Zombie malls and walkable urbanism

(This post is a response to a recent series of articles about dead and dying malls in Lexington, KY)

Rather than thinking of Lexington Mall as a blight or an eyesore, think of it as an incredible opportunity. Across the country, demographic changes and resource constraints are driving increased demand for walkable urban environments. Growing up in Lexington in the 1980s and 1990s, I watched the development of shopping centers at the edge of the city and sprawling subdivisions in Fayette's neighboring counties. This development pattern was appealing in a world of cheap gas and large households. But times are changing. Oil is more scarce and more expensive. Households are shrinking, driven by young single professionals and empty nesters. And with increasing awareness of the challenges of climate change, people are looking for a more "sustainable" lifestyle.

This is not some east- and west-coast trend that doesn't apply to Lexington. The recent housing market study commissioned by Lexington's Division of Planning determined that Lexington has an underserved demand for "higher density product and diverse communities where residents are motivated by proximity to work, walkable environment, and access to green space." Recent downtown development has begun to meet this need, and projects around the Newtown Pike extension are promising; but it's not necessary to focus all the energy downtown.

Long before recent changes in the housing market, a variety of factors--from online retail to continual development of newer, bigger malls further on the urban fringe--began undermining older retail centers like Turfland and Lexington Malls. This problem is not unique to Lexington, and the innovative solutions utilized elsewhere should guide plans for Lexington Mall. In her book Retrofitting Suburbia, Ellen Dunham-Jones examines similar "zombie malls," and shows how they can be remade to thrive in a more urban world.

The model of cities with a single high density center is a relic of the past. The major retail and office nodes along New Circle, Man O War, and the major roads that make up Lexington's "spoke and wheel" transportation system show that automobile oriented development has been poly-centric for a long time now. Why shouldn't high density walkable and transit-oriented districts also spread throughout the city? Lexington's political leaders, developers, and citizens should embrace Lexington and Turfland Malls as two great places to start this trend.

Charter Cities

Paul Romer, an economist at Stanford, has been recently begun advocating for a concept he calls a "charter city". In places like the United States, businesses and similar private enterprises are fairly nimble and able to adapt to changing conditions. Just as importantly, there is a strong system of rules and norms of behavior that allow businesses to fail or to become obsolete, while new ones step up to meet a need. In contrast, cities and other governmental entities are much more resistant to change, generally by design. This is generally a good thing for governments, where stability is essential. For businesses and individuals to adapt quickly, the rules of the system in which they operate need to be stable and well understood.

However, Romer makes a good point: that as societies develop and grow wealthier, there are consistent changes that can be reasonably well anticipated. This is particularly true for cities. A rural community has different needs than a small town, which has different needs than a large city, which has different needs than a major metropolis. Sometimes those needs follow a logical progression, such as the provision of higher levels of police presence. But in other ways, the rules that develop as a small town grows into a city can be inappropriate or outright counterproductive for a major metropolis.

Romer works in the field of global development economics, so he's particularly interested in the application of charter cities to developing countries. His prime example of a charter city is Hong Kong, which was established by a cooperative treaty between the United Kingdom and China. This focus is appropriate, since the growth in urban areas that has already occurred in the United States still is just now underway or looming for much of the rest of the world. The availability of unoccupied land, the obvious requirement for the establishment of a new city, also presents great opportunity. However, as an urban planning researcher in the US, I wonder whether there's something we can learn from the idea here. Romer points out that it's much harder and less efficient to change a broken system than to create a new one and let more nimble entities (businesses and individuals) choose which system they want to be a part of.

I wouldn't say our system of cities in the United States is broken, but it clearly has its flaws. Many like me are concerned that the cities that grew up in the age of automobile-oriented suburban development are poorly suited to the approaching age of peak oil and climate change. It's scary and sad to think of letting these cities "fail" (think Flint, MI), but it's also clear that they can't easily be reformed in the same way that a business would reorganize.

Environmentalists and urban planners are often opposed to greenfield development (the construction of new neighborhoods on formerly undeveloped land). Ultimately, a charter city is a mega-scale greenfield development. However, for the opportunity to create a new city that breaks the mold formed over the last century, I think it's something entrepreneurial policymakers--particularly at the state and local level--should strongly consider.

