New Urbanism Blog

Friday photo 5/17/13 – where am I?

Kevin Klinkenberg — Fri, 17 May 2013 13:40:18 +0000

A request: Photos needed! If you have a photo or photos that you’d like to use for this weekly post, please contact me.

Today’s photo, from a more southern latitude:

Walking, Biking, Infrastructure and Traffic Models

Kevin Klinkenberg — Thu, 16 May 2013 13:35:56 +0000

Building off of recent news about the reduction in driving, US PIRG has a new study out this week that’s garnered a lot of media attention. The study, titled “Our Changing Relationship with Driving and the Implications for America’s Future” has the nifty summary stating, “The Driving Boom—a six decade-long period of steady increases in per-capita driving in the United States—is over.” Here’s a cool infographic US PIRG prepared:

I’ve written about this phenomenon a number of times, notably here and here. I think by now it’s obvious that this change is real and pervasive, and more than just a blip caused by the recession. The culture shift happening manifests itself differently in every locale. Those that are already set up well for walking, biking and transit are seeing significant shifts. Those that are not well set up for it are also seeing more walkers, bikers and bus riders, but in more modest increments.

Of course the challenge we’ll see as our love affair with the car culture increasingly fades is a great divergence in the ability of communities to adapt. Cities and towns that didn’t slavishly accommodate cars by creating divisive roadways, giant parking lots and garages, and removing historic building fabric are already thriving with the shift. They’re seeing increasingly creative ways to accommodate bikes, use every inch of valuable real estate and create the kind of community feeling that people are seeking. And, as time goes on, they will be on an accelerating course for more of the same, with new construction and redevelopment that caters to walkers and bikers.

On the other hand, those cities that did in fact make themselves dependent on cars are struggling to adapt. The auto-oriented infrastructure that we’ve built in so many places is extensive and expensive, and it’s quite difficult to modify it at scale. Cities in this category aren’t without hope, but the challenges are much larger since by nature the walking and biking experience is not as pleasant and takes up longer distances. These communities will be best served to experiment repeatedly, with numerous cheap, easy interventions to see what will work. The increasingly popular business approach of “Lean Startups” which advocates failing cheaply and quickly, with the ability to pivot to other ideas should be the hallmark of places that can’t afford the big project or the big re-do. Well, that, and a focus on a solid biking network, since it’s the cheapest and easiest method to encourage more contemporary living patterns.

For my money, one of the great benefits of the new data coming out is that it should put to bed the traffic modeling philosophy that we’ve been using for decades. That philosophy rests on the assumption that traffic will always increase, even in declining areas, and therefore we must build even more car-oriented infrastructure to accommodate it. In turn that actually induces more driving, as experience and study after study has shown, and creates a cycle that reinforces virtually all of our public money going toward roadway infrastructure. It’s been apparent to those of us in the planning world for years that this paradigm was misguided at best, and certainly corruptible. Now that studies like the US PIRG effort are coming to light, it should put to death the notion that traffic will always increase, and people will always want to drive in all circumstances.

For my engineering and construction friends: this does not mean an end to the designing and building of stuff. It simply means we need to shift to what people are wanting, and believe me, there is plenty of infrastructure to be designed and built that supports it.

An example that comes to mind is when we master-planned the New Longview project in Lee’s Summit, MO in 2001. A major roadway was planned through the middle of the site, which we fortunately able to redesign as a multi-way boulevard. However, the design process was fed by a traffic model that anticipated 40,000 cars a day on this road in the future. We pointed out that there were only two or three other roadways in the entire metro area that had that level of daily traffic, and both were in highly commercial areas, with millions of square feet of office and retail space. This roadway would largely be winding its way through a residential and neighborhood-oriented area.

The result: the road had to be designed for far more traffic than it will ever carry. This ultimately affects every detail of the design process, from how the intersections are handled to connections across the road to parking and more. It weakened a very good design, which in turn weakened the viability of the pedestrian-oriented town center we planned for the site.

These decisions and philosophical approaches are important, as infrastructure creates development patterns. It can either create great value through design, or reduce it just as easily. The inputs we use for those models, which are derived from general assumptions of behavior, are far more important than most laypeople realize. I’m glad the evidence is finally out there to validate those hunches many of us have had for quite some time. Welcome to the new world.

Friday photo 5/10/13: Where am I?

