For hundreds of years the main street was the center of every town's activity. It was a place where people lived, worked, shopped and conducted business. The typical development pattern included multi-story buildings with residential units on upper levels and commercial spaces on the main floor. People lived close to where they worked. A butcher, a baker, a doctor, and a merchant lived upstairs from their shop and their customers were their neighbors. The street was the center of vibrant activity. People walked and socialized, children played and the community life flourished.
The last half of the century changed the way we live. The industrial age brought with it the separation of life and work. Residential subdivisions become separated from the workplace and entertainment and social life was "zoned" elsewhere. At the same time the popularity and increased affordability of a private car made it possible to drive everywhere. The lack of investments, and in particular, the dismantling of the public transit systems, soon turned a car into a necessity.
The development patterns had to change to accommodate our car-centered lifestyle. And with that the main street had to transform. The historic streets that catered to pedestrians had to follow the car-oriented development patterns. Streets got widened and the sidewalks narrowed, trees cut down to make room for additional lanes of traffic. Multistory mixed use dense development gave way to drive-thru restaurants, banks, pharmacies. Large parking lots in front of the buildings and billboards took over our urban landscape.
The historic main street transformed beyond recognition in last 65 years but current discussions about sustainability and the energy crisis leads us to the need to reduce our dependency on driving and restoring the concept of the main street. Zoning codes are changing to make mixed-use, high-density developments possible again. And communities all over the country demand more walkable neighborhoods.
People want to bring back the pedestrian-oriented development to their communities. They want to be able to walk to a coffee shop to meet with their neighbors and would like to be able to buy milk and organic groceries in their corner store. In my own 'back yard' volunteers discuss streetscape amenities and apply for grants to promote wellness through increased safety and improved pedestrian environment on Federal Blvd.
As our country emerges from The Great Recession the construction industry will have to adapt to new market demands. One by one drive-thru's will transform into storefronts filled with locally owned restaurants, coffee shops and retail. Mixed-income housing on the levels above will provide customers to those businesses. As an architect I see tremendous opportunities as well as responsibilities for our profession. Architects will have an obligation to serve their communities by providing "People Oriented Development" advocacy and design. This may mean that we will have to come out from behind our desks and actively participate in the development process. There is so much potential and work that needs to be done in order to restore the main street in our communities.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Urban Humanism exploring concepts of sustainable architecture
URBAN INFILL
In my last post I provided a board overview of how, in my opinion, the future of architecture and sustainable development will look like. The impact of the Great Recession will cause us to re-think how architecture responds to social and economic needs in addition to employing building materials and technologies that reduce negative impact that development has on the environment.
Today I would like to focus on one of the very first questions asked during the development process – WHERE to build. In the past decades the answer to that question often was – anywhere, as long as the land is cheap. We are now learning that we no longer can afford ‘cheap’. And the cheap that we already have will be very expensive to maintain and fix.
There have been many articles and books written about irresponsible development practices that lead to sprawl. Some call them ‘the biggest misallocation of resources’ others talk about ‘retrofitting suburbia’. One thing we can all agree on is that in the coming decades we will not see much of ‘cul-de-sac’ developments and business parks build on virgin or farm land.
At the same time the demographers are telling us that the trend of people moving to the large cities will continue and possibly accelerate leading to 80% of the population living in urban areas by the year 2050. And so the growth of metropolitan cities is the reality that needs to be addressed. What kind of development will accommodate this growth without continuing the mistakes that we have made in the past?
The only responsible alternative to sprawling developments is urban infill. The benefits of developing within existing urban fabric are numerous and so are the opportunities. There is land that is undeveloped such as public right of ways (that have previously been preserved for possible roadway construction) and old industrial properties as well as underdeveloped residential properties that can accommodate multifamily housing. We can already see eyes of developers turning towards these options.
Environmental benefits of urban infill are obvious and can be summarized in one simple statement – it prevents sprawl. Compact development reduces the need for driving and thus improves air quality. It also promotes the use of public transit even further diminishing the use of private vehicles. It preserves natural land and wildlife habitat as well as natural resources.
