When I signed up to the Cato Institute’s email newsletter, I was adhering to the old adage ‘keep your friends close, and your enemies closer’. Whilst I have no enemies at Cato it is good to know what nonsense the opposition is spouting, and a recent articles was just that. The headline annouces ‘The Myth of The Compact City’ and as an urbanist, there was no way I could let one slide!

In little more than 250 words, the limit for an academic abstract, Randal O’Toole, Cato’s Senior Fellow for all things urban, outlines key policies, the position of the current administration and then flippantly dismisses the entire ethos. He cites three key objections. First, that compact development policies represent a huge intrusion on private property rights, personal freedom, and mobility. Second, that compact city policies could increase emissions by increasing roadway congestion. Finally, that any reduction in carbon emissions would be insignificant compared with the huge costs that compact development would impose on the nation, such as reduced worker productivity, less affordable housing, increased traffic congestion, higher taxes or reduced urban services, and higher consumer costs.

In this brief rebuke O’Toole seems to miss much of the philosophy behind the policies. Without further comment or by quantifying his arguments it is difficult to see why he considers compact city policies would reduce worker productivity and urban services, and increase taxes. Neither is it particularly clear why residents of higher density, walkable neighbourhoods have fewer private property rights, or less personal freedom and mobility. Has anyone warned Manhatten? By locating jobs, services and retail with housing in mixed use developments, urbanists aim to provide all residents with greater access to these facilities rather than less. And plot size has little to do with personal freedom. Maybe the right to live on a one acre block and own a car is in the Constitution of the United States and I’ve missed it!

Walking back from the Eastern Avenue Market in Capitol Hill. The area has seen a significant increase in young professional families moving into the area. Washington ranks as one of the most walkable cities in the US.

The Compact City movement is not focused solely on the reduction in greenhouse gases but employs a wider definition of sustainability at its core that includes environmental, economic and social elements. It seeks, through a series of design measures, to improve the quality of life for all residents. And let’s face it, nobody would consider sitting alone in their car in stationary traffic on the way home from work as increasing their quality of life.

Hi!! I have soup on the hob, warming winter vegetable soup with crusty bread — so help yourselves, and pull up a seat.  As it is only 4 weeks or so to Christmas, I decided not to over do the clothing, colourwise. That I will do nearer the time

I have some winter clothes to show off today, from a little store that I found in SL located on its own sim! The store is Sprawl, and it offers a nice range of tops, sweaters, jackets, trousers, jeans and some skirts, which are all available as individual colours or as fatpacks. Each item also comes with multiple layers, which to me is a big thing.

In the picture below, I’m wearing the jacker layer of this lovely knit sweater, with prim turtleneck collar and upper & lower sleeve attachments. The bottom part of the sweater is on the pant layer, with the trousers on the underpants layer.

Unfortunately, due to problems with internet, I did not have time to take a close up of the trousers. However, the grey version of the trousers had been blogged by Nissa Nightfire on her blog. Here, I am wearing the Ink version. It must be coincidence that when I was in high school, I had a pair of grey trousers in a similar style.

It is hard to find trainers/sneakers that you like in SL. When I was browsing through the Ducknipple blog, I saw the Harry skateshoes. These are available as individual pairs (8 in all) or as a fatpack. What really caught my eye, is the simplicity of the design of the trainers. They look like they should be very comfortable, and they are! Very comfortable. A good thing given I do a fair amount of exploring round SL.

Credits

Skin – Seduction (wheat tone – Kona) – Cupcakes

Hair – Alora (midnight) – Calico Ingmann *

Sweater – Late Shift (wine) – Sprawl

Pants – Ambition (ink) – Sprawl

Shoes – Harry (grunge) – Ducknipple

* No longer available. However, there is a discount area where there some older hairstyles with old hair textures.

The List is the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office’s weekly news round-up of historic preservation (and related) news from throughout the state. A more robust version, that covers arts and culture, archaeology, economic development, architecture, and general “green” news, is available through the SHPO’s listserv.

You can subscribe to the listserv by visiting our web site, or by sending us an email.

As always we welcome your comments and contributions.

Century-old fieldstone icehouse is nucleus of home four times its size – Pavilion Township

Historic sites dressed up for holiday tours – Muskegon

Fight against blight: Heights working to clean up neighborhoods – Muskegon Heights

Tourism officials push for historic designation for 170-miles of U.S. 31 – Grand Haven

$60M development proposed for Macatawa Park

SAC displays 10-year restoration project

BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT: Man honored by Main Street for restoration of historic hut – Walled Lake

Detroit DDA approves property purchase for Capitol Park redevelopment

Editorial: The road more traveled

Lincoln Park’s historic newspaper building saved from wrecking ball

City of Muskegon wants private group to maintain Marsh Field

A land bank plan that could succeed

Curing sprawlitis – Lansing

Michigan targets urban blight

East Jordan pursues Main Street revitalization

Afloat in the Ocean, Expanding Islands of Trash

A Revolutionary War Widow’s Estate Becomes a Preservation Battleground – Annandale-On-Hudson, NY

Haus proud: The women of Bauhaus – Berlin, Germany

Yesterday the Commerce Department released that housing starts in the U.S. had dropped 10.6% in the month of October from the previous month. Cast in a predictably negative light, the markets responded with downward movement due to rising fears of a slow pace for our economic recovery. I find myself in the minority that sees this as long term good news, a market condition we should be embracing as we take a rare economic opportunity to try and move our jobs base from our historical model of unlimited growth to one of sustainable capitalism.

Traditionally, housing starts are seen as a leading indicator of economic health as they represent fuel for the construction industry which contributes 4-5% of our national GDP according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Building and purchasing new homes is one of the quickest ways for Americans to spend money—which is one of the things we do best. But not only is there no reason for us to be building more homes right now, but we should not emerge into a new economy built on the foundations of an outmoded concept of creating square footage ad infinitum.

If one were to forget the economic assumption that more housing starts is always positive, it is easy to see the number of reasons why we have no need for more housing right now. The recession has left us with an excess of homes. An article in the Wall Street Journal notes that “the number of homes listed for sale was 3.63 million in September according to the National Association of Realtors. That is enough to last about eight months at the current rate of sales.” The article also points out that foreclosures are still on the rise, leaving more property in the hands of banks (and even the FDIC) that want, and need, to unload them at bargain values, only further pressuring prices. We do not need more of a product that is in declining demand from a consumer that cannot afford to purchase it.

