I found this article today - it talks about online options for finding the best public transit routes for many metro areas and regions. Hope it's of use to some of you.
Of course, I tried it out - mapping out a route that I take frequently. By car it takes me 20-25 minutes. Google's transit planner mapped out an ideal route for me, if I were flexible on time. The shortest trip was just over one hour. 'sigh' Oh well. I look forward to the day when public transportation's even more convenient than getting in the car and driving. (See this post for more on this.)
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Time
Have you noticed that everyone nowdays wants everything faster? Fast food, fast service, yelling at the microwave because it's too slow... It turns out this impatience can even cause the failure of redevelopment and revitalization.
In case anyone hasn't figured this out, it takes time to build something. What's less obvious is that the planning of any project can sometimes take longer than the building process. This effect is often exaggerated when talking about a public project. When you have to consider the input of the planning employees, then the management of the public entity, then the elected officials, who then have to incorporate the feedback of the public, it's by nature a long process. Even private projects have to face this to some extent, since they must go through public approval processes.
The problem often comes as a result of political time frames. Take a city with a council/manager structure - one in which the public elects a city council and mayor, and the council/mayor hire a manager and staff. The council, just after election, decides to undertake a revitalization effort. They tell the manager to have his planning staff put together a revitalization plan proposal. (If you just missed that, they need a document telling them what they already want. It's just the way councils work - they need to have an official vote on a planning budget, and need the planning department to get that budget for them.) After a month or two, they will hopefully have an approved revitalization plan budget, and send the parameters to an urban planning firm to create the revitalization plan.
Depending on the speed of this urban planning firm, they might get a plan back after 6-12 months. Then, typically, this plan has to go through several sub-committees, a process that can take weeks to months, and often requires the planning firm to make revisions. After revisions, we're probably up to 18-20 months into the process.
Here's where the real problem is: Many cities like this have staggered elections, with council members holding 4 year terms, but re-electing about half of them every 2 years. So, at this point, we're in election mode. Council is not thinking so much about the revitalization plan, as they are how the council is going to be after the next election. In the worst case, the makeup of the council has changed so much that no one is interested in the project any more. Or, because it took so long, the economic conditions may have changed, preventing execution of the project. Best case, it can still move forward, though it probably won't be approved until well after the election. Then you still have to go through the bidding and building part of the process.
Lest this sound like a whining session, here's what I suggest: Municipalities need to be very cognizant of the time-sensitivity of revitalization. At the very beginning, they need to create a plan for expediting the process - what items can be run simultaneously, how to handle changes so they don't reset the entire process, what committees need to approve plans and in what order. They also need to recognize the effect of the political process on this type of project, and plan accordingly to reduce the effect.
The success of the revitalization effort, and even the success of the city rides on the completion of these projects, not just on good intentions or good plans.
In case anyone hasn't figured this out, it takes time to build something. What's less obvious is that the planning of any project can sometimes take longer than the building process. This effect is often exaggerated when talking about a public project. When you have to consider the input of the planning employees, then the management of the public entity, then the elected officials, who then have to incorporate the feedback of the public, it's by nature a long process. Even private projects have to face this to some extent, since they must go through public approval processes.
The problem often comes as a result of political time frames. Take a city with a council/manager structure - one in which the public elects a city council and mayor, and the council/mayor hire a manager and staff. The council, just after election, decides to undertake a revitalization effort. They tell the manager to have his planning staff put together a revitalization plan proposal. (If you just missed that, they need a document telling them what they already want. It's just the way councils work - they need to have an official vote on a planning budget, and need the planning department to get that budget for them.) After a month or two, they will hopefully have an approved revitalization plan budget, and send the parameters to an urban planning firm to create the revitalization plan.
Depending on the speed of this urban planning firm, they might get a plan back after 6-12 months. Then, typically, this plan has to go through several sub-committees, a process that can take weeks to months, and often requires the planning firm to make revisions. After revisions, we're probably up to 18-20 months into the process.
Here's where the real problem is: Many cities like this have staggered elections, with council members holding 4 year terms, but re-electing about half of them every 2 years. So, at this point, we're in election mode. Council is not thinking so much about the revitalization plan, as they are how the council is going to be after the next election. In the worst case, the makeup of the council has changed so much that no one is interested in the project any more. Or, because it took so long, the economic conditions may have changed, preventing execution of the project. Best case, it can still move forward, though it probably won't be approved until well after the election. Then you still have to go through the bidding and building part of the process.
Lest this sound like a whining session, here's what I suggest: Municipalities need to be very cognizant of the time-sensitivity of revitalization. At the very beginning, they need to create a plan for expediting the process - what items can be run simultaneously, how to handle changes so they don't reset the entire process, what committees need to approve plans and in what order. They also need to recognize the effect of the political process on this type of project, and plan accordingly to reduce the effect.
The success of the revitalization effort, and even the success of the city rides on the completion of these projects, not just on good intentions or good plans.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Revitalization and Parking
I was reminded about this while looking through information on Dayton's (Ohio) revitalization efforts: One fallacy that many cities fall into when planning revitalization efforts is dealing with parking by using the wrong strategy.
