Showing posts with label Sustainability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sustainability. Show all posts
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The Ghost Cities of China
From the Business Insider:
The hottest market in the hottest economy in the world is Chinese real estate. The big question is how vulnerable is this market to a crash.
One red flag is the vast number of vacant homes spread through China, by some estimates up to 64 million vacant homes.
We've tracked down satellite photos of these unnerving places, based on a report from Forensic Asia Limited. They call it a clear sign of a bubble: "There’s city after city full of empty streets and vast government buildings, some in the most inhospitable locations. It is the modern equivalent of building pyramids. With 20 new cities being built every year, we hope to be able to expand our list going forward."
No cars on the street
Empty $19 Billion Development
Empty Desert City
Empty Residential Towers
Ordos Museum...Empty
Photo credits belong to the Business Insider
The hottest market in the hottest economy in the world is Chinese real estate. The big question is how vulnerable is this market to a crash.
One red flag is the vast number of vacant homes spread through China, by some estimates up to 64 million vacant homes.
We've tracked down satellite photos of these unnerving places, based on a report from Forensic Asia Limited. They call it a clear sign of a bubble: "There’s city after city full of empty streets and vast government buildings, some in the most inhospitable locations. It is the modern equivalent of building pyramids. With 20 new cities being built every year, we hope to be able to expand our list going forward."
No cars on the street
Empty $19 Billion Development
Empty Desert City
Empty Residential Towers
Ordos Museum...Empty
Photo credits belong to the Business Insider
Friday, February 12, 2010
Slumburbia
This week the New York Times ran a peice callsed Slumburbua about our country's struggling ex-urbs. The articles cites that in the western half of the country that:
"...median home prices have fallen from $500,000 to $150,000 — among the most precipitous drops in the nation — and still the houses sit empty, spooky and see-through, waiting on demography and psychology to catch up.
In strip malls where tenants seem to last no longer than the life cycle of a gold fish, the bottom-feeders have moved in. 'Coming soon: Cigarette City,' reads one sign here in Lathrop, near a 'Cash Advance' outlet."
Here in Baltimore the second part of this quote definitely rings true. Many of the inner and outer ring ex-urb communities have been "over-stored." in the suburban commercial corridors there have been too many strip malls, shopping centers and stand alone big box stores. Because of the recession when a strip mall or shopping center loses it's anchor, there is nothing to replace that store and the shopping center becomes an eyesore. What had been somewhat nice shopping centers now become home of junk retail and carry-out stores that you would typically associate with inner-city communities.
It's almost as if the area did not learn it's lesson from the large suburban mall failure from 10-15 years ago. When large area malls failed, the thought was the mall concept was dead and that consumers still wanted endless chocies of stores. Local area malls were then chopped up into walkable "Avenues" or "power centers" that featured four to five different big box stores with twenty or more so smaller stores and restaurants. So instead of redeveloping a commercial property that had died into a mixed use community, developers just extended the life of the commercial center from a 100+ store mall into a 30+ store commerical power center.
Now even these power centers and "avenues" or showing signs of distress not because they may have been a bad design concept but because they are too many stores. Redeveloping a dead mall while still using the same footprint for new stores does not change the character of the development if an anchor fails or goes out of business.
The New York Times article goes on to state that:
"...look at the cities with stable and recovering home markets. On this coast, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and San Diego come to mind. All of these cities have fairly strict development codes, trying to hem in their excess sprawl. Developers, many of them, hate these restrictions. They said the coastal cities would eventually price the middle class out, and start to empty.
It hasn’t happened. Just the opposite. The developers’ favorite role models, the laissez faire free-for-alls — Las Vegas, the Phoenix metro area, South Florida, this valley — are the most troubled, the suburban slums."
When the market comes back, which it will, there should be no more new shopping centers in the Baltimore metropolitan area. Local jurisdictions first must push new development into the dozens of vacant shopping centers that are dotted all around the metro area.
What do you think?
"...median home prices have fallen from $500,000 to $150,000 — among the most precipitous drops in the nation — and still the houses sit empty, spooky and see-through, waiting on demography and psychology to catch up.
In strip malls where tenants seem to last no longer than the life cycle of a gold fish, the bottom-feeders have moved in. 'Coming soon: Cigarette City,' reads one sign here in Lathrop, near a 'Cash Advance' outlet."
Here in Baltimore the second part of this quote definitely rings true. Many of the inner and outer ring ex-urb communities have been "over-stored." in the suburban commercial corridors there have been too many strip malls, shopping centers and stand alone big box stores. Because of the recession when a strip mall or shopping center loses it's anchor, there is nothing to replace that store and the shopping center becomes an eyesore. What had been somewhat nice shopping centers now become home of junk retail and carry-out stores that you would typically associate with inner-city communities.
It's almost as if the area did not learn it's lesson from the large suburban mall failure from 10-15 years ago. When large area malls failed, the thought was the mall concept was dead and that consumers still wanted endless chocies of stores. Local area malls were then chopped up into walkable "Avenues" or "power centers" that featured four to five different big box stores with twenty or more so smaller stores and restaurants. So instead of redeveloping a commercial property that had died into a mixed use community, developers just extended the life of the commercial center from a 100+ store mall into a 30+ store commerical power center.