Furthermore, the NRDC’s Kaid Benfield pointed out last month that aging baby boomers are estimated to begin unloading their suburban homes at a rate of 5% per year between 2010 and 2030, only adding to the glut of available space.

Suburban homes are also not where we should be focusing our money and efforts when it comes to new living space. The financial crisis offered an opportunity to finally rein an expansion of suburban sprawl that has gone on for decades. New homes farther away from town and city centers bring with them more utilities, more emergency services and more energy wasted in commuting. We should be bolstering our urban centers and drawing people back to their inherent efficiencies of living. To have our government working on a carbon bill while we are using more farmland and natural landscape to prop up developer homes is ridiculous. It is the difference between the image of sustainability and the nature of sustainability—the latter is an encompassing system that affects a lifestyle in its entirety.

If Americans are serious about creating a more sustainable economy, then eventually we need to move away from a system where our barometer of success is continuous growth. It is possible for our country to be healthy without building an increasing number of new homes each month. Of course, it means asking those annoying questions like “What happens when there is no more acreage left to develop?” or “How many people can our country feasibly support indefinitely?” The easiest way to avoid the answers is to begin changing our trajectory now. Instead of new home construction we can be focusing on building retrofits, restoration and deconstruction. These practices use less energy, produce less waste and improve upon the building stock that we already have to make it better instead of tearing it down. One can imagine a combination of virgin building, recycling and upcycling that could bring us much closer to a level of construction stasis.

Construction is only one of the areas where we need to re-align our practices to change our economic growth expectations. Transit, energy production and distribution and water infrastructure all are viewed as continuously growing commodities and can all be curbed into regenerative social practices.

Photo Credit: Flickr movers_4u

Next Tuesday, the Whatcom County Council will be holding a public hearing regarding proposed changes to its urban growth areas (UGAs).  The current proposal eliminates much of the existing Ferndale and Blaine UGAs and also removes portions of the Bellingham and Lynden UGAs.

Advocates for reducing the size of UGAs throughout Whatcom County do so on the basis of limiting and/or halting “sprawl.”  Although the term “sprawl” often gets bandied about in land use discussions, the term is rarely used correctly.

Sprawl is often used as a catch-all term to encompass any type of development outside of an established neighborhood.  Washington’s Growth Management Act, however, refers to “sprawl” as the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.  Thus, sprawl is not development in or expansion of an urban growth area per se.

Cities, especially Bellingham, have had a difficult time promoting the infilling and densification of existing neighborhoods.  As a consequence, denser development has occurred at the edges of cities and outside of city limits and within adjacent urban growth areas.

Development at the edge of a city or within its urban growth area is not “sprawl” if the development is urban in nature.   Residential development at more than 4 units per acre and/or commercial or mixed use development adequately served by utilities and transportation facilities are examples of urban types of development.

In preventing “sprawl” counties must consider what in fact causes low density development in rural areas and whether reducing UGAs encourages or discourages further development in rural areas.  In other words, those concerned about sprawl should consider the ramifications of shrinking urban growth areas to such an extent that lack of land availability leads to low density development in rural areas – “sprawl.”

[Source: The Urbanist] – This graph is a jobs index comparing the jobs located more than 10 miles from CBDs to jobs located within three miles of CBDs.  The dark blue sections show the difference in this ratio between 1998 and 2006.  For instance, the ratio for Phoenix is 1:1, meaning Phoenix experienced 100 percent more growth at its urban boundaries than it did in its city center. The lightest areas show the values for cities within the Northern California megaregion.  [Note: Read the full article at Job sprawl in the megaregion.]

So I seen a picture of a jungle somewhere and searched for SL jungles on a whim and find a place called Jungle Territory in the Acanthus sim. Eventually I see a nice bath area and all so i take a break from exploring and take this picture.

Hair: Tukinowaguma luna SH ebony white
Skin: Adam n Eve – Desire t2 – make up Russet
Eyes: booN tsubura eyes lampblack

Poncho: (CS) midnight poncho (mossgreen) from CREAMSHOP
Jeans: *Girlie* Babydoll Jeans with belt
Tee: *Sprawl* Plain Tee *pink* (that i cropped to 74 length)

Earrings: Le Fleur Earrings (white Diamond) by Alienbear
Belly Ring: dragon belly ring by Anarchy Cinquetti (Don’t remember the store name)
Bracelet: EarthStones Beautiful Slave Bracelet – Tourmaline
Footwear: EarthStones Beautiful Slave Footlet – Tourmaline

If we needed any further confirmation that China is the champion builder of sprawl in this decade (sorry America, you don’t even come close against things like Dubai Marina), this reporter traveled to an entire city built by developers in Inner Mongolia, that, it turns out, no one wants to move to because there is no economy there, as compared to the traditional city down the road.

The economic dimension problem of sprawl building is shown here as evidently as it can be shown.

As planners, we’re certainly used to the familiar tune of out-of-control suburban sprawl, endless expanses of concrete and asphalt, etc., etc.  And yes, yes, we know the other familiar tune that everything is better in Europe, blah blah.  I chose to highlight this article because it just reinforces the colossal scale on which we have completely over-extended the size our national infrastructure network without concern for how we can ever pay to operate, maintain, upgrade, and replace it all.  In 2000 Milwaukee was the 22nd largest U.S. city, by population, and was 39th in terms of mass transit ridership in 2006.  But just think about the countless other U.S. cities, towns, villages, and rural communities where we built roads and bridges, highways and parking lots with reckless abandon, and are only now beginning to face the real cost of supporting and maintaining these decaying structures.  Depressing, indeed!

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/69419357.html

To me, there are overwhelming needs for, and potential impacts from, designing and deploying automated car parking facilities throughout the world. The material below is intended to be a capsule summary of those needs and areas of impact. But the dreamed of ITS-Park solution will only be meaningful if there is a plausable path for getting there. I intend to describe one or more such paths,  as my blog moves along. Stay tuned!