Many cities undertake their revitalization efforts in a historic, central business district. While this in itself isn't wrong, many of these central business districts were formerly where people came to shop. The issue arises when the city pushing the revitalization forgets to change the usage mix, or shifts the usage rather than working toward a truly mixed-use area. The only thing I can figure is that the city feels they need to somehow attract people to the area on the short term. The solution, to them, must be retail, or restaurants, or night clubs, or some combination thereof.
As a result, these revitalized areas have a high demand for parking. Whether it's parking garages, lots, or street parking, a high number of spaces must be provided.
However, if all that's planned for is retail, restaurants, and night clubs, these retailers and entertainment options have to be really good, or the revitalization will fizzle out in favor of the latest mall or other alternative. The result will be plenty of parking, and no one to use it. Worse yet, the restauranteurs and shop owners will go out of business, losing all the money they put into their shops.
A better solution is to promote a mixed-use redevelopment. Here you're not as reliant on outside shoppers - rather, the retail is better-suited to residents who live there. How does this help for parking? In a mixed-use area, residents have the option of walking to a retailer or restaurant. Walking means no car. No car means no parking spot. Fewer parking spots means more space for parks, community space, or more mixed-use development, all of which lead to even more walking traffic.
The other piece to this puzzle is the planning process. Many times, city planners, who are used to suburban development, rush into revitalization using the same rules. Instead, it is important that planners look to more urbanized areas when setting parking ratios and requirements.
Many cities undertake their revitalization efforts in a historic, central business district. While this in itself isn't wrong, many of these central business districts were formerly where people came to shop. The issue arises when the city pushing the revitalization forgets to change the usage mix, or shifts the usage rather than working toward a truly mixed-use area. The only thing I can figure is that the city feels they need to somehow attract people to the area on the short term. The solution, to them, must be retail, or restaurants, or night clubs, or some combination thereof.
As a result, these revitalized areas have a high demand for parking. Whether it's parking garages, lots, or street parking, a high number of spaces must be provided.
However, if all that's planned for is retail, restaurants, and night clubs, these retailers and entertainment options have to be really good, or the revitalization will fizzle out in favor of the latest mall or other alternative. The result will be plenty of parking, and no one to use it. Worse yet, the restauranteurs and shop owners will go out of business, losing all the money they put into their shops.
A better solution is to promote a mixed-use redevelopment. Here you're not as reliant on outside shoppers - rather, the retail is better-suited to residents who live there. How does this help for parking? In a mixed-use area, residents have the option of walking to a retailer or restaurant. Walking means no car. No car means no parking spot. Fewer parking spots means more space for parks, community space, or more mixed-use development, all of which lead to even more walking traffic.
The other piece to this puzzle is the planning process. Many times, city planners, who are used to suburban development, rush into revitalization using the same rules. Instead, it is important that planners look to more urbanized areas when setting parking ratios and requirements.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Public Transit - Rail
One of the great tools we have available in transportation is rail - light rail, commuter trains, and long-distance train travel. Just a few comments about each...
Light rail has been embraced in increasing measure by many cities world-wide. Whether the trains are subways, elevated trains, or at-grade, the lower cost and greater flexibility (compared to other types of rail) have made them a popular choice in public transit. They also add the additional benefit of altering planning patterns - cities are planning higher-density development around light rail stations, which not only is a more effective use of the land, but typically results in higher light rail usage.
Commuter trains - trains that either run from the 'burbs to the city or between closely-located cities - have caught hold well in parts of Asia and Europe, as well as the east coast of the US. Riders can save gas, leave the car at home, and use the train to travel the well-worn path. The west coast of the US is having a more difficult time getting this to catch on. Distance between populated areas is one issue, as is the way the population is so spread out.
Long-distance train travel has some issues. Old-style train travel is extremely slow, and seems to be chosen only as a creative sight-seeing alternative to traveling by plane. It's often just as expensive as flying, as well. One promising change is coming up: new high-speed rail lines. They're excruciatingly expensive to build, but quite fast. They can be a better option than plane travel when it comes to time, use of fossil fuels, flexibility in number of cars, and safety. On the other hand, it's not clear whether the cost will be an improvement over plane travel. At any rate, California has a couple of potential rail projects - a high-speed line running from San Francisco to LA (and possible spur routes to Fresno, San Diego, and Sacramento) and a maglev (magnetic levitation) line from LA to Las Vegas. We'll see how these pan out.
Light rail has been embraced in increasing measure by many cities world-wide. Whether the trains are subways, elevated trains, or at-grade, the lower cost and greater flexibility (compared to other types of rail) have made them a popular choice in public transit. They also add the additional benefit of altering planning patterns - cities are planning higher-density development around light rail stations, which not only is a more effective use of the land, but typically results in higher light rail usage.
Commuter trains - trains that either run from the 'burbs to the city or between closely-located cities - have caught hold well in parts of Asia and Europe, as well as the east coast of the US. Riders can save gas, leave the car at home, and use the train to travel the well-worn path. The west coast of the US is having a more difficult time getting this to catch on. Distance between populated areas is one issue, as is the way the population is so spread out.