Now even these power centers and "avenues" or showing signs of distress not because they may have been a bad design concept but because they are too many stores. Redeveloping a dead mall while still using the same footprint for new stores does not change the character of the development if an anchor fails or goes out of business.
The New York Times article goes on to state that:
"...look at the cities with stable and recovering home markets. On this coast, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and San Diego come to mind. All of these cities have fairly strict development codes, trying to hem in their excess sprawl. Developers, many of them, hate these restrictions. They said the coastal cities would eventually price the middle class out, and start to empty.
It hasn’t happened. Just the opposite. The developers’ favorite role models, the laissez faire free-for-alls — Las Vegas, the Phoenix metro area, South Florida, this valley — are the most troubled, the suburban slums."
When the market comes back, which it will, there should be no more new shopping centers in the Baltimore metropolitan area. Local jurisdictions first must push new development into the dozens of vacant shopping centers that are dotted all around the metro area.
What do you think?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Architecture for Humanity
Please support Architecture for Humanity in their efforts to help rebuild Haiti.
Here is part of their long term plan:
For those of us who are part of the reconstruction effort, we need to think about immediate needs for shelter while planning for the next three to five years of rebuilding.
When we are rebuilding, do not let the media set the time line and expectations for reconstruction. I remember vividly well known news personalities standing on the rubble of homes in the lower ninth proclaiming that 'this time next year we will see families back home.' Some well meaning NGOs, who usually have little building experience, are even worse -- 'we'll have 25,000 Haitians back home if you donate today.' In reality, here is what it really looks like:
1. Set up Community Resource Centers to bring architecture and building services to folks on the ground. See below for more details.
2. Translate and distribute of our Rebuilding 101 Manual.The manual was originally developed after Hurricane Katrina and widely used in the rebuilding process.
3. Adapt, translate and distribute a Earthquake Resistant Housing Manual for local NGOs and community groups.
4. Provide Architectural and Construction professionals to develop and build community facilities inc. schools and medical centers
5. Train and Educate Incoming Volunteers in building safely and to emphasize the need for sustainable materials and construction techniques.
6. Complete the Youth Sports Facility and Disaster Recovery Center just north of Port au Prince that was developed in 2009.
7. Design, develop and implement community and civic structures for various clients and local community partners. This includes the reconstruction and building schools given the particular loss in structures.
Here is part of their long term plan:
For those of us who are part of the reconstruction effort, we need to think about immediate needs for shelter while planning for the next three to five years of rebuilding.
When we are rebuilding, do not let the media set the time line and expectations for reconstruction. I remember vividly well known news personalities standing on the rubble of homes in the lower ninth proclaiming that 'this time next year we will see families back home.' Some well meaning NGOs, who usually have little building experience, are even worse -- 'we'll have 25,000 Haitians back home if you donate today.' In reality, here is what it really looks like:
- Pre-Planning Assessments and Damage Analysis (underway, will run for a year)
- Establish Community Resource Center and Reconstruction Studio (Week 6 to Month 3)
- Sorting Out Land Tenure and Building Ownership (Month 6 to Year 5)
- Transitional Shelters, Health Clinics and Community Structures (Month 6 to Year 2)
- Schools, Hospitals and Civic Structures (Month 9 to Year 3)
- Permanent Housing (Year 1 to Year 5)
1. Set up Community Resource Centers to bring architecture and building services to folks on the ground. See below for more details.
2. Translate and distribute of our Rebuilding 101 Manual.The manual was originally developed after Hurricane Katrina and widely used in the rebuilding process.
3. Adapt, translate and distribute a Earthquake Resistant Housing Manual for local NGOs and community groups.
4. Provide Architectural and Construction professionals to develop and build community facilities inc. schools and medical centers
5. Train and Educate Incoming Volunteers in building safely and to emphasize the need for sustainable materials and construction techniques.
6. Complete the Youth Sports Facility and Disaster Recovery Center just north of Port au Prince that was developed in 2009.
7. Design, develop and implement community and civic structures for various clients and local community partners. This includes the reconstruction and building schools given the particular loss in structures.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Informal Cities
Swiped from the Africa Unchained blog:
An excerpt from Robert Neuwirth's Lecture 'The Extroverted City of System D' a contribution to the book Open City:
In Lagos, everything is informal. The bus system is informal—the government got out of mass transit business decades ago (though it has recently stepped back into public transport with a bus rapid transit line) and the system that includes more than 75,000 danfos was held together informally by the National Union of Road Transport Workers as one-part mass transit and one-part Ponzi scheme. One of the largest formal supermarkets in Lagos buys most of its product from informal wholesalers. Some major multinationals here distribute their products through informal networks. And informal merchants invest in the formal world.
Authorities in the city acknowledge that as much as 80 percent of the work force—and Lagos has between nine and 17 million inhabitants, depending on where you draw the boundaries and who’s doing the counting—is involved in the informal sector. The federal government also suggests that somewhere around 60 to 70 percent of the country’s economic activity derives in some way from the informal sector—and this means that, in aggregate, merchants like Prince Chidi Onyeyirim and Fatai Agbalaya are more important to Nigeria’s future than Shell, Mobil, and Chevron, the multinational oil giants that pump sweet crude from the Niger River Delta.
