The Layers of NYC

Yesterday, I spent the day touring New York City. I saw many interesting bits of urbanism, from the World Trade Center construction site (which, after years of delays, is finally being reconstructed) to the High Line (an old raised urban railroad that has now been turned into a spectacular park/public space).

New York City is a place like no other, especially in the context of America. Its density and population is unrivaled by any other urban area in these United States. It's transit system is not only extensive, but it is also used by a majority of the population. The city has recently received positive attention from the urban planning world as a result of the new planning director in NYC Janette Sadik-Khan. Her new policies on creating bike friendly and pedestrian friendly infrastructure have caught the eye of planners across the globe.



When I visit places like NYC, I try to figure out what exactly makes the city such an interesting and desirable place, both to live in and to visit. Parts of the answer may be obvious (such as Central Park), but some aspects of the city seem like true turn-offs. The streets are filled with speeding, stinky cars. The subway stations are old, dirty and hot. The traffic is terrible, and it is almost impossible to find one peaceful, quiet spot in the entire city.

So why go?

For people who live there, the simple answer might be employment. But in my opinion, time is the thing that truly makes this place fascinating.

Since people have been living on this little island for such a long time, layers and layers of culture, history and urbanism have been created over time. One could walk for 3 blocks and hear 20 different languages, We were sung to by an African-American trio on the subway (they were pretty talented). There were 4 different bands playing at one single relatively small park we visited (Washington Square Park).

This kind of culture can not be created overnight.

The people who argue about the urban/surburban divide never touch on the issue of time. Cities are usually more interesting places than suburbs simply because the cities have existed for a longer amount of time.

Mix of use is also incredibly crucial. When buildings have a mix of uses (basically residential + anything else) they allow people more options about where they live and work. This allows for a variety of transportation options: walking, biking, roller-blading, skateboarding, bus riding, train riding or even automobile driving. People are always clamoring for more options in life; auto dependent development does NOT provide many options.

Overall, time has led to the creation of city filled with layers. It has layers of culture and layers of infrastructure. It is an organically growing place with constant movement and evolution. Some call it the City that Never Sleeps. What allows the city to stay awake all night?

One important aspect of that is the 24/7 subway network. When you have a transportation network running all day and all night, people will use it all day and all night. This is especially true in a city such as NYC, which has high density and a robust diverse economy.


How can we create incredible places such as NYC? Time is one very important ingredient.

A great public transportation network also helps.

Cyclivia in Tucson: The Posibilities for the Future

This past weekend, Tucson had its first cyclovia event.


On Sunday, from 10 AM until 2 PM, four sections of different streets were closed off to automobile traffic, freeing the streets for non-motorized activities for miles. This page has more information, and this blog has a good write up of the event.

The purpose of a cyclovia is to allow all uses other than automobiles on the streets. The problem with doing this in Tucson is the quality of the pavement. Most sections of the route were not smooth enough to allow for skateboarding, long-boarding, roller blading and other activities that require smooth pavement. This is unfortunate because some members of the community really enjoy these activities and would love to have an entire street to participate.

Overall though, it is hard for me to be pessimistic about this event. There were a lot of people out participating and interacting with the built environment in a more sustainable way. When people move more slowly through a place, they can interact with it better. They can see how bad of condition the streets are in and contact the city, demanding improvement. They can find neat restaurants and cafes they never previously noticed.

The best thing about cyclovia is taking street space away from cars. Though it was only for 4 hours on one day of the year, it represented an opportunity to take back the streets. For too many years, American transportation policy has dictated that cars are the only way to get around efficiently.

This is simply not true. Plenty of places in America are easily accessible by foot, bike or transit.

For the places that are not yet accessible,efficient land use policy can help to change this unfortunate reality.



It is also telling that much of this cyclovia route will soon be home to the route of Tucson's first modern streetcar. Construction will begin this fall (Oct./Nov. 2010), and according to project managers, the project will be complete in about 15 months. This means that next year on April 18th, the cyclovia route will look very different.

In five years, the route will probably be very different as well. Construction on the streetcar will have been completed for a long time. Development will probably be occurring along the route, and the recession will hopefully be far over.

However, the real question should be what will the first Tucson cyclovia route look like in ten years? Only time, and progressive planning policy, will tell.

