management Act. I have spent too many years since then on the other side of the table trying to get permits through. Knowing the grave corrosive dangers of discretionary codes to civitas, I place a huge value on clear codes which are easy to administer honestly and do not induce corruption by their very complexity.

Number 1 in Google?

I did one post on China's population and now Google pits me at the very top of the list (today at any rate) for searches for china population 2008. How strange. I am not an expert —much less even a knowledgeable amateur — about either China or population. And yet there I am. Obviously an imperfection in the Google system.

Blogging street walls

It's nice to find a blogger who understands what is critical in making a good urban place i.e. The Three Rules— or what this anonymous guy refers to as the all-critical street wall.

Here's one post:

I’m the kind of guy who gets excited about street walls

And another one:

Check out the random arrangement of those seriously cantilevered decks. Check out the openings in the roof overhangs at the top of each of the building-high pseudo-columns. Check out the vertical and horizontal concrete scoring. Check the two stories of blank wall at the base of the building. Zowie

He knows where to focus

Atlantic Yards Report

The very discerning Benjamin Hemric  suggested. that anyone interested in the Atlantic Yards mega-project (or what passes for a mega-project here in the USA) shouuld follow Atlantic Yards Report. And of course he is correct.
 

•••

Speaking of real estate mega-projects, I am starting a new blog titled Civilizing the Real Estate Megaproject. It's still in alpha-mode and not really public (though I guess that if I post about it here then it becomes public or at least somewhat public, so I am kidding only myself.) Anyway it's rough but focussed. Here's the rationale:  Why another blog?.

Read the fine print

Consumer labeling to show carbon footprint is an appealing idea and might even be useful. (See Curbed SF here.)  But I'd read the fine print before I got too excited. Comparisons only make sense when the items are reasonably comparable. That's why I am dubious about this this attempt to create such a rating system:

We recently had an energy consumption study done to compare a Sunset Breezehouse’s energy usage to that of the national best selling design, which is what you might think of as a “traditional” home. The results were pretty interesting because they clearly showed just how much more energy efficient the Breezehouse is than a traditional home. (italics added)

The current national best selling design? As reflected in the table below? I don't think so.

(click to enlarge)

That table reflects the kind of house built decades ago. For one example, houses haven't been built with single-pane glazing for at least 30 years, at least in the metropolitan West Coast. Yet the "Traditional" house is defined as having single-pane glazing. Well of course the Breezehome will look good against such a model. It is not reasonable to characterize a house with single-pane glazing as "the national best selling design..."  — presumably a typical spec-builder tract house — in 2008.

If the "Traditional" is defined as something built today to 1946 standards then of course the Breezehome will look great.

Remember the Godfather, Mr. Kimball

Roger Kimball is on his high horse about Jimmy Carter talking to Hamas: Should Jimmy Carter be trusted with a passport?.

Roger Kimball should remind himself of what the Godfather said:

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

Of course Carter should talk to Hamas, as should the Israelis (and of course the USA) and for the simple reason that you learn about people — including & especially enemies you may have to war on — through one-on-one contact, even when it's only their slipperiest and slimiest PR guy. Of course the real guy you want to assess is the leadership.

Let me put it another way. Talking to Hamas is not for its benefit but for ours. It's the same with Iran. Talking to enemies and adversaries allows one to take the measure of individuals and their possible or likely reaction to future events. It's an information-gathering process, the sort of process which would have been helpful to the USA in assessing the dangers from Iraq and would certainly help with understanding Iran. I don't want to sound harsh but giving enemies the moralistic silent treatment is not productive and is childish.

The design is the message

Fortress America.

Although U.S. diplomats will technically be “in Iraq,” they may as well be in Washington. Judging by the embassy’s design, planners were thinking more in terms of a frontier outpost than a facility engaged with its community. “The embassy,” says Edward L. Peck, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, “is going to have a thousand people hunkered behind sandbags. I don’t know how you conduct diplomacy in that way.”

It is tempting to think that the Baghdad compound must be an anomaly, a special circumstance dictated by events on the ground in Iraq. But, while it is larger in scope than other U.S. embassies opening around the world, it is hardly unique. Since al Qaeda bombed the American missions in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the State Department has been aggressively replacing obsolete or vulnerable embassies with ones designed under a program it calls Standard Embassy Design. The program mandates look-alike embassies, not the boldly individual designs built during the Cold War, when architecture played an important ideological role and U.S. embassies were functionally and architecturally open. The United States opened 14 newly built embassies last year alone, and long-range plans call for 76 more, including 12 to be completed this year. The result will be a radical redesign of the diplomatic landscape—not only in Baghdad, but in Bamako, Belmopan, Cape Town, Dushanbe, Kabul, Lomé, and elsewhere.

