Book: Home From Nowhere

By James Howard Kunstler. Home from Nowhere: Remaking our Everyday World for the 21st Century is a continuation of his ground-breaking attack on American suburbs, Geography of Nowhere. It's intended to add some constructive hope to his previous scathing critique. I like how Eric Jacobsen describes Kunstler. He's the "raving prophet of the New Urbanist movement." The fact that he is an unaffiliated writer, without any clients or voters to appease, gives him the flexibility to made audacious pronouncements. A true voice in the wilderness.

Summary: America has become a "theme park" nation. Instead of creating worthwhile places in which to live, we have opted to use our wealth to paint a superficial veneer in order to mask our unhappiness. Because our cities were associated with the dirty industrial revolution and undesirable people, Americans sought to escape from this reality either to a prototypical "little cabin in the woods" or to an "English manor." We have given up on the common good, and its physical manifestation in the public realm. We no longer think of ourselves as citizens but as consumers.

The automobile was expected to usher in an era of freedom, but really it enslaved us to itself. Car ownership is required for first-class citizenship, and the poor, children, elderly, and disabled are automatically dependent. Technological progress does not always live up to its expectations. Often spiritual and social costs, which cannot be quantified, are ignored. Some states are starting to reform their transportation policies.

We yearn for an organic connectivity with the world and a chronological connectivity to our tradition. The suburbs mimic, but inevitably destroy, these desires. Moral and aesthetic relativism, popular with intellectuals in the 60's, has effectively relegated all decisions to mass-market consumption. Age-old principles for human-scale architecture are replaced by analytical modernist theory. Vibrant neighborhoods are cut up by single-use zoning. Family life is diminished by being isolated from the wider community.

There is a way out. Communities should have diverse uses mingled together, manage growth carefully, build a consensus on principles for civic art, provide a seamless interaction between public and private space, increase density and affordability, simplify laws, and take tradition seriously. Sooner or later, economic forces will mandate many aspects of this organization anyway.

These changes are happening in some places. Seaside, in Florida, has become a model, although it is a decidedly resort community. DPZ and other architectural firms are building New Urbanist communities throughout the country, and they are finding them to be financially successful. Unfortunately, many of these projects are greenfield developments, built from scratch, but that is only because the status quo in existing urban areas is protected by impenetrable bureaucracies and resident NIMBYs (not in my backyard). Hopefully, local governments can be reformed.

Livable communities can range in size from Saratoga Springs to Manhattan. The revival of our traditional urban areas can provide a model for our future urban development.

Engagement: This book can certainly feel fragmented and a touch hyperbolic, but in my opinion, that only contributes to its rhetorical power. Kunstler considers himself a "prose artist." He is not writing a step-by-step architectural manual, but rather painting a broad picture intended to evoke a sense of disgust for what we have made and hope for what is possible. Trying to categorize him into our neat Left and Right camps is a maddening exercise (believe me, I tried). He is at once a self-sufficient populist railing against government regulations, and a visionary seeking to reinforce the common good. Sometimes in the same page!

I think his vision is the right one, even if it may take folks with a more pragmatic inclination to actually get us there.

Marriage of Town and Country

Thomas Sharp, a prominent British town planner in the early 20th Century, delighted in smaller compact towns that were scattered around the countryside. Throughout the years, he watched these country towns begin to disintegrate, as many of the residents wanted to merge pastoral ideals into the center of urban life.

I love this tirade of his against "hermaphroditic beastliness" (insert an enraged British accent as you read this):

"The town, long since degraded, is now being annihilated by a flabby, shoddy, romantic nature-worship. That romantic nature-worship is destroying also the object of it's adoration, the countryside. Both are being destroyed. The one age-long certainty, the antithesis of town and country, is already breaking down. Two diametrically opposed, dramatically contrasting, inevitable types of beauty are being displaced by one drab, revolting neutrality. Rural influences neutralize the town. Urban influences neutralize the country. In a few years all will be neutrality. The strong, masculine vitality of the town; the softer beauty, the richness, the fruitfulness of that mother of men, the countryside, will be debased into one, sterile hermaphroditic beastliness."

Sharp goes on to consider the relationship between town and country as a marriage, unified and mutually reinforcing yet kept distinct and diverse at the same time. A unity in diversity.

If you happened to be inclined toward archaic theological disputes like I am, you could also consider this admixture a reflection of the Monarchianism heresy. Just throwing it out there.