But I like the water....

Everyone loves water--sounds, sights, and of course, swimming in it! In fact, we love water so much, we build right up next to streams, creeks, and rivers--right in the floodplains. This is common both in cities, suburbs, and the countryside. Cities eventually decided to put most streams into pipes and culverts though, so half the time, we don't even realize where the streams are, or should be naturally.

It's ok to like water, to enjoy it--but we have to realize the limits to our actions. Floodplains are critical for stream/river health. They help relieve the river of excess flows (or floodwaters), and the riparian buffers associated with the floodplain help filter pollutants, regulate stream temperature, and allow for an increase in biodiversity. If we let floodplains and appropriate riparian buffers be, we would largely be ok.

The problem though, is that because we do build in floodplains and remove riparian buffers, and we remove the ability of streams and rivers to perform natural functions (which they do free of charge), we require more economic input the mediate all the problems that occur because of our previous decisions. Furthermore, insurance for everyone is affected. If you have home insurance, and the insurer also insures people in who live in floodplains, you are at an ever-increasing risk of having your rates go up due to those other folks. Makes very little sense, right? Build in floodplains, remove natural functions, then get paid back on someone else's dime for having your home destroyed by a flood...

The other possible insurance scenario is that the government, or government programs (such as FEMA), insure construction in floodplains, knowing well that they will eventually flood. Of course, we all know by now that tax dollars are used for any government programs, and that is no different here--YOUR tax dollars insure wasteful building in floodplains.

In the end, this all comes down to poor economic logic--deregulation and an entirely free market is not the way to go. Regulations, if written well, are meant to prevent wasteful spending, particularly wasteful tax dollar spending. Without regulations, Appalachia would be gone, our waters would still be polluted like in the mid 1900s, more people would be dying from cancer, we'd have polluted our earth much worse, etc. And ultimately, all that means more expenses that were unnecessary if problems were dealt with from the beginning.

I'm Just a Regular Person--What Can I Do?

Green Urbanism at its peak will need the understanding and participation of a majority of everyday citizens. Everyone has the ability to understand both the parts of green urbanism, and to participate in parts of it.

First and foremost, everyone can make decisions on where to live. This alone has major impacts on other components of green urbanism. For example, if I choose to live in a 3000 square foot house in a court or cul-de-sac in the middle of a suburban neighborhood, I've already sealed my fate as an automobile-driving, energy intensive American. The house itself is terribly inefficient, and not meant to allow for natural air circulation from open windows. My kids, should I choose to have some, would grow up in the same environment. With no park within an walkable distance, my kids would either play in the backyard, which is truly an unimaginative, dull environment, or sit inside and play video games all day. The neighborhood would probably govern any additions or changes to the house, such as the addition of a green roof. They might not allow it.

A second opportunity for every person to participate in the push towards green urbanism is to ride transit more, or ride your bicycle. Not only is it more healthy for every person to ride a bicycle more, or walk to transit stops, it is also intelligent. Everyday, people that live near you drive in the same direction, possibly to the same general office park or complex. You each drive separately, spending twice (or more) the fuel and money necessary. Instead, you could each ride the bus, along with 15-20 (or more) other individuals. On the bus you could read a book, something that you never have time to do normally with the 30 minutes (minimum) that you spend driving each day. Even better, your choice to ride the bus has influence on the types of land uses or business and retail types that occur throughout the urban environment. More people riding the bus equals more small shops and jobs and density around transit stops, and a more walkable environment.

Third, everyone that currently lives in a suburban home with a yard can easily plant vegetables (and some fruits) in their yard. They can create an urban agricultural base. By growing your own veggies and fruits, you have control over what you eat--and whether or not it contains diseases. By choosing to grow a garden, you also remove lawn space, meaning you no longer go through the ridiculous process of "water grass-mow grass-fertilize grass with synthetic fertilizers-water-mow grass again." You also no longer use fuel to do this. You also discourage the terribly inhumane and unsustainably industrial agricultural systems that have been in place for years. Did you know that illegal immigrants (Mexican) in California's famed fruit agriculture zone get paid vastly under minimum wage (off the books, of course), to farm a region that is supported entirely by irrigation systems, rather than natural precipitation patterns. So, in one fell swoop, you have created a more healthy lifestyle for you and for others, while also helping the environment.

