urban | design.banter:: Book Review - Sprawl Repair Manual

Each Friday we bring you  urban | design.banter 
:: infill | re-knitting our urban fabric | cohousing | keeping small towns from becoming suburbs :: why shouldn't where you live be somewhere you would want to visit?
 
"The promise of suburbia has been eroding for decades, but reached a critical point with the mortgage meltdown of 2008." 

This Promise of Suburbia is given new hope in "Sprawl Repair Manual," by Galina Tachieva, a partner at Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, an architecture and planning firm in the enviable position on the front lines of New Urbanism and suburban redevelopment. 

Sprawl can be repaired by "building communities based on the neighborhood unit." Instead of building new developments in green fields (land that has never been built on), why not densify existing areas? Not only will this bring life and density to existing suburbs and create what the author refers to as "complete communities," new developments will be closer to existing infrastructure and transportation. Children can attend existing schools (which, if they are in the city, may be underutilized) and existing fire and police can be used and will benefit from the new influx of taxes. However, according to Tachieva, "Sprawl remains cheaper to plan, easier to finance, faster to permit, and less complicated to build."

The main problem with sprawl, in terms of cost to the government and citizens, health, community connectivity, and access is dependence on the car. Part of this is the use of outdated single use zone, which makes it illegal for dwelling units to be near everyday needs. Repairing sprawl and densifying existing neighborhoods would mean integrating commercial and civic buildings into residential areas, and adding dwelling units to commercial areas. 

Reduction of dependence on a car is then created two ways: things are closer together, allowing for walking, and people live closer together, allowing for effective mass transit.  It's a snowball effect from there: people can walk, bike or take transit to more places, cities can require less parking, with less parking lot area more density can happen, and so on. With less area to cover and more efficient delivery, infrastructure costs can be reduced. Tachieva hopes by repairing sprawl that a more connected, cohesive transportation network can be formed, and the open space provided in suburbs will be accessible.

The author presents specific methods of repair at different scales: regional, community, parking and roads, blocks, and individual buildings.The book contains a great mix of text, diagrams, drawings and before and after photos. This is a must read for anyone interested in sustainable communities.

More information: www.sprawlrepair.com

Book Review: Green Metropolis by David Owen

Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability, by David Owen. 

Based on the subject matter and publicity this book has received, it was practically mandatory that I read it, but I was not expecting much. I was very pleasantly surprised. Owen takes on pop conventional wisdom at every turn and takes the wind out of many environmental sails. The main argument of the book is that many of our attempts at being green (i.e. reducing our carbon emissions) are futile without striving for density, with Manhattan as the best American example. Slapping solar panels on a McMansion in a new greenfield development does not make a green building, says Owen, because the real environmental damage is the infrastructure that supports the sprawl, and the amount of driving it takes to live in a typical suburban town. The most important number in your car isn't the gas mileage, he says, it's the odometer. 

"Oil is liquid civilization: we  are what we burn."


Owen has some harsh words for the LEED system, mostly for contributing to what he calls "LEED brain," which I summarize as forsaking common sense for racking up points for green building projects in order to gain recognition. He offers common sense tips for making a new home green, including build a small home on a small infill lot, thoroughly caulk and insulate it, and use efficient appliances. He says that many of these points, especially the importance of caulking and insulating, aren't particularly glamorous or  photogenic like small residential wind turbines, which he thinks are "wasteful investments in inappropriate technology." He quotes Thomas L Friedman's latest book, "Hot, Flat and Crowded," his chapter title "If it isn't Boring, it isn't Green" which Owen says is a reminder of the "dangers and temptations of LEED brain." I can't totally agree with this, as I believe there are exciting technologies that can reduce carbon emissions and great recycled products, but I have been accused of being a regressionist, and tend to think that green building is mostly common sense, and has been for all of human history until the industrial revolution, when we started to use brute force against nature instead of working with it.

Owen discusses the new Sprint Headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas, which has been recognized as a "green" building and has the typical green building rap sheet. Owen says:


"There is nothing truly ecologically enlightened about Sprint's Overland Park campus, no matter how many so-called green features the individual buildings include, or how much recaptured runoff water the ground staff uses when irrigating the complex's dozens of acres of lawn,  or many bicycles are (theoretically) made available  for trips between buildings, or how many trees the company has planted, or how many PETA-certified border collies are used to keep migratory birds from defecating around the edges of the man-made "wetland area"...The campus is a sprawl bomb, and the "open space" preserved on the property merely makes the impact worse."


An office like this would be much more environmentally friendly if it were placed all in one office town in downtown Kansas City (where there is surely high vacancy), creating more critical mass in downtown which would allow for more efficient transit from the suburbs. He also has harsh words for the Rocky Mountain Institute's headquarters in Snowmass, Colorado, which is also packed with sustainable features, but in a "thinly populated area," meaning that employees have no other choice but to drive to work.

Oh, and I love the term "sprawl bomb." I'm going to see if I can use it in a sentence soon.



The most interesting point that Owen makes is that the most critical environmental issues facing a city are not planting green roofs and trees, or allowing rain barrels and solar panels. He argued that the most critical environmental issues facing a city are law enforcement,street noise, resources for the elderly, crime, parks, and schools-the quality (or lack thereof) these things are what causes people to abandon the city for the suburbs, especially when they have kids. The more people stay in the city (and in turn the more children raised in the city) the higher the density and the tax base, and therefore the quality of life. Owen mentions cities such as Minneapolis where schools are being closed in the cities while taxes are being levied to build more schools in the sprawling suburbs. If services were better in the city, more families could stay and their kids could attend established schools--which not only saves money because the schools are already built, but these schools are more likely to be serviced by roads with sidewalks and public transit, obviously rare in the suburbs. 