If architecture reflects the society that creates it, the new U.S. embassy in Baghdad makes a devastating comment about America’s global outlook. Although the U.S. government regularly proclaims confidence in Iraq’s democratic future, the United States has designed an embassy that conveys no confidence in Iraqis and little hope for their future. Instead, the United States has built a fortress capable of sustaining a massive, long-term presence in the face of continued violence. (italics added)

Be thankful for small things

West Side Redevelopment Plans Appear in Disarray.

It was a vision to make Robert Moses proud, calling for office towers along 11th Avenue, skyscrapers soaring over the railyards, a Parisian-style boulevard lined with trees, an expanded Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and a 1.1-mile extension of the No. 7 subway line — not to mention an elegant new Penn Station ringed by office towers.

Today, those plans are in disarray. Because of the economic downturn, logistical problems and, critics say, design flaws, the expansion of the Javits Center has died, the plan to rebuild Penn Station and the area around it is in jeopardy and there are deep questions about financing, public and private, to extend the subway or build over the railyards.

They will continue to eat our lunch

A Better Reason For Twin Towers

As can be seen in the image above, three 100-foot wind turbines span the towers, and are expected to generate about 15% of the building’s energy needs. The architects designed the towers to act as airfoils, directing and accelerating wind through the turbines. It’s engineering with a grand scale and elegance that would make Nikola Tesla proud.

What doesn’t make me proud, however, is that this project is not in the United States. And the turbine technology was provided by the Danish firm Norwin. We’ve got some serious catching up to do.

Yup. They are going to be "green" long before we are. Of course as the bloggers (above) say: "Architecture, like government, is about as good as a community deserves."

The facts bear him out about population non-growth

Phil Longman' has been talking about The Global Baby Bust for at least 4 years.

He seems to be correct, at least in part: Mideast fertility rates plunge.

Why is no one talking about what seems to me to be huge news?

•••

Take that declining fertility rate in the Middle East and combine it with a culture based on tribalism (according to the book reviewed here: I and My Brother Against My Cousin) and btw don't take "tribalism" as any sort of slur — and what do you get?

It could be good news in that declining fertility rate - fewer babies = fewer boy babies = fewer warrior-wannabees = less frst-resort to violence as a solution to all problems?

We'll see.

And I will return the compliment

Sandy Ikeda's Culture of Congestion blog at the NY Sun should be on your RSS feed. His posts are invariably interesting and correct (i.e. I agree with them mostly.) For example, in yesterday's post he points to the writings of Julia Vitullo-Martin who also writes superbly about cities, at a host of levels, and whose work should not be missed.

Or take for example this one titled Rem Koolhaas: Delirious Dubai? where he writes:

So why can't a city be a work of art? Because a work of art is the creation of a single mind that abstracts from the complexities of life to achieve a particular end, however definite or ill-defined that may be. To the extent that the artist intends to create one thing and not something else (though she may change her mind often) she shapes parts of reality to realize her vision as effectively as she can — something the artist and the engineer have in common. A living city, on the other hand, is something that emerges over time from the mostly unplanned interactions of those who live in it, creating complex inter-relating patterns — social, infra-structural, and architectural — that defy deliberate construction.

Is Governor truly 'shocked'?

Governor says we've all "been lied to" on Sonics.

State political leaders and a former co-owner of the Sonics reacted strongly Thursday to newly revealed e-mails that show team owners talking enthusiastically last year about moving the team to Oklahoma — even as they maintained publicly they were striving to keep the Sonics in Seattle.

"I have been lied to. All of the people of the state of Washington have been lied to. I'm shocked and I'm very disappointed," Gov. Christine Gregoire told KING-TV.

No one who has ever seen Casablanca should I ever say "I'm shocked" unless they are making a joke.

Congestion pricing in Seattle

Short answer?
Serious, possibly fatal difficulties. More here: Congestion pricing: Even New York's got a problem with that.

I left some comments.

Speaking of Storefronts

Brooklyn Storefronts as Metaphor for a Changing Borough.

(And don't miss the comments.)

How deep should a retail space be?

Retail space should be the right depth i.e. deep enough to accomodate the expected or hoped-for users.

