... have been greatly over exaggerated. Hannah and I have just been through the torrent that is southern California and somehow survived intact. We picked up a bunch of material on the way south from San Francisco and heading east towards Texas. Regular updates will resume next week.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Portland - Overview
Portland is an elegant city, the product of decades of smart planning and community involvement. You can't walk around this city without noticing the differences--big and small--that set it apart. The street murals that slow down traffic, the prevalence of co-ops, the enormous light rail system, the pleasant side walks, a serious commitment to cycling... the list goes on and on. The intense community involvement is what facilitates the thousands of little differences. The result is an increasingly good reputation for the city. The growth that followed may have stretched Portland to the limits.
I strongly believe that growth is healthiest and most sustainable when it is done in small increments at any level. In a community, this means building one small building at a time, at a restaurant it means adding one more item to the menu. Many builders in Portland seem to understand this concept and many establishments in Portland are very much on the human scale because of it. The built environment of Portland is designed to allow small enterprises to start up, flourish and grow.
The lowest rung on the development ladder is often missing in cities due to excessive cost. It keeps some of the best ideas out of the marketplace. In most cities, the lowest rung on the ladder is the one story building. These buildings are seen as temporary, just put up to get some economic value out of the land. In cities where parking is in high demand, parking lots replace small buildings, eliminating that rung on the ladder.
But Portland adds another rung even farther down the ladder than the one story buildings. Tiny restaurants that operate out of trailers in converted parking lots are scattered throughout the city. In other cities, this is generally disallowed by health departments and made economically impossible by the preference that highly profitable parking lots receive. Not only does the health department in Portland allow this lowest form of development, but hosting a parking lot is less profitable than hosting several small businesses. This is no accident, Portland has a comprehensive strategy to devalue parking that works for small businesses. Their chief method? The bicycle.
I haven't seen a city that takes biking more seriously than Portland and I don't expect to anywhere else in the US. The number of bike shops and co-ops are astounding. Everybody bikes in this town and many don't mind the weather. The city is at the forefront of bicycle promotion. They have amazing bike maps and signage all over the city marking low traffic streets that serve as bicycle highways. The city provides street parking for bikes in lieu of car parking. It is a further indication that Portland is keenly aware that bikes need promotion, cars don't.
Without parking in the way young, innovative businesses should be able to get their foot in the door. But in a successful community, this is often not the case. Real estate speculators stampede in and buy up vacant lots. They sit on these properties until the maximum economic value can be squeezed from them. The development below is one such example. This project was in no way designed or funded by the people that live in the area. Their organic growth looks like the image above. Across the street from the formula development, a garbage strewn and fenced off vacant lot sits on the market for $100/sf.
Local control over development is incredibly difficult while working within the confines of the capitalist system. Developers who are not forced to work towards the best interests a place will cut every corner they can. They are out to make a quick buck and will gladly do so by trading in the community's vitality. They have a penchant for overkill, if one developer is successful with a project, then a dozen identical projects will spring up around it.
Developers aren't interested in slow, careful and organic growth. It doesn't pay the bills. Check out this instant pedestrian development below.
Looks nice. And just a couple feet away...
Belmont Dairy is used as a positive example by organizations as disparate as the NAR and the EPA. The project has won a number of awards but as one former resident puts it[the] layouts of the apartments are lame with cheap construction so if you're into a bland dorm room experience again then I suggest you live here.
This is the problem with big projects. There is no way that designers will spend enough time on particular rooms to make them look cared for, charming, or interesting. Instead, you get endless cookie cutter repetition. Plus, the city is in no position to insist on construction quality, since they are always afraid of a big developer pulling out. Around this development was one of the only places in Portland where parking was hard to find.
I could go on and on about Portland, their near-sufficient public transportation, their tri-country metro government, their climate protection plan... But as in any place, it's the people that make this place whir. Not many places are as happening as Portland. 
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Weekend Update
Hannah and I have been enjoying the wonders of southern California and the year round growing season. Our plan is to visit Los Angeles and perhaps San Diego as well. Check below the fold for some interesting reads around the internet.
This great article on Philly is applicable to many cities. The author hits the nail on the head issue after issue.
Coming to a suburb near you. An article about the bursting bubble in suburban Florida.
I got privy to this interesting pdf on super-capacitor equipped light rail. There are some interesting implications in eliminating the need for continuous overhead wires.
