Tag Archives: town planning

The Town Planning Medical Metaphor

By Dom Nozzi

March 20, 2018

It has been said that town planners are doctors for cities. The job of the town planner, according to this metaphor, is to prescribe medicine (zoning and transportation recommendations) that will improve or maintain the health of a city.

To borrow an analogy from Donald Shoup, let us say that the town planning “doctor” lives in the 18th Century in Colonial America. It has been claimed by historians that George Washington’s doctors hastened the death of our ailing former president by administering blood-letting, which was a widely accepted medical treatment at the time. Indeed, had the American Medical Association been in existence in those days, they would have strongly recommended blood-letting due to the guidelines established by medical science and books of medicine of that age.bl

Let us say that you were a doctor in Colonial America, yet you had come to learn that blood-letting was detrimental to the health of patients. But the AMA, your medical books, and nearly all of your patients were strongly demanding that you administer blood-letting. If you agree to administer blood-letting, you will keep your patients (patients that are otherwise threatening to use another doctor who favors blood-letting) and will therefore keep your job as a doctor.

But if you abide by your Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, you will not administer blood-letting. You recognize that doing so would be a form of medical malpractice. However, you will therefore lose your occupation as a doctor.

What do you do?

Similarly, let us say you are a town planner in contemporary America, and you had come to learn that requesting developers to provide the “free” off-street parking was toxic to the health of your town – particularly your town center. But your land development code, your elected officials, your planning supervisor, and nearly all of the citizens in your community were strongly demanding that you request abundant off-street parking from developers. If you agree to demand that required off-street parking, you will keep your job as a town planner (your office is otherwise threatening to replace you with another planner who will follow parking guidelines and the orders of your supervisor and citizens).

But if you go along with requesting off-street parking, you will do so knowing that you are violating your duty as a town planner to promote the health of your town.

What do you do?

To borrow from Victor Brandon Dover, this analogy works even better if we look upon off-street parking as an addictive drug (Donald Shoup calls off-street parking a fertility drug for cars). As a town planner, your citizens (and the banks that finance development loans) are addicted to the off-street parking fix. As an addict, they must get their fix, yet they can never get enough of it. Giving them their fix is a downward spiral, as it pulls them more strongly into their addiction. The same is true with providing wider roads and larger parking lots, as doing so makes citizens increasingly wedded to their cars because other forms of travel become less safe or feasible when roads and parking are enlarged.

Do you, as a town planner, keep administering a (off-street parking) fix to your addicted patients (citizens)? Is it not true, though, that doing so would be a form of malpractice?

315-0722092524-NSA-building-and-parking-lotIn sum, given the state of affairs I outline above, is it not true that the very heavy contemporary town planning emphasis on enabling car travel (particularly via the demand for providing off-street parking – which is so much of what American town planners now do in their jobs) exemplifies the premise that town planning has become an outdated, failing profession? That it is trapped in the role of administering medicine (or a drug) that is clearly toxic to its “patients” (the town)?

It is time for us to reform town planning so that it returns to the timeless tradition of planning for people, not cars. To return to restoring city health, rather than pushing papers (issuing permits) for cars.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design

Generalists versus Specialists

By Dom Nozzi

August 12, 2000

An important reason why bureaucrats tend to drown in minutia, get caught up in jargon and details, and become specialists (rather than much-preferred Big Picture generalists) is that bureaucrats lack power, trust, credibility, and respect. And loss of those things, as Duany points out, is in many ways due to our flight from traditional neighborhood design principles.

The result for many bureaucrats is to delve into details and promote mystification (jargon, models, etc.) in a desperate effort to remain relevant or somehow needed. Of course, such an approach is merely a downward spiral for planners and designers.bu

Another obstacle to public town planners being more than just milquetoast bureaucrats — and again, this relates to the flight from traditionalism — is that the level of civility is at an all-time low and NIMBYism is at an all-time high. Part of the result is a widespread fear and paranoia on the part of elected officials, which leads the officials to lay down the law that bureaucrats (including planners) shall not have any opinions, and especially not say anything that might possibly make someone unhappy.

And of course, such an approach delivers lowest common denominator milquetoast and mediocrity in how we build our communities.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Urban Design

TCEA and Not Engaging in Real Town Planning

By Dom Nozzi

12/15/99

The policies of the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) used by the Florida city I work for as a long-range town planner are rather mushy because nearly all of them are optional or are simply insignificant window-dressing. Will we really have transportation choice if a developer installs more bike parking or sidewalks or bus stops?