Kevin Klinkenberg — Fri, 10 May 2013 14:19:13 +0000

Take a shot at this one, from a northern state

Dude, that’s bru-tal

Kevin Klinkenberg — Thu, 09 May 2013 12:59:33 +0000

I’ve never understood the fascination so many architects have with the “brutalist” style of buildings that some designers loved in the 1960s-1970’s. Even in the haze of youth in architecture school, I found that particular style unattractive, to put it kindly.

I suppose when a style is coined “Brutalism” you should expect that it will deliver something unpleasant. Most people think of the word brutal as related to something cold, unfeeling or harsh.

I particularly like what Urban Dictionary says

brutal: can be anything from hit in the balls to a slap across the face, or used to explain metal bands.

So maybe we should call this “Hit in the Balls-ism?”

Most cities of any size have at least one significant building designed in the brutalist style. I was reminded of the style most recently on a visit to Atlanta, when confronted with the Atlanta Central Public Library.

Atlanta Central Public Library, completed in 1980, is Marcel Breuer’s last building. It’s considered a masterpiece by a number of architectural historians and architects. Here are some images of it.

Main facade and entry

Lovely view along the sidewalk

Yes, this is a side street

It may look like an alley, but this is actually a street. Nice sidewalk treatment.

Here’s an image of the Carnegie Library that it replaced.

It’s one thing to design ugly buildings. After all, it’s possible to have a healthy debate about what is ugly and what is not.

It’s a whole other thing to design buildings that are so destructive of street life. Most brutalist buildings, like this library, are harsh to the passerby on purpose. They are inhuman on purpose.

And yet, somehow we accept this. Architects often celebrate it. For me, it’s inexcusable.

When architects defend designs like this, they weaken their own standing with the public. Contemporary design can and should creatively engage passers-by, and help the feeling that human life is present. More importantly, we should design buildings and spaces that bring joy, beauty, and even whimsy into our existence. It’s this sort of intellectualization of building that has caused far more harm than good, as I wrote about previously.

Are we to also accept “Middle-Fingerism” and “Suckitude” as well, if they are presented to us by architects who have names we recognize or win awards?

In the Fall of 2009, the library was listed on the 2010 World Monuments Watch List of Most Endangered Sites. Seriously. That same list includes Machu Pichu and the Taos Pueblo. A building that was on purpose designed to be harsh and inhuman in the 1970’s appears on the same list as those monuments and centuries-old beloved structures.

One of the follies of preservation is that anything of a certain age or style should be saved, regardless of its quality. That’s enhanced even further if a famous designer happened to be involved.

I believe instead that we should value quality and excellence, not saving buildings for the sake of saving buildings. I get the environmental argument, and am all for recycling a building that is basically sound and can be made beautiful.

But, it was right to tear down the Berlin Wall. It’s right to tear down brutal, ugly buildings that repel human life and joy. We have enough dis-spiriting, soul-sucking environments to fix; the last thing we need to do is preserve ugliness in places that actually have a good shot at a future.

Friday photo 5/3/13: Where am I?

Kevin Klinkenberg — Fri, 03 May 2013 12:35:41 +0000

A magazine story that I read this week had me thinking of this town with its unique town square configuration (apologies for the photo quality)

BREAKING: People Like to Walk

Kevin Klinkenberg — Thu, 02 May 2013 13:56:41 +0000

This study from the Frontier Group about how people are driving less has gotten a fair amount of play lately, as people struggle to interpret what it means. The most-clipped chart of the week is clipped again below, in case you missed it.

It seems you have to either be in the camp that this is all about the economy, and thus a temporary blip, or some magic of demographic change. For example, it’s because the population is getting older, or because there’s more people living in cities. Since the majority of people who live in metro areas actually live in suburbs that are geared towards cars, I really don’t understand the latter. For example, you’ll drive far more living in a suburb of Atlanta than if you live in a small town in rural Georgia.

How about the obvious answer? People are starting to walk and bike more, and find that they actually like it. It’s a fun and rewarding way to live.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how trends come and go in society, and how quickly things can change because of technological change or just that we get sick of something and are “over it” as people like to say.

The car culture took about 100 years to fully mature, and what we have in the US from the late 1990’s through today is its full flowering. In fact, it took until the mid-1990’s before women had driver’s licenses on par with men, and thus equal and full participation in the same auto-oriented way of life.

Maybe what we’re learning is that now that we all have access it, we really don’t like it so much. We don’t like sitting on out asses all the time in traffic, and we actually enjoy using our bodies the way they were meant to be used: upright.

Friday photo 4/26/13: Where am I?

Kevin Klinkenberg — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:22:38 +0000

Where is this lovely shared street?