The question that lingered in my mind for most of the book, as I'm sure it does for most readers since Owen answered it at the end, is if he thinks Manhattan is so great, why doesn't he live there anymore? He and his wife lived there for seven years before relocating to rural Connecticut.  

The answer is, of course, not everyone can live in Manhattan. From my previous blog post, "Green Building Myths": Per ca pita, rural areas have higher carbon footprints than dense cities like NYC, which is arguably the most important metric when considering what's "green". But a rural area may seem "cleaner" because of the lack of air pollution (which can be concentrated in cities), green spaces, clean water, and the general aesthetic and aromatic pleasantness that comes with a lower population density, like lawns, gardens, and contained trash. We need to understand these differences and strive to improve the undesirable aspects of city living while building on its virtues. 

References: Sierra Club Challenge to Sprawl
Urban Land Institute Booklet (PDF): Higher Density Development: Myth & Fact

Related books I recommend: 

Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Jeff Speck

Asphalt Nation by Jane Holtz Kay 

The Geography of Nowhere: the Rise and Decline of America's Man-made Landscape by James Howard Kunstler.

Book Review: Wrestling With Moses

Wrestling With Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took on New York's Master Builder and Transformed the American City, by Anthony Flint, tells the stories of Robert Moses, who served for many decades in various appointed infrastructure-related posts in New York City, and Jane Jacobs, the activist and author of The Death and Life of Great American Cities. The book reads like a novel, if a very detailed one (I was hooked and stayed up late to finish it like a novel, curled up with book and my maps of Manhattan).


Flint parallels the early life and careers of both Moses and Jacobs, then describes a few of her most famous battles over proposed public works projects headed by Moses: a proposed road through Washington Square Park, an area of the West Village designated as a "slum" through the Title 1 Urban Renewal program and slated for demolition to make way for housing projects built by private developers (federally funded by the Title 1 program), and the proposed Lower Manhattan Expressway, which would have run through the Greenwich Village and the Lower East Side to connect the Holland Tunnel with the Williamsburg and Manhattan Bridges.

These neighborhoods, found to be "slums" by the government, where, according to Jacobs, in fact organically planned, active, caring, living neighborhoods. Jumbled uses, some vacancies and many imperfections, but far from "slums." Being designated as a "slum" by Title 1 could be self-fulfilling prophecy: government officials would find a neighborhood that had some physical imperfections, perhaps a few buildings that weren't up to current building or fire code, some vacancies, or boarding houses without a bathroom for each room, and the area would be designated a slum. This designation could stick for many decades even if nothing happened, and as a result banks would stop investing and businesses would not move in, so the neighbor would in fact go downhill.

Flint describes Jacobs' legacy of citizen activism and bottom-up action. Today it's hard to imagine such sweeping urban projects being planned without any citizen input (as anyone who has experienced the back-and-forth of the viaduct plans in Seattle can attest). I can't believe I have never heard Boston Mayor Thomas Menino's play on NIMBY (not in my backyard) when speaking about citizen veto power: BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything).

Although the book is obviously pro-Jacobs, Flint does touch on a common criticism of Jacobs: that she does not take gentrification into account when discussing what makes great neighborhoods. One of the projects that she fought which is highlighted in the book would provide affordable housing, under Title 1 Urban Renewal.

"Jacobs was convinced the city was the best possible place for people to live, and in many ways gentrification proved her right. She argued that the problem was a matter of supply and demand-that there weren't enough urban neighborhoods, and if they were as ubiquitous as suburban sprawl, they wouldn't be such a precious commodity, and prices would come down."

We see this happening now. Not everyone can afford to live in Greenwich Village, or have a house in Capitol Hill in Seattle, but suburbs such as Kirkland are "urbanizing," realizing the appeal and practicality of a more urban zoning code with a mix of uses and less parking. Most suburban zoning codes are based on the outdated idea of the separation of uses from the 1920's, where tenement houses were next to leather tanneries. The most desirable urban neighborhoods have a mix of uses, all within proximity of the other and ideally combining all daily needs within walking distance.

It's hard to imagine the present day AIA (American Institute of Architects) supporting a plan to replace a street like this with an elevated highway (the proposed Lower Manhattan Expressway, which the AIA then supported). Broome Street in SoHo, with its wealth of cast-iron front buildings, is what some would consider an ideal urban street. (Click on image for photo credit)

Flint also points out the many good things that Moses made a reality: many state and city parks, beaches, playgrounds, parkways and bridges throughout New York City and Long Island. He includes a great point from Nicolai Ouroussoff, architecture critic for the New York Times:

"'Today [2006, when she died], the pendulum of opinion has swung so far in favor of Ms. Jacobs that it has distorted the public's understanding of urban planning. As we mourn her death, may we mourn a bit for Mr. Moses as well.' Moses vision, he said, however flawed, represented 'an America that still believed a healthy government would provide the infrastructure-roads, parks, bridges-that bind us into a nation. Ms. Jacobs, at her best, was fighting to preserve the more delicate bonds that tie us to a community. A city, to survive, must have both.'"