As Mega-Cities continue to explode in population around the world (particularly in Africa) they continue to stretch the conceptual frameworks of what cities were meant to be and how they are organized. Most modern cities may appear to chaotic but when examined closely, they are heavily structured and organized systems that control and dictate the flow of traffic, development, water, sewage, air and open space. The lack of those uniform structural systems in dense urban places creates chaos and challenges the belief of whether that urban place is truly a defined city jurisdiction with a definitive boundaries to the city's power of influence and control. The uninformed mega-cities of today have no beginnings and endings to the jurisdiction's scope of power.
An excerpt from Robert Neuwirth's Lecture 'The Extroverted City of System D' a contribution to the book Open City:
In Lagos, everything is informal. The bus system is informal—the government got out of mass transit business decades ago (though it has recently stepped back into public transport with a bus rapid transit line) and the system that includes more than 75,000 danfos was held together informally by the National Union of Road Transport Workers as one-part mass transit and one-part Ponzi scheme. One of the largest formal supermarkets in Lagos buys most of its product from informal wholesalers. Some major multinationals here distribute their products through informal networks. And informal merchants invest in the formal world.
Authorities in the city acknowledge that as much as 80 percent of the work force—and Lagos has between nine and 17 million inhabitants, depending on where you draw the boundaries and who’s doing the counting—is involved in the informal sector. The federal government also suggests that somewhere around 60 to 70 percent of the country’s economic activity derives in some way from the informal sector—and this means that, in aggregate, merchants like Prince Chidi Onyeyirim and Fatai Agbalaya are more important to Nigeria’s future than Shell, Mobil, and Chevron, the multinational oil giants that pump sweet crude from the Niger River Delta.
As Mega-Cities continue to explode in population around the world (particularly in Africa) they continue to stretch the conceptual frameworks of what cities were meant to be and how they are organized. Most modern cities may appear to chaotic but when examined closely, they are heavily structured and organized systems that control and dictate the flow of traffic, development, water, sewage, air and open space. The lack of those uniform structural systems in dense urban places creates chaos and challenges the belief of whether that urban place is truly a defined city jurisdiction with a definitive boundaries to the city's power of influence and control. The uninformed mega-cities of today have no beginnings and endings to the jurisdiction's scope of power.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
CASTRUM - 2009
2A+P/A and A. Grasso - CASTRUM - 2009
In a cold, cold land...
The Mayor of the City decided to create a new settlement. He did not want to conceive just a city plan, but to reveal a new emotion, a new political vision. He loved to repeat a sentence "the city is too important to put it into the hands of the architects".
Many meetings and workshops with citizens were organized to decide how to go forward with this new project. The Mayor invited a famous urban planner to the workshop, who showed pictures and drawings of many urban models. People were always happy seeing pictures of public spaces, squares, courtyards, gardens etc... otherwise they were just a bit afraid - fearful of those projects made by the very famous masters, drawn by urban planners as "heroes".
But how to organize such a complex system? What form will the city be? This was the problem: can the desires of the community be shown black on white?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Will Africa soon become an Urban Continent?
According to the Economist, maybe so...
"…Africa is still something of a demographic outlier compared with the rest of the developing world. Long berated (or loved) as the sleepiest continent, it has now become the fastest-growing and fastest-urbanising one. Its population has grown from 110m in 1850 to 1 billion today. Its fertility rate is still high: the average woman born today can expect to have five children in her child-bearing years, compared with just 1.7 in East Asia. Barring catastrophe, Africa’s population will reach 2 billion by 2050. To get a sense of this kind of increase, consider that in 1950 there were two Europeans for every African; by 2050, on present trends, there will be two Africans for every European (see chart 1).
…One African in two is a child. The numbers are such that traditional ways of caring for children in extended families and communities are breaking down…
…Africa’s rate of urbanisation is the fastest the world has ever seen, says Anna Tibaijuka, the head of Habitat, the UN agency responsible for urban development. In 1950 only Alexandria and Cairo exceeded 1m people. When the city rush is done, Africa may have 80 cities with more than 1m people, plus a cluster of megacities headed by Kinshasa, Lagos and Cairo—none of which show signs of mass starvation. Intermediary towns of 50,000-100,000 people will soak up most of those coming from the countryside. Urbanisation is part of the solution to Africa’s demographic problems, not a manifestation of them."
The biggest question I have is whether African cities will adopt city planning methods to strategically plan and control growth and not let new development grow haphazardly as seen in other developing nations. There are several urban locales in South and Southeast Asia that have dense populations of 1 million people or more but they hard to define as cities. They appear to be more of a collection of dense high rise developments or communities that all function independently of each other. The same can be said of many current African cities today. Hopefully small African cities now that are expected to explode in population can implement plans now before they become overrun with major developments.
Another question I have for anyone to answer is how will Africa becoming a more urban continent change your perception of the continent?