Against Smart Growth

I'm seeing the name Wendell Cox of the organization Demographia pop up here and there as an ardent opponent to "smart growth" and public transportation. He lays out a few of his arguments in a recent op-ed piece in the Toronto Star. I'm not yet persuaded by them, but I've always found well-focused antagonism to be more helpful than nice platitudes when it comes to forming an opinion about something.

Here are two of his points ...

1. "Smart growth" is driven by elitist ideology and enforced by government regulations, which stifle the free market. Regular people should get to choose where they want to live.

A blogger at 295Bus writes in response:

"While [Cox] may portray himself as a type of less-government/less-spending conservative, like many conservatives, he's pretty selective in what spending and what regulation he criticizes. He apparently sees no contradiction between opposing subsidies for transit while lobbying for handouts for highways. And whatever merits there may be to his criticisms of growth limits in this article, he is most vocal, in fact relentless, in attacking "smart growh" regulations such as Portland's--rather than the zoning that actually produces scarcity of housing, that which enforces low-density sprawl, and prohibits the kind of efficient land use that can boost the supply of housing units."

So, both sides use government regulations and need government funding. Sprawling suburbs are not necessarily the "choice" of the invisible hand of the market. In fact, this blogger goes on to speculate that perhaps if all regulations were actually abolished (roads became toll roads, for example) public transportation may actually flourish, and with that smart growth would follow. That's an interesting thought experiment.

2. Condensed urban neighborhoods may produce an even higher level of greenhouse gas emissions per capita than lower-density suburbs do.

This assertion is based on a study from the University of Sydney (presented in this web page). However, Brenden of the blog Where casts some doubt about whether this data can be used to support Cox's thesis.

"If this seems counterintuitive, that's probably because the findings are slanted. It is true that Inner Sydney has the highest per capita output of GHG, but there is no mention of the fact that a huge chunk of this area is taken up by office towers, which consume massive amounts of energy for heating and cooling, thousands of acres of fluorescent lighting, and other energy-consuming systems that often continue running long after employees have left for the night. Being the central business district, Inner Sydney is also the destination of much of the auto traffic that originates in the surrounding sprawl. Outside the CBD, other neighborhoods include other offices and large tracts of industrial land (and factories are often very large producers of GHGs) that are much less likely to take up space in more far-flung areas."

The Toronto Star also printed a counter-point position from Mark Winfield, a professor at York University.

Book: The City: a Global History

By Joel Kotkin. I wanted a bird's-eye-view history of urban development. The City: a Global History seemed to be the best starting point, and it didn't hurt that it was packed into 160 pages.

Summary: Throughout history three forces have worked together to form the city: "the sacred, the secure, and the busy." The earliest cities from every culture were centered around a temple and reinforced by a shared religious belief system. As imperial powers emerged, the sacred space was shifted from various smaller city-states to a central megacity. Babylon was the first case of this. The imperial power brought military protection to the city, which allowed it to flourish.

Finally, cities established themselves as centers of commerce, acting as trading and shipping hubs. Rome became the archetype city, and it's immense population forced the intentional creation of urban infrastructure and order. Rome eventually fell because of decadence and the lack of a cohesive moral vision.

By the 7th century, cities in the vast Islamic world began to rise. Islam itself has its roots in Muhammad's urban development and proved to be a catalyst for further city-building. At the same time, Chinese cities grew as important administrative capitals.

The Italian renaissance mixed the classical Roman philosophy with an intense focus on commerce. Western cities were revived. Eventually national capitals (Paris) replaced city-states (Venice) as the most powerful cities. Colonial expansion greatly increased the wealth and size of several European cities.

The industrial revolution in England and later in the U.S. spawned explosive growth of cities based on mass production. New York quickly became a global commerce center, and because of its geographical barriers it grew upward to accommodate a dense population. The horrific conditions of these industrial cities created a backlash against city life in general. Those who could afford to moved out to the periphery. Suburbanization was later accelerated by technological advances in transportation.

Millions of people in the developing world are moving into cities, but these metropolises don't have the economy to support them. The exceptions are various cities in East Asia.

Engagement: Kotkin contends that the three principles of urban growth are universal. A city must be a sacred place, offer physical protection, and have a thriving economy. He suggests that the first point has been lost. Cities lack a religious and moral core. They have become ephemeral, obsessed with fads and entertainment. He essentially calls for a civil religion, much like Rousseau had, to provide a common moral structure. The trouble is that he does not provide much guidance, beyond hinting at some enlightenment ideals, for how to do this in a pluralistic culture. Furthermore, it isn't clear to me that a pragmatic civic religion can be truly transcendent at the same time.