Long-distance train travel has some issues. Old-style train travel is extremely slow, and seems to be chosen only as a creative sight-seeing alternative to traveling by plane. It's often just as expensive as flying, as well. One promising change is coming up: new high-speed rail lines. They're excruciatingly expensive to build, but quite fast. They can be a better option than plane travel when it comes to time, use of fossil fuels, flexibility in number of cars, and safety. On the other hand, it's not clear whether the cost will be an improvement over plane travel. At any rate, California has a couple of potential rail projects - a high-speed line running from San Francisco to LA (and possible spur routes to Fresno, San Diego, and Sacramento) and a maglev (magnetic levitation) line from LA to Las Vegas. We'll see how these pan out.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Sociology
When I think about it, the whole crux of urbanity vs. suburban living comes down to sociology. How do people live? Why do they prefer their style of living? What cultural and environmental influences affect this?
Because this can be such an esoteric conversation, I'm going to keep it short.
I've noticed some commonalities between various urban areas. There tend to be a lot of cultural outlets - opera, galleries, symphonies, night clubs, unique restaurants, theaters (I mean, the kind where you can see a musical or a live band, not the kind where you find Hollywood's latest flick), museums, you get the idea. There is often more artistic architecture, more historical buildings, and more history, for that matter.
I've also noticed some commonalities between various suburban areas. Chili's, McDonalds, strip malls, business parks, cookie cutter homes, cookie cutter McMansions, parks, good school districts, movie theaters, malls, and the like.
This all leaves me with a couple of conclusions - it may sound judgmental, so forgive me, but I'll speak my thoughts anyway. First off, urban living seems to offer a broad array of cultural options, while suburbia offers consistency without culture.
Second, suburbia seems to be the choice of place to raise children. Parents (and I know, I'm raising 5 kids) value safety, good schools, places for the kids to play, and enough elbow room to make the family feel comfortable. On the other hand, urban areas have long been thought of as unsafe, having lackluster school options (unless you're paying for the top prep school in your city), with no play areas and smaller living spaces. That leaves the urban areas to singles, couples without children, or empty-nesters.
So, since I've spouted off so much about the merits of urban living, how can the two styles be reconciled? In my mind, it comes down to making the urban lifestyle appealing to parents. Improve schools, or, in cities where schools are already good, get the word out. Plan cities that offer an urban lifestyle with parks nearby. Ensure safety. Make urban areas work for families.
Then, get the word out. The stigma of urban cities not being great for families lives on if no one knows about the alternatives. If parents know their kids are getting a great education in an environment with lots of culture and variety, if they can be assured of safety and places for kids to play, and put the problems of suburban living behind them, isn't that the best of both worlds?
Because this can be such an esoteric conversation, I'm going to keep it short.
I've noticed some commonalities between various urban areas. There tend to be a lot of cultural outlets - opera, galleries, symphonies, night clubs, unique restaurants, theaters (I mean, the kind where you can see a musical or a live band, not the kind where you find Hollywood's latest flick), museums, you get the idea. There is often more artistic architecture, more historical buildings, and more history, for that matter.
I've also noticed some commonalities between various suburban areas. Chili's, McDonalds, strip malls, business parks, cookie cutter homes, cookie cutter McMansions, parks, good school districts, movie theaters, malls, and the like.
This all leaves me with a couple of conclusions - it may sound judgmental, so forgive me, but I'll speak my thoughts anyway. First off, urban living seems to offer a broad array of cultural options, while suburbia offers consistency without culture.
Second, suburbia seems to be the choice of place to raise children. Parents (and I know, I'm raising 5 kids) value safety, good schools, places for the kids to play, and enough elbow room to make the family feel comfortable. On the other hand, urban areas have long been thought of as unsafe, having lackluster school options (unless you're paying for the top prep school in your city), with no play areas and smaller living spaces. That leaves the urban areas to singles, couples without children, or empty-nesters.
So, since I've spouted off so much about the merits of urban living, how can the two styles be reconciled? In my mind, it comes down to making the urban lifestyle appealing to parents. Improve schools, or, in cities where schools are already good, get the word out. Plan cities that offer an urban lifestyle with parks nearby. Ensure safety. Make urban areas work for families.
Then, get the word out. The stigma of urban cities not being great for families lives on if no one knows about the alternatives. If parents know their kids are getting a great education in an environment with lots of culture and variety, if they can be assured of safety and places for kids to play, and put the problems of suburban living behind them, isn't that the best of both worlds?
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Public Transit - Bus Systems
While having a discussion with friends and family last night, the topic of empty buses came up. Why on earth would a local or regional transit company run buses that no one rides? One friend mentioned seeing buses near his house (which is decidedly exurban, near rural) with one or two riders.
While I have not studied every bus system that exists, I have experienced bus systems on the west and east coasts of the US, as well as in Europe. I've made some conclusions about bus systems on my own which I'll share here.
First, you'll find bus systems in pretty much every metro area, whether they work or not. They often exist as a result of governmental mandates meant to do the right thing by providing public transportation. I don't honestly know how many actually pay for themselves, but I know that many are subsidized by various governments. The obvious conclusion is that subsidizing bus systems that don't work is a waste of money.
