A Planner’s Commitment: Designed to Fail the Small Scale


Images of stores in the UK and US. From plannerscommitment.blogspot.com.

I don’t think it would be going to far to call this post from Ryan Wozniak a rant. That being said, it is a good rant that explains why Tesco, a British business focusing on quick, healthy meals, failed in the US (as Fresh & Easy): the British owners didn’t understand American urban design. Tesco has survived in walkable, mixed-use areas, and wasn’t able to adapt to American drivable sub-urbanism. Wozniak lists why it failed, and what could be done to prevent it from happening to someone else in the future.

Urban design in Ljubljana | Journal


http://www.edtna-erca-ljubljana2011.com/pictures/big/tromostovje02.jpg

Ljubljana’s Triple Bridge. From edtna-erca-ljubljana2011.com.

The first time I really ever heard anything about Ljubljana was when my parents went there for a conference in 2004. They were expecting a soviet-style Khrushchyovka city, drab and gray. And on the outskirts of the city, that’s what they found; but in the center they found Ljubljana’s ancient center, well preserved despite earthquakes, redevelopment, and simple age. I’ve since read about Ljubljana’s redevelopment after the 1895 earthquake and the works of Jose Plecnik, including the Triple Bridge pictured above.

I would love to visit the city someday, but for now, I would check out this post on Node Urban Design’s blog. In addition to the ancient narrow streets, which have lent themselves very well to biking and pedestrian transit, Ljubljana has a number of programs that are at the cutting edge of urban life, including extensive bikeshare and public recycling campaigns. they even detail some more contemporary design happening beyond the Khrushchyovkas. Ljubljana may not be on the tip of your tongue when thinking of Europes great cities, but is definitely worth a look.

The great green way – NY Daily News


Small parts of Broadway have been converted into pedestrian walkways and lounge areas. Why not go all the way?

Pedestrians taking to the street in Times Square. From nydailynews.com.

Jeff Speck has spent a bit more time in the planning and urban design limelight recently, in large part due to his new book, Walkable City. In this article for the New York Daily News, Speck makes a bold proposal: since the pedestrianizing of Times Square has gone so well, why don’t we turn the whole of Broadway into a greenway?

He makes some interesting points. Broadway is largely a redundant street in the street grid of New York. The regularity of streets allow for multiple routes to get anywhere, and eliminating Broadway as a vehicular route would inconvenience very few people (relatively). Manhattan is one of the few places in America that is dense enough to support a long pedestrian mall, and shop owners have proved that they don’t need to rely on car traffic for business, as is the case in so many other cities.

It would be a challenge though. As Speck notes, many of the pedestrian malls in the United States have failed. Chestnut Street in Philadelphia is still recovering, and K Street in Sacramento gave up and allowed cars back a few years ago. Broadway is also such a long street that it would be impossible to come up with one unified design, and you would need a variety of treatments every few blocks at least. Originally when I read this article I was very skeptical: I don’t think you want grassy fields in Times Square, the pedestrian traffic would turn it to mud in a matter of hours. But while Times Square and areas south may need to focus on hardscape with some trees, areas further north could be greener. I don’t know if this is something that could really ever be implemented, but it’s a great idea for a graduate level urban design studio.

Why No One Rides the Train in Phoenix


Phoenix’s new TOD districts. From theatlanticcities.com.

I saw this article from Eric Jaffe a few days ago and it sent me on a bit of a journey that I hope you will find interesting. In the article, Jaffe discusses how Phoenix, a city which would not exist if not for massive water projects, cheap housing, and abundant air conditioning, is addressing the fact that nobody wants to ride its fancy light rail train. While light rail projects in Salt Lake City and Denver have been overwhelmingly successful, Phoenix’s venture into improved transit has languished. So the city has organized a series of five districts along the corridor and gotten federal funding to promote transit-oriented development and find out why no one is riding.

There are a couple of reasons. Unfortunately, Phoenix’s light rail line opened in 2008. Yes, that 2008. And boomburgs like Phoenix took the hit even harder than the rest of us (which is partially why Philly was able to take back the number five spot from Phoenix in the largest cities in the US after the 2010 census). But there are deeper-rooted issues that have kept TOD from blossoming like a desert rose, and those are principally density and urban design.