This prescription, however, does make sense:

"A busy city must be more than a construct of diversions for an essential nomadic population. It requires an engaged and committed citizenry with a long-term financial and familial stake in the metropolis."

There is one glaring omission in this book. There is very little mention of the environmental impact of city planning. Kotkin sees the ideal of suburban home-ownership as universal to human nature, but he doesn't question whether suburbanization is a sustainable trend.

Finding a Walkable Neighbohood

The web site Walk Score offers a great resource for selecting walkable neighborhoods to live in. They tap into the Google maps engine to find the proximity of various activities - the nearest grocery store, coffee shop, park, school - to your house. It then calculates a score, based on how accessible these places may be by foot. The creators admit to several imperfections in simply plugging a bunch of distances into a formula, but it is certainly a good starting point.

Here's how they define a walkable neighborhood,

A center: Walkable neighborhoods have a discernable center, whether it's a shopping district, a main street, or a public space.
Density: The neighborhood is dense enough for local businesses to flourish and for public transportation to be cost effective.
Mixed income, mixed use: Housing is provided for everyone who works in the neighborhood: young and old, singles and families, rich and poor. Businesses and residences are located near each other.
Parks and public space: There are plenty of public places to gather and play.
Accessibility: The neighborhood is accessible to everyone and has wheelchair access, plenty of benches with shade, sidewalks on all streets, etc.
Well connected, speed controlled streets: Streets form a connected grid that improves traffic by providing many routes to any destination. Streets are narrow to control speed, and shaded by trees to protect pedestrians.
Pedestrian-centric design: Buildings are placed close to the street to cater to foot traffic, with parking lots relegated to the back.
Close schools and workplaces: Schools and workplaces are close enough that most residents can walk from their homes.

The Lower Rattlesnake, where we live, scores a 71 out of 100. Since it doesn't take into account a major highway running through the neighborhood, the score may be artificially inflated. Still, looking at the map, we really do take advantage of many of these assets right around the corner. I do think this may impact any moving decisions.

A Stop on the Tour de Fat

New Belgium Brewery's Tour de Fat came through Missoula today and provided an enjoyable afternoon of crazy bikes and beer. The purpose of the event was to promote bicycle transportation as an environmentally-friendly alternative, and they gave away a free bicycle to my coworker's roommate for agreeing to donate his car and get by without it. All of the alcohol proceeds were given to three local non-profits, Mountain Bike Missoula (recreational bicycling advocates), Free Cycles, and Missoula in Motion.

Where Fires Meet Development

It's still fire season in Montana, a particularly harsh one this year. Before moving here I held to the simple notion, probably instilled in me from the Smokey the Bear of my childhood, that the reason we fought forest fires was to protect the forests. Fires are bad, so we must put them out.

From talking to people around here, I've gathered that I was a few decades behind the curve. It's actually much more complex than that. Fires serve a vital role in replenishing the ecosystem and need to run their course on a cyclical basis. Earlier efforts at absolute suppression made matters worse by artificially allowing for the build-up of fuel and intensifying the inevitable fire. It turns out that the primary reason we fight fires today is to protect houses and other human structures.

That's great. I know that I want my house protected. But as our cities in the West continue to decentralize, the line between development and forest, called the "wildland-urban interface", continues to grow in size and shape. This tends to stretch the resources for protection pretty thin.

The Missoulian ran this story last week:

"Fighting wildfires will continue to cost the government a billion dollars or more annually as more houses are built in wooded, rural areas, the nation's top forestry official said Wednesday.Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey said 8.4 million houses were built in wildfire-prone areas during the 1990s, complicating firefighting efforts and driving costs to a record $1.4 billion last year."

You can't say that's made fire seasons more severe, but you can say unequivocally that it's made firefighting more expensive,” Rey said.The following map is of the wildland-urban interface based on 2000 census data. It's from a University of Wisconsin study. Click on for the full size.
One of the original purposes for the creation of consolidated urban areas was protection. Residents in ancient cities needed to live within city walls or they would be subject to endless raids by bandits or enemy city-states. Since walls could not be strewn willy-nilly all across the landscape, this need for protection encouraged higher density.

Today in North America we hardly have to worry about bandits hiding deep within the forests. But we are still not without need for protection.