Tag Archives: conservation

Modernist Architecture is a Failed Paradigm Ruining Our World

By Dom Nozzi

April 19, 2017

Nothing is more dated than yesterday’s vision of tomorrow.  – Unknown

 Modern architects recognize 300 masterpieces but ignore the other 30 million [modernist] buildings that have ruined the world. – Andres Duany

 Recently, a Boulder CO online newsletter published an essay I had written describing my vision for the redevelopment of the Boulder Community Hospital site (also known as Alpine-Balsam) that the City of Boulder had purchased and was planning to redevelop. Two Boulder friends of mine, who admirably tend to express support for compact, walkable urban design, noted as well to me their support for modernist architectural design in the redevelopment.

It was very disheartening for me to hear of their support for modernism. I believe that modernism would greatly contribute to undermining the potential success of this redevelopment – success that could serve as a model for future development in Boulder.

I prefer traditional design over modernist design.

Banks

Some Merits of Traditional Design

Traditional architectural design tends to be much more readily loved by most people. This makes a great deal of sense, since by definition, traditional design has stood the test of time. Not surprisingly, there is a fair amount of research suggesting that traditional architecture, such as Georgian and Victorian terraces and mansion blocks, contributes to our wellbeing. Beauty makes people happy.[1] By contrast, modernist architecture tends to be shocking or repellent to most. Visual preference surveys by Tony Nelessen conducted throughout the nation consistently shows this to be the case.

Traditional design tends to be more kind and interesting to pedestrians due to the use of ground floor windows, front-facing entryways, and building ornamentation. By contrast, modernist design has a bad habit of offering sterility and lack of place-making at the ground level.

Throwing Away Timelessness

The Modernist paradigm makes “innovation” the design imperative, which arrogantly assumes that there is no reason a new, untested design cannot reliably achieve admiration and greatness.

Modernists throw away design rules that have stood the test of time in creating buildings that are pleasing and comprehensible to most. Throwing away rules is a recipe for creating incomprehensible, unappealing, unsustainable garbage in the vast majority of cases. It is akin to handing a typewriter to a monkey and expecting the monkey to type out the works of Shakespeare.

Consider this example of a written paragraph, where rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, consistency in font, and other writing conventions are ignored:

red moss teeaere         eeaapoiere   STRAIGHT method.   Tether: highlight. totalitarian doctrines. Fight, Might.  BreaD    Moss tree  Goofballs. Magnet; Tennis   Jodding. Running_____ Break. Slow! Aspirin. Hockey hockey hockey hockey. Shoes and purple.   WHISPER###  ****&&&&&&@@@@@

An “innovative” paragraph, perhaps, but incomprehensible, utterly ugly, and chaotic.

Note that I do not intend to suggest that architects are as uneducated as monkeys. To the contrary, architects tend to be highly intelligent. But by throwing out time-tested design rules, architects voluntarily blind themselves to design intelligence.

To me, it is exceptionally tragic that modernists are doing to our communities what the above paragraph does to writing. To abandon writing rules, and to abandon the timeless rules of neighborhood design, we abandon what should be (and has been throughout history) the beauty and elegance of the written word, and the beauty and elegance displayed by so many of our historic neighborhoods.

Look the Other Way with Greenwashing

It is quite common for a modernist architect to “green” the design of his or her building by covering much of it with vegetation. Modernists do this to soften the otherwise brutal, sterile nature of their “innovative” designs. By doing so, they leverage the human tendency to love nature and vegetation. “Maybe if I hide my unlovable design behind ivy and shrubs, people will like the appearance of my otherwise distasteful structure!”

High-tech conservation and solar energy methods, similarly, are often used by modernists to gain favor and have people look the other way with regard to the unfortunate, unpleasant building design. “Are you not impressed by my triple platinum LEED-certified building that conserves so much energy?” Pay no attention to the fact that the building looks like Soviet-era brutality.

The Conservation Benefits of Traditional Design

Despite the conventional wisdom that contemporary buildings perform far better than older, traditional buildings when it comes to energy conservation and overall environmental sustainability, it turns out that traditional, older buildings tend to be inherently much more “green” environmentally than modernist building design.

Why?

One reason is that traditional design tends to more often deploy passive conservation methods such as overhanging pitched roofs. Such roofs are much more effective than modernist flat roofs in shedding  snow and rain. The traditional pitched roof much more effectively avoids costly moisture leaks from pooled water, or collapse from excessive snow weight. The roof overhang provides shade from a hot sun. Traditional buildings tend to be more appropriately oriented to take advantage of the cooling and heating cycles of the sun throughout the day and in various seasons. Modernist buildings tend to “innovatively” disregard such passive strategies.