So, what makes a bus system work? It seems to boil down to four things. The first is obvious - the cost must be reasonable. But not so fast. Many bus systems are subsidized because politicians think they exist to serve the needs of the economically disadvantaged. So, instead of making the cost commensurate with the length of the trip, or the value of the trip, they concern themselves with making sure the cost is as low as possible, thereby losing even more money than they should. If we're going to subsidize those in financial need, let's do so using other means, and treat buses simply as transportation.
The second consideration is cleanliness. Now, I think this one is more obvious. It's a public health concern, and I'm sure you know many who would not ride a bus because it's filthy. It's probably worthwhile to include comfortable as well. A bus doesn't need to be plush, but should be more comfortable than sitting on concrete. If these things are taken care of, public perception can be improved.
Possibly the most important consideration is available routes. One story of mine that demonstrates this is my attempt to take the bus for a first day of work. This was many years ago, but has stuck with me since. I left home 2 1/2 hours before I was to start, to make sure I got there on time. (Keep in mind, the office was a 20 minute drive from home.) After a number of transfers and layovers, I finally arrived at work 45 minutes late. That's 3 hours and 15 minutes by bus, when it would have taken me 20 minutes by car. In fact, I started cycling to work shortly after, and that only took me 35 minutes. I have not ridden the bus in this city since, though I have done so elsewhere on many occasions.
The lesson here is that routes must be sensible. That's a function of 2 things - planning and the layout of the city. If the city is laid out poorly, it's hard to make routes work no matter what. However, routes can be planned poorly in an easy city to plan for, and routes can be maximized for any city to be the best possible under the conditions.
It seems that the easiest areas to plan for are ones with a central target area, especially one with a grid layout. To simplify this, just plan spur routes to carry people to and from the central area, and loop routes to take people around and through the grid. I've seen this layout work in a number of situations.
The last consideration I'll mention is frequency. Buses not only have to take you where you want to go, but when. If the bus only comes every two hours, it's not very convenient. However, if one comes every 3 minutes, and there aren't many riders, the expense is just too great. Balancing these two needs should bring the optimum frequency. Of course, they should be reliable as well, or the frequency doesn't matter.
So, if a bus system maximizes all these things, and boosts public awareness, it should function well for the people.
One of my favorite examples of a functioning system is State College, PA. For a metro area of only about 80,000, half of whom are Penn State students and gone in the summer, its buses are frequently filled. They're free while on campus, but have a flat fare off campus. Buses go where people want to go, and are frequent enough to make them convenient. They're about 55% subsidized, mostly through Federal funds, but the system works.
Let's hope that more transit systems can start to get it right.
While I have not studied every bus system that exists, I have experienced bus systems on the west and east coasts of the US, as well as in Europe. I've made some conclusions about bus systems on my own which I'll share here.
First, you'll find bus systems in pretty much every metro area, whether they work or not. They often exist as a result of governmental mandates meant to do the right thing by providing public transportation. I don't honestly know how many actually pay for themselves, but I know that many are subsidized by various governments. The obvious conclusion is that subsidizing bus systems that don't work is a waste of money.
So, what makes a bus system work? It seems to boil down to four things. The first is obvious - the cost must be reasonable. But not so fast. Many bus systems are subsidized because politicians think they exist to serve the needs of the economically disadvantaged. So, instead of making the cost commensurate with the length of the trip, or the value of the trip, they concern themselves with making sure the cost is as low as possible, thereby losing even more money than they should. If we're going to subsidize those in financial need, let's do so using other means, and treat buses simply as transportation.
The second consideration is cleanliness. Now, I think this one is more obvious. It's a public health concern, and I'm sure you know many who would not ride a bus because it's filthy. It's probably worthwhile to include comfortable as well. A bus doesn't need to be plush, but should be more comfortable than sitting on concrete. If these things are taken care of, public perception can be improved.
Possibly the most important consideration is available routes. One story of mine that demonstrates this is my attempt to take the bus for a first day of work. This was many years ago, but has stuck with me since. I left home 2 1/2 hours before I was to start, to make sure I got there on time. (Keep in mind, the office was a 20 minute drive from home.) After a number of transfers and layovers, I finally arrived at work 45 minutes late. That's 3 hours and 15 minutes by bus, when it would have taken me 20 minutes by car. In fact, I started cycling to work shortly after, and that only took me 35 minutes. I have not ridden the bus in this city since, though I have done so elsewhere on many occasions.
The lesson here is that routes must be sensible. That's a function of 2 things - planning and the layout of the city. If the city is laid out poorly, it's hard to make routes work no matter what. However, routes can be planned poorly in an easy city to plan for, and routes can be maximized for any city to be the best possible under the conditions.
It seems that the easiest areas to plan for are ones with a central target area, especially one with a grid layout. To simplify this, just plan spur routes to carry people to and from the central area, and loop routes to take people around and through the grid. I've seen this layout work in a number of situations.
The last consideration I'll mention is frequency. Buses not only have to take you where you want to go, but when. If the bus only comes every two hours, it's not very convenient. However, if one comes every 3 minutes, and there aren't many riders, the expense is just too great. Balancing these two needs should bring the optimum frequency. Of course, they should be reliable as well, or the frequency doesn't matter.