There are plenty of other things you can do directly related to being "green." Retrofit windows to be uber-energy efficient (called passive solar). Put solar panels on your house to reduce your energy consumption from coal power plants. Better yet, look into new windows that may soon have floppy solar sheets installed between the panes. Install rain gardens around your yard below your roof downspouts. Plenty of cool opportunities!

Artful Rainwater Design

Water. We all drink it, everyday. Some drink out of a plastic bottle, some out of Nalgenes, Kleen Kanteens, or SIGGS. The water we drink though comes from the sky, from rain. The first post of this blog discusses the hydrologic cycle in the context of watersheds. Stormwater is the human term for rainwater that falls on urban surfaces. Stormwater is often removed via pipes, as quickly and efficiently as possible. This approach has consistently resulted in downstream flooding, stream habitat destruction, and other substantial environmental and social issues. Though over the years attempts have been made to correct the problems with this approach, it still continues to be a problem to this day.

There are alternatives though. Green infrastructure is starting to be more widely used to compensate for the negative aspects of the prototypical engineered stormwater management approach. Green roofs, bioretention swales and structures, rain gardens, and other such elements utilize natural systems to remove rainwater. Penn State Landscape Architecture professors Stuart Echols and Eliza Pennypacker recently called some of these green infrastructure techniques "Artful Rainwater Design (ARD)." These designs are named for their intent and ability to act as art in the urbanized landscape, and function as stormwater management mechanisms. In many instances, these designs are also used to convey information to the public, sometimes via signage, and other times simply through informative design.

Kevin Jensen, a graduate student at Penn State, has developed a survey to gauge just exactly what the public does comprehend from such designs. Regardless of whether you, the reader, may be interested in ARD, it would be extremely helpful for Kevin, and educational for yourself, if you took the time to complete the survey. If you are interested in learning more about ARD, have a gander at this site.

Transit vs Food Production

A common component of advocates for sustainability is the use efficient public transit, rather than automobiles, to transport people through urban environments. It could be said that a "green city" is one that does have diverse and efficient transit options. For public transit to be efficient though, the urban environment needs to be sufficiently dense. The density provides enough people to ride the transit, and pay for its construction and operating costs over the long-term. Research suggests that sufficient density for street cars would be at least 4-5 story mixed-use and multi-unit urban structures. For light rail, it roughly doubles that of street cars.

Opposite transit in the equation of sustainability is that of food production. It has become quite popular to buy "locally grown, fresh" products. Research (and common sense) shows this is substantially more sustainabile than the industrial farming process for several reasons. First, the transportation costs (both environmental and economic) are reduced because food does not have to be shipped from South America or China to reach the consumer in America. Second, locally grown food is often (though not always) produced on a smaller scale, with less harmful inputs, and less land-intensive production processes. Inudstrial farming processes put harmful pollutants into the water system, and deplete the soil of its natural ability to produce. Third, locally grown food provides a much greater ability for the seller to keep track of where the food came from. This is particularly important with the food problems we have had recently, and will continue to have in the future.

Now, why are these two elements opposite each other in the equation?

Well, lets take New York City, for example. The Big Apple has monstrous skyscrapers, and is one of the most dense places on earth. It consistently has 10-story or taller buildings throughout much of the city. It has a great subway system, though no street cars. Taxis and buses are often used as well. However, New York City because of its extreme density, and lack of urban spaces to produce food, necessitates food imports from extreme distances, and necessitates industrial agriculture to provide those food imports. It is, in effect, a completely unsustainable city with regards to food production.

Then, you have on the opposite end of the spectrum a low-density, proto-typical American city, like Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville has a metropolitan population of just over 1 million. It has no street car or rail transit, and the bus system is like many others in the U.S., barely getting by. It is very suburban, and thus low-density, with strip malls, shopping malls, business parks, industrial parks, and other features that fail to create a more sustainable urban form. This city, like most others across the country (except for rust-belt cities like Detroit, Akron, etc that are losing population) takes every available piece of land on the suburban fringe and fills it in with automobile-oriented urban form. It too fails to provide urban spaces for a food production.

If both of these are wrong, what is right?

Well, during the later 19th/early 20th century, a fellow named Ebenezar Howard developed a concept called the "Garden City." His idea was create a central city hub, and then create sub-cities or towns placed radially out from the central city. In between the central city and the towns were to be farming, parks, and other green spaces that helped sustain the all the city and towns. These agricultural and green spaces would be kept as such for eternity, so as to keep the system in balance.

Howard's design and planning ideas were partially attempted in many places across the globe. Some towns were built to mimick the Garden City, but were never fully implemented as such due to a variety of reasons, including politics, technology, and even the general thought that it was not a good idea. Because many of these attempts were never implemented effectively, they failed to actually do what Howard had intended: be self-sustaining.

Current society faces far different land planning issues than Howard faced 100 years ago. But his general concepts are still relevant. We must realize that while it is important to have a dense urban core for both transit efficiency and mixed uses, and consistent density throughout our towns, villages, and cities, it is equally important to keep the density from crossing a point of unsustainable impacts on agricultural production. Furthermore, to counter-balance such density issues, we also need to create more permanent land trusts for food production within cities. Rather than continue to expand outwards without thinking, lands need to be planned, and growth patterns need to be planned. Just because America is a democratic society does not mean that we should abandon better land use practices for the rights of an individual to do with his land whatever he chooses. This is worse for all of us.

No need to build anymore McMansions...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2009-04-09-vacanthomes_N.htm

From Planetizen, Slate

Robots, Not RoadsThe Obama stimulus package should be spent on transformative investments, not bridges and buildings.

By Eliot SpitzerPosted Monday, Jan. 5, 2009, at 4:09 PM ET

The incoming Obama administration and Congress are planning a huge fiscal stimulus package. They hope that such a stimulus will catalyze an economic turnaround and be a cornerstone of a "New New Deal." If the early reports are reliable, the stimulus will include a huge tax cut and will fund projects like road-building and bridge repair, laying the infrastructure foundation for the economy of the future.

Yet two huge problems with this approach must be confronted. First, the capacity of even the U.S. government to affect the overall global economy is limited. Suppose the package is $800 billion over two years: $400 billion is less than 1 percent of the global economy and a mere 3 percent of the U.S. economy. In relative terms, $400 billion isn't all that much more than the $152 billion spent on the 2008 stimulus, which had nary an impact on the economy.

Here is where the New Deal analogies are instructive. The New Deal probably didn't pull us out of the Depression; World War II did that. What the New Deal did was redefine the social contract—perhaps just as important an outcome. The ultimate significance of the Obama package may be not its short-term demand-side impact but rather its capacity to transform our economy and, in turn, some of the fundamental underpinnings of our society. This introduces the second major problem: The "off the shelf" infrastructure projects that can be funded immediately and provide immediate demand-side stimulus are almost by definition not the transformative investments we really need. Paving roads, repairing bridges that need refurbishing, and accelerating existing projects are all good and necessary, but not transformative. These projects by and large are building or patching the same economy with the same flaws that got us where we are. Our concern should be that as we look for the next great infrastructure project to transform our economy, we might rebuild the Erie Canal and find ourselves a century behind technologically.

This moment presents the administration with what is likely to be its best—and perhaps only—opportunity to have essentially unlimited capital (both fiscal and political) to spend on a transformative economic agenda. It is a unique moment to build a new foundation. It would be wise to ensure that a significant portion of the stimulus package is spent on new investments that may not be quite as ready to go but are surely more important to our long-term economic viability. There are many such critical investments, but here are a few for consideration. These are not, of course, the only ideas, and they may not be the best ideas. But they should spur discussion of how to use the fiscal stimulus not just to put people to work but also to build the over-the-horizon projects that will set the stage for the next great American economic miracle.

In the energy arena, two investments are critical. The first is smart meters. These would permit, with a smart grid, time-of-day pricing for all consumers, with potentially double-digit reductions in peak demand, significant cost savings, and consequential remarkable energy and environmental impacts. These declines in peak demand would translate into dramatic reduction in the number of new power plants. The problem with installation of smart meters has been both the cost and, often, state-by-state regulatory hurdles. Now is the moment to sweep both aside and transform our entire electricity market into a smart market.

Second, the most significant hurdle to beginning the shift to nongasoline-based cars is the lack of an infrastructure to distribute the alternative energy, whether it is electricity—plug-in hybrids—or natural gas or even hydrogen. Once that infrastructure is there, it is said, consumers will be able to opt for the new technology. If that is so, let us build that infrastructure now: Transform existing gas stations so they can serve as distribution points for natural gas or hydrogen, build plug-in charging centers at parking lots, and design units for at-home garages. These would, indeed, be transformative investments.

In health care, everybody agrees that electronic record-keeping is a universal win: errors reduced, public health gains from the ability to know what is actually being delivered, a dramatic improvement in primary care. But again, the cost has been prohibitive, because the upfront expenditure is enormous and the benefits are long term and hard to measure. We should condition state receipt of Medicaid bailout funds on a new infrastructure of electronic medical records. No single health care step would be more transformative.

America lags the world in Internet service and access. Our Internet backbone is worse than that of competing nations. We should spend to upgrade it.

In education—just as much a part of our infrastructure as bridges and roads—here is a small investment that is one of my favorites: Provide funding for robotics teams at every school. If you ever want to see intellectual competition in the arena that matters today—technological wizardry—visit the robotics competitions that now exist in some schools. Make these competitions as universal as football. Make it cool to design the next cutting-edge video game or iPod.

These are just a few possible infrastructure investments. The list is long, and the right infrastructure could provide the basis for a redirected economy. Long term, the most important investments are not on the easy list of "off the shelf" projects. Yes, good roads and bridges are important. But investing in the necessary public goods to support a post-hydrocarbon, information-based economy is a much better choice than using the stimulus to patch up the old economy.

Planetizen Article

http://www.planetizen.com/node/36822

Urban Agriculture

As cities grow, they generally fill in all open areas with development, or leave them as park space.  Agriculture remains on the exterior in rural areas, and may provide food and other resources to that specific city.  Urban agriculture is as simple as it sounds--agricultural practices in the urbanized area.  Rather than fill all areas in with development, or as lots are vacated, agricultural practices can remain.  

What is the value of urban agriculture?

It is still debatable, and likely always will be, if urban agriculture is the most efficient and economical use of land in an urbanized area.  But it is also very logical, and 'sustainable'.  

The general reasoning used for urban agriculture is to have food grown cl0ser to the population consuming it, thereby reducing costs for transporting the goods to the consumer.  In addition, urban agriculture has been toted as a community revitalization measure through community gardens, which can be run by local community members, which then sell their produce/goods at a local farmer's market.  Urban agriculture, if conducted sustainably, can also be good for the environment.  An agricultural area, for all intensive purposes, is a green space with a pervious surface.  Environmentally, and assuming it is done in sustainable ways, this is better than paving it with a parking lot, or building a structure that has an impervious roof.  The pervious surface allows rainwater to infiltrate into the soil, rather than be directed toward a storm sewer, which empties into the local streams.  This prevents flash flooding from occurring downstream, thereby lessening the harmful impact of flash floods on the stream cross-section.  It also prevents pollutants from rooftops or asphalt from reaching the stream ecosystem, and harming the aquatic life.  Ultimately, there is a need for more pervious surface in the urban environment.

In order to not be a successful, urban agriculture must have community support.  Its benefits must be accepted, or it will fail.  It will also likely require a land trust of sorts, or other government dedication of the land as community open space.  Otherwise, if the land is truly owned by an individual or organization, it could easily be resold for development purposes.  Urban agriculture must also use sustainable practices.  Fertilization methods should emphasize natural systems.  Plots should incorporate a variety of produce, so as to mimic the diversity of natural systems.  Crop diversity should also be practiced in rural agriculture, as monocropping is generally bad for nutrient cycles, insect issues, and competition.  

Several cities are beginning to value this concept, especially older rust-belt cities, and other industrial cities.  Detroit has experienced massive exodus of population over the past half-century, consequently leaving abundant vacant land within several miles of the city center.  The city has embraced this land, returning some of it to agriculture, while allowing other plants to regenerate as ecological systems.  Pittsburgh has also lost population and is embracing urban agriculture, and urban ecology.  

New ideas and concepts are emerging to urban agriculture as well.  That will come in another post though.

The Dark Night

As my counterpart Peanut Butter Jelly has pointed out, I have slacked in postings as of late (hence the title Dark Night).  In light of PBJ's recent posting regarding the housing crisis, I'd like to share a recent conversation with some friends of friends over the Christmas holiday.  First though, it bears mention that I have only had one economics class in college, and do not entirely understand all the lingo and current situation.  But from what I recall, when the supply exceeds demand, as it seems to now it many regions and cities of the country, then housing construction slows.  Prices on existing homes continue to drop until prices become affordable to those who were previously not demanding a new home/dwelling unit.  Then, demand begins to rise again, and new construction occurs.   

My conversation over the holidays was with a recently (within the last six months) married couple.  They had decided to build a new home in a subdivision on the outskirts of the city that, of course, requires the automobile.  The subdivision in which this couple decided to move ironically was the choice of another recently married couple, who also had a home built.  Yet, as I look in the Sunday classifieds at home foreclosures and sales and whatnot, there are many dozens of homes/dwelling units available every week, often with a new dozen joining the group each weekend.  Why build a new home?  Even more, why build a new home in a 4-6 dwelling unit/acre density subdivision with cul-de-sacs and disjointed street networks that require automobile use?  Should the laws of supply and demand at such a terrible economic time cause the prices of existing units to drop below the cost of purchasing land and constructing a new unit?  Well, logic tells me this reflects back on the governmental policies of the particular municipality.

With the above scenario, it would seem appropriate that municipalities with a desire to encourage both economic development and conservation, as this city claims to do, would create policies (short-term) that encourage those able and looking to relocate to do so into an existing dwelling unit.   This provides several benefits.  First, as has become apparent over the past 50 years in urban and regional planning theory and practice, the continual edge growth of cities causes a perpetual exodus of activity from and decline of the interior bulk of cities.  This is counterproductive to acheiving a good city.  Measuring economic success only on new construction, which primarily occurs on the outskirts of cities, is a major flaw.  To have a healthy, thriving, economically productive city, it is logical and desirable to maintain economic activity throughout an urban area, as opposed to around the edges, and possibly in the center city.  Acheiving this requires the development of policies that encourage residents to stay within the existing urban area, but also encourage businesses to remain in and anchor activity nodes throughout an urban region.  The activity nodes, over time, can form higher density pockets that support alternative transportation, have many community services, and serve a diverse population.  

A second benefit of policies that encourage both economic development and conservation through living in existing dwelling units is that it directly impacts how the exterior of the city grows onto rural or ex-urban lands.  These lands, in many instances, better serve a community by remaining farmland, and producing crops and other foods for the local economy, or by continuing to function as an ecosystem that produces animals for hunting, removes pollutants from the air and water, slows urban runoff troubles, etc.  In some instances, the land is of cultural importance, or people may move to a city because they value the beauty of the rural landscape, only to have that landscape succumb to new poorly thought out and approved residential subdivisions.  Certainly to the owner of that property, it may be much more desirable for him though to sell it to a developer.  Theoretically, this may be the root of the problem.

Ultimately, it seems counterintuitive in tough economic times to continue to encourage new home construction.  It will spread a city thin, allowing some areas to become blighted, thereby losing economic value, but also causing money to then be spent fixing those areas.  Yes, exterior growth will always continue to occur, but the internal processes must be understood, so as to prevent the continuation of poorly designed sprawl of development outward, and to keep the interior strong and intact.