Automated car parking at ITS-Park garages should be well received by smartcar owners because of the savings it will offer in time, cost and convenience. But it’s also important is to consider the context of its expected future existence: A more populous world which will be more environmentally sensitive; a world of expanding cities and increasing numbers of mega cities; the re-shaping of cities into more people friendly city designs; and its relationship to improvements in future transportation systems.

 1. ITS-Park should introduce huge improvements in society’s efficient use of parking resources – the core of sustainability – which is so essential as we experience continued growth in world population; the growth of mega-cities; and the expansion of society’s consumption of those resources. ITS-Park’s should be significantly smaller than today’s self-park garages, paring down the amount of materials and energy required to construct our “car barns”. Their smaller size will reduce the energy required for travel along the interior streets and ramps of the parking garage. Their control accuracy will  likewise reduce energy requirements by directing cars to empty parking spaces via the shortest route.

 ITS-Park deployment should encourage small car choice by consumers, linking ITS-Park systems to auto buyer’s choice of cars. The smaller the car driven, the smaller will be the daily cost of parking, contrary to today’s self-park designs with their “one size fits all” philosophy.

 2. ITS-Park systems will greatly influence the design and redesign of cities throughout the world. They will:

• Reduce the negative connotations of “sprawl” by reducing the overall amount of land needed for parking cars; facilitate more shared parking.
• Provide for more desirable pedestrian oriented walking areas by reducing the scale of car parks; moving them away from pedestrian streets; introduce remote parking wherein smartcars drive themselves along underground or elevated guideways to parking sites some distance away from city centers.
• Allow more car parking underground, freeing up surface land uses for parks, etc., by greatly improving underground construction economics.

 3. ITS-Park should improve automotive transportation systems time efficiency, or the productivity of trips requiring parking at their final destination. Long commuting trips include a line haul segment, circulation segments at both ends, and, finally, car parking. Innovations like HOV lanes are saving commuters significant amounts of time. But circulating around streets hunting for parking after exiting a HOV lane, and spending the time to manually park and walk through a big parking garage will increasingly seem counterproductive. Locating ITS-Park structures closer to freeway and arterial junctions, along with the elimination of personal parking time, will enhance overall trip productivity.

• The introduction of ITS-Park capabilities will also enhance the feasibility of transportation systems, such as improving transit rider ship through faster and more convenient park-and-ride service; providing access to numerous, convenient underground ITS-Park garages for city center car sharing services; and facilitating new lightweight people-mover (ITS-mover) linking services.

Can you envision such impacts from the idea of ITS-Park? Can you see even more possibilites?

.

It’s been a while since I have blogged Phoenix Rising – and that’s unfortunate because the clothes are even more distinctive and fun. Take this lovely outfit called Motive, is there anything more fun that that lovely plaid corset with the wide sash and belt?

It even includes the lovely stockings with a sexy seamed leg. The shoes are the oh-so-chic Claire shoes from Baiastice. I just love their shape with the pointed toes, the sleek styling and the lovely pleated embellishment. My only wish is that the soles were black just because unlike real life, when you see the soles of shoes in SL, you sometimes don’t realize it’s the sole and think it’s the foot. I think I have zoomed in on these shoes a few more than too many times to make sure they fit.  They are perfectly made and perfectly fit and in real life when you see the sole of a shoe, it never occurs to you that it could be the foot.

I am not wearing the blouse that came with this even though it is adorable with a lovely fabric and wonderful puffed sleeves. It’s a short top that leaves a bit of bare belly and you all know me, I just don’t care for that look. The outfit does include a camisole undershirt to cover up, but I decided I would just rather wear one white shirt. Besides, this really highlights how this outfit is made up of effective separates. I can wear each individual piece on its own because the layers are made to give me that option.

My jewelry choices included earrings from Zaara Couture and this adorable seasonal necklace from SugarCube. I love how it interacts with the corset. It’s fun, lively and bright.

The hair is Dylan from Tiny Bird – another lovely, whimsical style from someone who is fast becoming a favorite hair stylist for me. The skin is a Vanity Universe Skin Fair highlight – a skin from Atomic Bambi that is just lovely and that lush red lipstick is perfect for this outfit.

****STYLE NOTES******
Promotional Copies are denoted by a Bold R

• Poses: Torridwear
• Skin: Atomic Bambi LANA Sunblush Siren R
• Eyes: PXL Creations Glow Yellow Green R
• Lashes: Lelutka Diva Prim Lashes
• Hair: Tiny Bird Dylan
• Shirt: Sprawl Oxford Button Front White
• Corset/Skirt/Belt/Stockings: Phoenix Rising Motive R
• Shoes: Baiastice Claire R
• Jewelry: Sugarcube Apple Necklace R , Zaara Melange Earrings

Pretty much the only completed portion of the (future) 1-square-mile Norton Commons facility.

I’m fresh from visiting Norton Commons in Louisville, KY and I’m currently bursting with ideas; however, these two may not be related.

First, the trip was excellent; being able to walk around and get a guided tour of the Norton Commons development was a great experience. For anyone who isn’t aware, it’s an urban project built in what once was (and much of it still is) a corn field. The entire project has been designed by Andres Duany from DPZ and is definitely a New Urbanism development. While the area is brand new and thus is still growing (Google Earth, while it can take you to the site shows a large cornfield and nothing more), the curator of the project, Mr. David Tomes, was our guide and helped us to see some of the “behind the scenes” which goes on with a project of this magnitude.

Private space in an urban setting through plantings and formal treatements.

The entire site is just less than 1 square mile and is being developed, by and large, in the New Urbanism tenants includingwalkability, mixed living (ie. a $1 million house across the street from a quad-apartment complex, etc.) and all of the other attributes of New Urbanism. I must admit that there were many great aspects of the development and unfortunately I can’t get into them all; however, I will say that one of the greatest things was that it was doing very much what I’ve wanted to see: construction to create a living environment – a neighborhood – that gives more than what mere suburban living or sprawl allows: community. However, there were many aspects which I didn’t enjoy, primarily that the area was a Greenfield development, which is a horrible waste. Now, given the choice between Greenfield development for a subdivision complex or Greenfield development for New Urbanism (N.U.) I’m sure I would go N.U. every time, but when our cities need this, they seem to be left out.