So, if a bus system maximizes all these things, and boosts public awareness, it should function well for the people.
One of my favorite examples of a functioning system is State College, PA. For a metro area of only about 80,000, half of whom are Penn State students and gone in the summer, its buses are frequently filled. They're free while on campus, but have a flat fare off campus. Buses go where people want to go, and are frequent enough to make them convenient. They're about 55% subsidized, mostly through Federal funds, but the system works.
Let's hope that more transit systems can start to get it right.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Outside the Comfort Zone
One underlying thread through many of my posts is the role of the developer. It's easy to see why, when they are frequently the ones putting their hind ends on the line.
To clarify, a real estate developer is a private party or company who decides what goes on a piece of land, and then makes it happen. That means they're risking a lot of their own money, as well as other people's money, not to mention their reputation.
As I mentioned before, many developers, especially in suburban hotbeds, are used to creating subdivisions or shopping centers or business parks, and don't stray outside the projects they're used to. In addition, they are very used to building on "greenfield" land (greenfield is simply land that's never been built on before).
They also like to stay inside their comfort zone to minimize risk. They understand the financials of greenfield and single-use development. On top of that, brownfield development (developing on potentially toxic land) and redevelopment (taking a piece of land, potentially demolishing existing structures, and changing its use) often come with surprises that can cost money.
So, why am I so insistent on getting developers to go outside their comfort zones? I obviously have opinions on moving away from traditional suburban development.
"But Matt," you say, "isn't that more competition for you?" If I had my way, most development would at least have elements of mixed-use, transit-oriented design, walkability, or some other aspect of urban design. I can't do it all, and I'm definitely on the small end of the developer world. On top of that, more urban development will create even more demand, so it helps me.
All this begs the question, "What's it going to take to get developers out of their comfort zone?" I think it comes down to two things:
To clarify, a real estate developer is a private party or company who decides what goes on a piece of land, and then makes it happen. That means they're risking a lot of their own money, as well as other people's money, not to mention their reputation.
As I mentioned before, many developers, especially in suburban hotbeds, are used to creating subdivisions or shopping centers or business parks, and don't stray outside the projects they're used to. In addition, they are very used to building on "greenfield" land (greenfield is simply land that's never been built on before).
They also like to stay inside their comfort zone to minimize risk. They understand the financials of greenfield and single-use development. On top of that, brownfield development (developing on potentially toxic land) and redevelopment (taking a piece of land, potentially demolishing existing structures, and changing its use) often come with surprises that can cost money.
So, why am I so insistent on getting developers to go outside their comfort zones? I obviously have opinions on moving away from traditional suburban development.
"But Matt," you say, "isn't that more competition for you?" If I had my way, most development would at least have elements of mixed-use, transit-oriented design, walkability, or some other aspect of urban design. I can't do it all, and I'm definitely on the small end of the developer world. On top of that, more urban development will create even more demand, so it helps me.
All this begs the question, "What's it going to take to get developers out of their comfort zone?" I think it comes down to two things:
- Developers need to be willing to look at the financials of urban development. They don't always work, depending on a number of factors, but a little patience and creativity will help them come up with developments that are profitable at about the same level of risk that they're used to.
- Developers could use assistance in dealing with the land issue. I have seen many incredible pieces of land - ones that would be perfect fits for urban-style development. However, they have some sign that they could have toxic soil or some other expensive problem. If the developer has assurance that the site cleanup would be done for them, or at least completely paid for, a project on that land becomes much more viable and attractive. The funding for the cleanup could come from previous owners; or federal, state, or local grants that have been established for that purpose.
Friday, December 19, 2008
The Broken Window Theory
In recent years, New York City has undergone a transformation. What was once considered an unsafe place is now a vibrant, welcoming city. One key to this transformation, as written about in Rudy Giuliani's Leadership and Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point, was the application of the "broken window theory".
This theory says that when a place is in disarray, as in a neighborhood with broken windows, it will fall into an even greater state of disarray. In fact, it is often human behavior that causes more disarray.
So, in the case of New York City, city government undertook a campaign to clean things up. They fixed broken windows. They cleaned up the subway cars. They started citing people for minor legal infractions, like jumping the subway turnstiles. (This is one of my favorites. Ironically, they caught many people jumping the turnstiles who were wanted for much more significant crimes, and cleared up a lot of arrest warrants.)
The result was that more people felt comfortable going into these areas. More foot traffic meant more successful stores and restaurants. More people felt comfortable living there, leading to an increase in property values, and an increase in quality development. In time, the entire city was transformed. The Bronx and Harlem, previously thought of as highly unsafe, were revitalized.
Similar transformations are taking place in other urban areas. Cities are revitalizing previously-dilapidated areas, and turning them into desirable places to live.
It's amazing what can happen when a little effort is put into cleaning things up.
This theory says that when a place is in disarray, as in a neighborhood with broken windows, it will fall into an even greater state of disarray. In fact, it is often human behavior that causes more disarray.
So, in the case of New York City, city government undertook a campaign to clean things up. They fixed broken windows. They cleaned up the subway cars. They started citing people for minor legal infractions, like jumping the subway turnstiles. (This is one of my favorites. Ironically, they caught many people jumping the turnstiles who were wanted for much more significant crimes, and cleared up a lot of arrest warrants.)
The result was that more people felt comfortable going into these areas. More foot traffic meant more successful stores and restaurants. More people felt comfortable living there, leading to an increase in property values, and an increase in quality development. In time, the entire city was transformed. The Bronx and Harlem, previously thought of as highly unsafe, were revitalized.
Similar transformations are taking place in other urban areas. Cities are revitalizing previously-dilapidated areas, and turning them into desirable places to live.
It's amazing what can happen when a little effort is put into cleaning things up.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Urbanomics
Yeah, I know, someone somewhere has probably already trademarked that term. I just thought it'd make a catchy title...
By now, you've noticed that I feel pretty strongly about certain types of development. In fact, why would anyone build anything other than mixed-use, transit-oriented, walkable urban communities?
Obviously, it's not that easy. Otherwise, we wouldn't have such suburban growth as we find in places like Phoenix and LA. From what I can tell, it seems to boil down to a few factors:
By now, you've noticed that I feel pretty strongly about certain types of development. In fact, why would anyone build anything other than mixed-use, transit-oriented, walkable urban communities?
Obviously, it's not that easy. Otherwise, we wouldn't have such suburban growth as we find in places like Phoenix and LA. From what I can tell, it seems to boil down to a few factors:
- Suburban land, such as fields, ranches, and other "greenfield" land is much less expensive than urban infill land. This means that developers have to price housing units or office buildings higher to make up for the increased cost of urban developments.
- Many developers like to build what has historically sold well. So, in central Florida, where development is predominantly suburban, it takes a lot of guts, risk, and money to build urban-style.
- Development fees can be extremely complex and high for urban development. This is even more the case in suburban areas, when attempting to develop urban-style.
- Infill land is harder to acquire and assemble than purchasing a greenfield site. Often, the perfect site for urban development is occupied by a number of old, useless buildings, but because these buildings may be owned by separate owners, coordinating the purchase is much more difficult than purchasing a 400 acre ranch from a single owner.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Mixed-Use Development
One "technique" for building a strong urban community is the idea of "mixed-use". Loosely defined, this is allowing different uses for one given area, as opposed to defining an area as "residential" or "business park" or the like.
Mixed-use can be as simple as a municipality allowing owners to build what they want on their particular lot, to complex, as in defining specific uses for specific lots, requiring ground-floor retail, and designating what percentage of a particular area should be residential, commercial, etc. Whatever its iteration, mixed-use helps build community.
The reason it works is that mixed-use tends to expand the amount of time an area is used each day. Take a residential development: On an ordinary weekday, many residential subdivisions turn into ghost towns during the work/school day and again after dinner, while people are either away from the home or sequestered in front of the TV. A business park will usually be lively from about 7:30am to 5:30pm, but turn into the same ghost town outside those hours.
By contrast, a mixed-use area will often make an area usable for 16-18 hours per day or even more. To start, they will usually have retail shops and businesses, meaning there will be activity from 7:30am to 5:30pm (or so). Then, add restaurants, clubs, and entertainment, and we've extended the evening usage to upwards of 11pm. When residential uses are added, we can tack at least another hour or two of activity, due to morning and night-time activities like commuting (walking) to work, walking home from the theater, going to the corner cafe for morning coffee, among other things. Since all the uses are close, we can walk from one to another, meaning we're not locked up in our glass and steel bubbles on wheels. We're among the community.
This tends to have other benefits as well: With people around so much of the time, crime is less frequent (studies have proven this). Less land is required, since parking needs are reduced. Life is convenient, since the drugstore is one block over, there's a neighborhood grocery, and our workplace may even be within walking distance.
If you haven't noticed by now, I am a big proponent of mixed-use development. I feel strongly, though, that it shouldn't be too heavily-defined, because the market often helps determine which use is best for which space over time. I'm hoping to see much more mixed-use development in the future.
Mixed-use can be as simple as a municipality allowing owners to build what they want on their particular lot, to complex, as in defining specific uses for specific lots, requiring ground-floor retail, and designating what percentage of a particular area should be residential, commercial, etc. Whatever its iteration, mixed-use helps build community.
The reason it works is that mixed-use tends to expand the amount of time an area is used each day. Take a residential development: On an ordinary weekday, many residential subdivisions turn into ghost towns during the work/school day and again after dinner, while people are either away from the home or sequestered in front of the TV. A business park will usually be lively from about 7:30am to 5:30pm, but turn into the same ghost town outside those hours.
By contrast, a mixed-use area will often make an area usable for 16-18 hours per day or even more. To start, they will usually have retail shops and businesses, meaning there will be activity from 7:30am to 5:30pm (or so). Then, add restaurants, clubs, and entertainment, and we've extended the evening usage to upwards of 11pm. When residential uses are added, we can tack at least another hour or two of activity, due to morning and night-time activities like commuting (walking) to work, walking home from the theater, going to the corner cafe for morning coffee, among other things. Since all the uses are close, we can walk from one to another, meaning we're not locked up in our glass and steel bubbles on wheels. We're among the community.