The Urban Solution vs. the Rural Solution: The Internal Conflict Within the Green Movement

When environmentalists talk about the sustainability/green movement, many times you hear two different solutions:

Solution #1
One side discusses the benefits of urban density. Everyone must live in dense walkable areas that stimulate community connectivity. We need to reduce automobile dependence by living close to most of our daily services and ideally, close to our jobs as well. This is the best and most logical solution to our current problem.

Solution #2
The other side uses terms such as "locavore" and "permaculture". This side discusses the benefits of everyone producing their own food. Everyone should have a beehive, three chicken and a vegetable patch in their backyard. Everything you eat, or possibly even use, should be produced within ten miles of your home. Native plants and animals can and should be utilized for food, instead of exotic and foreign plants and animals. Off-grid solar panels, rainwater harvesting and natural design should be top priorities.

This weekend, I spent a large amount of time on one of these backyard production sites. It was fascinating and amazing. I learned about all the valuable flora and fauna that exists in the deserts around the city of Tucson. I drank delicious prickly pear lemonade. I was one with the Earth.

My average day takes place in a more urban setting. I bike to school and spend the day walking around the University of Arizona, one of the densest sections of Tucson. I survive pretty well without a car and get to have interesting unique human interaction all day, every day.

Here is the question: which method or technique is better? Which one is better for me? The environment? The community? Humanity in general?

These are important questions that are partially covered in the book Green Metropolis by David Owen. This book discusses the many benefits that result from living in a urban setting. In fact, Owen goes as far as saying that the green ideal of "living in the country" has resulted in suburbia itself. It makes sense: everyone wanted to live out side of "the city", so they created a place that is not quite urban, but not quite rural: suburbia.

This argument would suggest that the people who support Solution #2 are actually stimulating the growth of suburban sprawl. This may be true, but this issue is not just black and white.

Most modern suburban dwellers have very little connection to the natural world, the origin of their food, the benefits of sustainability and the concept of "walkability" in general. Then again, many urban dwellers are in the same boat. In general, few people understand the interconnected systems and supply lines that keep us alive and wealthy.

Though I agree with many tenants of this book, the key to finding great solutions to our long term problems are education.

There are no high school classes called "urban planning", "sustainability", "the modern economic systems", "the future of urban form", etc. Many of these classes do not exist in college as well.

Maybe if people understood the connection between sprawl, the natural world and the innate desire for nature among humans through education, there would be more momentum for creating an urban system that benefits everyone instead of just car owners.

What Methods Can We Use to Prevent People from Buying a Car in the First Place? 1. Carsharing

I would like to start this post with a disclaimer: I am not an anti-car person, and I never will be.

Motor vehicles are amazing inventions. They increase mobility for the users and allow owners of cars to go wherever they want whenever they want.

However, there are a few drawbacks to a car oriented society: not everyone can afford one because they are expensive to maintain. Also, since our entire build world has become so motor vehicle centric, not owning a car has become a major disadvantage. Our roads are overcrowded, so how can we prevent people from needing to buy a car?

I say "need" because many times, cars are not bought on a "want" basis. Though many times they are, plenty of people buy cars based on "need".

People buy cars if their transportation needs are not adequately met by transit, walking, biking or car sharing. Most of America fits into this category, so it makes sense that most Americans own cars.

Why do I want people not to buy cars?

Well, this is how it usually goes: once someone buys a car, all they use is a car. They no longer consider using buses, bikes or walking because a car is such a large investment. It doesn't make sense for someone to make a large investment for something they will use occasionally. Also, our modern build world reinforces high intensity vehicle usage. When someone buys a car, they reinforce this entire cyclical system.


Though the solution to this problem is multifaceted, I see car sharing as the most important solution to this problem.

I would like to use my own personal life as an example.

I do not own a car. Though I had one when I attended high school in Albuquerque, my brother now uses that car so I have no car out here in Tucson. I have no problem with not owning a car. I enjoy biking to school most days because it stimulates my mind and gives me exercise. On the days when I do not feel like biking (sick, raining, windy, lazy, etc) a bus route passes very close to my house and takes me directly to campus. This bus route is pretty good, as it comes every half hour on weekdays from 5 AM to 10 PM. Since most of my time is either spent on campus or at home, the bus and bike connections work very well for my commute.

But what about everything outside of my daily commute?

Most American driving miles are no longer the simple commute to and from work or school. People need to get to baseball practice, the mall, Baskin Robbins, the movie theater, concert and a billion other locations and events. In most cities, since everything is so spread, you sometimes truly do NEED a car to get to many of these locations.