Please.

It is highly disappointing and embarrassing to realize that there are people that actually believe such facilities will reduce car trips.

I wrote the Urban Design portion of the long-range comprehensive plan for this city, but the director of the department watered it down severely. He threw out a third of it (which included my prized “toolbox” describing the benefits and mechanisms for nearly all of the critical urban design features). He also put in a large number of policies that merely state that the City shall do things that have already been agreed to (i.e., the City shall implement the previously adopted special area plan for a neighborhood in the city).

While there is some merit to doing that, since a new commission majority would find it a bit harder to throw out the plan, doing so is not really planning at all. All it says is that we will do what we’ve already agreed to do.

A secretary could have written such policies. Why does the City need professional planners if we’re not doing any planning? Also note that policies in this long-range plan mostly do not get translated into land development code requirements, especially if they are mushy policies, as ours are.sprawl-development

I was forced to chop out numbers in the policies of the plan, since I was told that numbers need to be left for the code-writing stage.

In other words, don’t expect much meaningful revision to our land development code.

Through this watering down, it is fairly easy to claim to the Florida Department of Community Affairs that we’ve implemented policies, even though we have not meaningfully done so.

The comprehensive plan and code changes will give us almost nothing, and it bothers me, since we’re giving away the store and getting nothing in return when we exempt proposed development from concurrency requirements. This is the one big chance the City has to finally stop acting like a doormat. We should say, “yes, we’ll exempt you from our concurrency requirements, but only if you give us some meaningful concessions.”

For example, the City should (but doesn’t) require such design in the town center in exchange for concurrency exemption:

  1. Buildings must be pulled up to the streetside sidewalk.
  2. No parking is allowed in front of your building.
  3. On-street parking is required.
  4. At least 80 percent of your units must be within 1/4 mile of a bus stop if you are residential, and transit passes and parking fees are required for your employees if you are non-residential.
  5. Your building must be a minimum of 2 stories for non-residential buildings.
  6. Walkable town center design is required (above rules, plus mixed use, gridded street pattern, connections to surrounding residential neighborhoods, etc.).
  7. No more than 4 fueling positions are allowed for a proposed gas station.
  8. You must contribute to greenway trail construction, or cash-in-lieu if your project is not near a trail system.

Only with such conditional requirements does a City avoid giving away the store when exempting a proposed development from state concurrency requirements.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design

The Emperor is Wearing No Clothes: Exposing Town Planning for the Ruinous Travesty It Has Become

By Dom Nozzi

October 31, 2017

Back in 1985, I somehow managed to obtain a master’s degree in town planning. But it was not until about eight years into my professional planning career that I was to realize that for several decades, my chosen profession had become a compromised sham.

This epiphany happened to me about 25 years ago when a friend of mine in Gainesville FL gave me a videotape of what I believe is one of the most important, influential, revolutionary speeches ever given on the topic of town planning. It was a speech delivered in 1989 at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts by a young Florida architect by the name of Andres Duany.

Duany’s speech gave town planning a well-deserved, much-needed kick in the pants.

I was shocked to learn from Duany that a century ago, town planners and developers were heroes. For several decades, of course, the opposite has become the case. Planners have become powerless incompetents and developers are more evil than Satan.

What caused this 180-degree shift in perspective?

What we learn in the Duany speech is that the reputation of town planners and developers was destroyed because the timeless tradition that communities followed for time immemorial was abandoned. That is, about a century ago, communities decided that instead of designing our community and our transportation system to make people happy, we would instead design to make cars happy.Road to Ruin book 2003

This powerful take on what has happened to our world explains so much.

It explains why town planners have become little more than mindless, robotic bureaucrats who have but one overriding mission: Become paper pushing clerks who issue or deny development permits based on whether the proposal will promote easy car travel or inhibit car travel.

It explains why developers are now villains. In nearly all cases, developers up to a century ago built things that improved quality of community life because the design objective was to promote human happiness. But the model for developers changed about a century ago. Now, the objective was to promote car happiness.

There are two primary reasons why this changed mission by town planners and developers is ruinous.

First, those community attributes that most people find appealing – compactness, human-scale, slower speeds, sociability, civic pride, timelessness, a subdued ambiance, and safety – are nearly the exact opposite of what is needed to make for easy car travel. Happy motoring requires dispersion, gigantic car scaling, dangerously higher speeds, glaring lights, and isolation – and each of these things undercuts civic pride, timelessness and safety.