This tends to have other benefits as well: With people around so much of the time, crime is less frequent (studies have proven this). Less land is required, since parking needs are reduced. Life is convenient, since the drugstore is one block over, there's a neighborhood grocery, and our workplace may even be within walking distance.
If you haven't noticed by now, I am a big proponent of mixed-use development. I feel strongly, though, that it shouldn't be too heavily-defined, because the market often helps determine which use is best for which space over time. I'm hoping to see much more mixed-use development in the future.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
US Auto Industry Part III
OK, last post on this, I promise (or, I think, at least). It looks like Congress is rejecting a bid to bail out the Big 3 US automakers. I'm positive this is a result of my letters to my Congressional representatives.
Assuming the White House doesn't work some magic and figure out another bailout plan, we can count on some serious changes in the US auto industry. There will be some layoffs, selling off of brands, major discounting.
What I'm hoping to see, though, is continued, reduced auto sales. In addition, I'm hoping to see an increased interest in public transportation - both in adding to the existing network and increasing ridership.
Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I can hope...
Assuming the White House doesn't work some magic and figure out another bailout plan, we can count on some serious changes in the US auto industry. There will be some layoffs, selling off of brands, major discounting.
What I'm hoping to see, though, is continued, reduced auto sales. In addition, I'm hoping to see an increased interest in public transportation - both in adding to the existing network and increasing ridership.
Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I can hope...
Beauty In Building
One thing I'm passionate about is attractive and unique buildings. The Burj al Arab in Dubai. The Sydney Opera House. The Louvre. The Guggenheim. There has been a long line of visionary architects turning buildings into works of art.
I fear, though, that we are losing that objective. Many of the office buildings being constructed today are nondescript concrete tilt-ups or plain glass & steel structures. Many of today's single-family homes look totally alike. Don't get me started on warehouses and factories... Yes, the adage is true that there's nothing new under the sun, but that doesn't mean we should give up on aesthetics.
My hats off to all the developers, architects, civic officials, and others who seek to merge form with function, to give us something pleasing to look at during our daily lives, to turn utility to art.
I fear, though, that we are losing that objective. Many of the office buildings being constructed today are nondescript concrete tilt-ups or plain glass & steel structures. Many of today's single-family homes look totally alike. Don't get me started on warehouses and factories... Yes, the adage is true that there's nothing new under the sun, but that doesn't mean we should give up on aesthetics.
My hats off to all the developers, architects, civic officials, and others who seek to merge form with function, to give us something pleasing to look at during our daily lives, to turn utility to art.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
US Auto Industry Part II
In a sequel to my first post on the auto industry, as I read reports of the possible bail-out, I thought I'd discuss this a little further...
Our country is now looking at throwing between $15B and $17B (ok, that's billions, with a "B") in short term loans that will "carry [the big 3] into March". So, the conclusion is that the big 3's woes are going to be completely solved by March. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if they're burning cash that fast, and if so many economists are telling us that we're not out of the woods, then we're just throwing up to $17 Billion at these companies with no guarantee of repayment.
I need to make something clear. One could make assumptions about my political leanings from how I talk. Oddly enough, you'd probably assume wrong... But my perspective is largely non-political. The business side of this is absolutely ludicrous. These companies' burn rates aren't likely to improve without massive restructuring, and by infusing all this cash, the Big 3 will lose their urgency to make major changes. Then what? Another bailout?
What's becoming absolutely clear is that none of the Big 3's business models are working. They should be allowed to face the market and sink or swim.
Yes, again, I am concerned for the workers - anyone who is hurt financially by these companies' trials. Right now, though, they're inevitably going to be hurt with or without the bailout. It's just a matter of "when".
So, let's just focus on helping employees that will be displaced due to the fact the MBA's in Detroit can't figure this out. (I'm an MBA, too, so I can say that...) Help them retrain for a more stable industry, or relocate to a new job, or something. But the US Government shouldn't give these companies short-term loans at this point. If they can't prove themselves to institutional or private finance sources, that should be enough proof that the US shouldn't finance them.
Our country is now looking at throwing between $15B and $17B (ok, that's billions, with a "B") in short term loans that will "carry [the big 3] into March". So, the conclusion is that the big 3's woes are going to be completely solved by March. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if they're burning cash that fast, and if so many economists are telling us that we're not out of the woods, then we're just throwing up to $17 Billion at these companies with no guarantee of repayment.
I need to make something clear. One could make assumptions about my political leanings from how I talk. Oddly enough, you'd probably assume wrong... But my perspective is largely non-political. The business side of this is absolutely ludicrous. These companies' burn rates aren't likely to improve without massive restructuring, and by infusing all this cash, the Big 3 will lose their urgency to make major changes. Then what? Another bailout?
What's becoming absolutely clear is that none of the Big 3's business models are working. They should be allowed to face the market and sink or swim.
Yes, again, I am concerned for the workers - anyone who is hurt financially by these companies' trials. Right now, though, they're inevitably going to be hurt with or without the bailout. It's just a matter of "when".