For example, I need to buy groceries once a week. I prefer going to Trader Joes, which is too far to bike to and inaccessible by bus. Luckily, I have some awesome roommates who let me borrow their car once a week for this journey.

Alas, most people do not have my awesome roommate situation. It is at this point when most people decide that they must own a car. It is these kind of journeys that need to be tackled in order to reduce car purchases. Car sharing is the answer.

How does car sharing work? The most popular car sharing program in the nation, ZipCar, works like this: cars are distributed in a given area. People in this given area sign up for a membership. When members want to use a car, they get on the Internet (or iPhone), find the closest one, scan the car with key less entry, and go for as long as they want. The longer they go, the most they have to pay so there are incentives for people to bring the cars back ASAP.

Now, if there was a bank of these cars in my neighborhood, I would totally sign up. I would not be the only one, as my neighborhood is filled with lower income car free dwellers. The problem is, Zipcar is still a for-profit company. They will only expand into areas where profit margins are high and risk is low. Central Tucson is probably not high on their expansion list.

This is why Ray LaHood and livability proponents need to start doing more work to get local car sharing programs jump started. I am so happy to see the federal DOT give so much more credit to bikes, pedestrians and transit, but these solutions will only go so far. Car sharing should also be a big part of their push for livability.

Though car sharing still involves cars (which I am not a huge fan of) they are an essential part of any solution in society that has only been building car based for at least 70 years. Honestly, they are the most realistic solution to getting cars off the road. Just look at this infographic, and this article (both from FastCompany), for proof.

Let's stop the cycle of people needing to buy cars; add car sharing to a growing list of great solutions.

Q: Why Does Nobody Walk?

A: There is nowhere to walk to.

In my neighborhood in Albuquerque (Far Northeast Heights), I just went on a walk. As I was walking, I decided to estimate how large each house lot was: 33 of my steps. This means that only about 2-5 people live within 33 steps worth of street frontage. In this situation, a lot of street frontage is required to create enough density for any business to be successful. Though there are nice smooth wide sidewalks throughout my neighborhood, nobody uses them unless they are walking their dog. The closest services are located in a strip mall at the bottom of a large hill.

People will not walk if there is nowhere to walk to.

In contrast, my neighborhood in Tucson has no sidewalks, but many people walk through this area. This is because there are places to walk to. There are two bus routes that intersect a block away. There is a taco shop, offices, a haircut place and two food stores on this same intersection. The lot sizes are smaller, and the roads are arranged in a grid, which allows for easier walkability.

Even though my neighborhood in Tucson does not have the proper facilities for walking, MANY people walk through it because there are places to walk to.

Sidewalks are not important. Destinations are.

What Kind of Neighborhoods Do Americans Want?

All day, I read blogs and studies citing the importance of progressive planning policy. These articles discuss all the benefits of creating developments that are walkable and "New Urbanist" in nature.

I do not disagree with any of these statements or opinions. In fact, I agree with the vast majority of them. These are not the important articles, though. I think most people can agree that building sprawlburbs for the next 30 years does not make a lot of sense for many reasons.

But what should the alternatives be?

This is a valid question because I don't think most people really know what they want. America has not built anything other than sprawl for a very long time. It's important to start thinking about and discussing alternatives now before people get jaded with the entire debate (remember health care?).

By talking to people, I get a pretty good idea of what people want in the future (and right now). I see people wanting a hybrid of sorts: New Urbanism + the suburbs.

The kind of areas I visualize would be similar to the neighborhood I currently live in: mixed housing densities/incomes (single family on the inside of the block, higher density multifamily housing on the outside), with multiuse on the edges of the block (commercial, retail). My neighborhood also has 2 bus routes (north-south, east-west) that come every half-hour on the weekdays, along with bike routes throughout the neighborhood.

This kind of urban diversity provides many benefits to residents. While driving is still the favored transportation choice by the majority of neighborhood residents, the design of this neighborhood makes it easy for residents to walk, bike or take the bus. Therefore, many residents (including myself) choose to use alternative modes of transportation.

At the same time, it is not a choice but a necessity for many residents as a result of income levels. This point demonstrates how everything zoning related is interconnected: since my neighborhood has a diversity of transportation choices, it supports a variety of income levels.

The main point here is that automobile dependency is not freedom: it is oppression. A diversity of transportation choices supports a diversity of lifestyles. It is easy to create places that are car accessible and not car dependent.

My neighborhood is proof of this ease of coexistence.