There are also social benefits of urban infill. People who live in compact developments are more likely to walk or bike as a daily means of transportation and therefore they are healthier. New development near urban core attracts new population to aging neighborhoods and improves quality of schools and vitality of community life. Compact developments allow for more diversity of housing choices allowing integration of different population groups (seniors, low income families, first time homebuyers, renters and market rate buyers) into vibrant communities. Mixed use urban infill developments often act as catalysts for community life and social interaction.
And as we all deal with impacts the Great Recession has on our lives it is impossible not to mention economic benefits of urban infill. Development within existing urban fabric utilizes existing public infrastructure (roads, water and sewer lines, power lines etc.) as well as public services (trash removal, snow removal, mail delivery etc). When local municipalities struggle to balance their budget keeping infrastructure and services costs down is critical.
Compact development also supports local small businesses. We all want to see local business owners to continue to be the engine of our economy. But corner stores and ‘mom-and-pop’ establishments located in older neighborhoods struggle as the population in these areas ages and decreases. Their business model based on friendly customer service cannot withstand competition of large retailers and chain restaurants that are based on high volume of sales. Urban infill brings in much needed customers for local businesses and thus supports local economy.
In the coming decades continued migration to metropolitan areas and diminishing natural resources will force us to rethink development. We will also have to change the way we think about housing and transit. All those changes will lead to creative and sustainable use of land called urban infill.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Urban Humanism - exploring concepts of sustainable architecture
INTRODUCTION
As an architect I often ponder on the role of architecture in our changing world. With the economic turmoil of current recession I can’t help but wonder what awaits us ‘on the other side’. Given the fact that construction and housing industry suffered the most job loses and the most economic slow down points me in the direction that the build environment we create will change dramatically in the next decades. When looking ahead we hope for sustainable future: sustainable economy, communities and the environment. So how is architecture going to fit in this sustainable system?
First we should discuss the definition of architecture. In past decades the term ‘architecture’ related to buildings and components within them. Architect’s job ended at the building envelope and everything outside the envelope was somebody else’s job. That’s why the buildings are often perceived as stand alone objects with no connection to the space around them.
If we think about ‘green’ architecture in the context of this definition we often refer to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). LEED is a point system designed to mitigate the negative impact a building has on the environment. Points are given for less construction waste, less energy consumption, less harmful chemicals in the materials used etc. But is doing less harm to the environment good enough? What if architecture actually positively contributed to our lifestyle, our communities?
Architecture needs to be redefined to include all forms of human intervention into natural landscape. Buildings are only one form of this intervention; others include roads, sidewalks, power poles, fountains, benches, planters, detention ponds, plazas and everything else we permanently and temporarily install to make modern life possible. Once we consider buildings being a part of a larger system we can then discuss their contribution to the environment they shape.
Human activity is greatly affected by our surroundings. There are places that stimulate economic growth by featuring local businesses and places that foster communities by encouraging human interaction. There are places where it’s fun and safe to walk and people are healthier there as a result. As architects respond to new economic conditions it’s going to be our job to understand the mechanisms of integrating architecture with sustainable lifestyle and to create environments where people thrive.
In my future blog posts I would like to discuss different aspects of how architecture should become a component to sustainable system where we live, work and play. How architecture can contribute to healthy lifestyle, strong local economy and vibrant communities. Some of the subjects I will discuss include:
As an architect I often ponder on the role of architecture in our changing world. With the economic turmoil of current recession I can’t help but wonder what awaits us ‘on the other side’. Given the fact that construction and housing industry suffered the most job loses and the most economic slow down points me in the direction that the build environment we create will change dramatically in the next decades. When looking ahead we hope for sustainable future: sustainable economy, communities and the environment. So how is architecture going to fit in this sustainable system?
First we should discuss the definition of architecture. In past decades the term ‘architecture’ related to buildings and components within them. Architect’s job ended at the building envelope and everything outside the envelope was somebody else’s job. That’s why the buildings are often perceived as stand alone objects with no connection to the space around them.
If we think about ‘green’ architecture in the context of this definition we often refer to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). LEED is a point system designed to mitigate the negative impact a building has on the environment. Points are given for less construction waste, less energy consumption, less harmful chemicals in the materials used etc. But is doing less harm to the environment good enough? What if architecture actually positively contributed to our lifestyle, our communities?
Architecture needs to be redefined to include all forms of human intervention into natural landscape. Buildings are only one form of this intervention; others include roads, sidewalks, power poles, fountains, benches, planters, detention ponds, plazas and everything else we permanently and temporarily install to make modern life possible. Once we consider buildings being a part of a larger system we can then discuss their contribution to the environment they shape.
Human activity is greatly affected by our surroundings. There are places that stimulate economic growth by featuring local businesses and places that foster communities by encouraging human interaction. There are places where it’s fun and safe to walk and people are healthier there as a result. As architects respond to new economic conditions it’s going to be our job to understand the mechanisms of integrating architecture with sustainable lifestyle and to create environments where people thrive.
In my future blog posts I would like to discuss different aspects of how architecture should become a component to sustainable system where we live, work and play. How architecture can contribute to healthy lifestyle, strong local economy and vibrant communities. Some of the subjects I will discuss include:
- Urban infill
- Cars and parking and their role in people-friendly environment
- Architecture as framework for walkable commercial and neighborhood streets
- Buildings and their functions as pedestrian destinations
- Architecture as a mechanism for supporting diverse communities
- Architecture and multi-modal transportation
Friday, July 30, 2010
Back to the future
For hundreds of years people worked close to where they lived. An owner of a corner store, a barber or a butcher lived upstairs from their business. Every community had a small center with basic retail, a school, a church and doctors office within walking distance from every corner of the neighborhood. People knew their neighbors and exchanged favors to help one another. A streetcar connected neighborhoods and the town center. This lifestyle came to an end with the introduction of privately owned automobile.
In the last six decades the idea of “working and living together” has been replaced with segregating residential developments form commercial zones and from entertainment districts. This separation of uses forced us to travel between different parts of town to fulfill basic daily needs. With wide popularization of privately owned cars and decrease of investments in public transit we soon found ourselves having to drive everywhere. Nowadays, in a typical subdivision, every trip has to be made by car (buying milk, talking children to school, commuting to work.) More and more cars, traffic jams and constant congestion turned this suburban “American dream” in to an “American nightmare”. We are now learning that no matter how many more lanes we add to our highways it’s never enough and the congestion always returns multiplied by additional cars on the road.
We are also realizing how cars changed our neighborhoods and the way we build. In the last six decades our cities have been designed for movement of cars. Accommodations for acceleration and deceleration lanes, multi-lane streets and highways, drive-thru restaurants, banks and pharmacies, strip malls and parking lots are now typical development patterns. What we perceive as a lack of planning and sprawl is in fact, a very deliberate effect of zoning laws.
In this process of car-centered city planning we have managed to “engineer a sense of community out of our lifestyle” and have created an environment where it’s no longer safe to walk. Now we have to pay for gym membership in order to toddle on a treadmill while we watch epidemic of obesity grow every year. We see people become isolated in their homes and cars and we wonder about depression becoming second largest reason for disability absences from work. Children who are chauffeured around everywhere because it is not safe to ride their bikes have too much energy so we medicate them for ADHD… The addiction to mobility has caused significant damage our health and the health of our communities. The problem with cars is no longer only an issue of air pollution, energy crisis or climate change that can be fixed by an invention of the electric car. There are issues of social sustainability and public health that need immediate attention.
As architects and planners look for sustainable solutions to accommodate future growth of our cities we turn to the past and learn from those vibrant, eclectic historic neighborhoods developed before cars took over our lives. Our focus now shifts from designing cities for cars to designing cities for people. The concept of LIVABILITY is gaining more and more supporters.
Livability means pedestrian friendly wide sidewalks and street trees for shading. It means buildings pushed right against the sidewalk to create a welcoming street façade. Shops and restaurants have large windows inviting people to come in and providing safety surveillance of the street. Residential units on upper levels allow people to live close to where they work, shop and play and bring local customers to thriving neighborhood businesses.
Streets are designed to accommodate bikes, buses and cars. Children can safely bike to school and they no longer need their parents to drive them to every soccer game or a play date. Access to public transportation makes it affordable for people of all income levels to be in the community because they don’t have to own a car, so the savings of a car payment can be used towards better housing options. Busses, streetcars or a light rail allow people who cannot drive (teenagers, seniors or disabled) to move about and be a part of community thus significantly improving their lifestyle.