So, let's just focus on helping employees that will be displaced due to the fact the MBA's in Detroit can't figure this out. (I'm an MBA, too, so I can say that...) Help them retrain for a more stable industry, or relocate to a new job, or something. But the US Government shouldn't give these companies short-term loans at this point. If they can't prove themselves to institutional or private finance sources, that should be enough proof that the US shouldn't finance them.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
To Plan or Not To Plan?
The obvious answer is "to plan", right? I guess if I'm asking the question, then maybe the answer isn't that obvious. Of course, since it's me writing, I'm talking about master planning for real estate development.
My opinion here is that some planning is good, but over-planning is bad. Simple as that. Well, ok, anytime you have a "gray" answer like that, it's never simple. Let me give you an example. Let's say you're envisioning a town. You could just say, "ok, everyone, you can just do what you want on your own land. Odds are pretty good that you wind up with an incoherent mess.
How about taking that same town, and master planning every inch of the town. You can bring in as many consultants, designers, and planners, and yet parts of the town will not be functional for the people there. Worse yet, the town will look too perfect, too contrived. People enjoy visiting Disneyland, but no one lives in the park. Same thing will happen in a contrived plan. There's no feel of authenticity, of real life.
So, what's the perfect level of planning? Or is there a perfect level of planning? And who should do the planning? Part of the problem with answering those questions is that each of the 6.5 billion people on this earth is unique. With the uniqueness of the residents, business owners, visitors, etc., it's impossible to plan perfectly. Same goes with the uniqueness of the planners: some are more engineering-minded, some architectural, some economic, you get the picture. With that many stakeholders, there's no perfect answer. There's also no perfect plan.
Best answer to this question: Plan the infrastructure, and plan the concept, but leave the execution up to the market. In an urban environment, an open lot should be planned by a developer. The developer will carefully consider what the market's needs are and what it will bear, because their money is at stake. The streets, infrastructure, and major public safety items are better left up to city engineers and consultants.
I don't espouse making this a hard and fast rule, but it's a place to start.
My opinion here is that some planning is good, but over-planning is bad. Simple as that. Well, ok, anytime you have a "gray" answer like that, it's never simple. Let me give you an example. Let's say you're envisioning a town. You could just say, "ok, everyone, you can just do what you want on your own land. Odds are pretty good that you wind up with an incoherent mess.
How about taking that same town, and master planning every inch of the town. You can bring in as many consultants, designers, and planners, and yet parts of the town will not be functional for the people there. Worse yet, the town will look too perfect, too contrived. People enjoy visiting Disneyland, but no one lives in the park. Same thing will happen in a contrived plan. There's no feel of authenticity, of real life.
So, what's the perfect level of planning? Or is there a perfect level of planning? And who should do the planning? Part of the problem with answering those questions is that each of the 6.5 billion people on this earth is unique. With the uniqueness of the residents, business owners, visitors, etc., it's impossible to plan perfectly. Same goes with the uniqueness of the planners: some are more engineering-minded, some architectural, some economic, you get the picture. With that many stakeholders, there's no perfect answer. There's also no perfect plan.
Best answer to this question: Plan the infrastructure, and plan the concept, but leave the execution up to the market. In an urban environment, an open lot should be planned by a developer. The developer will carefully consider what the market's needs are and what it will bear, because their money is at stake. The streets, infrastructure, and major public safety items are better left up to city engineers and consultants.
I don't espouse making this a hard and fast rule, but it's a place to start.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Can Foreclosures Be Good?
OK, I know the title probably has you doubting me already, but hear me out. First, believe me that I feel very deeply for those who are going through tough economic times. There are some out there who simply were way too optimistic about their mortgage and their homes, or didn't care that they had this interest rate that could go to the moon. There are others, though, who did everything right, but due to circumstances around them beyond their control, were swept into this financial hurricane.
With that disclaimer out of the way, let's look at this from a broader perspective. Where have the housing markets been hit hardest by price drops and foreclosures? We can generalize and say that this is California, Arizona, Nevada (Las Vegas in particular), and Florida. Other areas have been hit as well, but these are probably the worst. Next question: Where have we seen the most rampant, unchecked suburban sprawl? Those same states, right?
So, what's my point? Well, now that the housing crisis is in full swing, builders aren't sprawling right now. And in my book, that's a good thing. In a perfect world, this building hiatus would be the opportunity for developers to shift their focus toward higher-density and infill development, rather than spreading out. It would also be a good time for municipalities to rethink their development trends and discourage greenfield development.
With that disclaimer out of the way, let's look at this from a broader perspective. Where have the housing markets been hit hardest by price drops and foreclosures? We can generalize and say that this is California, Arizona, Nevada (Las Vegas in particular), and Florida. Other areas have been hit as well, but these are probably the worst. Next question: Where have we seen the most rampant, unchecked suburban sprawl? Those same states, right?
So, what's my point? Well, now that the housing crisis is in full swing, builders aren't sprawling right now. And in my book, that's a good thing. In a perfect world, this building hiatus would be the opportunity for developers to shift their focus toward higher-density and infill development, rather than spreading out. It would also be a good time for municipalities to rethink their development trends and discourage greenfield development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)