Traditional building design also tends to use more durable building materials (such as brick, masonry, and wood), and use locally-sourced materials. This reduces the energy costs of initial cost, maintenance, repair, and replacement. By contrast, modernist buildings tend to use more exotic, difficult to maintain materials such as vast amounts of glass or polished steel.

Because traditional building design is more likely to be loved than modernist design, the building is more sustainable and environmentally friendly simply by the fact that by being lovable, citizens are more likely to want to protect and repair the building, rather than tear it down. The prolific tearing down of modernist buildings we have already seen in great numbers (due in part to their unlovable nature) is extremely costly in terms of energy conservation and environmental conservation. This frequent demolition of modernist buildings is certain to continue in the future.

Modernist Non Sequiturs

To win political and societal support for modernist design, modernist architects frequently use non sequiturs. Modernist buildings are praised for being “progressive” or “optimistic about the future.” Such buildings are called “democratic” or “egalitarian.” By Officescontrast, traditional buildings are disparaged as being “authoritarian” or “regressive” or “pessimistic.” Traditional buildings are often ridiculed as being “nostalgic” (implying an effort to create a fake historical appearance), or “not forward looking.”

Nonsense.

It is entirely inappropriate to associate political or ethical values with building style or design.

Giving Compact Development a Black Eye

Boulder residents have a long, unfortunate history of counterproductively opposing higher-density development with the justification that such development harms Boulder’s small town character, is environmentally destructive, or creates traffic and parking congestion.

Ironically, it is low-density development that is more responsible for such problems.

The essential need to shift Boulder’s politics toward support for more compact development shows why it is extremely important that compact, walkable, higher-density buildings be lovable in design. Using more lovable traditional design is a powerful way to gain more acceptance of compact design in Boulder. A great many people in Boulder dislike compact development because it is associated with “boxy” or “monolithic” or “sterile” buildings. The last thing Boulder needs is for ugly buildings to give compact development a black eye. Modernist buildings are also infamous for not fitting in with the context of their location (an inherent problem when “innovation” is the key design objective). Each of these traits are typical of a modernist building, whereas a traditional building is more likely to feel friendly or compatible in or near existing neighborhoods.

Traditionally designed neighborhoods tend to be unified in style and follow a design pattern. By being more compatible and lovable, traditional buildings are much better able to gain neighborhood and community acceptance when the project is more dense or compact. By contrast, modernist design theory, again, tends to celebrate “eclectic” and “innovative” design. Such design ignores context and tends to feel disconcertingly chaotic, incompatible, and bizarre. This is a surefire recipe for amplifying neighborhood opposition. “There are…reasons that more British cities are not beautiful. Firstly, there are the architects themselves, who tend to prefer innovative buildings over traditional ones.”[2]

The Absence of Mimicking Modernism

It is quite telling that in Boulder, as elsewhere, there are zero neighborhoods which people look upon with affection that are mostly or entirely modernist (similarly, I know of no predominantly modernist towns or neighborhoods that are tourist destinations). As John Torti, principal of Torti Gallas & Partners, has stated, “…could you imagine an entire city made out of Frank Gehry buildings? There’s a notion of the monument versus the fabric. Michael Dennis called it hero buildings versus soldier buildings. In most New Urbanist practices we create the soldier buildings, the fabric buildings that make cities.”[3]

Modernism vs Traditional in Boulder, April 2017

But there are many examples of admired neighborhoods in Boulder that are primarily traditional: Mapleton Hill, Iris Hollow, Dakota Ridge, Washington Square, and Holiday.

The Rejection of Context

The modernist paradigm is focused on creating individualistic “statement” buildings that have no relation to their neighbors. Context, pattern, time-tested design, rules, and fabric are tossed into the waste can. Instead, the focus is on innovation, which tends to result in odious, unlovable buildings that almost never draw affection – particularly when modernist buildings are grouped together in a neighborhood (is it even possible to group together “statement” buildings into a coherent whole?)  Instead, modernist buildings are parasitically, invasively, and incrementally added into an existing traditional neighborhood, allowing the modernist building to piggyback on the affection for the traditional neighborhood.