Looking at N.U. and comparing it to what I’ve envisaged, I find that it is something that I can, for the most part, condone (the Greenfield development is the primary concern, yet again); however, it appears that N.U. is on the continuum I have envisioned for the city of the future. The city of the future should go something like this: City Core -> Urban Living (currently existing in some) -> Livable Urbanism (what I am working on, see more about it a bit later) -> New Urbanism -> Redeveloped Suburbanism/Sprawl (what some of my colleagues are currently working on) -> Rural/Farm (But with better connection to the “home city” from which it is based. I’ve realized right now that this desperately needs a sketch or two to help explain and, thus, I’ll be working on that today to try to get it up here so that everyone can see.

Keep checking back; too, because I feel that the creative juices are once again starting to flow and that means I’ll have more and more to share. I’ve just gotten done with some sketches that I’m really excited about, so you can check back this weekend for those, too.

All houses have at least a 2-car garage; Alley-fed

Shared green space fosters mini-community feeling.

By Dom Nozzi

In America, residents of neighborhoods have come to expect business and industrial activity to be toxic, noisy, or likely to attract lots of big and dangerous truck volumes. These understandable concerns – particularly at the dawn of the industrial revolution in the early 20^th Century – mean that for most people, industrial, retail or office development is considered to be incompatible with residential areas (or anywhere at all in the community).

Advocates for compact, walkable community and neighborhood design often hear these concerns expressed when compact, “mixed-use” development is recommended. But there are three things to know about this commonly-used, squelcher objection to compact development.

First, such noisy or toxic businesses have dramatically reduced in number since the turn of the last century. As a result, zoning-based separation is now much less necessary to protect homes from toxic or noisy businesses. Unlike 100 years ago, it is now fairly easy and common today to design most all businesses or offices to be compatible with residential areas.

Why continue using an anachronistic “separation-of-uses” regulatory scheme that was designed to confront problems that society faced 100 years ago, but one that we almost never face today? I suspect the reason most elected folks maintain this outdated method is that continuing to use the old system is a way to make emotional, counterproductive NIMBYs less infuriated. Or else they themselves continue to believe that an office or shop near their home would degrade residential property values.

If we are paying more than lip service to making it feasible for people to walk or bicycle regularly, we need to get serious and largely dump zoning-based regulation to dramatically reduce trip distances. Note that despite a widespread suburban value system throughout most of America, many communities are slowly increasing the proportion of properties carrying a mixed-use zoning.

Secondly, the new urbanist Smart Code (which is now a free-to-use download without copyright protection) recognizes the existence of various locally-undesirable-land uses (LULUs). The Smart Code therefore assign such uses (airports are a good example) to “special districts” remote from the community. That allows a nearly complete elimination of the need to separate land uses, with the exception of a tiny fraction of certain especially unusual uses.

Thirdly, even if it were true that we must have zoning-based separation, it is just another sign that our society is unsustainable (because it is inherently car-dependent).

Unless we start building a more sustainable (read: compact) world, we’re heading for a train wreck.

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

The Washington Post has a story today on how Maryland is losing its fight against sprawl. A decade ago state officials were considered innovators by passing the first so called “smart growth” law in the country aimed at preserving more open space by directing denser development around Metro stations and other mass transportation hubs. But, a new study conducted at the University of Maryland and published in Journal of the American Planning Association concludes that, despite the Smart Growth law, three quarters of all new homes in the state built between 1998 and 2006 went up on pasture lands and forests. The story reports that “the law has been a bust, largely because it has no teeth to force local governments to comply and because builders have little incentive to redevelop older urban neighborhoods.”

Pretty sobering news, considering that the pace of suburban sprawl in recent decades has been mind-boggling. More than half the U.S. population lives in the suburbs today, half of them in the exurbs – 60 or 70 miles from the nearest city or job center. With population growth expected to add tens of millions more suburbanites by mid-century, developers have been converting farms and forests into bedroom communities at breakneck speed: An average of two million acres of rural land is turned into subdivisions each year.

The trend has huge environmental consequences in terms of habitat losses that put endangered species in peril, as well as human health affects, most notably air pollution from automobiles required to get around in the suburbs. As we become increasingly aware of global warming, those costs are adding up. Auto emissions already account for more than a quarter of the greenhouse gases spewed by Americans. Sprawl not only means more car-centric living, but it requires the bulldozing forests that could otherwise serve as greenhouse gas-absorbing buffers against climate change.

Smart Growth had been one of the few proposals to breakthrough the din of public policy debate, making the conclusion’s of this study all the more disturbing. But smart growth may not be doomed everywhere. The Post story offers few details but does mention beefier laws in Oregon and Washington State that have had better success at reigning in sprawl by spelling out exactly where growth cannot occur. So, perhaps it’s not smart growth that has flopped but Maryland’s political will to reign in developers.

[Source: jsethanderson, blogger, Downtown Phoenix Partnership] — I must be a glutton for punishment.  My passion about Phoenix history burns hot like the Phoenix sun in July and as much as I love the heat, it can harm me if I’m not careful.  Studying Phoenix history can do the same.  The subject is like a cactus: it’s beautiful, I like to look at it and study it, but if I get too close it will prick me and leave a stinging pain that eventually wears off.  Learning new things can have the same effect.  But no matter how often it happens, I keep going back for more.  I have to understand.  The past is the prologue – I must study the past.

Not only must I study history to appease (temporarily) my natural curiosity, I also have to share what I find.  To borrow a phrase from Richard Dawkins, “consciousness raising” is of the utmost importance.  When riding the light rail, I see a city growing out of the awkward teenage years and into young adulthood with a sense of its own identity.  I feel the perfect storm blowing winds of change across vacant lots downtown.  There is an energy and an excitement about urban Phoenix.  The shrill voices from the suburbs still shriek but the rhetoric is foolish and shortsighted.  The days of cheap gas and short commutes are long past.  The true costs of sprawl and of low density “communities” located in the far-flung suburbs have reared its head in a way we’ve never seen before.  It’s about time.