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Detroit
I have never been to Detroit but I always have a fondness for cities like it because they will never be what they once were. I primarily grew up in Baltimore and spent a lot of time in Philadelphia so I understand what it feels like to see a city past it's glory years. No matter how much time as planners we spend to make our overall city environments better, we know that the factories that helped build our towns and cities and the factory workers who lived in them, are not coming back. The barren industrial landscapes are not only eyesores but they continue to decay into decrepit architectural skeletons.
.
While others mock Detroit's struggles or just write it off as a forgotten city, I have great sympathy for a city which helped create our modern way of life. A large part of who we are and how we define ourselves was built off of Detroit Labor and for that I don't feel it is right that we turn our back to the city now that it is struggling. I understand that we are a free market capitalist society and that industries come and go and it is up to cities to plan better for it's peaks and valleys. I am also certain that the city and state governments as well as the major car companies did not have a proper plan in place for the city's future and in those respects, the city was destined to fail. But ask yourself, on a historical level, where would we be as a country, without Detroit?
.
Detroit was a great American industrial jewel that we are allowing to crumble like the ruins in Rome. The only catch is that Detroit has not been deserted. Among these industrial ruins is the nation's 11th largest city where over 900,000 people reside. Our nation's forgotten major city is still larger then the cosmopolitan cities of San Fransisco, Boston, Seattle and Washington D.C. While we can never bring Detroit back to what it was 50 years ago, we can still transform the city from a once great industrial city into a great historical city and not watch city turn into a ruin from a far.
"Despite the ugliness that is inherent in these photos: the ugliness of poverty, the tragedy of loss, and waste, this building still lets us glimpse something beautiful. In Detroit this beauty is uniquely sustained. In other cities, buildings like this would be turned into luxury loft condominiums. They would be knocked down so that something new could be built in their place, their contents dragged off to a landfill and forgotten. Here we get to see what the world will look like when we're gone. We see that the world will indeed go on, and there is a certain beauty to nature's indifference."
Text copyright and pictures 2008, James D. Griffioen
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Rebound of New Orleans - New Growth or Dillution of the Past?
Four years after Hurricane Katrina, the city of New Orleans is growing again and has grown to 3/4th's of their pre-storm population. While the city is still missing a significant chunk of their former residents, most of the new population of residents are not native residents returning home but newcomers which are starting to change the culture of New Orleans. The NOLA.com article quotes:
The city is now home to a tide of newcomers unprecedented in recent history, including Hispanic day laborers, idealistic young teachers, and urban planners all drawn by the unique opportunity to help a devastated city rebuild, almost from scratch.
....Before Katrina, New Orleans famously had the highest percentage of "native-born" residents of any major American city. In the 2000 census, for instance, 77 percent of New Orleanians were considered natives, defined as those born anywhere in Louisiana.
Viewed optimistically, the statistic is a measure of New Orleanians' attachment to their hometown. But it's also a symptom of a moribund economy that attracts few migrants.
...The percentage of single, childless adults -- a group more associated with transplants -- has risen significantly, surveys indicate. At the same time, the percentage of families living in extreme poverty, the group most likely to be native-born, has dropped. The percentage of white residents has risen, while the percentage of African-Americans has slipped.
Will the newcomers ultimately embrace New Orleans long rich cultural heritage or identity? Or will they add on to the heritage and tradition or ultimately change it? It's probably too early to tell for now? With an influx of newcomers, what will it really mean now to miss New Orleans?
What are your thoughts? To read the entire article, click here.
The city is now home to a tide of newcomers unprecedented in recent history, including Hispanic day laborers, idealistic young teachers, and urban planners all drawn by the unique opportunity to help a devastated city rebuild, almost from scratch.
....Before Katrina, New Orleans famously had the highest percentage of "native-born" residents of any major American city. In the 2000 census, for instance, 77 percent of New Orleanians were considered natives, defined as those born anywhere in Louisiana.
Viewed optimistically, the statistic is a measure of New Orleanians' attachment to their hometown. But it's also a symptom of a moribund economy that attracts few migrants.
...The percentage of single, childless adults -- a group more associated with transplants -- has risen significantly, surveys indicate. At the same time, the percentage of families living in extreme poverty, the group most likely to be native-born, has dropped. The percentage of white residents has risen, while the percentage of African-Americans has slipped.
Will the newcomers ultimately embrace New Orleans long rich cultural heritage or identity? Or will they add on to the heritage and tradition or ultimately change it? It's probably too early to tell for now? With an influx of newcomers, what will it really mean now to miss New Orleans?
What are your thoughts? To read the entire article, click here.
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Tale of a Smarter City
“A city is more than just a collection of buildings, streets, parks, and people, and the many different entities engaged in many different trades.
Its a living environment of different cultures, peoples, ideas and systems that are interdependent yet all determine and shape the others identity.”
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Un-Sustainable Suburbs
BusinessWeek ran an article last week about the premium costs residents have to pay to live in upscale suburbs and whether the cost is really worth it
From the article:
"But residents are also paying a premium for the cachet that comes with having a certain Zip Code. They want to live with their peers, go to the same country clubs, and send their children to the same schools. For those who aspire for a lifestyle upgrade, there's good news. Home prices in upscale towns are falling even as mortgage rates hover near historic lows. Luxury homes are lingering on the market not just because buyers are losing jobs and wealth, but because jumbo loans are difficult to get.