Green city design means learning from the past and building livable communities that significantly reduce the need for driving. Resource-responsible urban lifestyle is the answer to all three aspects of sustainability (social, economic and environmental) and is the key to a good health of individuals and our communities. New technologies (i.e. electric cars) should only supplement our efforts and cannot substitute for holistic good practices.
In the last six decades the idea of “working and living together” has been replaced with segregating residential developments form commercial zones and from entertainment districts. This separation of uses forced us to travel between different parts of town to fulfill basic daily needs. With wide popularization of privately owned cars and decrease of investments in public transit we soon found ourselves having to drive everywhere. Nowadays, in a typical subdivision, every trip has to be made by car (buying milk, talking children to school, commuting to work.) More and more cars, traffic jams and constant congestion turned this suburban “American dream” in to an “American nightmare”. We are now learning that no matter how many more lanes we add to our highways it’s never enough and the congestion always returns multiplied by additional cars on the road.
We are also realizing how cars changed our neighborhoods and the way we build. In the last six decades our cities have been designed for movement of cars. Accommodations for acceleration and deceleration lanes, multi-lane streets and highways, drive-thru restaurants, banks and pharmacies, strip malls and parking lots are now typical development patterns. What we perceive as a lack of planning and sprawl is in fact, a very deliberate effect of zoning laws.
In this process of car-centered city planning we have managed to “engineer a sense of community out of our lifestyle” and have created an environment where it’s no longer safe to walk. Now we have to pay for gym membership in order to toddle on a treadmill while we watch epidemic of obesity grow every year. We see people become isolated in their homes and cars and we wonder about depression becoming second largest reason for disability absences from work. Children who are chauffeured around everywhere because it is not safe to ride their bikes have too much energy so we medicate them for ADHD… The addiction to mobility has caused significant damage our health and the health of our communities. The problem with cars is no longer only an issue of air pollution, energy crisis or climate change that can be fixed by an invention of the electric car. There are issues of social sustainability and public health that need immediate attention.
As architects and planners look for sustainable solutions to accommodate future growth of our cities we turn to the past and learn from those vibrant, eclectic historic neighborhoods developed before cars took over our lives. Our focus now shifts from designing cities for cars to designing cities for people. The concept of LIVABILITY is gaining more and more supporters.
Livability means pedestrian friendly wide sidewalks and street trees for shading. It means buildings pushed right against the sidewalk to create a welcoming street façade. Shops and restaurants have large windows inviting people to come in and providing safety surveillance of the street. Residential units on upper levels allow people to live close to where they work, shop and play and bring local customers to thriving neighborhood businesses.
Streets are designed to accommodate bikes, buses and cars. Children can safely bike to school and they no longer need their parents to drive them to every soccer game or a play date. Access to public transportation makes it affordable for people of all income levels to be in the community because they don’t have to own a car, so the savings of a car payment can be used towards better housing options. Busses, streetcars or a light rail allow people who cannot drive (teenagers, seniors or disabled) to move about and be a part of community thus significantly improving their lifestyle.
Green city design means learning from the past and building livable communities that significantly reduce the need for driving. Resource-responsible urban lifestyle is the answer to all three aspects of sustainability (social, economic and environmental) and is the key to a good health of individuals and our communities. New technologies (i.e. electric cars) should only supplement our efforts and cannot substitute for holistic good practices.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Urban Humanism
During last 50 years city planning revolved around cars. Large city blocks allowing for long acceleration and deceleration lanes, multi-lane streets, highways, drive-thru restaurants, banks, pharmacies and lots and lots of parking (4 parking spaces for every car on the road today!). Because of the way zoning codes are written today it is standard procedure for an architect or engineer to start designing a site plan by determining parking requirements. Then we look at setbacks; finally the little space left is used for the building. Little or no consideration is given to pedestrians. Our cities are designed for the cars, not for the people.
In the recent years we came to realization that car-centered city planning leads to catastrophic consequences. I will not get into the discussion of energy crisis or environmental implications. I want to focus on social outcome instead.
For thousands of years people walked or rode their horses. The size of their world was limited by how far they can walk in one day. If they needed information they asked their neighbors. A corner store carried all basic goods and was within walking distance. So were the school, the church and the doctor. A street car would take you to the downtown. There were no gyms and no obesity. There was a lot of neighborhood gossip but no social anxiety or depression. Active children were told to play outside, not medicated for ADHD.