Beneath the city lights, skyscrapers, and our remaining historic buildings lies a fabric of history created and destroyed by lives of countless people.  Some may argue that Phoenix has an unromantic past.  I disagree.  Our romantic past was erased by the wrecking ball before our very eyes, then quickly forgotten.  The early years of the city, when Phoenix grew feed for horses at Fort McDowell, are admittedly, unremarkable.  But it was during the early booms that the desert, against overwhelming odds, blossomed into Victorian architecture with theatres, opera houses, schools, neighborhoods, museums, and trains.  Later Phoenix became addicted to a drug that destroyed it from the inside out- the automobile.  Phoenix is still recovering.  I don’t like what cars did to western American cities.  People need cities where they can walk, people need to be outside, people need to hear voices of strangers.  Phoenix lost that element.

I admit freely that I am a Phoenix cheerleader, a self-conscious cheerleader perhaps.  I’m smart enough to know that blind adoration is not conducive to creativity.  I’m hypersensitive to criticism when it’s unwarranted but will listen when it is.  Claims that “there is nothing to do in Phoenix” or “Phoenix has no culture” are the ramblings of the ignorant and lazy and I always dismiss such claims.

Phoenix doesn’t need “a” history, we just must learn our history.  This knowledge is essential for the creative and innovative ideas to take root.  Mature cities foster their history, they don’t tear it down.  Mature cities build on traditions and common language.  Our cultural language and literature of the city has yet to be written.  I can’t imagine New York without the literary contributions of Edith Wharton, London without Shakespeare, St. Petersburg without Dostoevsky.  I believe the best novels set in and about Phoenix are yet to come.  (Honestly, there is so much to write about!)  [Note: Read the full blog entry at Ode to a Phoenix.]

From Diana Christopulos at the Roanoke Valley Cool Cities Coalition:

Hollins University and the Darci Ellis Godhard Fund for Social Justice present “The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century” with urban planning expert, social critic, author, and journalist James Howard Kunstler

• WHEN:     Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 7 p.m.
• WHERE:    Niederer Auditorium, Wetherill Visual Arts Center
• COST:       Free Admission

With a critical eye and a provocative, entertaining voice, Kunstler explores the sweeping economic, political, and social changes that will result from the end of access to cheap fossil fuels.

“Kunstler, like George Orwell, understands that being honest about the past and present is the only way to prepare ourselves for an uncertain future.”  —Professor David Ehrenfeld, Rutgers University

I’ll be there.  Kunstler has been an outspoken and harsh critic of urban sprawl and progressive design of public space, as illustrated by this presentation (warning:  Some of Kunstler’s language is as strong as his criticism, so be forewarned).

(above, Pigasus [the pig candidate for President from the Yippie party] at a rally, Chicago 1968.  classic Windy City protest)

AREA/Chicago announces a publication release / art happening….

(AREA Chicago Art/Research/Education/Activism is a publication and event series dedicated to researching, supporting and networking local social, political and cultural movements.)

AREA #9 Release Party marks the release of AREA #9 Peripheral Vision: A Local Reader Inside and Outside Chicago…November 1, 2009 from 2:00pm till 5:00 pm.

The release party will be coinciding with the closing party for the exhibit/event series titled Demise of the South Side Community Art Center at the South Side Community Art Center, 3831 S. Michigan Ave. (CTA: Indiana stop on the Green Line)

So there will be lots of great things to see alongside two events which are scheduled:

3:00 Peripheral Feminism: Readings by contributors
and 4:00 Performance by Sebastian Alvarez

This issue’s contributions are by/about:

Notes for a People’s Atlas of Calumet, Claire Pentecost, disability activism, Paul Durica, deindustrialization, Stephanie Farmer, Sean Noonan, Compass Group, Hobofest, Jayne Hileman, Ishpeming, Anthony Rayson, Forgotten Chicago, Dinah Ramirez, James Lane, Crandon mine campaign, Sarah Kanouse, Nick Brown, suburban segregation, The Brownlands, Mairead Case, rural pilgrimage, Beth Gutelius, feminism, Dale Asis, Southeast Environmental Task Force, Sarah Kavage, the Burnham plan, Lorenza Perelli, Chicago Otra, Donna Kiser, Erin Moore, immigration detention, Mara Naselli, used bookstores, Sue Simensky Bietila, Mary Patten, donation diasporas, Joann Podkul, MAS, Brian Schultz, ecology, Joey Pizzolato, regional energy, Alex Yablon, Native American sites, Carrie Breitbach, HIV in minority communities, Quincy Saul, Gary, Bert Stabler, Great Lakes waterways, Charlie Vinz, teaching urban studies in the suburbs, teaching art on the south side, Larry Shure, Southworks, Laurie Jo Reynolds, Dan Wang, Nazis in Skokie, No Se Vende, Mike Wolf, Human Action Campaign Organization, Ashley Weger, demolition, Ryan Hollon, Andrew Greenlee, Gloria Ortiz, Steel Shavings, Paul Sargent, slumming, Laurie Palmer, neoliberal poetry, Michelle Lugalia, world systems, Steve Macek, distribution, Rebecca Zorach, Nicolas Lampert, sprawl, Daniel Tucker, Tamms, Carol Ng-He, STAND, Wade Tillett, Nicole Marroquin, CTA, anarchists in the suburbs, Sam Barnett, Chase Bracamontes, Sergei Chrucky, Generations for Peace, Matthias Regan, Just Farming Small Farmers Confederation, parking meter protests, radical memory.

RSVP here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=150798202534&ref=ts 

For more info, email areachicagointern@gmail.com

(below, the South Side Community Art Center. The Art Center, which was established as part of the Works Progress Administration’s [WPA] Federal Art Project, has been influential in the development of the city’s African-American artists. It is the only continuous survivor of the more than 100 centers established nationwide by the WPA during the 1930s and ’40s.)

Though it may not have appealed to everyone, 350.org’s International Day of Climate Action garnered plenty of attention, making headlines on front pages of newspapers worldwide and resulting in over 19,000 images on Flickr. That’s quite an impression for such an innocuous number.