Torti notes that:

“The notion of understanding and respecting the traditional city—rather than showing off a particular site or building—is the essential difference. Christopher Alexander, the great planning and architectural theorist, says it in a very poignant way. When you come to a place, a city, or a site, you must look and try to understand the whole place. It sums up what I think new urbanists are all about, which is being humble enough when we work on buildings to let the city take preference.”[4]

Similarly, Stefanos Polyzoides, principal of Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists, says that

“…the prime ingredient of urbanism is really public space and the public realm. So the urban plan comes first and the building second. It becomes an issue of whether the building is a monument or a piece of fabric. Then does this building dominate what’s in place or does this building add to it or transform it? New urbanists essentially believe in compatibility between building and place, in the sense that buildings having specific intentions when placed in a particular location in the urban fabric.”[5]

Incrementally Destroying Affection

Tragically, over time, this incremental invasion by modernist buildings erodes the affection felt for the traditional neighborhood as it slowly loses its charm to the invader buildings. Each modernist building added to a traditional neighborhood is a new blight on the neighborhood, and the neighborhood takes another step toward being unloved.

Modernist buildings, by design, stick out like a sore thumb. They take pride in the amount of shock value they induce. They thumb their nose at conventions and timeless design and fitting into a context. A modernist building tends to call attention to itself, Homeswhich is most unfortunate for the neighborhood, as the modernist design is so commonly wretched.

There is a reason that modernists fear and oppose visual preference surveys. Their modernist designs always fail to gain support. The modernist excuse for this? “Citizens are too stupid or lacking in architectural knowledge to realize that the modernism was brilliant and beautiful!”

Rubbish.

Repetition and Making Lovable, Compatible Design Illegal

It is said, rightly, that imitation is the highest form of flattery. When a building design stands the test of time and is loved for many generations, it is natural and desirable that it be mimicked by new buildings. Traditional buildings, by definition, have long been 3718677272_880f14ecdc_bloved and should therefore become a pattern that should be followed by new buildings. Tellingly, the chaotic, no-rules modernist building tends to NEVER be replicated. I know of no examples.

One of the things we tend to love is a city that shows order, repetition, balance, and symmetry. Without an emphasis on repetition, it seems chaotic, like no one is in charge, which is disconcerting. Diversity and variety should be introduced gently so as not to take away from an overall design pattern (such as building height or shape). Variety might be introduced through differences in fencing style, color, or cornice, for example.

Much of Pearl Street Mall is a good example of lovable repetition with a dash of variety.

Given all of this, it is an atrocity that in America, communities have been saddled for several decades by federal historic preservation guidelines that REVERSE this time-honored method I have just summarized. In historic neighborhoods full of lovable, charming historic buildings, the federal historic preservation guidelines PROHIBIT additions to existing traditional buildings that mimic or are even compatible with the existing traditional building style. Instead – insanely – the federal guidelines REQUIRE that the addition to an existing historic and traditional building be “of its time.” Today, since “of its time” buildings happen to be unlovable modernist buildings, federal historic preservation rules make it mandatory that lovable historic buildings be degraded in all their charm and glory by being appended by a hideous modernist abomination.

Additions

Most modernist architects proudly – triumphantly – design “of its time” modernist buildings when new buildings are to be built in a traditional historic neighborhood.

Who needs enemies when we have ourselves?

What does it say about a society when it requires new construction to only use a failed, unlovable building design? Modernist architecture is, after all, a failed paradigm. We are now obligated to keep adding more and more failure to our neighborhoods so that the construction is “of its (failed) time.”

Today, it tends to be that only arrogant, elitist, pompous modernist architects who have “drank the Kool Aid” admire modernist buildings. The rest of us are too stupid to realize the brilliance of modernist buildings.

Unfortunately for me, it would seem that nearly all architects who design buildings in Boulder prefer modernist design, which makes it extremely likely that modernist design will once again be the dominant (exclusive?) design at the hospital site being redeveloped.

I believe that more modernist building design is likely to meet with strong citizen opposition to the redevelopment of the hospital site, thereby undermining this golden opportunity to have the City show how compact development is properly and popularly done.

Affordability and Jobs?

Having said all of this, there are one or two advantages to modernist buildings. First, they are so strongly disliked by so many people that they will therefore not see a significant increase in price over time. They will not retain their value. Or, if there is an appreciation in housing value in the community, the appreciation for modernist homes will be lower than the appreciation that traditional buildings will see. Very few people will be interested in buying a home that seems so dated and so bizarre, which will put downward pressure on the price of the home. Because modernist homes will be so difficult for an owner to sell, such homes will be relatively affordable to lower income people who don’t have much choice about how attractive their homes might be.