Progressive minds of today talk about new ways to create modern, sustainable developments. New urbanism, new communities… I want to go back to those little old ladies over the age of 65 who voted for FasTracks in 2004. I’m not surprised by their vote at all! They remember the days before cars took over our lifestyle. For them there is nothing new or progressive about public transportation or livable and walk-able communities.
Many cities (including Denver) adopt new kind of zoning codes. The Form Based Codes. Unfortunately the word Form relates to the Building Form. I’m still waiting for yet another generation of codes: Human Form Based Codes. City planning based on human scale and human perception. City planning that considers questions like these:
- Can a mother with three children safely walk on this sidewalk? (note she only has two hands)
- Would you let your 8-year-old son ride a bike on this bike trail independently?
- Can children walk or bike to school in this neighborhood?
- Can a 65-year-old woman walk or take a local bus to the light rail stop?
- Where do you get your milk?
- Can you live in this neighborhood for a week without driving?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
One-size-fits-all
We have all heard the criticism for the old zoning code in Denver that it was “one-size-fits-all” approach. Particularly negative review received residential zone R2 that allowed single and two-family dwellings as well as row houses. The new code promised a diverse approach, one that will consider all the nuances and unique qualities of different parts of town and specially focus on the diversity in urban neighborhoods. That was an ambitious plan requiring an extensive study of existing inventory and lots of intricate planning to accommodate the variety of forms and patterns.
Today, as I look at the Fourth and Final draft of the zoning code I can’t help but be disappointed. The majority of urban neighborhoods are light yellow indicating a SU (Single Unit) zone designation. It seems like we have a new size to fit all our needs again. The first and obvious problem here is that we have missed the opportunity to recognize formal diversity of our urban heritage. The even bigger problem is that the new size is smaller than the old one.
Our population is growing and so is the City of Denver. The new smaller size will not fit (accommodate) all. As a matter of fact the new zoning will allow for very little growth in already established urban neighborhoods. The consequences can be pretty nasty. We will see excess spilling over the edges. In the fashion world we lovingly call it “love handles”. In the city planning jargon the name is “urban sprawl”.
So after five years and millions of dollars that Denver spent to develop this new code, if we have to (again) settle for one size to fit all, can we at least allow for some room to grow?
Today, as I look at the Fourth and Final draft of the zoning code I can’t help but be disappointed. The majority of urban neighborhoods are light yellow indicating a SU (Single Unit) zone designation. It seems like we have a new size to fit all our needs again. The first and obvious problem here is that we have missed the opportunity to recognize formal diversity of our urban heritage. The even bigger problem is that the new size is smaller than the old one.
Our population is growing and so is the City of Denver. The new smaller size will not fit (accommodate) all. As a matter of fact the new zoning will allow for very little growth in already established urban neighborhoods. The consequences can be pretty nasty. We will see excess spilling over the edges. In the fashion world we lovingly call it “love handles”. In the city planning jargon the name is “urban sprawl”.
So after five years and millions of dollars that Denver spent to develop this new code, if we have to (again) settle for one size to fit all, can we at least allow for some room to grow?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Historic Preservation and Urban Density
Things got confused very early on. Somebody said: Those multi-family developments destroy character of historic neighborhoods. Developers scrape old homes to erect duplexes. We need to stop multiplex developments to preserve urban communities. Somebody said: Density is the enemy of our lifestyle. And others nodded in agreement.
Things got confused because what we are discussing here are two separate issues: historic preservation and density. Historic preservation makes a distinction between structures that are historically significant and need to be preserved and the ones that have outlived their utilitarian lifespan and should be replaced with new buildings. Density adds value to the urban lifestyle by creating walkable communities supported by public transportation.
The two issues are separate but not mutually exclusive. We need both historic preservation and density to ensure health of our neighborhoods. Limiting density will not protect historic homes. We can’t treat a headache by putting both legs in a cast.
Things got confused because what we are discussing here are two separate issues: historic preservation and density. Historic preservation makes a distinction between structures that are historically significant and need to be preserved and the ones that have outlived their utilitarian lifespan and should be replaced with new buildings. Density adds value to the urban lifestyle by creating walkable communities supported by public transportation.