For those who don’t know, 350.org is an association of activists who believe 350 parts per million is the highest possible concentration of CO2 that can be present in the atmosphere without adversely affecting life as we know it here on Planet Earth. On Sunday, October 24th, the group held over 5200 events in 181 countries around the globe. Their goal was to heighten awareness about carbon dioxide emission and its possible contribution to greenhouse effect through visual demonstrations involving the number 350.

It seems that ever since the Age of Reason, everything has had to have a number. Though quite useful in terms of ratio, these specific magnitudes are insignificant, because assigning numbers never really changes anything. It wouldn’t matter if I said the speed of light was 299,792,458 meters per second or 7 billion; the qualifying consideration in the matter is that it’s a physical constant in relation to the rest of the universe, and no amount of quantifying is going to alter that fact. If people want to put the upper limit on CO2 at 350 parts per million; I say fine. It doesn’t make a difference whether it’s 350 or 750. The underlying assumption is that there is a physical limitation, a point beyond which any more carbon is simply too much.

Along with the iPhone, carbon is huge right now. Carbon cycle, carbon sequestration, carbon footprint, carbon sink, carbon offset; the terms conjure up concepts at once logical and quixotic. It’s like name dropping; just mentioning carbon instantly elevates a dialogue to a higher level, into a realm both influential and sublime.

I really don’t know how I feel about carbon, but I am quite certain about where I stand on carbon footprints, the evaluation of which is currently all the rage. That the practice is just a mechanism for the continuation of bad behavior is readily apparent from discussions regarding carbon credits and the proliferation of carbon exchanges. It’s a springboard for discrimination and elitism, a way of preserving an untenable lifestyle while maintaining an air of superiority at being “greener than thou”.

John Muir is quoted as having said, “Tug on anything at all and you’ll find it connected to everything else in the universe.” A personal favorite of mine, this musing was in the forefront of my mind as I read an abstract of an article by David Owen on Treehugger.com that claimed New Yorkers Are the Most Eco-Friendly People in the US – Without Even Trying.

Though interesting as an introspection, this assertion contains as much rubbish as a New York city garbage barge. In examining their respective carbon footprints, it is plausible that careful manipulation of the calculation’s scope and structure could result in a smaller quantity being assigned to an individual New Yorker household than to an average two car garage commuting ranch dweller in rural or suburban America, but arrival at this product is completely dependent upon process. Measuring the personal energy bill of an individual living in a New York high rise with central heating or the number of gallons of gasoline consumed by a subway riding Manhattanite without considering the carbon footprint of this attendant infrastructure, to say nothing of global environmental ties, is mere subterfuge. It is pure artifice, aimed at substantiating a standard of living while turning a blind eye upon its true price.

Deforestation in Third World and emerging countries is driven by the market pressures of wealthier nations. Clean air and water in America comes at the cost of dirty air and water in China. Beef served in Manhattan steakhouses is grazed in Montana before being shipped cross country to market. The carbon footprint of an average New Yorker is not contained within the city margins. It is imprinted upon the entire globe.

All figures aside, simple facts remain. There is no cleaner way to exist than through a simple agrarian subsistence lifestyle. This is the mode of living advocated in the philosophies of naturalists such as Muir and Thoreau; a human existence based on the stewardship of locality, not the sprawling disassociation of the contemporary American landscape. If each were left to rely strictly on their own means, the State of Vermont would continue to sustain itself, albeit in a much different way, long after Manhattan lay in ruins.

New York is a flower; a beautiful, fragrant flourish created and maintained by the larger organism that supports it. Although extremely efficient, our cities depend completely upon other regions of our country, and the world, for their sustenance. They are as inseparable from the whole as fruit from the vine.

Until the developed world moves away from an economy based on comparative advantage and cheap energy and embraces a system comprised primarily of provincial production architecture founded in basic natural processes performed at a local scale, there will be no hope for a balance between humanity and its global environ. Unfortunately, there is no easier answer, no science and technology that will save us, and no amount of statistical analysis will suffice to change our physical state. We must take ownership of our ecologic inclusion, make claim to the earth that sustains us, and root ourselves in its soil. We cannot push our impact to the periphery and deny the existence of what we cannot see. To survive, we must sacrifice. There must be dirt beneath our fingernails and muck about our feet, and we must accept it as our own. Like any catharsis, there will be growing pains. But I, for one, believe the call to arms that is the environmental movement is really only an expression of our longing for a simpler existence and that we, as a whole, prefer life as a butterfly.

I have a column out today about the threat of the cross-county connector on Mattawoman Creek, and the implications for the Chesapeake Bay.

Mattawoman: Constructing or destructing?

A week ago, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) announced a bill to clean up the Chesapeake Bay by giving the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to set pollution reduction goals for states whose pollution harms the bay. Federal funding would be cut if those targets aren’t met. The legislation, titled the Bay Ecosystem Restoration Act, would also authorize $2 billion for the states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to spend on cleanup and best practices.

Passing this bill would be a good step, particularly toward actually putting some teeth into regulations by punishing states who slack off. Up until now, the main strategy for saving the Chesapeake Bay has been to fund an exponentially larger broom to clean up our growing mess, oblivious to the concept of preventing the mess in the first place. This could be why the Chesapeake Bay Foundation rated the health of the bay in 2008 a 28 out of 100 — one full point higher than the score in 1998. Ah, the smell of bullshit consistency.

Gov. Martin O’Malley and other state officials have a great opportunity to break the tendency of making the cleanup a national disgrace. Mattawoman Creek in Charles County is one of the most pristine, healthy streams that flows into the Chesapeake bay. It’s also one of the premier fish nurseries on the East Coast, consistently drawing tourism and Bassmaster Tournaments. Charles County government wants to build an extension of a highway called the cross-county connector across the full width of the Mattawoman watershed.

This would no doubt generate thousands of acres of new sprawl and development around the creek, where the 2,200-acre Chapman forest is currently located. Talk about one-upping the Wooded Hillock. The only thing funnier than this plan is Charles County officials arguing that developing over Mattawoman Creek will actually help save it. The Maryland Department of the Environment has to decide whether to approve a permit for this development proposal.

If I was a member of MDE and found this request on my doorstep, the first thing I would do is check to see whether it’s April Fools’ Day. The rejection would be swift. Instead, MDE has been deliberating over the permit for many months, giving serious consideration to a proposal that is seriously bad.