In a discussion on Slog about some proposed neighborhood development in Seattle, one of its most sophisticated commenters criticized a project because its retail spaces were not deep enough. He wrote:

Maybe it goes way back, but if it does it would be highly unusual. And note that the description says 3500 sq ft of retail, and that strip looks 100 feet long, which means an average depth of 35 ft. -- not ten, but nowhere near deep enough to provide adequate retail space. They should go all the way back to the back of the lot.

My response:

Assuming that the lot is 100 feet deep (typical minimum) then you'd have retail spaces which are 100 feet deep. Not a good idea for a neighborhood setting.

That's designing yourself into a spot where you MUST have tenant which needs a large space — typically a national or large regional such a Bartells or Wallgreens drugstore — rather than the idiosyncratic "mom-and-pops" which make a neighborhood streetfront diverse and engaging. A typical space for a small store is 1000 SF, (though it could even be smaller.) If the rule is to build retail full-depth of the property, that would mean a retail space of 100' depth by 10' wide -- which is far too narrow. More traditional, practical and widespread is 50' deep and 20' wide. The back part of a retail space is not valuable except for the larger retailer.

In general you size your retail space for the kind of user you hope or expect to see. If you want a Satples or Office Depot you have to have around 7500 SF (that's for their urban stores) and so the larger depth is fine. If you want small business make the spaces smaller. For a small shoe store 1000 SF is appropriate. And for many small or starting businesses, 4-600 is just fine.

Duh

Viaduct plan could eliminate chunk of street parking. As if eliminating the Viaduct — even if only "temporarily" over a many-year construction process — won't require dramatic changes in traffic flows. That's one of the reasons why I have been saying for years that the politics of large change are intractable. Does the Seattle Downtown Association really grasp the impact on its own streetscape? etc etc. No, I am still betting on a series of repairs which will justify (in terms of public safety) simply leaving the existing structure in place,

Harvest the low-hanging fruit first

Inga Saffron observes that the presidential candidates are ignoring city issues.

In the next few years we're likely to hear a lot more about weaning ourselves off imported energy, dealing with greenhouse gases, and retaining economic parity with fast-rising Asian nations. Coming to grips with that triple threat means buffing up our energy-efficient creativity incubators, otherwise known as cities.

So, though the candidates' proposals for ridding America of incandescent bulbs and gas-guzzling vehicles are nice little ideas, the fast lane to energy independence requires significant federal infusions for mass transit, basic infrastructure, and making cities more livable for families. Consider the money an investment in national security.

Saffron is absolutely correct and I am waiting for Obama — McCain and Clinton don't have the ability — to explain to Americans the connection between national security and making better cities.

House on 4.6 acres with 1,000 feet of salt water shoreline for $399,000?

Sounds like quite a deal .

“There’s over 1,000 feet of frontage — you can kayak to Long Island Sound — and there’s an old dock,” Mr. Grover said gleefully. ...The house, on 4.6 acres, is now on the market for $399,000, originally $449,000.

Wonder if it is still on the market or has sold.

Interview with George Soros, worth the time to watch

He offers one of the best explanations I've heard of what is happening and what to do here. Soros seems to be saying that the practical issue is how much would it cost in aggregate (who pays is another question) to keep people in their houses? And I guess that's the scary thing: I haven't seen any projections on the mortgage payment shortfall so maybe it's not even on the intellectual horizon. I have been wondering for months "How big is the problem." It seems like part of the issue is that no one knows and that uncertainty itself is creating a more volatile market.

Abu Dhabi (it's a neighbor of Dubai)

Vancouver planner goes to work in Abu Dhabi.

Extremely interesting.

More detail on the Vancouver B..C. Planner who has a grand plan for Abu Dhabi.

Non-profit institutions are often the every worst at urban development

The neo-philistines (e.g. Ouroussoff at the NYT) are aiming to go back in time to the 50's and so offer questions like Time for Some Jane Jacobs Revisionism?

Thank god many people through such transparent & reactionary question:

Ms. Vitullo-Martin offered perhaps the most provocative argument of the evening: “If Jacobs were looking at New York today, she would regard the most serious self-isolating projects as the projects that are being developed by large powerful nonprofit institutions.” Universities like N.Y.U. and Columbia and hospitals like Sloan-Kettering and NewYork-Presbyterian are building huge developments that do not necessarily fit in well with the streetscape, she said.

I agree; but her view is a sophisticated one and so it wouldn't go over in Seattle

Congestion is what urban life is really all about.

Cities, unlike hearts, are not improved by zero congestion. Pretty much the whole of Australia has zero congestion (unless you count the flies). Cities are designed to concentrate - or congest - human energy. They are less about moving through than being there; they thrive on bustle, busy-ness and friction, creative and otherwise.