A study from the Netherlands showed that ‘even controlling for a wide range of features, fully neo-traditional houses sell for 15 per cent more than fully non-traditional houses…London terraced houses built before the First World war went up in value by 465 per cent between 1983 and 2013, compared to 255 per cent for post-war property of the same type. Beauty sells, but because it’s rare, it’s exclusive.[6]

So providing more affordable housing in an expensive housing market is one benefit.

Another benefit is that because modernist buildings tend to be so unlovable to the vast majority of people, modernist buildings will provide more jobs in future years because they will be more frequently demolished and in need of reconstruction to other buildings.

Time to Sunset Modernism

It is far past time that America end its failed architectural experiment of modernism. The modernist paradigm has destroyed lovability throughout the nation, and has bred widespread cynicism about our ability to create buildings worthy of our affection.

Hotels

Our quality of life and any hope of civic pride depends on our returning to the tradition of using time-tested building design.

Don’t miss this critique of contemporary building design:  “…for thousands of years, nearly every buildings humans made was beautiful. It is simply a matter of recovering old habits. We should ask ourselves: why is it that we can’t build another Prague or Florence? Why can’t we build like the ancient mosques in Persia or the temples in India? Well, there’s no reason why we can’t…”

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/why-you-hate-contemporary-architecture

[1] West, Ed. “Classical architecture makes us happy. So why not build more of it?”, The Spectator. March 15, 2017.

[2] West, Ed. “Classical architecture makes us happy. So why not build more of it?”, The Spectator. March 15, 2017.

[3] https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2017/03/09/great-idea-architecture-puts-city-first

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] West, Ed. “Classical architecture makes us happy. So why not build more of it?”, The Spectator. March 15, 2017.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Urban Design

The Importance of Easy Access to Natural Areas

 

By Dom Nozzi

December 17, 2002

People appreciate something if they are exposed to it.

The only way for most kids to have EASY, regular access to vacant, weedy woodlots that tend to be sprinkled throughout a community is that they be within walking distance of residences in neighborhoods.

In other words, if we expect to raise kids that grow up to be conservationists, it is not enough for us to teach them about ecology in classrooms and have large natural preserves way outside a city in a place that cannot be reached by a kid on foot or bike. The woodlots need to be within easy reach of where kids live, so we need to be sure that neighborhoods are designed so that most homes are within walking distance of small parks — parks that are active and utilitarian. And not necessarily supportive of a rare, sensitive, valuable ecosystem.

These are, of course, important reasons why I have always been a big supporter of running greenway trails through or near neighborhoods.Boulder Greenway Canopy

How many subdivisions in America have no woodlots that kids can walk to? And how much do we encourage people to relocate into remote, environmentally sensitive areas because we failed to create walkable neighborhoods where it is easy to walk to small urban parks and trails?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Environment, Sprawl, Suburbia

The Appropriateness of Nature in Cities

By Dom Nozzi

July 18, 2004

Introducing nature into cities nearly always degrades the human habitat.

WHAT????

I say this about nature in cities even though I am an advocate for urban open space.

After all, I have a degree in environmental science, so I understand the importance academically.

When I was a child, the most profound, critically important, priceless experience I had was to be able to play in the neighborhood woodlands. I did that ALL the time. The main inspiration for my becoming a city planner was that I wanted to be in a job in which I could work to see that future generations of kids had that same opportunity, as NOT having that experience would lead to an awful, sterile, barren childhood. Indeed, a study once looked at a HUGE number of variables to determine if there was a correlation between childhood experiences and wanting to conserve the environment as an adult. The study found that there was one variable that stood out head and shoulders above the others. Adult conservationists typically were able to engage in unstructured, unsupervised play in natural areas near their home when they were kids.

Because of the above, I remain a leading advocate for establishing an urban greenway trail systems in cities. Such a system is the only effective way I know of to allow kids (and

Boulder Greenway Canopy

adults) to have easy walking/bicycling access to the natural world, on a regular basis, right outside their back door. Nothing is better able to create the army of conservationists our environment needs.

I would therefore hold my strong desire for urban open space up against anyone else with the expectation that my desire would be stronger. I am intensely supportive of URBAN open space.

Note that I say urban open space. This is a crucial qualifier. The urban habitat (in contrast to the suburban and rural) MUST be compact and walkable if it is to be a high quality urban habitat. That means that if we are to introduce nature into the urban world, we must be as careful as if we were planning to introduce human activity into a wildlife habitat.