The two issues are separate but not mutually exclusive. We need both historic preservation and density to ensure health of our neighborhoods. Limiting density will not protect historic homes. We can’t treat a headache by putting both legs in a cast.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Social Aspect of City Planning
This is the edited version of an earlier post.
I will start on a personal note. I was born and grew up in Krakow, Poland. This historic city in central Europe shaped my understanding of what a city is and how it works. During my high school and collage years my daily routine consisted of 30 minute bus and light rail trip to the downtown. Waiting at the local bus stop was an opportunity to chat with the neighbors about the latest score of the town’s soccer team. There was always a group of friends on a light rail ready to discuss homework problems and share the gossip. Public transportation was so common and available I never learned how to drive, but instead I have always felt like a part of the community I lived in. After school, on a nice day, I would stroll through the city’s main square. There never was an instance that I did not run into an old friend or acquaintance.
When I first moved to the US I first lived in Knoxville, TN for a while. Inadequate city planning allowed that town to stretch along I-40 in a completely uncontrolled manner. The city’s downtown (located on the East end of the stretch) was neglected and forgotten while all development rushed to the West (hoping one day to reach Nashville?). The lack of a street grid forced all traffic onto the highway turning my 5 mile daily commute into a 45 minutes nightmare. Forced into a car, stuck in traffic I missed human interaction and grew frustrated.
After Knoxville Denver was like a breath of fresh air. The city has all the “good bones” of a perfect place to live. Well defined, vibrant downtown surrounded by beautiful historic residential neighborhoods, grid of streets and arterial transportation. With the right city planning and development of public transportation Denver has a potential to surpass San Francisco, Portland and Boston in terms of quality of life.
It is important to note that a city is more than just a collection of streets and buildings. Just like Jane Jacobs says, in “Death and Life of Great American Cities”, cities are compilation of social experiences. As human beings there is nothing more interesting to us than watching other human beings. And when the times are rough we long for closeness and interaction with family members, friends and neighbors.
The economy of the last few years has forced us to refocus our lifestyle. More and more people talk about going back to basics and recognize family and social values. The wave of foreclosures redefined housing market. Home buyers are asking for quality, efficiency and simplicity, not the square footage. Kitchen tables re-gained their popularity as people stay in and cook more. Neighborhood schools are important centers of community life. And everybody is tired of highway traffic.
City planning is a powerful tool in the hands of politicians. It can shape a city by shifting development opportunities from one end to the other like a kid playing in the sand with a shovel. It can also promote or discourage human interaction. It can allow us to walk to a corner store and mingle on a light rail or force us into our cars for hours at a time. During these times of “CHANGE” and shift in social priorities we came to a point when we should stop designing our cities for the cars and focus on people instead.
I will start on a personal note. I was born and grew up in Krakow, Poland. This historic city in central Europe shaped my understanding of what a city is and how it works. During my high school and collage years my daily routine consisted of 30 minute bus and light rail trip to the downtown. Waiting at the local bus stop was an opportunity to chat with the neighbors about the latest score of the town’s soccer team. There was always a group of friends on a light rail ready to discuss homework problems and share the gossip. Public transportation was so common and available I never learned how to drive, but instead I have always felt like a part of the community I lived in. After school, on a nice day, I would stroll through the city’s main square. There never was an instance that I did not run into an old friend or acquaintance.
When I first moved to the US I first lived in Knoxville, TN for a while. Inadequate city planning allowed that town to stretch along I-40 in a completely uncontrolled manner. The city’s downtown (located on the East end of the stretch) was neglected and forgotten while all development rushed to the West (hoping one day to reach Nashville?). The lack of a street grid forced all traffic onto the highway turning my 5 mile daily commute into a 45 minutes nightmare. Forced into a car, stuck in traffic I missed human interaction and grew frustrated.
After Knoxville Denver was like a breath of fresh air. The city has all the “good bones” of a perfect place to live. Well defined, vibrant downtown surrounded by beautiful historic residential neighborhoods, grid of streets and arterial transportation. With the right city planning and development of public transportation Denver has a potential to surpass San Francisco, Portland and Boston in terms of quality of life.
