I know this is a tad off topic, but I feel an undeniable urge to vent about my drive home yesterday in our surprise miniblizzard-within-a-moderate-snowfall.
Hey, I live in New England. I know the roads get bad in winter (and late autumn. and early spring.) . I've skidded, slid and been trapped in gridlock way more times than I can count. My car's been stuck plenty of times in various parking lots and my own driveway. But in 25 or so years of winter driving in New England and upstate New York, I was never actually stuck in the middle of a road because of heavy snow...until yesterday.
It was just the little hill at the corner of Old Connecticut Path and Rte. 126. But many other cars got stuck there too. When it was my turn to try going through, I passed three other cars littered along the roadway ... and couldn't make it around the corner either.
After much effort, I finally did turn onto 126 and get my car over to the side, so at least the other cars backed up endlessly could make their own attempts. Then, I was only about 2 feet away from the passable part of the road -- but try as I might, I couldn't get there.
Step 1: Get out of car and and try clearing the snow around the wheels and under the vehicle. Step 2: Get back in, rock back and forth, move a little. Get stuck again. Step 3: Repeat steps 1&2. This went on for about an hour. I called the police to tell them it was a dangerous situation (with cars skidding by right and left, I'm very fortunate no one hit me). They said they could call me a tow truck. I said never mind, I'd call AAA - hahahahaha. Line endlessly busy.
Finally, an incredibly kind guy hopped out of a private truck and offered to help push. He tried valiantly, making some progress...eventually, three other Good Samaritans materialized and joined him, and got me back on the road. I was too afraid to stop the car and say thanks, fearing it wouldn't start again or I'd get hit by someone .... but I am deeply grateful to those gentlemen. ... and to my neighbor across the street with his new snowblower, who came over and cleared out our driveway since I couldn't get my car in to park and leave it. Extremely unpleasant experience, made a lot better by the kindness of friends and strangers.
December 10, 2005
December 8, 2005
Philadelphia: Neighbors Help Condo Tower Makeover
Here's an interesting response to the problem of government planners falling down on the important job of ensuring pedestrian-friendly streetscapes.
It wasn't planning officials in Philadelphia who are responsible for revising a proposed condo tower that originally shaped up to be "500 feet tall ... hunkered like King Kong atop a nine-story garage podium that was so unpleasant, it would have sent pedestrians scurrying across the street. Those garage decks would have spewed exhaust into the apartments at the Penn Center House, a few feet away on JFK Boulevard," writes Philadelphia Inquirer architecture critic Inga Saffron. "Fortunately, the design for 1919 Market Street was subjected to early intervention by neighborhood activists. ...
"Most of the parking will be tucked underground or heavily camouflaged. There will be bright shops facing both 20th and Market Streets. The tower has been pushed to the site's Market Street side so residents of Penn Center House will still see glimpses of sun."
How did those changes occur? Saffron notes that "the city Planning Commission played no role in the condo tower's makeover. All the design changes were pushed by volunteers from the Center City Residents Association and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association over several months. The story has a happy ending because the developer, Opus East, responded constructively to the criticisms."
But how could residents - even highly motivated residents - come up with practical ideas to improve a poor design? Partly because "they had already articulated clear urban-design values. They knew that above-ground parking podiums cast a pall over the pedestrian realm and divorce the tower's residents from the surrounding city. They agreed that Market Street between 19th Street and the Schuylkill River, where the city's sleek office corridor runs out of energy, needs lots of sidewalk activity.
"But the civic groups also had the benefit of professional advice from Kise Straw & Kolodner. The CCRA hired the design firm last year because it felt that city planners were unable to provide any meaningful help with the staggering amount of development being proposed for Center City."
Typically, neighborhood groups turn to professionals (usually attorneys) when they're trying to keep development out. Here, they paid professionals to help make development better.
It wasn't planning officials in Philadelphia who are responsible for revising a proposed condo tower that originally shaped up to be "500 feet tall ... hunkered like King Kong atop a nine-story garage podium that was so unpleasant, it would have sent pedestrians scurrying across the street. Those garage decks would have spewed exhaust into the apartments at the Penn Center House, a few feet away on JFK Boulevard," writes Philadelphia Inquirer architecture critic Inga Saffron. "Fortunately, the design for 1919 Market Street was subjected to early intervention by neighborhood activists. ...
"Most of the parking will be tucked underground or heavily camouflaged. There will be bright shops facing both 20th and Market Streets. The tower has been pushed to the site's Market Street side so residents of Penn Center House will still see glimpses of sun."
How did those changes occur? Saffron notes that "the city Planning Commission played no role in the condo tower's makeover. All the design changes were pushed by volunteers from the Center City Residents Association and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association over several months. The story has a happy ending because the developer, Opus East, responded constructively to the criticisms."
But how could residents - even highly motivated residents - come up with practical ideas to improve a poor design? Partly because "they had already articulated clear urban-design values. They knew that above-ground parking podiums cast a pall over the pedestrian realm and divorce the tower's residents from the surrounding city. They agreed that Market Street between 19th Street and the Schuylkill River, where the city's sleek office corridor runs out of energy, needs lots of sidewalk activity.
"But the civic groups also had the benefit of professional advice from Kise Straw & Kolodner. The CCRA hired the design firm last year because it felt that city planners were unable to provide any meaningful help with the staggering amount of development being proposed for Center City."
Typically, neighborhood groups turn to professionals (usually attorneys) when they're trying to keep development out. Here, they paid professionals to help make development better.