The second reason this change is ruinous is that it is a self-perpetuating downward spiral. Car travel is a zero-sum game, because nearly everything we do to promote car travel makes walking, bicycling and transit more difficult. Car ownership also creates a strong vested interest on the part of the car owner to see to it that car travel is cheap and easy. By making walking, bicycling, and transit more difficult, car ownership continuously recruits new car owners. This century-long recruitment now means that even in the most bicycle-friendly US cities (including Boulder CO), there are more cars than people.

The result is that nearly all of us make nearly all of our trips by car. We angrily demand that our elected officials ease our car travel – after all, our cars make it so difficult to get around by walking, bicycling, or transit! We have therefore become our own worst enemies because as I note above, promoting car travel is an exceptionally powerful means of destroying quality of life.

Because cars require an enormous amount of space, motorists feel crowded even with just a tiny number of fellow citizens also in cars. As Dan Burden once said, “cars are happiest when there are no other cars around. People are happiest when there are other people around.” Given this, a large percentage of Americans are NIMBYs on steroids who engage in ongoing pitched battles with developers and elected officials and town planners to demand ultra low development densities (including short buildings), huge parking lots, and massively wide roads.

Developers, citizens, town planners, and elected officials therefore tend to have one overriding mission: promote easy car travel! We must have wide roads. More (and free) parking. More car subsidies and more glaring lights. We must stop compact development.

It is a mission of community ruin.

The key for a better future, then, is to return to the timeless tradition of designing for people, not cars.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Transportation, Urban Design, Walking

Leveling the Playing Field by Getting the Prices Right

A review by Dom Nozzi of “Perverse Cities: Hidden Subsidies, Wonky Policy, and Urban Sprawl” (2010), by Pamela Blais

January 16, 2012

Blais describes a dizzying, almost countless number of ways in which suburban sprawl is heavily subsidized. Such strong market distortions expose the extreme falsehood of sprawl apologists who claim sprawl is the result of an unfettered free market. Instead, Blais shows over and over again the perversity of those living efficient, sustainable, walkable lifestyles in town center locations who are significantly subsidizing andpe artificially increasing the demand for inefficient, unsustainable, car-dependent sprawl lifestyle. As Blais notes, it is as if those driving small, fuel-efficient cars are subsidizing the purchase of Hummers.

“Much of the attention [by governments seeking to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inducing global warming] has been focused on programs that aim to reduce consumption within the home – energy-efficient appliances, windows, insulation, furnaces, and so on.” But Blais then points out that because household car travel creates such significant levels of emissions, and such travel substantially increases when homes are located in remote suburban locations, “when it comes to reducing energy use and GHG emissions, the location of the home is far more important than are the green features of the house itself…even the greenest house located in the suburbs…and an energy-efficient car, consumes more total energy than does a conventional house with a conventional car located in [a town center].”

How are so many North American cities (inadvertently?) subsidizing sprawl? One extremely important way is by using average cost pricing rather than marginal cost pricing. “…prices charged for [various urban services] rarely reflect the higher costs of servicing a larger or more distant [residential or commercial] lot; rather, prices based on average costs are used. In other words, costs are averaged across a range of different types of development associated with a range of actual costs…those properties that incur lower-than-average costs pay more than their [fair share of] costs, while those properties that incur higher-than-average costs pay less than their [fair share of] costs.”

Examples that Blais cites of this pricing perversity include:

  • “those who live on small lots subsidize those living on large lots;
  • Smaller residential units subsidize larger residential units;
  • Those who don’t drive or drive less subsidize uses that generate more trips;
  • Land uses that generate fewer trips subsidize uses that generate more trips;
  • Those who live in less expensive-to-service areas subsidize those who live in more expensive-to-service areas;
  • Those who live nearer the centre of the city subsidize those who live farther from the centre; and
  • Urban dwellers subsidize rural dwellers.”

Blais also notes that average cost pricing also undercharges those living in remote locations for the following goods and services: “water and sewer services, roads, parking, electricity, natural gas, basic telephone, cable TV, broadband internet, postal service, municipal snow clearance, recycling collection, garbage collection.” Each of these, Blais reminds us, tends to cost more to provide in outlying suburbs, yet average cost pricing charges such residents less than their fair share of community costs (and therefore overcharges those living in efficient town center locations).