In the former case, the introduced nature MUST be compact and walkable. In other words, small, vacant woodlots, plazas, squares, piazzas, utility corridors, creek corridors, etc. are perfectly compatible with walkability. One can easily walk from origin A to destination B without an enormous amount of physical exertion. By contrast, putting a golf course or even a 50-acre park in the middle of a city creates an UNwalkable condition, as the distance between A and B becomes too excessive to easily walk (Central Park in NYC can work because NYC has extremely high densities and a quality transit system that means you can easily walk or ride to all of your daily needs along the PERIMETER of the park without having to cross it on foot).

In other words, big open spaces in a lower density community would create unwalkable spaces that would degrade the urban habitat in such cities.

The key for most cities is to preserve and create URBAN open spaces while retaining walkability. Greenway trails that wind their way through neighborhoods and small parks are compatible.

Big, unwalkable parks are not.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Environment, Urban Design

Fighting the Correct Battle

by Dom Nozzi

[Updated Jan 2009]

 

I’ve been a lifelong environmental conservationist. I lead a very low-impact lifestyle: vegetarian, bicycle commuter, solar water heater, restoring a 10-acre cattle pasture to a native hardwood forest, purchase more used than new products, etc.

 

Much of this ethic comes from my father, who was a strong environmentalist. My upbringing, which included lots of play-time in wooded areas, inspired me to obtain a bachelor’s degree in environmental science and a master’s degree in environmental planning.

 

Over the years, I’ve been a member of Earth First!, Alliance for a Paving Moratorium, Friends of Alachua County, Alachua Greenway Alliance, and the local chapter of the Sierra Club.

 

Much of my professional work over the past 15 years has involved the preparation or strengthening of city environmental plans and environmental development regulations.

 

For example, I wrote the long-range environmental conservation plan and solid waste plan for Gainesville, Florida, prepared a strict, esteemed noise ordinance for that city, included xeriscape requirements and prohibitions of non-native invasives to the city landscape ordinance, prepared a computerized land ranking system for public acquisition of important natural areas, prepared ordinances that further protect the city wellfield,  upland ecological communities, and nature parks. I also worked for 18 months as the development rate control planner in Boulder, Colorado.

 

Because of all this, it should surprise no one that I appreciate and respect the important work that others do to ensure that our society achieves sustainable environmental conservation.

 

My professional work in recent years has become much broader. I am involved in a number of “big picture” projects that give me a larger view of the social and environmental problems we face. Much of this work has been to prepare the long-range transportation and land use plans for Gainesville, which has sharpened my understanding of the underlying factors threatening our ecosystems and quality of life.

 

Due to this work, I am growing increasingly concerned because many of the admired environmental allies I worked with in the past seem to be focused on the wrong battles.

 

An enormous number of necessary, hard-fought struggles were fought by environmentalists in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It is crucial, yet counterintuitive, perhaps, to realize that we succeeded in winning most of those battles! At the national, state, and local level of environmental protection.

 

smokestackHard as it may seem to believe, we now have quite strict, protective regulations in place for the direct, obvious, easy-to-recognize sources of environmental degradation. We are now much, much tougher with regulations that ensure that smokestacks, sewer pipes, toxic waste dumps, and environmentally hazardous products do not harm our environment. We’ve fought the battle against these direct, “point” sources of pollution, and surprising as it may sound, we have largely won.

 

To effectively address our substantial, remaining environmental battles, we must now turn our attention to the much more difficult and seemingly intractable environmental threats; namely, the widespread “non-point” sources of pollution, such as stormwater runoff from roads and parking lots, emissions from car tailpipes, and new residential and non-residential developments sprawling into our outlying (and more sensitive and important) areas.

 

Yet despite all the victories we have won regarding direct sources of pollution,  intelligent, conscientious environmentalists are engaged in a desperate, sometimes hysterical attack against their elected officials, claiming that local plans and regulations are offering a “blank check” to developers, who will be allowed to “have their way” in developing projects that will destroy our urban natural areas and neighborhoods.

 

How can such an attack be possible? Shouldn’t the defenders of natural areas and neighborhoods be cheering on the impressive gains made with our elected officials, our plans, and our development regulations?

 

In my opinion, what is happening is that successfully correcting the direct forms of environmental pollution (the smokestacks and sewer pipes), and instituting neighborhood-protecting tactics, did not deliver us a pristine, sustainable ecosystem, or quiet, stable neighborhoods. In fact, a tidal wave of evidence—global warming, species extinction, air pollution, water and groundwater pollution, loss of ecosystems, loss of quiet neighborhood character—is bombarding us with the message that we are, more than ever, losing the battle to save our environment and our neighborhoods.