But even buyers who can afford the discounted homes in upscale communities have to consider the everyday costs, says David P. Brady, a financial planner and owner of Brady Investment Counsel in the Chicago suburb of Geneva, Ill. "It might look like a great value, but once you think about all the costs…you might be a lot better off staying where you are," he says. "
Read the full article here.
From the article:
"But residents are also paying a premium for the cachet that comes with having a certain Zip Code. They want to live with their peers, go to the same country clubs, and send their children to the same schools. For those who aspire for a lifestyle upgrade, there's good news. Home prices in upscale towns are falling even as mortgage rates hover near historic lows. Luxury homes are lingering on the market not just because buyers are losing jobs and wealth, but because jumbo loans are difficult to get.
But even buyers who can afford the discounted homes in upscale communities have to consider the everyday costs, says David P. Brady, a financial planner and owner of Brady Investment Counsel in the Chicago suburb of Geneva, Ill. "It might look like a great value, but once you think about all the costs…you might be a lot better off staying where you are," he says. "
Read the full article here.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Ex-Urbs - The new American ghetto?
The Las Vegas Sun reported on the economic downtown that has crippled Las Vegas, which was one of America's fastest growing cities. The fuel needed to continue the city's sprawling march through the desert has all but ceased as the city's main industries, construction, tourism and real estate have dried up. With no new buyers in sight, many of the sprawling McMansions built far away from the core now sit empty and deserted. The article quotes:
"All those half-empty neighborhoods on the edge of town become exurban ghettoes. These neighborhoods share the worst aspects of suburban life, specifically long commutes, big gasoline bills and the absence of urban amenities, while not offering some of the traditional benefits of suburbs such as big yards — the houses in many of the neighborhoods are packed closer together.
These structures, which were built cheaply and quickly, will become inexpensive rental housing, a process that seems to have already begun."
This would not be the first time a recently constructed ex-urb has quickly fallen on hard times. The Charlotte area, where banking is the top industry was also one of America's fastest growing cities in the 2000's. When the banking industry first began signs of falter in 2006, the effects on the Charlotte suburbs were immediate. Entire ex-urban housing developments, most likely owned by investors, were abandoned. Vacant houses were stripped down of copper wire and other materials by thieves and other vacants were being used by squatters. Costly infrastructure and utilities were wasted to these unpopulated housing developments. To add insult to injury, crime became another problem for ex-urbs adding onto wasted infrastructure and services costs.
Will this become the fate of Las Vegas? Some Vegas planners are already planning for a post-sprawl city. The article quotes:
"In fact, planning for a future that is more dense, more vertical, more urban and connected by mass transit could solve several problems at once.
...Las Vegas could draw skilled professionals it needs with a more varied development pattern that includes urbanism. If you want to attract really sharp engineers and scientists and creative people, having a city will make it much easier to do that."
Does this mean the city of fantasy will actually have to grow up to become a real city? More importantly though, does our fantasy of the American dream also have to grow up and face the reality that the dream is no longer sustainable?
What are your thoughts?
"All those half-empty neighborhoods on the edge of town become exurban ghettoes. These neighborhoods share the worst aspects of suburban life, specifically long commutes, big gasoline bills and the absence of urban amenities, while not offering some of the traditional benefits of suburbs such as big yards — the houses in many of the neighborhoods are packed closer together.
These structures, which were built cheaply and quickly, will become inexpensive rental housing, a process that seems to have already begun."
This would not be the first time a recently constructed ex-urb has quickly fallen on hard times. The Charlotte area, where banking is the top industry was also one of America's fastest growing cities in the 2000's. When the banking industry first began signs of falter in 2006, the effects on the Charlotte suburbs were immediate. Entire ex-urban housing developments, most likely owned by investors, were abandoned. Vacant houses were stripped down of copper wire and other materials by thieves and other vacants were being used by squatters. Costly infrastructure and utilities were wasted to these unpopulated housing developments. To add insult to injury, crime became another problem for ex-urbs adding onto wasted infrastructure and services costs.
Will this become the fate of Las Vegas? Some Vegas planners are already planning for a post-sprawl city. The article quotes:
"In fact, planning for a future that is more dense, more vertical, more urban and connected by mass transit could solve several problems at once.
...Las Vegas could draw skilled professionals it needs with a more varied development pattern that includes urbanism. If you want to attract really sharp engineers and scientists and creative people, having a city will make it much easier to do that."
Does this mean the city of fantasy will actually have to grow up to become a real city? More importantly though, does our fantasy of the American dream also have to grow up and face the reality that the dream is no longer sustainable?
What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Debunking the American Dream of Suburbia
Recently, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece called I Dream of Denver, about Americans preference for living in the suburbs and in low density communities. The article retreaded old arguments that Americans still want their yards, garages and Mini-vans and SUV's to take their kids to soccer practice and have room for their ski's for their weekend get away. While this is no doubt true for a good portion of Americans, it is a slanted view that Americans choice to live in suburbs today is based on preference. For many Americans the choice to live in suburbs is purely based on housing value returns and education for their children.