An article here on the urban philosophy of the former mayor of a Bogota, Columbia. Even in our car-dominated landscape, it is possible to put people first. Now the question is why we aren't beginning to build places for people instead of cars.
Here's a good primer on residential density. I prefer the FAR measurement, but due mainly to traffic concerns, residential property is limited by the dwelling unit (DU) per acre.
Bike sharing is not dead.
Europeans seem to be building some nice places.
Good observation on sprawl but does the argument make sense?
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Portland - City Government
During my visits to Portland area organizations, I heard consistently positive reports about the efficacy of city government. The city of Portland was the first to develop a climate action plan and boasts the most effective regional government in the nation. Portland's understanding of and commitment to sustainability is a rarity among cities and they are a model for the rest of the nation.
I met with Julia Thompson, communications director for the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. The recently formed bureau is a consolidation of the Bureau of Planning and the Office of Sustainable Development. The concept of combining the two departments is incredibly telling. The folks in Portland understand that sustainable development happens on building, block, neighborhood, city and regional levels. Incorporating "green" building into urban planning brings it much closer to where it needs to be. Of course, there's more to a sustainable Portland than the organization of the OSD department...
I am somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to governments having an impact on city-scale sustainability initiatives, the city of Portland caused a shift in my thinking. Government can't do all the work themselves, but they can provide inspiration and guidance. They can ensure that they stay our of the way when good things are happening. And when they stumble upon a golden opportunity, they can seize it.
The foundation of sustainable city organization in Portland seemed to be friendly people. The director of the bureau, Susan Anderson very much understood that sustainability is more about a shift in thinking than a shift in laws. At a recent conference, she told the attendees that clients of high-powered lawyers feel good when they see helmet hair on a guy making $500k a year. It doesn't hurt that she actively seeks out private grants and funds for the public department.
These shifts in public attitude take a long time to foster and Portland has been successful due to their sustained commitment to sustainability over a generation. The removal of a downtown freeway 35 years ago was the beginning of a trend towards responsible civic engagement and action. In the mid-80s, they were one of the smallest and earliest cities to install a light rail system. The early 90s brought an early curbside recycling program to residents and commercial recycling was mandated later in the decade. The total city-wide recycling rate is 63% (!) and headed towards a goal of 75%.
Portland began using the LEED standard for city buildings in 2000 and now requires that new and rehabbed city buildings meet LEED Gold. In 2003, they began running workshops to bring designers and contractors into the green building loop. They have consistently advocated the the carrot end of the "carrot and stick" metaphor but their patience seems to be running thin. Their mission is now to convince the late adopters to get on board or else... It seems that in Portland, "or else" means a stern talking to from a friendly city employee. It's enough to make even the most money grubbing polluters reform their ways.
I won't bother you with the extent of specific programs that put the rest of the country to shame or about the metro planning authority that makes other regions salivate, but I will tell you about a very interesting idea coming down the chute. After an energy audit with useful tips on improving home efficiency, residents could take out a low interest loan from a special state fund. This loan could only be used to improve home efficiency and instead of being tied to the individual, it would be tied to the property. The loan would be billed to the utility bill and would not transfer with ownership.
This is such a wonderful program. It makes sense to tie sensible property investment to the property itself. I hope other states adopt similar measures.
All in all, you know something is going right when asking residents about their government results in smiles instead of frowns.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Thoughts on the Suburbs
I came across an interesting post today titled "How to Save the Suburbs: Solutions from the Man Who Saw the Whole Thing Coming" and read through it. The suburbs are a particularly interesting issue since we are more or less stuck with them and they seem to defy any and all solutions. Unfortunately, the man who saw the whole thing coming didn't seem to have any new ideas.
The typical thinking on suburbs goes something like this: People don't want to have to use a car, so lets make places walkable. To do that, we'll need really good public transportation. All we do is run a street car or subway into the suburbs and build some condos around the stop and presto--the problem of the suburb is solved!
To guess that the suburbs will build their way out of the boonies is utter nonsense. They lack the population and affluence to support massive public transit. More likely, bus lines will be run to the suburbs to bring in the menial labor that keeps cities up and running. This arrangement will get stale quickly as cities realize that they have plenty of sub-standard properties available for the working class.
Of course, I can count on my fingers the suburbs that will be getting their subway stop in the next 30 years. Any suburban strategy that relies on building and growth will fail. Suburbs will decay. Cities will eventually cut off the highway connections the keep the suburbs on life support and only the impoverished will inhabit them. The big unknown is how they might decay gracefully.