 

The obvious answer for many? Attack environmentally-oriented and neighborhood-protective elected officials for being pawns of developers! Disparage environmentally-strict plans for being too weak! Scream for stronger development regulations to require even more protection against smokestacks, sewer pipes, and toxic waste! Demand that the City take away a person’s constitutional right to have reasonable use of their land.

 

Isn’t it perfectly clear that these are the solutions?

 

The frightening problem is this: it is hard to realize that we’ve already won those battles. After all, isn’t it true that there is ongoing degradation of our environment and our neighborhoods?

 

It is therefore too easy for well-meaning crusaders to unintentionally waste precious time, energy, and money battling the wrong problem.

 

It is difficult to see that the essential problems are now indirect, less obvious, and less focused on “evil corporate business polluters.” Instead, they are more widespread, systemic, and incremental. Now, the sources of degradation are not, individually, big and nasty pollution sources. Instead, they are indirect and embedded into our auto-based, suburban sprawl lifestyles. Added up, though, these indirect impacts lead to substantial destruction of outlying, regional ecosystems and residential neighborhoods.

 

Now, instead of smokestacks, the big threat is indirect and more invisible: Things like widening urban roads, which open up markets for remote, sprawling subdivisions. These remote subdivisions trample our large ecosystems, further lock us into the downward spiral of auto dependency, and promote the continued decline of older, in-town neighborhoods.sprawlovertakesfarm

 

We have met the enemy and he is us.

 

Our auto-dependent, suburban lifestyles demand that we angrily insist our politicians give us low densities, big, high-speed roads; large, free parking lots and cheap gas. It is impossible for us to realize that such demands are a recipe that, ironically, locks us into the very thing that we fight against: degraded ecosystems and degraded neighborhoods. The handy solution is to find (the usual) scapegoats to blame.

 

Perhaps this is what we should expect. After all, the indirect, widespread, lifestyle-based problems don’t seem like problems we can do much about. It seems so much more feasible (and a way to ease our own guilt) to blame a few diabolical developers or corporations.

 

The convenient solution for this search is an artifact of the past: Evil developers, corrupt politicians, unsympathetic professional staff, and polluting smokestacks. It can’t be that we are to blame! It must be the “bad” guys!

 

Is it any wonder that there is no longer any trust, credibility, or respect given by citizens to developers, staff, or elected officials, even when they are intelligent, sympathetic, and well-meaning?

 

To their credit, the national Sierra Club has recently started to focus on the overriding, “big picture” problem that is overwhelmingly responsible for threatening our ecosystems and neighborhoods: Auto-dependent urban sprawl.

 

We must find effective ways to control auto-dependent sprawl if we expect to save our natural areas and neighborhoods. We must find ways to see that future development delivers us walkable, compact, neighborhood- and human-scaled projects rich in civic pride and transportation choice. We must set about the task of building cities and towns that are designed to make people, instead of cars, happy—so that we will mostly be clamoring to live in the city, and can reduce the widespread desire to flee the unpleasant cities for the perception of suburban bliss.

 

This is the only way we can restore trust, confidence, and respect.

 

And an essential way to do that is to not misdirect our time and energy by blaming the usual suspects…

 

 _________________________________________________

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

Visit: www.walkablestreets.wordpress.com

Or email me at: dom[AT]walkablestreets.com

50 Years Memoir CoverMy memoir can be purchased here: Paperback = http://goo.gl/9S2Uab Hardcover =  http://goo.gl/S5ldyF

My book, The Car is the Enemy of the City (WalkableStreets, 2010), can be purchased here: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-car-is-the-enemy-of-the-city/10905607Car is the Enemy book cover

My book, Road to Ruin, can be purchased here:

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Ruin-Introduction-Sprawl-Cure/dp/0275981290

My Adventures blog

http://domnozziadventures.wordpress.com/

Run for Your Life! Dom’s Dangerous Opinions blog

http://domdangerous.wordpress.com/

My Town & Transportation Planning website

http://walkablestreets.wordpress.com/

My Plan B blog

https://domz60.wordpress.com/

My Facebook profile

http://www.facebook.com/dom.nozzi

My YouTube video library

http://www.youtube.com/user/dnozzi

My Picasa Photo library

https://picasaweb.google.com/105049746337657914534

My Author spotlight

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/domatwalkablestreetsdotcom

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Environment, Politics, Urban Design