While there are negative social ills in cities that might hinder some from living cities, there are unique features and aspects of cities which the suburbs could never replicate. Also today's city is not the city of the 1950's and today's suburbs are not the suburbs of the 1950's either. The past styles of development for cities and suburbs are no longer applicable today. Cities are no longer a collection over housed slums crowded next to factories and suburbs as we had built them in the 1950's are no longer sustainable. And because of that the image of Americans wanting to move away from the big bad city into the leafy suburb needs to change. The reality today is that many Americans actually prefer to live in urban places and many suburbs now face the same social ills as cities.
Back to the article. The author quotes,
"The time has finally come, some writers are predicting, when Americans will finally repent. They’ll move back to the urban core. They will ride more bicycles, have smaller homes and tinier fridges and rediscover the joys of dense community — and maybe even superior beer.
America will, in short, finally begin to look a little more like Amsterdam.
Well, Amsterdam is a wonderful city, but Americans never seem to want to live there. And even now, in this moment of chastening pain, they don’t seem to want the Dutch option."
I always find it funny that when critics think of urban living and urbanism they point back to Europe instead of looking at successful urban neighborhoods right here in the states. There are also many forms of urban neighborhoods ranging from small rowhouses in Georgetown in Washington D.C. to large rowhouses in Hyde Park in Chicago to the single family homes in Inman Park in Atlanta.
"Second, Americans still want to move outward. City dwellers are least happy with where they live, and cities are one of the least popular places to live. Only 52 percent of urbanites rate their communities “excellent” or “very good,” compared with 68 percent of suburbanites and 71 percent of the people who live in rural America.
Cities remain attractive to the young. Forty-five percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 would like to live in New York City. But cities are profoundly unattractive to people with families and to the elderly. Only 14 percent of Americans 35 and older are interested in living in New York City."
Again I believe the rating of cities most likely comes from safety and education, the two things that the suburbs have over cities but even that is declining. When pointing to cities, which by the way there are over 100 in the U.S. pointing that many over 35 do not want to move to the most populous uber city in the country may not be the best example. On top of that city neighborhoods actually provide seniors a chance to walk to stores and services as opposed to suburbs that are totally auto dependent.
"Third, Americans still want to go west. The researchers at Pew asked Americans what metro areas they would like to live in. Seven of the top 10 were in the West: Denver, San Diego, Seattle, San Francisco, Phoenix, Portland and Sacramento. The other three were in the South: Orlando, Tampa and San Antonio. Eastern cities were down the list and Midwestern cities were at the bottom.
...These places are car-dependent and spread out, but they also have strong cultural identities and pedestrian meeting places."
The cities that the article pointed out with the exception of San Francisco, San Diego and maybe Portland do not have strong cultural identities. These cities which once were towns that did have an identity are now just a collection amorphous collection of suburbs.
The point of this post is that the idea that Americans still want to move to the suburbs is still a 1950's construct. Do a lot of Americans still hold that image dear to their hearts? Yes. Do most Americans realize that dream is unsustainable and is ultimately hurting us? Yes. Lastly suburbs have always failed to give a true representation of the diversity in architecture, culture, art and ideas of modern America. The suburbs do not represent America, cities do.
"Finally, Americans want to go someplace new. The powerhouse cities of the 20th century — New York, Los Angeles, Chicago — are much less desirable today than the ones that have more recently sprouted up."
Let me ask you, the reader this, if you were to show someone what America is, through it's successes and it's failures, it's grandeur and of it's commonality, would you take them to Tampa or San Antonio or would you take them to Chicago or Philadelphia?
While there are negative social ills in cities that might hinder some from living cities, there are unique features and aspects of cities which the suburbs could never replicate. Also today's city is not the city of the 1950's and today's suburbs are not the suburbs of the 1950's either. The past styles of development for cities and suburbs are no longer applicable today. Cities are no longer a collection over housed slums crowded next to factories and suburbs as we had built them in the 1950's are no longer sustainable. And because of that the image of Americans wanting to move away from the big bad city into the leafy suburb needs to change. The reality today is that many Americans actually prefer to live in urban places and many suburbs now face the same social ills as cities.
Back to the article. The author quotes,
"The time has finally come, some writers are predicting, when Americans will finally repent. They’ll move back to the urban core. They will ride more bicycles, have smaller homes and tinier fridges and rediscover the joys of dense community — and maybe even superior beer.
America will, in short, finally begin to look a little more like Amsterdam.
Well, Amsterdam is a wonderful city, but Americans never seem to want to live there. And even now, in this moment of chastening pain, they don’t seem to want the Dutch option."
I always find it funny that when critics think of urban living and urbanism they point back to Europe instead of looking at successful urban neighborhoods right here in the states. There are also many forms of urban neighborhoods ranging from small rowhouses in Georgetown in Washington D.C. to large rowhouses in Hyde Park in Chicago to the single family homes in Inman Park in Atlanta.
"Second, Americans still want to move outward. City dwellers are least happy with where they live, and cities are one of the least popular places to live. Only 52 percent of urbanites rate their communities “excellent” or “very good,” compared with 68 percent of suburbanites and 71 percent of the people who live in rural America.
Cities remain attractive to the young. Forty-five percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 would like to live in New York City. But cities are profoundly unattractive to people with families and to the elderly. Only 14 percent of Americans 35 and older are interested in living in New York City."
Again I believe the rating of cities most likely comes from safety and education, the two things that the suburbs have over cities but even that is declining. When pointing to cities, which by the way there are over 100 in the U.S. pointing that many over 35 do not want to move to the most populous uber city in the country may not be the best example. On top of that city neighborhoods actually provide seniors a chance to walk to stores and services as opposed to suburbs that are totally auto dependent.
"Third, Americans still want to go west. The researchers at Pew asked Americans what metro areas they would like to live in. Seven of the top 10 were in the West: Denver, San Diego, Seattle, San Francisco, Phoenix, Portland and Sacramento. The other three were in the South: Orlando, Tampa and San Antonio. Eastern cities were down the list and Midwestern cities were at the bottom.
...These places are car-dependent and spread out, but they also have strong cultural identities and pedestrian meeting places."
The cities that the article pointed out with the exception of San Francisco, San Diego and maybe Portland do not have strong cultural identities. These cities which once were towns that did have an identity are now just a collection amorphous collection of suburbs.
The point of this post is that the idea that Americans still want to move to the suburbs is still a 1950's construct. Do a lot of Americans still hold that image dear to their hearts? Yes. Do most Americans realize that dream is unsustainable and is ultimately hurting us? Yes. Lastly suburbs have always failed to give a true representation of the diversity in architecture, culture, art and ideas of modern America. The suburbs do not represent America, cities do.
"Finally, Americans want to go someplace new. The powerhouse cities of the 20th century — New York, Los Angeles, Chicago — are much less desirable today than the ones that have more recently sprouted up."
Let me ask you, the reader this, if you were to show someone what America is, through it's successes and it's failures, it's grandeur and of it's commonality, would you take them to Tampa or San Antonio or would you take them to Chicago or Philadelphia?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Urbanizing Dallas
The City of Dallas and it's city planners are looking to introduce a formal zoning code to try to curb unregulated sprawl and to increase development in downtown neighborhoods. For those of you that are unfamiliar with Texas and their land use laws, you should that Texans are fiercely pro-property rights and are against any government regulation. So much so, that it is against the law for a planning official to label a zoning map an official government document. Texas zoning or land use maps or more recommendations.
What does this mean when it comes to city development? It means that anyone can subdivide their land almost as many times as they want and construct a development as large as they desire...anywhere. No matter the scale or appropriateness of that development. This means that a 70 story skyscraper can be placed outside of a downtown next to a freeway exit with no other large office development nearby (Houston, Tx).
So what is the big deal of allowing the market to determine development, the last thing we need in this economy is for government to stifle growth of businesses and construction, right? Well the problem is that these cities are inefficient and non-sustainable and actually cost tax payers more money to provide services to sprawling developments then it would it city developments were dense and compact. Wherever development goes, infrastructure has to follow. That means, highways, roads, bridges, power, water, schools, police, fire, ambulance all have to provided for large developments no matter how far or inconvenient. All of these services are expensive and they tax the residents of existing development even more to pay up front for services to another development that they will most likely never use.
Besides the monetary expenses of development there are other consequences in allowing sprawl. One of the most harmful consequences is pollution. Houston is now one of the country's most polluted cities because of smog. Texas cities are dependent on freeways for travel. In Dallas,the mere mention of a subway system brings out strong protest. Other factors, are quality of life factors and having those that normally dependent on public transit forced to seek automobile transit some how, some way.
Despite all of the negative consequences, there are Texas planners that vehemently oppose zoning and hold up their cities as a model of success purely on the fact that their cities continue to grow while East coast cities (the cities with zoning codes) continue to shrink. While it is true that East coast zoning codes have become burdensome encyclopedia of regulations, allowing the market to dictate development is even more troubling. Remember parts of the code exist because the market had no problem cramming workers into dumbell tenement housing that lacked air, light, sewer and trash disposal.
In Dallas, the continued pattern of suburban growth and increased population has planners looking for better solutions. While Dallas planners are still not in favor of traditional zoning, which is based on prohibiting land uses, they are looking toward the new urbanist approach of "Form Based Zoning" which promotes land uses on coded streets that a community would to see. From a recent article:
"The solution most proposed was 'form-based zoning,' which encourages developers to purchase large tracts of land on which to develop dense urban areas near transit stations and along the Trinity River.
It’s kind of like college vs. the real world. In college, parties just sort of happen. As adults, parties come with the cumbersome trappings of invitations and phone calls, dates, times and places to meet up.
In districts with the proposed zoning ordinances, Dallas-ites can live and have fun in the same vicinity: they spend an evening wandering around, stumble upon a new coffee shop, see a movie, find a nice place to sit and talk, have a beer, run into friends, and walk home in a single night."
Hopefully Dallas Planners can convince it's council to implement a new urban zoning code. And hopefully other cities not just in Texas but in suburban locales all across this county can do the same. In an country that is 80% urbanized we can no longer continue are pattern of sub-urban growth. As a country we can not afford the infrastructure and as of last summer, we could not afford the gas for our commute. Our post World War II development patterns can no longer continue, we must create a new pattern of development for a new generation of people that is sustainable and not over extend our local governments like a proverbial credit card as they bank on future growth which may not happen.
What does this mean when it comes to city development? It means that anyone can subdivide their land almost as many times as they want and construct a development as large as they desire...anywhere. No matter the scale or appropriateness of that development. This means that a 70 story skyscraper can be placed outside of a downtown next to a freeway exit with no other large office development nearby (Houston, Tx).
So what is the big deal of allowing the market to determine development, the last thing we need in this economy is for government to stifle growth of businesses and construction, right? Well the problem is that these cities are inefficient and non-sustainable and actually cost tax payers more money to provide services to sprawling developments then it would it city developments were dense and compact. Wherever development goes, infrastructure has to follow. That means, highways, roads, bridges, power, water, schools, police, fire, ambulance all have to provided for large developments no matter how far or inconvenient. All of these services are expensive and they tax the residents of existing development even more to pay up front for services to another development that they will most likely never use.
Besides the monetary expenses of development there are other consequences in allowing sprawl. One of the most harmful consequences is pollution. Houston is now one of the country's most polluted cities because of smog. Texas cities are dependent on freeways for travel. In Dallas,the mere mention of a subway system brings out strong protest. Other factors, are quality of life factors and having those that normally dependent on public transit forced to seek automobile transit some how, some way.
Despite all of the negative consequences, there are Texas planners that vehemently oppose zoning and hold up their cities as a model of success purely on the fact that their cities continue to grow while East coast cities (the cities with zoning codes) continue to shrink. While it is true that East coast zoning codes have become burdensome encyclopedia of regulations, allowing the market to dictate development is even more troubling. Remember parts of the code exist because the market had no problem cramming workers into dumbell tenement housing that lacked air, light, sewer and trash disposal.
In Dallas, the continued pattern of suburban growth and increased population has planners looking for better solutions. While Dallas planners are still not in favor of traditional zoning, which is based on prohibiting land uses, they are looking toward the new urbanist approach of "Form Based Zoning" which promotes land uses on coded streets that a community would to see. From a recent article:
"The solution most proposed was 'form-based zoning,' which encourages developers to purchase large tracts of land on which to develop dense urban areas near transit stations and along the Trinity River.
It’s kind of like college vs. the real world. In college, parties just sort of happen. As adults, parties come with the cumbersome trappings of invitations and phone calls, dates, times and places to meet up.
In districts with the proposed zoning ordinances, Dallas-ites can live and have fun in the same vicinity: they spend an evening wandering around, stumble upon a new coffee shop, see a movie, find a nice place to sit and talk, have a beer, run into friends, and walk home in a single night."
Hopefully Dallas Planners can convince it's council to implement a new urban zoning code. And hopefully other cities not just in Texas but in suburban locales all across this county can do the same. In an country that is 80% urbanized we can no longer continue are pattern of sub-urban growth. As a country we can not afford the infrastructure and as of last summer, we could not afford the gas for our commute. Our post World War II development patterns can no longer continue, we must create a new pattern of development for a new generation of people that is sustainable and not over extend our local governments like a proverbial credit card as they bank on future growth which may not happen.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Returning Detroit Back to Nature
A recent AP article covered what I think is one of the most fascinating "urban renewal" projects occurring in Detroit right now, which is Urban Farming. With the city's population less than half of what it was in 1950 there are thousands of empty lots in Detroit that are being converted into mini-farms.
The AP article quotes:
"With enough abandoned lots to fill the city of San Francisco, Motown is 138 square miles divided between expanses of decay and emptiness and tracts of still-functioning communities and commercial areas. Six barren acres of an estimated 17,000 have already been turned into "mini-farms," demonstrating the lengths to which planners will go to make land productive."
To me the irony of Detroit, one of America's most industrialized cities where car production was revolutionised which created negative environmental conditions such as smog and helped cities decentralize only to be converted back into a farm is fitting. We have all seen the Disney Cartoon of the little house that eventually got surrounded by the big city but we have never seen the big city go into reverse. The only times we have seen big cities go in reverse are in a apocalyptic fantasies where nature consumes cities after the people have vanquished. But to see the people return the city into a farm has to be a new chapter in the history of city development. Could this be a new chapter in city planning history that the fate of all cities could face that somehow Detroit had fast forwarded through time to reach this eventual conclusion?
The last question posed is very interesting because while Detroit is one of the biggest cities in the rustbelt of the U.S. it is not alone in the declining population and property value of it's city. There are dozens of small towns and cities across Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania whose fates were dependent on industry which appears will never return. Can Detroit be a model of a new green city in the rustbelt? Can these industrial towns despite the decades worth of toxins in the ground actually produce a life sustaining farm? I was always told by planning professors that once farmland is developed that it can return back to farmland again - is Detroit proving that theory wrong?
What is your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)