“Sprawl is underpriced, and so the demand for it is exaggerated. Efficient forms of development – denser development, smaller lots and buildings, low-, medium- or high-rise apartments, mixed use, and central locations – are overpriced, so demand for them is reduced [below what would naturally occur].”

Local governments have been their own worst enemy. “…it may be troubling to think that the problem of sprawl – one that governments have been struggling to solve for decades – has, in fact, been largely created by those same governments…”

Contrary to what we hear from the defenders of sprawl, “[s]prawl is not the result of market forces but, rather, of a particular variety of distorted market forces. Moreover, these distortions emanate largely from public policy.” We can be somewhat hopeful, however, because since many of these market distortions arise from government decisions, citizens and elected officials have it within their power to correct such distortions. And as Blais says, “[g]etting the prices right, and getting an unbiased market operating, would go a long way towards curbing sprawl…more accurate price signals will prompt new kinds of decisions, choices, and market responses, shifting demand and supply towards more efficient development patterns.”

I would note that this has already started happening over the past decade – albeit not because of government action, but where a noticeable shift toward more fuel-efficient cars and a growth in town center living has been sparked by such factors as rising and volatile gasoline prices, and overall economic woes.

Stronger local government regulations requiring smart growth, compact development, and prohibitions against sprawl have been tried for several decades throughout North America, yet have been almost a complete failure. “This failure is a very expensive proposition, given the considerable resources devoted to this effort compared to tangible results…one could say that we have the dubious honour of being blessed with both the costs of planning and the costs of sprawl.”

According to Blais, this is largely because “sprawl has been viewed narrowly within the planning paradigm – as a planning problem that calls for a ‘planning’ solution. The focus has been on solving sprawl with regulatory and design approaches. While these approaches are without question a critical part of the solution to sprawl, the problem is that they have not addressed, nor are they capable of addressing, other critical causes of sprawl, in particular, the mis-pricing issues [this book describes]. Unless these causes are addressed directly, sprawl will remain an elusive and intractable problem.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design, Walking

Consequences of Increasing the Amount of Required Parking in a City

 

By Dom Nozzi

March 28, 2003

During my tenure as a town planner for a Florida city, my city proposed to increase the amount of parking required for new developments within the city. This is an extremely common tactic for reducing parking problems.

It is also a horrendously bad idea.

Here are some of the consequences of a city increasing the amount of parking required for developments within the city:

Increased suburban sprawl, increased stormwater pollution, increased flooding, increased “heat island effect,” increased auto dependency, increased per capita car use, less walkable neighborhoods and commercial areas, increased political demand for bigger roads, increased pressure to build and enlarge Big Box retail in the area, increased number of injuries and deaths due to increased car use, increased gasoline consumption in the city, increased household transportation costs, increased loss of natural features paved over by Macys-at-29th-St-July-2015-smasphalt, reduced transportation choice, reduced neighborhood quality of life, decreased agglomeration economies, reduced neighborhood compatibility with nearby commercial, reduced property values, reduced residential densities within the city, increased air pollution, reduced bus ridership, reduced walking, reduced bicycling, increased single-occupancy vehicle travel, increased cost to agencies, increased cost to businesses (who must provide an increased amount of parking), increased number of instances in which a business cannot be created (or renovated, or expanded, due to inability to increase parking), increased per capita consumption of land, reduced amount of market demand for mixed-use development.

Nearly all of these consequences of increasing the amount of parking that new development must provide are in direct contradiction to an enormous number of goals, objectives and policies of the long-range plan of the city I worked for. Makes one wonder if this “plan” is worth the paper it is written on. Or if the plan is utterly, systematically ignored.

If there is one change in the Land Development Code of the city I worked for that more overwhelmingly and comprehensively subverts the long-range plan than increased parking requirements, I am not aware of it.

What are the benefits that would outweigh the above harms when my city went ahead and increased its already excessive parking requirements?

I know of none.

Does it mean anything that ALL of the planning literature over the past 15 years strongly argues AGAINST increasing parking requirements — parking requirements that are ALREADY excessive in my city?

What ever happened to the efforts of my city to be “business friendly” (requiring more parking will substantially increase burdens to business — particularly small, local business).

Is city planning a waste of time?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design

The Enormous Irony: City and County Planners Are Increasingly the Biggest Obstacles to Beneficial Community Change

 

By Dom Nozzi

May 24, 2009

Wouldn’t it make sense that town planners employed by local government were the leading advocates for quality of life improvements in communities?