Map
Light rail, although more affordable than a subway or elevated train system, is still quite expensive, and needs a certain concentration of people to be viable. According to John Renne, that magic number is nine dwelling units per acre. As you can see in the above map, very little of Phoenix meets this threshold. While Phoenix does have over 1.4 million people, those folks are sprawled out over more than 500 square miles. I wonder if Phoenix planners were hoping that the light rail system would encourage density to develop along the corridor, but really they should have planned the density in before installing the rail.

The other main issue is that Phoenix is in the middle of the desert, and is quite an unpleasant place to be outside in. And unfortunately, the development patterns of the city have only exacerbated the issue, creating a heat island effect over a huge area. This happened because Phoenix is an entire city designed like a post-war American suburb, which was designed largely for the moderate climates of higher latitudes and not the blistering heat of Maricopa County.

But it’s not like cities have never been built in deserts before. The arid climates of Mexico, Northern Africa, and the Middle East have hosted hundreds of large cities, many larger than Phoenix and some that have been around for thousands of years. But these cities weren’t designed the was Phoenix was, and their adaptations allowed them to beat the desert heat.

The name of the game in desert urban design is shade and wind. After combing through over a hundred cities and comparing them to Phoenix based on climate, World City status, population, location characteristics, and presence of rail transit, I came on two examples which are particularly apt examples: Dubai, UAE and Monterrey, Mexico. Both cities share a climate zone with Phoenix (which stradles the boundary between Hot Desert and Semi-Arid climate classifications), are both World Cities of higher rank than Phoenix, have similar populations (with Dubai at 2.1 million and Monterrey at 1.1 million), both have extensive rail transit systems, and Monterrey shares Phoenix’s interior location (whereas Dubai is on the coast). Let’s take a look at these cities and see what Phoenix can learn.

Web
Dubai is an Medieval Arabian seaport. Whereas many Arab/Muslim cities are built around a dense medina, where the widest streets are often only spacious enough to accommodate two passing camels, Dubai, which up until recently had more money than you could shake all the sticks at, adapted its center, building larger buildings and a system of streets that serve cars while still allowing for pedestrian paths within blocks. The tall buildings and narrow passageways create shade which is intensified in some areas by souks, or covered pathways, which often are a gathering place of commercial activity. Many of the buildings are also light neutrals in color, which helps to reflect heat, rather than absorb it like dark materials, such as asphalt.

Monterrey is a Mexican city of Spanish imperial origin, and as such its urban design was based on the Law of the Indies, which allowed for rapid expansion in a roughly gridiron pattern. While not as tortuous as the Arabian medina, the streets of Monterrey are relatively narrow, and the buildings make extensive use of awnings, window covers, and other shade devices, while the public realm is full of trees and shade structures.

While both of these cities feature some large roads with high-speed traffic, these streets are the norm in Phoenix, even along the light rail line. Most of the roads it parallels have four or six lanes of traffic, and widen at corners with dedicated turning lanes. In many cases, buildings along the roads are set back behind a parking lot. There are even numerous vacant lots along the rail line. These conditions need to change.Web

First, narrow everything up as much as possible. Remove the buffers around the trains and let cars come right up next to the curbs. These buffers are “necessary” when you have high-speed traffic, but that’s the last thing you want on a pedestrian/transit corridor. Additionally, remove the dedicated turn lanes at intersections. They are there to make life easier for cars, and increase the distance and time necessary for pedestrians to cross the street. Screw the cars. Put the pedestrians first. Next, narrow the travel lanes to ten feet, and never have more than four. Again, this road is for pedestrians and transit users, not cars. Include a row of on-street parking, which buffers pedestrians from traffic and further encourages drivers to slow down. Include buffered bike lanes on the outside of the parking lane, so cyclists don’t have to compete with cars and can avoid being doored. Provide shade on the sidewalk with either low-maintenance shade structures or trees (I personally love the local Palo Verde trees). Bring the buildings right up to the sidewalk, and put the parking behind. In these areas, you want people to be able to see your storefront window, not your ample free parking.

Now that we’ve scrunched everything together, it’s time to go up. Buildings should be, at the very least, two stories, to allow for vertical mixed uses. When it comes to creating a sense of enclosure on a street, the bare minimum ratio of height to street width is 1:6. 1:2 is better. 1:1 is probably best. Beyond that you start getting into the enclosure territory that only a New Yorker can love.