I have previously speculated on a sort of post-lawn agricultural utopia for the suburbs; it fits well with the resources that the slum-suburbs will have. Small scale agriculture projects take a lot of space but not much capital, perfect for the soon to be impoverished suburbs. Enormous amounts of research have been done on intensive agriculture, and our diets are slowly beginning to shift away from row crops to vegetables that take more human labor. The proximity of the agri-burbs to the dense urban core make them the prefect place for local agriculture. The new era of the small farmer will be born.
Of course, there are other options for suburbs. Periods of mass exodus and crime certainly await those that are unable to attract new residents by offering social and economic opportunity. Suburbs closer to the urban core will likely be gobbled up by an expanding urban population, but these will be rare.
As city land becomes increasingly valuable, developers will certainly push population density to its breaking point. The amount of land required to house the new urban dwellers will be a tiny fraction of the total suburban mass.
As demand wanes for the suburban experience and supply remains constant, development after development will fall to the forces of our capitalist system. The government seems intent on preventing this trend with tax breaks for mortgages and auto payments. If this is their approach, they will only delay the inevitable. Instead, the government should help transition suburbs into the viable social and economic communities that they could one day become.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Portland - The Green Building Initiative
It seems that almost every city has some non-profit or government group promoting "green" building. They are generally organized to provide a product library of "green" materials and to offer classes and workshops on cutting edge "green" building techniques. Of course, they are always housed in a spectacular "green" building utilizing the most advanced "green" building materials and techniques. By the time I got to Portland, I finally decided it was time to interview someone at one of these "green" organizations.
I managed to hunt down Mark Rossolo, the outreach director at the Green Building Initiative, a national non-profit operating out of Portland. I learned a lot about GBI, their mission and their perspective. They're not the local shop that I assumed they were, instead, this small group operating out of rented space is the mothership for green building groups around the country. If our current building regime ever manages to pick back up, GBI will play an instrumental roll in defining "best practice," the fuzzy set of standards that mainstream builders use to justify their work. First a synopsis...
On the residential end of the spectrum, the GBI promotes the National Association of Home Builders' NAHBGreen program for new residential construction. Since it's somewhat beyond the perview of GBI, I won't go into it. On the commercial end of things though, GBI has imported the Canadian Standard, Green Globes, into the US. In addition, they have a free Life Cycle Analysis calculator. The Green Globes rating system is similar to the United States Green Building Council's LEED rating system, though there are some significant differences.
Both standards were modeled after the British BREEAM system so they are the same on substantive issues, however, the devil is in the details. LEED certification requires a lot of paperwork and is seen as a fairly bureaucratic process. Most observers saw it only as a matter of time before other, less intensive, groups jumped into the "green" building certification game. Green Globes relies on an online system which developers pay for on a project basis. There's no paperwork to fill out and no LEED consultants to hire. Green Globes is very much the poor man's LEED. Their mission is to move certain "green" building practices into the mainstream.
Neither Green Globes nor LEED are particularly geographically specific, though LEED gives points for bringing in a LEED accredited professional, which are typically local. This is one of the biggest holes in the "green" building movement. You get points for local materials, but none for locally appropriate materials, points for energy efficient design but none for locally energy efficient design. LEED already used a wide brush to paint the green building movement and Green Globes uses an even wider one, with their fully automated process.
Moreover, Green Globes does very little to address planning and its effect on energy consumption. These rating systems seem to look at the energy consumption pie of the US and see that building takes up over a third of it. What they don't seem to connect is that the transportation third of the pie is a direct result of the way we plan our built environment.
These programs have great potential to make buildings incrementally more efficient, but offer little answer for the social, environmental and economic problems that our country faces. Even worse, they risk creating a perception of "greenness" in the public's mind in places where's it's not deserved. Building a net zero energy house in the suburbs that does little to address the transportation piece of the pie--or the consumption part either--means that you're locking in unsustainable behavior for years to come.
I'm certainly not claiming that these organizations aren't part of the solution, but living in a "green" building and driving a Prius does not make for a sustainable lifestyle. We need to change more than our buildings, we need to change how we interact with them and how they force us to interact with one another.
Until these "green" building programs take the emphasis off of the building construction aspect and begin to consider the outside effects that buildings have, they'll be doing as much harm as good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe