Achieving Climax Slowly

Howard Blackson, writing for PlaceShakers, on the emerging trend of gradual build-out:

The latest design trend appears to be designing a place to be realized in very gradual stages. Not in terms of planning for phases of development pods, built-out in a predetermined sequence, but about individual lots changing — evolving — over time. Very rarely now are we designing to build immediately for a project’s absolute highest and best use or, as Nathan Norris calls it, its “climax condition.” This new incrementalism focuses on how lots change — how they’re built upon and reconfigured over time before, ahem, reaching their climax.

As with New Urbanism, New Incrementalism isn’t so much new as it is old ideas newly calibrated. Incremental growth is the process most places went through until the last century. It is a more cautious approach that isn’t fraught with the same perils of massive speculation and exorbitant capital outlay that is typical of our now conventional development pattern.

Congestion

Chuck Marohn, writing for the Strong Towns blog, has some great thoughts on congestion:

And please understand what I’m saying: We can actually spend lots less, have a government that is smaller and more effective and see a ton of local investment – stuff that will make a city wealthier and more prosperous over the long run – while providing small business opportunities and a growing, stable and diverse workforce. This is a vision for a New America, one much more closely tied to the best of our heritage than the current consumption-centric, faux incarnation of the American Dream.

To make this happen, we need to realize that congestion is the answer, not the problem. People who want to shop at big box stores can live next to them. That is a choice in the markeplace that I can accept. People that want to live in neighborhoods will also have choices, options that do not exist for them today because we subsidize their competition at every opportunity.

As Chuck points out, it’s amazing how far the automobile subsidy extends when you really look at it. So much of the system - so much of our way of life - is dependent on subsidizing suburbia. Would big box retailers really be able to compete if the transportation networks they rely upon for both customers and distribution were not subsidized?

Supply and Demand

Alex Steffen on density’s effect on property values:

Density does not drive up property values: property values rise when there are more people who want to live in a set location than there are homes to buy. New density may make a place more desirable to live in, in which case more people may want to live there, and if demand rises more quickly than supply, home prices rise too. We know that it’s possible to create density which drives down property values (think about the awful public housing towers of the 1960s), by making a place somewhere fewer people want to live. We have a term for this well-proven process: supply and demand.

Density is a way to meet demand. Done well it can make a place more desirable. Done poorly it can make a place less desirable. In that way density is on both sides of the demand equation - driving it and providing supply to meet it.

On the Move

Hope Yen, writing for the Associated Press, reports on the growing migration into cities:

Out are the super-sized McMansions in far-flung suburbs and in the sprawling Southwest, which helped drive rapid metro area growth in the early to middle part of the last decade in places such as Phoenix; Las Vegas; Orlando, Fla.; and Atlanta. In are new, 300 square-foot “micro” apartments under consideration for wider development in dense cities such as New York, San Francisco, Boston and Seattle, which are seeking to attract young single adults who value affordable spaces in prime locations to call their own.

The trend is towards more compact, walkable neighborhoods. I think the comparison between McMansion and micro apartment unnecessarily clouds the point. People don’t choose a micro apartment because they would rather have less space. They choose a smaller apartment because it enables a lifestyle they want to live. This doesn’t need to be a choice between two extremes. Walkable neighborhoods exist at all scales and can include a wide variety of housing types.

Boomers Turn 65

Robert Krueger, in a press release for the Urban Land Institute discussing the findings of the ULI report Housing in America – The Baby Boomers Turn 65:

The study cites surveys showing that the majority of older Americans want to age in their current homes, even when they need assistance. Others are remaining in their homes – at least for the time being — because of the difficulty selling in the current housing market. However, many who are able to move are choosing urban locations – both cities and suburban “town centers” – where they can be close to grown children, friends, work, public transportation, and health care. “Leading-edge boomers will not settle gracefully into quiet retirement and move into traditional seniors housing communities for years, if they ever do,” McIlwain says.

Interestingly the report also notes that institutional senior living facilities don’t seem to be the answer:

The nation’s approximately 50,000 housing communities for seniors – including those providing independent, assisted living, and/or full nursing care – would seem to be a growing market, but in reality, are on the decline, notes the report. Since the beginning of the Great Recession, these communities have faced difficulties finding new residents to replace those leaving. This is due in part to the high cost of retirement housing and the fact that many members of the Silent and Greatest Generations have insufficient retirement savings. However, other issues are at play, according to ULI’s McIlwain. “No matter how attractive and supportive an institution is, it is still an institution,” he said. These communities’ institutional nature, suburban locations, and existing “old-old” populations make it difficult for them to attract new residents, particularly younger ones. The ULI report suggests “greening” of existing communities to appeal to younger residents as well as investors, while reducing operational costs.

As I’ve advocated here previously, the best place for our aging citizens is integrated into the communities they love, communities they helped build, communities their families and friends live in. The best way to do that is have walkable communities so that lack of transportation doesn’t impede life. There is so much vitality that can be gained by having our seniors integrated into our communities.

Proactive Meter Management

Stephen Miller, writing for StreetsBlog, reports on the growing trend of cities trying to more effectively and proactively manage on street parking:

New York is one of several cities across the country taking steps to reduce double-parking and wasteful cruising for scarce curbside spots by adjusting meter rates to align with demand. This type of curbside parking management can be a very effective tool to reduce congestion. In some New York neighborhoods, drivers cruising for parking constitute nearly half of all traffic.

Dynamically adjusting meter rates to reflect demand is an intriguing idea. I’ll be interested to see where this goes.

Make the Bus Free

Speaking of free transit, Kevin Klinkenberg used the story of Châteauroux as an opportunity to link to his piece from last year promoting the idea of free transit:

But how can the bus be free, you ask? After all, someone has to pay for it.

It’s true. Nothing is ever free. But my proposition is that the basic city bus service that so many places fund would be better off as a basic municipal service, like fire or police. Fund it through a dedicated tax of some kind – sales, property, etc, and don’t bother to charge for the ride itself. Allow me to elaborate.

He makes some excellent points and a compelling case. Considering fares make up such a small percentage of the operating costs, it makes sense to look at things differently. Increased advertising revenue due to increased ridership might even make up the difference! I think it’s an idea worth exploring.

Free Transit

Henry Grabar, writing for The Atlantic Cities, reports on the effect making transit free had on the French town of Châteauroux:

The motivations for making a transit system free are obvious. Increased ridership can relieve traffic, improve the environment, boost the system’s efficiency, give residents more spending money, help the poor, and rejuvenate central business districts. Unfortunately, the Châteauroux report contains little large-scale analysis of the effects of the system.

But as it turns out, the change nearly paid for itself. Forty-seven percent of bus-goers were already riding for free, and tickets covered only 14 percent of the city’s transit expenses. By slightly increasing the transit tax on big local businesses while eliminating the costs of printing, ticket-punching technology and the human infrastructure of ticket sales, the city turned a profit on the transit system in ’03, ’04, ’05, and ’07. Since ’08, returns have not been as positive, though the report attributes that to a shift in control from the city to the region.

I’d be curious to see an in depth, system wide study on whether making transit free actually costs more or not. On the one hand it definitely increases expenditures while reducing a somewhat meager income stream. On the other hand, the reduced congestion and demand for expensive road improvement projects could result in sizable savings. In addition, free transit could translate to reduced need for cars which would result in reduced demand for parking which, in turn, could lead to more efficient and productive land use patterns. So it’s possible that free transit could eliminate or reduce both road capacity expansion projects and projects to extend infrastructure beyond current municipal boundaries. It is most likely a very localized question but I could see it penciling out both ways.

Stories

Jessica Cyphers, a friend from childhood, wrote an interesting piece on her personal blog about the humanity of, well, humanity:

Oh, and, we all have a story. This one is definitely 100 percent. We tell our stories in many different ways: the way we act, the way we dress, the way we carry ourselves, the way we brush our teeth. Some of us have good stories; some of us have bad. None of us have perfect stories. But all of us are interested in other people’s stories.

I like this notion of having a story and I would add place to the list of ways we tell our story. The places we live our lives are at once fundamental to forming our stories and a way we tell our stories. The places we live in, the places we love, the places we craft and build - these all tell a story of what we value and who we are. We all have a story, but the story is incomplete - still mostly unwritten. We can shape our lives, our places, our customs and habits. And in doing so we shape our stories. Our stories may be inescapable but they are not inevitable.

A Stern Building Of Place

Clem Labine, writing for his Civitas Chronicles blog for
Traditional Building, relays the disparaging reviews Robert Stern is getting for trying to fit into the historical context of old Philadelphia:

Nonetheless, Stern’s desire to be a good urban citizen drew predictable, disparaging reviews from Modernist critics who bemoan the building’s lack of shock and awe. The attacks were best summed up by a headline from the Philadelphia Inquirer: “Let’s make it revolutionary.” The review even goes so far as to bring up that hoary chestnut: The building does not “speak in the language of its time.”

Other critics chimed it with such easily anticipated denunciations as: “It suffers from all the weaknesses of Stern’s neo-traditionalist design philosophy.” “The revolutionary spirit seems to be conspicuously absent in Stern’s conservative rehashing of Georgian-style architecture.” “This building, with its unsubtle pastiche and imitation materials, does nothing but hold us back.”

Implicit in all the complaints from Modernist critics is their belief that true Architecture (with the capital “A”) should stand in bold opposition to traditional buildings. (However, to make visual affronts more palatable to the public, designers will assert with a straight face that an adversarial new building is “in dialogue” with its neighbors.) These critics are fixated on visual flamboyance without any regard for the making of humane public spaces.

I have little regard for any argument whose foundation is about being “of today”. It is unfortunate that Stern’s desire to make a building that feels right, that feels like it belongs, has brought him such criticism. The highest goal of Architecture (with a capital “A”) has nothing to do with time or era but everything to do with making human Places. We need to get past this “of our time” nonsense and get on with making great places.