December 5, 2005
‘Rating the Suburbs’ - Kansas City Star Gives it a Shot
The Kansas City Star has attempted to rate major suburban communities around K.C. for "quality of life," picking its winners and losers on issues such as crime, education, housing, lifestyle and sense of community. Not being familiar with any of those suburbs (although I have been to Kansas City itself), the specific ratings didn't interest me much; but I was quite intrigued by the scoring system they used. And I have a few disagreements.
December 4, 2005
‘Zoned Out’
I'm in the midst of reading a review copy of Zoned Out by University of Michigan associate professor Jonathan Levine. I agree with the premise: "Municipal regulation that zones out th ealternatives to [suburban] sprawl is neither a preordained state of nature nor the free market's invisible hand, but a governmental decision to constrain market processes. As such, it does not deserve the 'default' status it has attained in debates over transportation, land use, and metropolitan development."
The fact that people are buying McMansions in the suburbs doesn't mean that's all they'd buy. People are also buying condos in the cities -- in fact, per square foot, condos in desirable Manhattan and Boston neighborhoods are pricier by far than most suburban homes. And people are clearly buying single-family homes at a premium in more densely populated, traditional town centers in suburbs like Wellesley and Concord. When almost 9 in 10 people in a Better Homes and Gardens survey said they value walkable neighborhoods when buying a home, it's fallacy to say that pedestrian-hostile, auto-centric sprawl is in fact Americans' default desire. If it's a lot tougher for a builder to create pedestrian-friendly cluster neighborhoods than cookie-cutter subdivisions, of course they opt for the latter.
Likewise, of course people don't want to use public transportation if it's inconvenient, unreliable, infrequent and unpleasant. That doesn't mean people won't use it at all. When I worked in Newton Corner and needed to go to Boston, I took the express bus - less than 15 minutes door to door, it was usually faster and less of a hassle than driving. From north Framingham, though, I never want to use the train -- the drive to the train station is about one-third of the distance to simply drive to Boston, but it's not heading toward the city; there's then parking and waiting, and about an hour's trip with endless stops. And off rush hour, there might as well not be trains at all, if they're running every 3 hours. Why can't there be an express bus on the same convenient schedule as Logan Express, but going to downtown Boston? But I digress....
Levine argues that "pervasive government intervention" and not free market forces has "mold[ed] U.S. metropolitan areas to a sprawling development template."
In one survey of developers, half in Mid-Atlantic and more than one-third in the Northeast believe that at least a quarter of their market is interested in "alternative" development patterns to conventional sprawl. Yet more than 86% of developers in the Northeast said there was not an adequate supply of alternative development housing in existing and new construction. "Few respondents [except in the South Central U.S.] saw lack of market interest as an obstacle, but an overwhelming majority of respondents viewed local regulations as a significant obstacle.
It seems that zoning, not "market forces," help explain suburban sprawl.
The fact that people are buying McMansions in the suburbs doesn't mean that's all they'd buy. People are also buying condos in the cities -- in fact, per square foot, condos in desirable Manhattan and Boston neighborhoods are pricier by far than most suburban homes. And people are clearly buying single-family homes at a premium in more densely populated, traditional town centers in suburbs like Wellesley and Concord. When almost 9 in 10 people in a Better Homes and Gardens survey said they value walkable neighborhoods when buying a home, it's fallacy to say that pedestrian-hostile, auto-centric sprawl is in fact Americans' default desire. If it's a lot tougher for a builder to create pedestrian-friendly cluster neighborhoods than cookie-cutter subdivisions, of course they opt for the latter.
Likewise, of course people don't want to use public transportation if it's inconvenient, unreliable, infrequent and unpleasant. That doesn't mean people won't use it at all. When I worked in Newton Corner and needed to go to Boston, I took the express bus - less than 15 minutes door to door, it was usually faster and less of a hassle than driving. From north Framingham, though, I never want to use the train -- the drive to the train station is about one-third of the distance to simply drive to Boston, but it's not heading toward the city; there's then parking and waiting, and about an hour's trip with endless stops. And off rush hour, there might as well not be trains at all, if they're running every 3 hours. Why can't there be an express bus on the same convenient schedule as Logan Express, but going to downtown Boston? But I digress....
Levine argues that "pervasive government intervention" and not free market forces has "mold[ed] U.S. metropolitan areas to a sprawling development template."
In one survey of developers, half in Mid-Atlantic and more than one-third in the Northeast believe that at least a quarter of their market is interested in "alternative" development patterns to conventional sprawl. Yet more than 86% of developers in the Northeast said there was not an adequate supply of alternative development housing in existing and new construction. "Few respondents [except in the South Central U.S.] saw lack of market interest as an obstacle, but an overwhelming majority of respondents viewed local regulations as a significant obstacle.
It seems that zoning, not "market forces," help explain suburban sprawl.
December 3, 2005
Oh, the Irony…
"Japanese automaker Mazda Motor Corp. is recommending its employees walk to the office, rather than drive, to improve their health and protect the environment," AP reports.
Actually, good for them for understanding that just because they manufacture automobiles, they don't need to do everything in their power to make people HAVE to use autos for everything all the time. And that it's still important to get out of your car once in awhile. It's a pity that U.S. auto lobbyists don't seem to have the same outlook, and can't seem to understand that cars will still be important even if we make communities that are more attractive for walking, cycling and mass transit; and that it's OK to accept sharing the road and planning for all.
Actually, good for them for understanding that just because they manufacture automobiles, they don't need to do everything in their power to make people HAVE to use autos for everything all the time. And that it's still important to get out of your car once in awhile. It's a pity that U.S. auto lobbyists don't seem to have the same outlook, and can't seem to understand that cars will still be important even if we make communities that are more attractive for walking, cycling and mass transit; and that it's OK to accept sharing the road and planning for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)