It is important to note that a city is more than just a collection of streets and buildings. Just like Jane Jacobs says, in “Death and Life of Great American Cities”, cities are compilation of social experiences. As human beings there is nothing more interesting to us than watching other human beings. And when the times are rough we long for closeness and interaction with family members, friends and neighbors.
The economy of the last few years has forced us to refocus our lifestyle. More and more people talk about going back to basics and recognize family and social values. The wave of foreclosures redefined housing market. Home buyers are asking for quality, efficiency and simplicity, not the square footage. Kitchen tables re-gained their popularity as people stay in and cook more. Neighborhood schools are important centers of community life. And everybody is tired of highway traffic.
City planning is a powerful tool in the hands of politicians. It can shape a city by shifting development opportunities from one end to the other like a kid playing in the sand with a shovel. It can also promote or discourage human interaction. It can allow us to walk to a corner store and mingle on a light rail or force us into our cars for hours at a time. During these times of “CHANGE” and shift in social priorities we came to a point when we should stop designing our cities for the cars and focus on people instead.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Problem with Cars
The problem with cars is that we need them.
We need them to go to work, go to school, go to a store, visit a friend and hang out at the coffee shop. The cars allow us to get where we need to go. They give us freedom to move about. Or do they? Have you ever been stuck in traffic?
Traffic jam on a highway. Miserable. Cars bumper to bumper crawling at 5 MPH. We need to widen the highway! More room for the cars! Five years and millions of dollars later two more lanes have been added. And… traffic jam, bumper to bumper. Can a highway ever get wide enough? How many lanes would it take to eliminate traffic congestion?
Not enough parking in the downtown. We need to create more parking! Let’s tear down some buildings to make room for the cars! How many buildings do we need to tear down to accommodate all the parking that we need?
A concerned citizen is asking questions in the North Denver Tribune. “How is density going to contribute to increased quality of life? Don’t we already have too many cars on the narrow streets in our neighborhoods?” Let’s limit the density in urban areas! People can live somewhere else and… drive to work. How is sprawl going to contribute to our problem with cars?
Widening the streets, creating more parking and limiting density only treats the symptoms of the problem and, in the long run, contributes to its exacerbation.
The problem with cars is that we need them.
What if we eliminated the need? Providing people with alternate options? Convenient, accessible public transportation can drastically reduce the need for driving. We should treat the cause, not the symptoms of the problem.
Density contributes to increased ridership of public transportation. In dense comminutes more people chose to hop on a bus rather than deal with the traffic and fight for parking. In turn, seeing increased ridership, city dedicates more buses and creates more routes to support the trend. Gradually cars get demoted to the weekend use only.
No more need for cars. No more problems with cars.
We need them to go to work, go to school, go to a store, visit a friend and hang out at the coffee shop. The cars allow us to get where we need to go. They give us freedom to move about. Or do they? Have you ever been stuck in traffic?
Traffic jam on a highway. Miserable. Cars bumper to bumper crawling at 5 MPH. We need to widen the highway! More room for the cars! Five years and millions of dollars later two more lanes have been added. And… traffic jam, bumper to bumper. Can a highway ever get wide enough? How many lanes would it take to eliminate traffic congestion?
Not enough parking in the downtown. We need to create more parking! Let’s tear down some buildings to make room for the cars! How many buildings do we need to tear down to accommodate all the parking that we need?
A concerned citizen is asking questions in the North Denver Tribune. “How is density going to contribute to increased quality of life? Don’t we already have too many cars on the narrow streets in our neighborhoods?” Let’s limit the density in urban areas! People can live somewhere else and… drive to work. How is sprawl going to contribute to our problem with cars?
Widening the streets, creating more parking and limiting density only treats the symptoms of the problem and, in the long run, contributes to its exacerbation.
The problem with cars is that we need them.
What if we eliminated the need? Providing people with alternate options? Convenient, accessible public transportation can drastically reduce the need for driving. We should treat the cause, not the symptoms of the problem.
Density contributes to increased ridership of public transportation. In dense comminutes more people chose to hop on a bus rather than deal with the traffic and fight for parking. In turn, seeing increased ridership, city dedicates more buses and creates more routes to support the trend. Gradually cars get demoted to the weekend use only.
No more need for cars. No more problems with cars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