I believed that when I first entered the public sector planning profession (and explains why I chose the public versus private sector).

But I came to realize in my 21.5 years in public sector planning that public planning, ironically, is one of the biggest obstacles to what needs to be done. Nearly all planners, citizens and elected officials either don’t get it at all, or have become totally jaded and cynical. What I’ve therefore concluded is a few things:

  1. In a doomed society with a near consensus that effectively beneficial tactics must be vigorously opposed, the only safe havens (or places where I can find a satisfying town planning job) seem to be working for one of the few admired consulting firms that “get it,” lecturing to college students, or making “controversial” presentations in various communities. But I’ve not figured out a way to make a living with any of these three options.
  1. As a philosophical materialist, I’m thankful that I don’t find myself perplexed and beating my head against the wall over this gloomy state of affairs, because I know that the price signals we get in our society, and the communities we have built, make it certain that almost all of us will be aggressive promoters of happy cars and sprawl lifestyles (and Kunstler’s fat, lazy clowns). Bankrupting ourselves to save a few seconds while driving our speeding cars inattentively is EXACTLY what we should expect 99 percent of citizens to fight for, given the world they live in.

I feel very little anger or frustration because our dysfunctional world is entirely predictable — given the conditions. Of course, I regret not living in an age when conditions shape people and their communities to voluntarily seek a sustainable, high quality of life.

I’m therefore dedicated to working to change the price signals and how our communities are built. Short of that, I am resigned to bide my time until, say, high energy costs bring enlightenment. In the meantime, I do what I’m told and don’t feel much passion in my town planning work (unless I’m giving a speech).

Quite often, I am flattered to hear friends and family tell me that my ideas are good and that I should get hired by a community to “fix” things. Given the above, though, I’m typically left with responding by saying “If I were in charge, things would be different.” But would they really be different? Given the fact that our world compels Double-Left-Turn-Intersection-2-Pearl-n-28thnearly all of us want to use dysfunctional tactics (single-mindedly making cars happy, for example), there would probably be little I could do, even as a mayor or governor.

Much of my life satisfaction, then, comes from planning and engaging in travel and adventures, and giving presentations. My big question has become how to make enough money (in a tolerable job in a tolerable location) to do those things.

Not what I expected in grad school.

Leave a comment

Filed under Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design

Questions and Answers About My Planning Career and Lessons Learned

By Dom Nozzi

September 26, 2013

In September of 2013, a college student asked me about my city planning career and the lessons I learned in my work.

  1. What were your primary responsibilities in City of Gainesville, FL?

DN: As a long-range senior comprehensive planner, I prepared staff recommendations for proposed zoning, special exception, special use permit, and land use changes. I authored several environmental, transportation, and urban design land development regulations for Gainesville. I also authored the long-range transportation, land use, urban design, environmental conservation, recreation, and solid waste plans for Gainesville. My specialties and passions were promoting quality of life by properly designing for walkable streets, form-based codes, transportation choice, and employing “plain English” when writing land development codes.

  1. Could you share some of the highlights of your career?

DN: In 1989, I heard a speech by Andres Duany, and read essays by Walter Kulash, Jeff Kenworthy, Anthony Downs, and Peter Newman. The remarks by these individuals were an epiphany for me. I realized that the key way to design a community for quality of life was to return to the timeless tradition of making people happy, not cars. Particularly in town centers, I realized that the pedestrian was the design imperative. And that tactics which promoted or convenienced car travel were counterproductively degrading quality of life. The professional achievements I am most proud of were being the lead planner for creating a bicycle and pedestrian greenway path system in Gainesville, and being the lead planner for creating creek setback regulations. I am also proud of writing the long-range transportation, land use, and urban design plans for Gainesville, and authoring the “Traditional City” form-based code for Gainesville’s town center. Most importantly, the Traditional City code eliminated parking minimums for cars, and inverted those minimums so that they became parking maximums. I prepared land development regulations for large-format retailers, customized form-based codes for the University Heights and College Park neighborhoods, substantially revised and updated Gainesville’s noise ordinance, substantially revised the definitions used in Gainesville’s Land Development Code, created an urban design toolbox, prepared a sustainability indicators report for Gainesville, and incorporated a great deal of “Plain English” and drawings in Gainesville’s Land Development Codes to make them more understandable. Late in my career, I published a book called Road to Ruin about suburban sprawl, transportation, and quality of life, and gave speeches throughout the nation describing ideas from that book. More recently, I published The Car is the Enemy of the City, which touched on many of the same topics. After I retired, I became a nationally certified Complete Streets instructor, and served as a co-instructor to help communities throughout the nation design more complete streets.

  1. What is the most significant planning issue you have met during your career? What is the solution?

DN: Establishing tactics that promote quality of life, realizing that the most effective way to do that was to reduce the promotion and conveniencing of car travel as well as promoting quality pedestrian design, and recommending such tactics in a society where nearly all citizens are fierce proponents of car travel. One solution was to adopt the new urbanist tactic of creating a “transect” which calibrates land development regulations for a walkable town center, a drivable suburbia, and a rural lifestyle. In other words, creating transportation and lifestyle choices.

  1. Which school of ideas had the most influence on you as a planner?

DN: New Urbanism

  1. Do you have any advice for someone entering the field?

DN: Academic emphasis should be on design: architecture or urban design. The ideological focus of the school and its professors should be the new urbanism. The future will be to design for happy people, not happy cars. Tragically, most all planning schools (and nearly all communities) put too much emphasis on promoting happy cars. Become a highly skilled writer, a highly skilled public speaker, and a person highly skilled in drawing. Strive to emphasize speaking and writing in “Plain English” and conveying information that is both inspirational and understandable to a non-professional audience. Become passionate in recommending tactics that promote quality of life for people rather than cars. Such passion will be more rewarding and sustainable than a high salary.

  1. When you first entered the field, how did you apply what you had learnt in the college to practice?

DN: Primarily, when I first entered the profession of planning, I used planning terminology I had learned in college, and applied a number of planning concepts such as zoning to my work as a planner. I regret that my college studies were overly focused on policy rather than design.

  1. From your view, what’s the biggest barrier to create walkable streets?

DN: Allocating too much road space, too much parking space, and too many subsidies to car travel. The most effective way to induce more walking (as well as bicycling and transit use) is NOT to provide sidewalks, bike lanes or new transit facilities. It is to take away road space, parking space, and car subsidies, as well as shortening distances to destinations via compact, mixed use development. By doing those things, an environment conducive to walkability will inevitably evolve. Street widths and distances between buildings will be more human-scaled rather than car-scaled, travel distances to destinations will be considerably shorter, car speeds will be much more modest and attentive, residential and commercial densities will be higher and interspersed, and it will be less financially and physically rational to drive a car.

  1. Sustainable transportation has become a hot issue, how can new urbanism play a role in sustainable transportation?

DN: Americans devote an excessive amount of space to motor vehicle travel, which is enormously unsustainable, and greatly reduces the transportation choices needed for a more sustainable future. Because a motor vehicle consumes so much space (on average, a person in a car consumes as much space as 17 people sitting in chairs), cities in America are dying from a disease I call “Gigantism.” New urbanism, by making the timeless traditional focus on pedestrians the design imperative, is effectively restoring the pattern of building neighborhoods that are human-scaled rather than car-scaled. Because this creates a charming, lovable ambience, new IMG_3045urbanist design is highly profitable, which makes such design sustainably self-perpetuating (developers are self-motivated by the profitability of new urbanism to design in such a human-centered way, rather than being unsustainably forced to use such design due to government regulation). New urbanism has introduced the tactically brilliant idea of the urban to rural transect, which calibrates design and regulation differently in each transect zone so that all lifestyle and travel choices are provided for in each zone (forcing everyone to live in a compact, walkable town center setting is, today, politically unsustainable). But in the walkable, town center portion of the new urbanist transect, the compact design is inherently rich in transportation choices. A person is able to easily and safely walk, bicycle, use transit, or drive a car. Transportation choice is the most politically successful way to create sustainable transportation. Over time, as the cost of car travel becomes unsustainably expensive, the compact, walkable, design created by new urbanists – a design, again, rich in transportation choices – will become increasingly desirable to a larger percentage of Americans, which will mean that a larger percentage of Americans will be living in a setting that makes more sustainable transportation more feasible and less costly.

  1. What’s the best way for citizens to be involved in the planning process?

DN: Citizens should insist that new planning and development projects in the community use the “charrette” process, where skilled presenters, drawers, and designers begin by making a brief, educational, inspiring presentation about town design and transportation principles to an audience of citizens. When done well, charrettes abundantly employ many drawings of ideas by the charrette professionals as well as ideas from citizens. As a result of such a presentation, citizens become skilled and empowered to make town and transportation design decisions for the new plan or proposed development (or road) project. When citizens are making such decisions in a charrette format, there is much more community buy-in as to the design of the plan or project, and elected officials are thereby more likely to approve of such designs. The end result is commonly a design that makes sense to professionals, even though much of the design has been recommended by citizens and elected officials (ordinarily, design recommendations by non-professional citizens and elected officials is misinformed and prone to not-in-my-backyard opposition to even the best, most sustainable and well-designed plans and projects).

  1. Brief introduction of your latest book “The Car is the Enemy of the City”. Do you think people can maintain the same life quality without a car?

DN: Car travel and over-designing cities to accommodate such travel is deadly to cities. Healthy town centers need low speeds, human scale, and proximity. Yet a town center over-designed for free-flowing car travel is a city designed for high speeds, gigantic sizes, and sprawling dispersal of jobs, housing, shopping and culture. This book describes why cars and their “habitat” are toxic to town centers, and the features that create a walkable, lovable quality of life that a well-designed town center should provide. The book therefore illustrates how we can return to the timeless tradition of designing town centers to make people happy, not cars.

I am convinced that a person can maintain not only the same quality of life without a car, but a HIGHER quality of life. Owning a car in America today costs, on average, over $8,000 per year. Instead of spending that money on cars, a person can afford to buy or rent significantly better housing, and can have more money for education, better food, recreation, and so on. Indeed, in my own personal life, despite the fact that I did not earn a large amount of money in my job, I was able to retire at the relatively young age of 47 due to how much lower my expenses were without a car.

By not owning a car, a person tends to be more physically healthy, as more travel by walking, bicycling, or transit means that a person is exercising more and suffering less from growing health problems such as obesity and diabetes.

By reducing travel by car (because a person does not own a car), a person tends to be more sociable with neighbors and other citizens in the community. The car, after all, is an extremely isolating way to travel, because when one is commonly alone inside a car, interaction or serendipity with others is much less likely. Such interaction is also much more likely to be hostile towards others (via such things as “road rage”) rather than being friendly towards others.

When a person travels by walking, bicycling or transit, enjoyment of the trip route is much more likely. Sounds, smells, and enjoyment of other details of life and buildings are much more possible than when inside a car.

Finally, by not owning a car, a person is more motivated to see that her or his community is designed to be more friendly to people rather than cars. And there is no better way to enhance quality of life and sustainability than to do that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Urban Design

Announcing Victor Dover Presentation in Boulder CO

CITY OF BOULDER COMMUNITY EVENT

“The Art of Street Design”

 Presentation and Community Discussion

with Victor DoverVictor_Dover

When: Wednesday March 26, 5:30-7:30 p.m.

      • Opening reception: 5:30 – 6:00 p.m.
      • Presentation and Q&A: 6:00 – 7:30 p.m.

 Where: Chautauqua, Grand Assembly Hall, 900 Baseline Rd., Boulder

Who: Victor Dover, cofounder of Dover, Kohl & Partners, Town Planning in Coral Gables, Florida, has 25 years experience restoring healthy neighborhoods and creating walkable communities. The coauthor of Street Design: The Secret of Great Cities and Towns, he has designed 150 neighborhoods, urban revitalization programs, and regional plans across five continents, including the 1994 North Broadway Plan for North Boulder.

What:   Victor Dover will describe how to fix our streets, and, in the process, shape enduring cities that people really love.

  • Information regarding City of Boulder North Boulder Plan Update, Envision East Arapahoe Plan, and Transportation Master Plan Update
  • Book signing for new book Street Design: The Secret to Great Cities and Towns

Why: America is rediscovering its streets. A revolutionary makeover is underway to promote walking and cycling and appeal to a new generation of creative, demanding citizens.

RSVP:  No RSVP required.  Free. For more information – https://bouldercolorado.gov/calendar

About the book: Street Design: The Secret to Great Cities and Towns (January 2014) by Victor Dover and John Massengale with foreword by HRH The Prince of Wales shows how to create great streets where people want to be. That begins with walkable streets where people feel comfortable, safe, and charmed by their surroundings. Through hundreds of examples of streets old, new and retrofitted, Street Design shows how good street design can unlock value, improve life and re-knit neighborhoods.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Road Diet, Sprawl, Suburbia, Urban Design, Walking