We need more leadership on cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay not just by throwing money at the problem, but by enforcing strong standards on development and pollution so pollutants don’t get into the Chesapeake bay in the first place. Cardin has shown that we can count on him. Can the state also count on O’Malley to follow Cardin’s lead?

Past development decisions, such as allowing the construction of the Intercounty Connector, do not inspire confidence. Neither does MDE’s hesitation in rejecting the permit for construction of the cross-county connector, which would lead to the destruction of Mattawoman Creek. With one of the healthiest fish nurseries in the Chesapeake Bay region on the line, reckless development decisions such as paving over a body of water with a highway should lead MDE to a simple conclusion, be it bay or creek.

Why would we want to destroy something good?

Matt Dernoga is a senior government and politics major. He can be reached at dernoga at umdbk dot com

[Source: Ted Robbins, NPR] – The vast majority of the Phoenix metropolitan area — 90 percent — was built after 1950.  It’s been a pell-mell push for growth.  But like many places, that growth came to a screeching halt during the recession.  In the suburb of Maricopa, AZ, the population grew from 1,000 to 45,000 residents over the past decade.  In 2007, the city was processing 700 building permits a month.  But then the economy soured.  “We reduced that to 300 and then … we set our budget last year at 100,” says Maricopa Mayor Anthony Smith.  “Well, 100 was too many.  So now we’ve set our budget for 30 new building permits each month.”

Housing Surplus

There’s a large inventory of homes on the market in the Phoenix metropolitan area.  The Salter family — Thad, Laura and their sons, Isaiah and Isaac — moved to Maricopa three years ago, from San Jose, Calif.  They paid more than $300,000 for their home.  It’s now worth about half that.  Thad Salter says more than half of the 22 homes on his block have been foreclosed on: “My block got devastated.  My next door neighbor’s no longer my next door neighbor.  And I’ve seen houses across the street from me going down the block on my side of the street just turn over.”

The good news is the homes did turn over.  All but two resold — albeit at much lower prices. The Salters have been trying to refinance their mortgage at a lower interest rate for two years and are just now getting their lender, Chase Bank, to come to terms.  Still, they are glad they moved.  “You know, my kids love it here. I have family here. I have some good friends here,” Salter says.

Lost Construction Jobs

But the pause button has been pushed in Phoenix when it comes to new construction.  Grady Gammage Jr., an attorney and a real estate developer, spends a lot of time thinking about his native Phoenix’s future.  He says the pause should make the Phoenix area take stock.  “We’re now big enough that maybe continuing to operate on a boom and bust cycle as a sort of Wild West frontier town is no longer the right formula, and we ought to try to diversify our economy a little more,” he says.

One-third of the jobs lost statewide — 100,000 out of 300,000 — have been in construction.  Gammage says it’s time for Phoenix to create employment that can sustain itself through good times and bad.  A solar energy industry is one idea for alternative employment given the abundance of sunshine.

Create Urban Density, Not Sprawl

Instead of the sprawl Phoenix is known for, many local architects and urban planners want more density.  Urban nodes, they call them — where working and living can be done close to each other. Phoenix has expanded its downtown business core in recent years — but as in other Western cities, it largely rolls up at night when people drive home to the suburbs.

The car is king here.  For years it has been the only way to get around.  But in December, Phoenix opened its first light-rail system.  Two lines connect downtown with outlying areas.  Ridership was up to 1 million people a month at one point.

The recently minted town of Maricopa just started running a bus line to transport workers and others the 35 miles to downtown Phoenix.  These are welcome drops in the bucket for most planners and are signs that Phoenix is beginning to grow up.  [Note: Read the full article at Planners contemplate Phoenix's post-boom future.]

Since this summer, I’ve studied the banner ads on the Houston Press website rather closely.  I had skin in the game, as a couple of organizations I’m involved with were paying for banner ads.

Even though none of those ads are running now, I find myself noticing the ones that are, and this weekend, I noticed a significant number of ads for bars, clubs, and other businesses.  In Dallas.

I’ve seen four today, advertising Avanti, Plush Dallas, Thrive Nightclub, Dick’s Last Resort, The Glass Cactus (technically in Grapevine, NORTH of Dallas), and, although we have a campus in Houston, the Art Institute of Dallas.

I can think of no compelling business reason for Dallas bars to advertise in Houston unless:

1)  Dallas, trying to lure Houston into the Metroplex, is testing the first phase of their devious plan by seeing how many drunks can be induced to drive four hours up I-45 to go clubbing.

Huh.

2) The Press recently did an in-depth demographic analysis on banner ad click-through and discovered the majority of clicks come from pilots and flight attendants who fly the route between Houston and Dallas, so advertisers should buy impressions in both markets.

3)  Some doofus ad rep:

• Coded a local ad as a national one, or as a Houston one,  so that local (Dallas) ads are running in Houston or on all New Times sites.
• Promised local Dallas customers more impressions than he or she had to give away, so is making it up by running them in other markets.

I suspect some variation on #3, which is why I linked to the Dallas establishments.  Maybe they’ll track their pings to see why I’ve got them on my blog, discover their New Times ad rep screwed up, and get a refund or discount.

Houston and Dallas both suffer from sprawl, but even Texas-sized sprawl isn’t going to eat up the distance between our two cities any time soon.

Dear Nancy,

As a fellow democrats (and Americans), eight years of Dubya have forced us to endure a lot together: $970 million dollar tax cuts for the richest 5%, a $236 billion surplus squandered down to a $490 billion deficit, the cost of oil skyrocketing to $100 a barrel, and, of course, the worst drop in our Stock Market since the Great Depression.

I think this makes us friends.

I recently read, however, that you were working on extending tax credits for first-time homebuyers. I thought that was great—until I started reading the fine print.  The proposals would fund the same old developments, extending the same benefits, to the same people. Let’s get ourselves out of an American Delusion and into a genuine American Dream. I’ll let you use my money, but only if you use it smarter. I’ll let you use my money, but only if you extend opportunities to all Americans.

If not, I’m asking for my friendship ring back.

The $8,000 tax credit as it stands is the same old story with the same tragic ending. The money, proponents say, would stimulate consumption, fuel home construction, and create jobs.  But as it stands, the credit, without any kind of overall vision, would only fan the crumbling housing patterns the industry has promoted for the past forty years: sprawling tract developments. In many ways, as the Brookings Institute’s Jennifer Vey argues in her 2007 report “Restoring Prosperity”, this sprawl harms opportunity for all Americans. Sprawl sucks investment and jobs away from the city—intensifying racial and economic segregation—and encourages unhealthy and unsustainable lifestyles chained to the automobile and the freeway.

We need a new kind of tax credit that will strengthen metropolitan prosperity by inspiring innovation, environmental sustainability, and socioeconomic equity. Why not prioritize credits to fuel civic-minded industries that not only seek to make a profit, but also innovate and uplift the entire region’s health?

We must grow smart by aiding housing developments that build near public transit and promote green, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. We must utilize brownfields and vacant properties, and preserve historic architecture in the city to reinvest in neglected communities. We must collaborate with local community residents and leaders to ensure that developments are context-friendly and can truly extend opportunity for new and old alike. We must build for a mix of income ranges in opportunity-rich neighborhoods to ensure that all Americans can access quality education and a safe environment, and stabilize tax bases while we’re at it. We must encourage a diversity of housing and ownership models, such as co-housing and limited-equity cooperatives, suitable for all Americans—not only for baby boomers, but also for single-parent families and the millennial generation. And we must develop quality education and rewarding career ladders targeted to local communities to insure our investment not only improves the physical landscape but also builds local human capital. There’s a lot in there, I know—but what can I say? There’s a lot of opportunity for innovation.

So let’s start now.

This is a key moment. Our demographics are becoming more diverse. We have an opportunity after a crisis that erupted out of greedy thinking. More people are embracing our cities. More are embracing the environment. More are embracing the link between social equity and sustainable growth. It’s a key moment to uplift a new generation of civic-minded businesses. We must ensure that those that build diverse coalitions, invest in their workers, and embrace communities will win out.  It’s a key moment to promote a new home tax credit, an economic symbol of a sustainable and equitable metropolitan vision—a 21st Century New Deal, a 21st Century American Dream centered around communities.

Think about it.

If you try hard enough, I’ll let you keep my friendship ring.

Your friend,
Dan

[Source: Adam Hochberg, National Public Radio] — Phoenix is one of the nation’s fastest-growing and most sprawling metropolitan areas. Cheap and plentiful land has led to an ever-expanding ring of suburbs, and commuting downtown can take longer than an hour.  Now, a small developer is buying up foreclosed houses near mass transit lines in the city, renovating them to green building standards, and marketing them to young professionals who may be tired of commuting.  [Note: Listen to the broadcast or read the transcript at In Phoenix, luring suburbanites to greener, urban life.]

One of the new opposing forces to the deployment of renewable energy has been dubbed “Energy Sprawl,” referring to a symptom of energy sites requiring dubious amounts of land that could purportedly threaten our natural landscape. Where NIMBY voices are troublesome, these claims are more misguided. There is no question that some renewable power options need space. Energy sources like wind and solar require land in order to build arrays large enough to make them efficient, but the real sprawling epidemic has nothing to do with energy, is much worse and has been going on unaddressed for decades: suburban sprawl. Anyone raising arms about devoting land to renewable energy should be prepared to combat the growth of our suburban communities.

Over the past half century, flight from cities has created an explosion of development in suburbia that claims more virgin land every year. As late as the housing boom that lead up to the current recession, the cost of construction, laxity of zoning laws and ease in security mortgage debt lead to new communities sprouting up across the country almost over night. The result is an ever-expanding network of roadways and a lifestyle driven by automotive travel that breeds inefficiency and waste.

There seems to be a misconception that land used for building new cul-de-sacs wrapped in colonial revival vernacular is somehow less desirable than land used for erecting wind turbines or solar panels. Virgin forest or prime farmland is consumed every year to be subdivided and turned into brand new housing stock. In her book A Field Guide to Sprawl, Dolores Hayden says “the American Farmland Trust estimates that in the United States, 1.2 million acres of farmland were lost to development every year between 1992 and 1997.”

As a point of reference, a solar farm planned for Deming, New Mexico will be one of the biggest in the world, producing up to 300 MW or enough power for 240,000 homes. If completed, the array will require 3,200 acres of land. Using the same ratio of roughly 1 MW per 11 acres of land, the 6 million acres of land consumed for homes in the 1990’s could contribute a maximum capacity of 545,450 MW (545 gigawatts.) According to the Energy Information Association, our total national power generation capacity is in the neighborhood of 995 GW (so over half of our power.)

Unlike energy development, suburban land acquisition does nothing for the natural environment. Its conception lays more roads, erects more power lines and creates more commuting traffic by perpetuating the need for more cars on pavement. The fortunate developments may only waste time, money and resources by laying new sewers while those too far from town or city centers rely instead on septic systems. Despite our best wishes, pouring Drano into a sink that leads to a leeching field is nominally the same as going outside and pouring it on the ground.

Energy installations like wind farms produce clean power and by doing so are diverting generation from sources like coal and oil that can bring damaging effects to the environment along every point of their supply chain from mining to combustion. Modern wind turbines are also usually tall enough that land beneath them can still be farmed. Though some energy arrays may pose some interference with the habitat or migration of natural species (a common attack against wind farm construction), it is estimated that in the U.S. up to 130 million animals are killed on the road every year by cars.

On the other hand, suburban plots produce nothing. They are not havens for animal habits. Unlike the land that they consume, rarely are athey net sources of food, clean water or energy. An article by Dan Shapley notes that according to Census Bureau data, in 2006 nine of the ten fastest growing counties were located in the South or West in areas already stressed for the capacity of fresh water. In Dallas Fort-Worth, one of the fastest growing regions in the country, a North Texas Future Fund report states “by 2050 the [water] deficit could reach 1.1 million-acre feet per year — an amount greater than total current demand.”

Like anything else, the construction of renewable energy has its drawbacks but the argument of space does not come close to comparing to the epidemic of waste that comprises our history of limitless suburban expansion.

In honor of Blog Action Day 2009

Photo Credits: Alex Maclean & Sincerely Sustainable