"The negative consequences of car dependency."

Idea credit: Bluegill.

The conclusion first:

Car-centric towns are isolating, discriminatory, expensive, harmful to small businesses, and bad for public health. In contrast, walkable, human-oriented communities tend to be the happiest and healthiest and the most financially productive types of places to build and retain.

Let's focus on building places that cater to the needs of humans, not the needs of cars.

Another outstanding entry from Strong Towns.

THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF CAR DEPENDENCY, by Andrew Price (Strong Towns)

The majority of American towns and cities are built around the automobile. From multi-lane highways to vast paved parking lots, our communities have been shaped around a single mode of transportation over the last seventy years. While this may feel like progress, it has also harmed ourselves and our towns in ways that will be felt for generations.

Today I'm going talk about some of the negative consequences of car dependency and how a more walk-friendly, human-scaled development pattern would make us all better off. Specifically, I'm going to talk about them from the perspective of a town or suburb that has gone all-in on the auto-oriented pattern of development, where car travel and storage is prioritized over any other mode of transportation, and where the entire community is designed around car use.

Some of these negative consequences are:

Social isolation
Discrimination
Expense
Decline of small businesses
Effect on public health

Strong Towns Week: "In an urban neighbourhood it is important ... that everyone has a park within a few minutes walk."

In New Albany, we've opted for the "grand park" approach. Millions in TIF borrowing have produced several mini-Disneys, but not the sort of neighborhood approach being advocated in yet another thoughtful posting at Strong Towns.

GRAND PARKS VS. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, by Andrew Price

When we talk about parks in cities, I think it helps if we can classify parks into two types: Grand Parks and Neighbourhood Parks (Like a lot of things, I am making up terminology here, but I feel that it is often relevant to have terms to distinguish between things.) When I am talking about parks, I do not mean greenspace, which is unnecessary filler. You can often tell the difference between a park and greenspace, because somebody loves a park enough, no matter how small it is, to give it a name.

Grand Parks are places like Central Park, Prospect Park, national parks, Chapultepec, etc. They can range from day trip destinations, or sometimes far-flung destinations in other states.

Neighbourhood Parks are sort of places you expect to find up the street - kids can play there after school, people walk their dog there, you can stroll down there with a book ...

One significant problem with New Albany's mini-Disney approach apart from the misuse of TIF is it being predicated on people driving their cars to the parks, while the notion of neighborhood parks supports walking or biking there.

We have relocated to the NYC area, and are now renting a 3 bedroom townhouse in Hoboken, NJ. It's a very nice family-oriented area, but it is highly urban and virtually the entire city of Hoboken consists of either townhouses or mid-rise apartments. People here either just do not have yard, or it is a tiny communal courtyard.

So, if you have children, or you want to read a book, or lay among the trees, or throw a ball with your dog, you need Neighbourhood Parks. Central Park, as beautiful as it is, is useless for this purpose if you live 50 minutes away - you are not walking there with your book after work everyday.

That is why I think in an urban neighbourhood it is important that if you do not have a private yard that everyone has a park within a few minutes walk.

Even if you have a private yard, Neighbourhood Parks can still serve a purpose. They can be the living room of the community. If I am reading a book or doing work, I find it more relaxing to be among the light flutter of activity found in a public park than to be in absolute solitude. This is probably also why I prefer working from my office, even if I have the ability to telecommute on occasion - it is nice just to be in the presence of others.

Strong Towns Week: “This blog has changed my life in profound ways and, in the process, your reaction has given voice to a movement that is slowing seeping into those cogs of government.”

The Copperhead can be intimidating.

You know, this guy up in Minnesota getting involved, and finding it discomforts the governing cliques, the sycophants serving them, and the oligarchs being served by them.

Comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable? Marohn is an engineer, but it almost sounds like journalism.

STAYING STRONG, by Charles Marohn

... I wanted to share this because I know there are Strong Towns advocates out there who occasionally get similar responses in their communities: Why don’t you move? Let’s see you run for council. Why don’t you show up? These are really destructive and dysfunctional notions that are meant to intimidate and shame the receiver. We can’t let that change what we do.

We all need to understand, first and foremost, that you don’t need to attend a meeting to care. You don’t need to be involved in the system that has been set up for you in order to be involved in your place. A base assumption of the Strong Towns movement is that the city is ours. We are not relegated to secondary citizens simply because we are not following the process set forth by those in power.

One of the more deeply offensive moments of my professional life was at a meeting of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s citizen’s board where one of the outspoken board members stated that, “the world is run by those who show up.” This was said in the context of defending the actions of a wealthy, highly-connected group of prime property owners who not only could afford to take time off work and travel 150 miles to the meeting, but retain legal staff and professional experts to advocate on their behalf. Needless to say, their opposition didn’t “show up” in the way that they had — their concerns thereby invalidated with a pompous remark.

City council meetings are incredibly unfair environments for a member of the general public wanting to be heard. The layout of most council chambers is intimidating and isolating. A person asking to speak has to come up to a podium, stand there alone and face an assembled group of officials who are seated behind an intimidating table and, often, elevated above the crowd. In my city, they are on television to boot. I’ve seen grown men shake with fear when asked to address the council in this way.

This is the home field for the staff and the city council. They have the benefit of having spent a lot of time in this abnormal environment. They know how the protocols work, how to control the floor and how to direct the discussion. They have inside information that members of the public don’t have, adding to the asymmetric power structure. I will never fault someone for not subjecting themselves to that, no matter how important their cause.

The format of a council meeting creates feedback that is disjointed and unhelpful. There is little opportunity for back and forth dialogue. Complex issues must be discussed in limited timeframes. Members of the public are often given cursory slots at the beginning and the end of the agenda and frequently leave feeling as if they are being patronized or tolerated, not listened to. I don’t blame anyone for finding little value in spending their time this way.

And this:

Here is what are we called to do as Strong Towns advocates:

1. A Strong Citizen is a leader by example, sharing the values of a Strong Town in the way they live their own life.
2. A Strong Citizen is actively involved in their community, although not necessarily in local government.
3. A Strong Citizen knows their immediate neighbors and works with them to resolve conflict and build a strong neighborhood.
4. A Strong Citizen seeks connections with others outside their neighborhood as a way to gain knowledge, build understanding and strengthen the community.
5. A Strong Citizen honors the work of past generations, respects the needs of the current generation and protects the interests of future generations.

Don’t be intimidated by haters. Keep doing what you can to build a strong town.

Strong Towns Week: "You do have a parking problem; there’s too much of it."

It's been a couple of years since NAC first linked to this article by Nathaniel Hood, a transportation planner and blogger living in St. Paul who writes for Strong Towns and Streets MN.

Mapping is one of four responses to complaints of "there's no parking" (below), and our own Jeff G's map of New Albany's parking supply (above) dates back to 2013. It's changed a bit, though not much.

A couple Fridays ago, I walked downtown on a Friday night. Food and drink establishments were hopping -- and beginning at 3rd and Market, there were dozens of unoccupied parking spaces to the east.

In Parking Non-Problem 1, there is a link to a City Lab article introducing Hood and his photos of wide open spaces where parking shortages are alleged to exist. In the following, Hood's points are offered sans explanation, so please click through and read the entire article -- and consider becoming a member of Strong Towns.

4 EASY STEPS TO SQUASH THE "THERE'S NO PARKING" ARGUMENT, by Nathaniel M. Hood (Strong Towns)

"OMG! There is no parking!" - Concern Citizen

I wish I had a bus ticket for every time I heard someone say this. Unless you're Manhattan or San Francisco, it is fair to say that you don't have a parking problem. I take that back. You do have a parking problem; there’s too much of it.

Here is a quick how-to guide on dealing with those who claim your town lacks adequate parking.

1. UNDERSTAND PERCEPTION.
2. MAP PARKING SUPPLY
3. DOCUMENT UNUSED SUPPLY
4. USE YOURSELF AS A CASE STUDY

Strong Towns Week: A hat trick by Marohn (autocentrism's cost, invasive semi-trailers and insidious Wal-Mart).

I'm a member of Strong Towns, and suggest you take advantage of this week's "greatest hits" output ...

This week, we are focusing on exposing new people to the Strong Towns message. That’s why we’re posting some of our best content of all time and asking YOU to share it. We’ve set a big goal — doubling our weekly audience — and we need your help to do it.

Sharing our content is one small but vital step you can take to help build a world of a million people who care about our mission. If this article inspires you, please take a moment to share it with someone else.

... to familiarize yourself with the organization's mission:

"For the United States to be a prosperous country, it must have strong cities, towns and neighborhoods. Enduring prosperity for our communities cannot be artificially created from the outside but must be built from within, incrementally over time."

Here are three conceptually linked articles by the organization's founder.

1. "A simple comparison of traditional & auto-oriented development styles. Guess which is more financially productive."

THE COST OF AUTO ORIENTATION, by Charles Marohn

In the United States we've spent the last sixty years reconfiguring our public spaces to accommodate the automobile. The built-in assumption of this approach, especially when it comes to commercial property, is that the more cars driving by the better. In our haste to modernize, what we've overlooked is the lower return on investment we get from this approach, even under ideal conditions. Today we need the humility to acknowledge that our ancestors, who built in the traditional style, may have known what they were doing after all.

2. "No, semis are not a valid reason to build dangerously wide streets."

TRACTOR TRAILER TRADEOFF, by Charles Marohn

... During Big Box Stores Week, I received the proverbial semi-trailer comment. Chuck, I agree that we need to look at street design, but we can only change things so much because we need to accommodate semis.

So logical yet so wrong.

.. Efficiency is one of the core values of our economic system. We don’t care if we’re doing the right thing or not – or, more precisely, our economists assume we are – so long as we do it more and more efficiently. Hauling one big load of merchandise is far more efficient than hauling multiple, smaller loads. Thus whoever can configure their operation to take advantage of this efficiency should win, right?

3. "If cities did the math on these kind of developments, not another one would ever be built."

THE WALMART TROPHY, by Charles Marohn

Walmart builds cheap buildings in order to sell Americans cheap stuff. Joe Minicozzi has documented brilliantly how, the cheaper the store and the more land it wastes, the lower the taxes. The Walmart land development model has taken the concept of "buying in bulk" and applied it to the land in your city. Their goal -- lower every cost -- is directly at odds with the financial health of your community ...

... Walmart buildings are designed to last 15 to 20 years. Simply the city's commitment to maintain the necessary infrastructure extends generations beyond that, let alone the cost of policing and other needed services. If cities did the math on these kind of developments, not another one would ever be built.

Strong Towns Week: Man buys $15,000 uninhabitable shack to renovate. What could go wrong?

We've all heard about something too big to fail. Welcome to the story of a 700-foot house too small to (be allowed to) succeed.

LESSON LEARNED, by Johnny Sanphillippo (Strong Towns)

A couple years ago, I bought a $15,000 uninhabitable house in Cincinnati, Ohio. The copper had been stripped out and no one had lived there for years. This was on a street where a third of the homes were in similar condition. When I told my friends back home in California, there were a few raised eyebrows. I shrugged. Buying a $1,200,000 one bedroom condo in a trendy coastal city seems far more terrifying to me. The little seven hundred square foot shotgun shack in Ohio was so inexpensive that if it turned out to be the worst financial decision of my life I’d only lose $15,000. It was like buying a used Volkswagen.

Well… Last month I sold the place for slightly more than I paid for it. The resale price covered my initial cost, the real estate agent’s fee, and a year of taxes and insurance. If you squint, I broke even. But if you add in other expenses associated with my attempt to renovate the place, I lost about $3,000. That’s not enough to care about in the big scheme of things, but not great either. Like I said… it was basically a used Volkswagen. So what happened?

What happened was a bureaucratic nightmare. If only the author had been eligible for sewer tap-in waivers; alas, his name is Sanphillippo, not Flaherty Collins.

I hasten to point out that in the year my designer struggled to get multiple unresponsive city bureaucracies to give us the green light on our little shack addition, a 131-unit apartment complex went up three blocks away. All the high mucky mucks were at the ribbon cutting ceremony for the cameras. The new building was “transformational.” It was “catalytic.” It was proof that a progressive developer and enlightened city authorities could work together to turn the neighborhood around.

Lesson learned.

Strong Towns Week: "Traditional Development Patterns were, for thousands of years, synonymous with human progress."

I received an e-mail from Strong Towns (we're paying members):

"In a divided America, we believe the Strong Towns message is more needed than ever. So this week, we’re shaking things up a little. We’re going to shower you with some of our best content from the past several years — revamped and ready for sharing. Unless you’ve read every article we’ve ever written since 2008 (in which case, props to you!), we guarantee you’re going to discover something new and interesting this week."

This week as time permits, I'll be sharing some of these articles. Besides, today's essay is a good excuse to study a juxtaposition of images: the drawing above, and the 1905 postcard below.

ROMANCING THE STONE AGE, by Charles Marohn (Strong Towns)

America's pre-Depression development pattern relied on exploitation of workers, poor living conditions and exclusion of women and minorities. How is the Strong Towns approach, which advocates for traditional development patterns, different?

... There are two differences between the Traditional Development Pattern and the Suburban Experiment that we find significant and critical. First, in the traditional approach, development happens incrementally over time. Things start small and then mature in phases. Conversely, for the suburban approach, we tend to work in large steps with grand designs. Economies of scale is a modern ethic that, combined with our perceived affluence, supersedes the more bootstrapping mindset of incrementalism.

The second difference is closely related. With the traditional approach, all development is on a continuum of improvement. It starts incremental and it is always seeking the energy to move to the next level of advancement. With our post-War Suburban Experiment, we build everything to a finished state. No additional improvement is anticipated or even desired.

That shift in mindset is really important. When your ethic is to build things to a finished state, the tendency is to demand the highest quality you can hope to experience. This means that even cities that are struggling financially are often weighed down by regulation and bureaucracy that ensures "quality construction." Lost is the notion of bootstrapping — doing what you can with what you have available — and with it, the notion of widespread upward mobility.