Building height can also be manipulated to create microclimates and cool an area down. For instance, if you have taller buildings on the south side of a street, the shadow they cast to the north will keep the street cooler. Since Phoenix is at the fairly low latitude of 33.5 degrees north, the sun is only ten degrees south of directly overhead in the summer. So to create shadows, especially across a wide street, you need some really tall buildings. Of course, if you narrow the street, you can get by with smaller ones. Tall buildings on one side of a street can also catch winds and force them to ground level. Since the prevailing winds in Phoenix blow pretty much due east, putting tall buildings on the east side of north-south running streets would be the best way to catch and divert wind.

Finally, architectural details can do a lot to make being in Phoenix more pleasant. Make extensive use of awnings and other shade structures, as even small Casa Grande has done in their downtown. Although you want a lot of visible glass on the ground floor for stores, consider screens and shades for upper floors. Make sure windows can open to allow for natural ventilation. The principle colors of a building should be low albedo, to avoid heat gain, but that doesn’t mean bright colors can’t be used for accents.

Phoenix’s light rail has a lot of things going against it right now, but if the city can learn something from its desert ancestors and take advantage of density and urban design, then they can create a wonderful transit-oriented corridor that will breathe new life into the city.

Connecting the City


Sorry I didn’t post yesterday. The WiFi at my lunch place was down. Remember back when I wouldn’t post for months at a time? Anyway.

My observant mother-in-law was in San Francisco the other day and spotted this:

From Heidi Van Woerkom.

From Heidi Van Woerkom.

Curious, she found her way to Connecting the City, an organization working creating a series of such protected/buffered bike lanes across San Francisco. These kind of bike lanes are extremely important, because they alleviate the four main issues with common bike lanes:

  1. Separating the rider from vehicular traffic moving at higher speeds
  2. Removing conflicts between cyclists and parking vehicles
  3. Removing conflicts between cyclists and the doors of parked vehicles
  4. Preventing delivery personnel from using the bike lane as a parking lane

What I find particularly interesting about this organization is that, while they are currently focusing on a few exemplary projects, their goal is to create a true network of bike facilities. It is feasible that a person could ride a bike on slow, local traffic lanes and get to one of these improved bike facilities, and take it safely all the way across town. This is very important for getting the less-aggressive or -experienced cyclists onto the road, while they may not currently feel safe enough biking or that there isn’t enough bike infrastructure to get them where they are going. I applaud the efforts of Connecting the City in San Francisco and hope to see similar improvements in other cities across the country.

CHILDREN & NATURE BELONG DOWNTOWN: Let’s Create a New Vision : The New Nature Movement


http://blog.childrenandnature.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/4.-KidsSchoolBusSoParkBlocks.jpg

Children in a park in Portland. From blog.childrenandnature.org.

In this post, Mary Vogel discusses some of the challenges of families that want to move to the city. There are a number of issues that face an urban family; affordable housing, quality schools, the perception of crime, and sufficient green space are just a few of them. She discusses the plans that Portland has to convert parts of its riverfront to beaches (hopefully the Willamette’s waters are clean enough for such a proposal). Portland also has long, linear parks running through it’s downtown, which are another opportunity to interact with nature. She also mentions green streets. Conspicuously lacking from her assessment is Forest Park, the largely undisturbed forest immediately west of Downtown, which I visited on my honeymoon and went hiking, which is not something I care to do often but felt compelled to because it was just so close. As someone who will, in just a few months, be a father, and wants to stay in a walkable, urban place, these are strong concerns for me, and I hope that in the coming years cities will start to take the concerns of urban families under consideration.

Community Architect: Urban Design and Transportation – A City for People Instead of Cars


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PVjPYD4lNCM/UVM_jAWfaxI/AAAAAAAAJNQ/41LnkLL2AJU/s1600/Thames+Street.JPG

Fells Point in Baltimore. From archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com.

In this post, Klaus Philipsen describes how exactly the car is a bane to designers. You have to figure out approaches and parking before you can really do anything else. And because the metrics of traffic flow are easily quantified, they are often more strongly argued than the qualitative points of design. Philipsen discusses how the development in this country since WWII has largely been car-centric, although recent trends are pointing toward a more balanced transportation network. He has a number of images and examples from his local Baltimore to illustrate his point. But my favorite line is this: “design is definitely more encompassing and fun than just making sure the traffic flows. The promise of design: A better and more livable city.” Let’s work on designing a fun city more than one that is easy to drive through.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 460 other followers

%d bloggers like this: