New Haven Independent

Posted by: streever | October 29, 2009 8:39 AM

It's hard to not see Stockmann's points--I think the fed is spending the money where it's been most heavily lobbied for, in many cases (the largest cities have excellent transporation systems to they aren't pushing as hard as the smaller cities) and the suburbs have such a preponderance of affluent, connected individuals that they end up controlling the State legislature in most states. (Such as CT, where an urban mayor will probably never be governor)

I think that's why the Fed doesn't invest in cities better--the cities with powerful lobbies have theres, and the suburbanites have stronger pull because they work toward similar interests which are the antithesis of what urban communities need.

Maybe a Czar of cities at the federal level to keep an eye out? Or cities networking better with other cities to have more collective bargaining power?

Regardless of the underlying reasons, Stockmann's definitely right, and it'd be great to see more people realize that one of the most energy efficient things you can do is live in a city & walk/bike every where.

Posted by: shop until we all drop | October 29, 2009 8:51 AM

I appreciate where Stockmann is coming from.

I think the biggest problem with the Green movement is that we are being told that we can buy our way out of our problems: "Go out and buy a hybrid car! Buy carbon credits! Build green!" Yet the simplest solution to climate change (and a whole host of other ecological concerns BTW) is to simply be content with less.

I guess that philosophy doesn't jive with American consumerism.

Posted by: anon | October 29, 2009 9:55 AM

Kudos to the car industry for tricking Americans into thinking that buying a hybrid car is "green," when it is precisely the opposite.

Posted by: hamden, i mean east rock, traffic | October 29, 2009 11:31 AM

Visited a friend in hamden, i mean east rock, last night. Headed there around 6pm. The traffic was ridiculous. Earlier in the day, two priuses (prii?) had crashed into eachother on orange street. Everyone owning a prius is not going to undo sprawl, traffic and congestion.

Posted by: anon | October 29, 2009 12:11 PM

How to make walkable neighborhoods more affordable:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/how_to_keep_smart_growth_affor.html

Posted by: abg | October 29, 2009 12:50 PM

While driving a Prius is not the be-all end-all of eco-consciousness and smart growth, it's not a bad thing either... I bike every day AND drive a Prius. Let's not allow the great to be the enemy of the good. Anyway, good work, Jason.

Posted by: Norton Street | October 29, 2009 2:59 PM

ABG the problem with Hybrid cars is that they're cars. They take up too much space.

I personally don't care about global warming, it will not effect me or my children or my grandchildren. Going green is more important because it fixes our society and puts us back on track to where we were 80 years ago before we went off track into this weird society built on consuming resources, energy and material items. We've been so distracted with getting more "stuff", we haven't had time to mature socially and culturally. This is why our cities must be restored and why suburbs must be abandoned. Culture begins, grows and flourishes in cities and no where else. Cities are fast paced and bent on making progress, towns are for people who like to live calm lives of reflection, and rural lives are to supply the things that make city and town life possible like produce, materials, fabirc, etc. That is society. Suburbia has no place in it. Many suburbs will have to be abandoned because they are organizationally hopeless, while some can be reorganized to become towns.

I am really mad I missed this because Douglas Rae's CIty: Urbanism and its End is my favorite book, Philip Langdon's book A Better Place to Live is another great one and the design work that Allan Plattus does is far above most anything else being done in this country currently.

Posted by: Jason S. | October 29, 2009 3:01 PM

I don't mean to pick on hybrid cars. I was just trying to point out that ultimately we'll save a lot more energy by reducing our material standard of living than by trying to tweak our existing lifestyles slightly with new technology. The key is for people to reconceive the idea of "standard of living" as having as much to do with the richness and walkability of our communities and their diversity of arts events as with our ability to consume durable goods.

Fortunately, one of the best ways to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions is also one of the best ways to promote safe, inviting, inclusive, richly-networked communities: cultivate pedestrian-scaled, mixed-use communities built around people instead of cars. I was hoping the panelists could suggest some specific reforms at the city, state, and especially the federal level to promote this goal.

I actually used to drive a hybrid car and it's now moth-balled in a garage in Upstate NY, without license plates. I kept it because I fear that in order to get a job when I graduate, I'll have to move someplace where car ownership is imperative. There are only a few relatively transit-rich, walkable, medium and large-sized cities in the U.S., and frankly I don't think I'll ever be able to afford to live in most of them.

Because walkable areas in the U.S. are so scarce, they have become prohibitively expensive. A confluence of zoning laws, federal subsidies for suburbs, and concentrated social pathology in city centers (contributing to high tax burdens) makes it so expensive for developers to build in cities, they usually can not recoup their costs in the form of sales and rents unless they price the units in the stratosphere.

This does not reflect "free market forces"; it reflects a highly skewed market in which government policies and artificially cheap energy costs have given the suburbs and exurbs an enormous economic advantage over cities. If we do want to skew our market, it should be in precisely the opposite direction, with tax breaks for dense, mixed-use, transit-oriented development in cities, particularly those that are inclusive of different economic strata, the elderly, etc. These tax breaks would be accompanied by a stiff gas tax and something like a farmland preservation trust or urban growth boundary penalizing development at the urban fringe.

I'm not saying we should turn our back on the suburbs and let them rot(though in some places they're already in an advanced state of decay). Where there are already "nodes" in the suburbs (like Whitneyville or the Guilford Village Green), transit service should be enhanced, traffic should be calmed, and zoning laws should be rewritten to encourage mixed-use development. But I *am* arguing for a little butter for cities as recompense for the enormous harm inflicted on them by federal policies over the past 70 or so years.

Posted by: anon | October 29, 2009 3:16 PM

Jason S. is absolutely correct.

Unfortunately, most of the policymakers, including many in our own city, live out in the suburbs and just don't care about these issues beyond the fat that it allows them to line their own pockets with.

The change starts at home folks - with the way we live and the things we advocate for. Route 34, for example, should be blockaded by citizens who are furious about the fact that YNHH is opening a $500 million Cancer Center with no crosswalks to it.

Posted by: Bill | October 29, 2009 3:33 PM

Why don't you guys move to cuba, that seems to be what you're aiming for. Personally I ride a bike 5000 miles a year for pleasure and drive 15,000 miles for commuting and don't want to live in a city with you folks.

Posted by: HewNaven?? | October 29, 2009 3:34 PM

I'm sorry to be negative, but I would agree with Jason and others that owning a Prius does very little to help the environment.

The fact that two of them were involved in an accident on Orange St. is symbolic of the undeserving acclaim they have garnered amongst upper middle class liberals. It's as if self-righteousness and pomposity have collided in the city's most livable community.

Posted by: Norton Street | October 29, 2009 3:43 PM

Part of this whole thing needs to include the replacement of Walmart, Walgreens, Target and the like with locally owned groceries, pharmacies, and clothing stores. We have replaced skilled employees of small stores with cashier drones. I have a blender at my house from the 1940s that we use pretty regularly (as regularly as we would any other blender) and its lasted this long. My neighbor has gone through 3 plastic blenders that she can remember. There are also less people in her family than mine. We also have an electric air pump from the 20s or 30s that works unbelievably well, while my neighbor has gone through or lost several little plastic air pumps that she can recall. Today we are so quick to throw something out and buy a new one because the things we make a cheap pieces of crap that are easily replaced. We have stopped taken our well made stuff that happens to break after 10 years to a skilled craftsmen who fixes and started just piling up garbage and buying new stuff. So instead of skilled workers we have cashiers who work for some company that has no local connection or meaningful purpose in the place that its located. The saddest part of this is that we've okay'd this activity by recycling. Some form of recycling is important but the idea that recycling is inherently good is a horrible misconception. Unnecessary recycling of things like plastic bottles wastes an enormous amount of energy. The vast majority of the stuff we recycle can be replaced with well made long lasting items, like reusable water bottles and good blenders that last longer than 2 years. Instead of our money going to buy new stuff all the time and paying for recycling, we should invest money in well made items and craftsmen who can fix them if the item should break after a long period of time.
The blender also brings up another key idea.

Check this out:

When I make chocolate milk I stir with a spoon. I do not use my finger or a blender. All 3 are options and would work equally well, they just take different amounts of effort.
When I travel from say my house to a friends house in another neighborhood, I most often take my bike. I could walk and I could drive, all 3 are viable options just requiring different effort.
Being dependent on an automobile is like only using a blender to stir stuff; both things use energy, resources and materials to create as well as use and has a bad effect on the enviroment(AKA its ridiculous). Using a bike is like using a spoon; it is an instrument that takes energy, materials and resources to make, but once its made its free to use and has little impact on the environment. Walking is like using your hands without instruments or utensils; it is free, costs nothing to start or maintain and has zero impact of the environment.
This is how to think about driving. If you wouldn't use a blender to mix your cream into your coffee, then don't drive. Move to a place that is walkable and has access to mass transit.

Posted by: anon | October 29, 2009 3:52 PM

How a Porsche can be greener than a Prius (Slate Magazine).

Posted by: LANCE | October 29, 2009 8:08 PM

WWVJD?

LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

Posted by: Norton Street | October 29, 2009 8:13 PM

Also, to beat this point to death. Cars should be be used as a primary source of transportation that is relied upon. I think it is perfectly fine for every household in the city to have access to a car. In denser areas, car can be kept on the street, while in more moderate density neighborhoods cars can be kept in garages. Driving is a good skill to have in your back pocket. Where I draw the line is when our streets begin to erode the public realm and when parking is required off street in dense places.
I have a pre-paid cell phone that I use when I need it, but it is not the primary way in which I communicate and interact with people. One can obvserve that talking through electronics (whether its AIM, texting, cell phones, etc) is becoming the primary way that young people communicate. Any elderly person can see how this is damaging, just as I would predict that someone who helped build New Haven would be confused and heart-broken at what we've done to it for the sake of cars.

And just for future reference; The Independent does eventually hand out a reward to the person who posts the most frequently, long-winded comments that nobody reads, right?

[Editor's Note: No, but we appreciate all the the time that you and many others put in to promoting discussion. Thanks! There'd be too many rewards to give out...]

Posted by: robn | October 29, 2009 8:30 PM

Living in a suburb isn't necessarily wasteful...gettting to and from there is.

Living in a suburb isn't evil, its just a reflection of the desire for more space.

Posted by: JB | October 29, 2009 11:01 PM

I sense that none of you have children.

Posted by: Leonidas | October 30, 2009 11:45 AM

Cities can be wonderful. I have found, however, that the sense of community is not as strong as the suburbs. I've lived in a suburb for over 13 years. I've known many of my neighbors for just as long. I've shopped for them when they are sick, shoveled the driveways of older folks during surprise snowstorms they were not prepared for, etc. Since they have known most of their neighbors since they were small children, the teenagers on the street show respect and they also know that we will call their parent(s) if we see them act out.

Yes the suburbs have their faults, but don't throw them under the bus or demonize people who value the good things about suburbs that you can't get in cities.

Posted by: Norton Street | October 30, 2009 12:33 PM

Lance,
Great post! You've changed the way I see the world.

Robn,
The vast majority of suburbs are organizationally flawed. It requires a car to get from home to work, from home to shopping, from home to recreation, from home to anywhere other than home. Many houses on Prospect Street have tons of space, so do the ones in the northern most part of East Rock, yet they remain on a grid system that interconnects with the city. The suburbs fail miserably in that respect.

JB,
I was once a child, and looking back I'd have to thank my parents for living within walking distance to work, mass transit, shopping, recreation, open green space, a diverse group of people who are similar to and different from me. My brothers have also settled in cities (Baltimore and Philadelphia), so you're assumption falls flat on its face. Read "A Better Place to Live" by Philip Langdon. Seriously, read it.

My previous posts second sentence was supposed to read:
"Cars should not be used as a primary source of transportation that is relied upon."

Posted by: Norton Street | October 30, 2009 1:06 PM

Leonidos,
Suburbia's positivity is arguable.
But what's more important is that the characteristics you described have to do with people, not geographical residence. The middle class fled cities beginning in the 20s, accelerated in the 50s and the majority of the population had left by the 80s.
Also, polls show that the majority of people want to live in small towns, not suburbs. Developers have failed to give us places like towns and instead given us suburbs.
And if you don't know the difference between a town and a suburbs, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwd4Lq0Xvgc

Posted by: downtown d | October 30, 2009 2:21 PM

streever: we have that czar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Urban_Affairs_Policy

bill: cuba and united states are rather close in life expectancy, so not sure if that's as damning as a comment as you may think. additionally, what people are asking for a return to the built environment for the person, not for the automobile. my tax dollars are subsidizing your waste, pollution, and worse quality of life (commute time) and yet somehow those calling for a return to sanity with commuting are the culprits.

fairly simple really. we are forced, based on housing policy, into suburban lifestyles and we spend too much time, money and energy on transportation. think of your average commute and then think of how many days out of the year you're spending in your car alone (not all drive alone, but a large portion due). think of how much you spend on your car. and then think of all the opportunity costs you miss out on because of those two factors. now imagine the 43,000 people that die annually because of motor vehicle accidents. and finally imagine the obesity from car-centered lifestyles. no one is saying (except for one person i know) that the world should be without cars. we are saying put the true cost of driving to the people, and let us decide how to get from a to b.

http://www.nctcog.org/TRANS/sustdev/bikeped/Obesity_Transp.pdf

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

http://www.time.com/time/2007/america_numbers/commuting.html

http://www.cnt.org/repository/heavy_load_10_06.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Posted by: Leonidas | October 30, 2009 3:52 PM

Norton Street, yes, you are correct -- I'd rather live in a small town then suburbia.

And while I realize the characteristics I mentioned do have to do with people, I have rarely experienced them in the city, especially New Haven. If I ever confronted a teen for acting out in New Haven, I probably would be targeted for retaliation and the parents wouldn't care. If my kid ever left his bike outside, it probably would be stolen. And cities tend to be filled with transient people. People move on after a few years who are not very interested in those around them.

City life can change, but we'll have to take care of a lot of problems first. I commend you for your commitment Norton Street. If cities were filled with people like you those of us outside would be flocking to them.

Posted by: Chris Gray | October 31, 2009 5:38 AM

Leonidas, from my experience, they are, and from recent news reports, they are. Sure, there are as Mayor Johnny says, plenty of knuckle-heads but I've spent years and years living and working among and with an enormous number of people who think as Norton Street does.

I was terribly frustrated with this discussion until you, Norton Street, got to your, what was it your second post?, when you finally mentioned mass transit. I love walking and biking and hundreds can testify to how I practiced them for years, very rarely owning or using a car. Now, however, I am ever so grateful for the other mass transit boosters, especially disabled ones, who paved the way for the system that meshes with my Jazzy!

I, also, believe what my bus driver grandfather taught me; the right tool for the right job. So, I advocate an integrated transit system with plenty of options for walking and biking but allowing for much else.

My uncle, a son of that older man, found it impossible to even respond when he sent me a photo of a Smart Car crushed between to trucks and I reminded him of what I was taught and by whom and my proposal that it was simply the wrong tool applied to the wrong job.

Smart Cars are for a different environment than a highway used by trucks. I suppose I got his goat when I suggested it would be a fine tool for a globe trotter, such as his neighbor Skip Gates, to get from the airport or train station by back street to Harvard Square. Of course, something designed by Dean Kamen would almost certainly be better.

By the way, I don't for a minute believe that the recent surge of RV sales is because the economy rebounding. That rush is the emptying of those suburbs into the campgrounds and other open spaces in America consequent of the foreclosure crisis. It is going to be a horrendous winter!

Posted by: robn | November 1, 2009 5:51 PM

NORTON STREET and ANON,

What happens when we do finally switch to renewable energy resources and the whole issue of fossil fuels becomes irrelevant? Is your judgement of the burbs then reduced to design rather than transportation issues? And if so, then aren't you just judging different peoples tastes and sense of community and or personal space?

Devils advocate...just trying to keep you guys on your toes.

Posted by: anon | November 1, 2009 9:01 PM

Robn - I like suburbs and personal space, so am not sure what comment you are referring to. Except for the Nine Squares, most of New Haven is a suburban development. Hillhouse Avenue was one of the first "subdivisions" in the country. Same goes for much of New York City - it is a bunch of suburbs built up around new subway lines and "bridges to nowhere."

In terms of whether we might reevaluate "design issues" versus transportation issues, consider that Americans spend an average of 1.5 hours per day driving. Some spend a lot more than that. Many national surveys show that a lot of people are unhappy about spending too much time in a car that they could otherwise be spending with their families. As Jason pointed out, there is also a huge gap between the supply of housing located in areas where residents can walk to at least some services and the demand for such housing (this is also reflected in surveys).

We might as well push for policies that make people happier instead of less happy, and give them exactly the kind of neighborhood that they prefer to live in -- not just the disconnected, far-flung, asphalt-paved, gyp-board subdivisions that represent the vast majority of what the market currently provides.

More importantly, consider that transportation is the top household expense after housing (combined, 60% of income is a norm). For many low-income families, just transportation eats up 40% of the household budget. For many, it just isn't there, especially as services are cut in many cities. A few questions to consider:

1) Shouldn't your ability to take convenient transportation to your job, doctor, elderly services center, family, children be a fundamental right? Why isn't it now? Why do many people who work 10 hours per day cleaning houses have to spend 4 hours per day commuting on 4 different bus lines, whereas city officials can drive the same distance in an SUV (using free highways, the vast majority of whose construction was subsidized by taxpayers, not gas tax/user revenue) in 20 minutes?

2) Wouldn't our economy be much stronger if we could reduce these enormous financial costs so that working families could use them for education, culture, nicer housing, health care, Church donations or other long-term, family-values-generating investments -- instead of generating heat, tire and brake dust?

3) Wouldn't people be more likely to value work and train for fierce global competition for jobs if they didn't have to spend a huge proportion of their incomes and/or many hours just to get to an entry-level job? Would you train for a marathon if you had to do it along Route 34?

It seems that we need to address transportation policies, not just design. None of these issues have to do with fossil fuels, gas mileage or personal preferences for housing.

Issues like deadly highways cutting through residential neighborhoods, unaffordable transportation, and the fact that only a quarter of Americans get the recommended amount of exercise each day, are major health concerns which are not going to go away. President Obama has made it clear that we need to prioritize policies so that everyone has the means to live in a convenient, healthy and walkable neighborhood if they want to. Now our policies need to catch up - and that can only be done if we take matters into our own hands.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 1, 2009 9:09 PM

ROBN,
My motives are completely selfish. I want to live in an architecturally, culturally and socially rich country that is full of places that are interesting, pleasing and comforting to be in, whether I'm inside or outside. I want to be able to live a leisurely life that is made possible and easy by having a built environment that allows for it to occur. Coincidentally, doing so would solve nearly all of America's problems and many world problems. If in order to get this environment for myself, I had to send billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, or shoot 200,000 poor black males, or run over a million pedestrians, or put 60,000 people in prison, or bulldoze someone's neighborhood, or not allow 4,000 little kids a proper education in a diverse setting, or anything else, then I would do it. The ridiculous thing is that these things already have happened and continue to happen and all we've gotten in return is a shit environment full of crap architecture, nasty air, separated lonely people, bad kids and everything else. Its a joke that ain't funny.
I don't care about global warming, world oil depletion, peak oil, carbon footprints, etc. It is purely design for me. Reality tells us, however, that this type of living arrangement we currently "enjoy" in America is not sustainable. Renewable energy? Oh right, the new god, science, will come up with something soon. Hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is a type of energy storage. Renewables will help with daily life in the future, but to think that we can just switch everything we do to renewables is really not even worth discussing because its so absurdly dumb. Renewable energy will be so tedious to create and move that we're not going to want to waste resources building massive parking garages downtown anymore or do most of the things we do today, its just not going to be worth the effort.
I could go on for about 20 more paragraphs but I get angry thinking about how stupid phrases like "judging different peoples tastes and sense of community and or personal space" are. Community has a specific definition. Unfortunately we have rendered the word meaningless because we apply it to any place where people live even if that place is not, in fact, a community. Personal space? I want a planet to myself, or I want a continent to myself, that is my personal space. Human beings have a built in sense of proper scale that is activated when the environment reflects ideal proportions, temperature, light, color, sounds and feelings. Luckily, we've discovered distractions that allow us to numb ourselves to the point where we don't care, thanks visual media and ipods!

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 2, 2009 9:50 AM

"Is your judgement of the burbs then reduced to design rather than transportation issues?"

Sounds like the short answer to your question is "yes."

Posted by: Norton Street | November 2, 2009 12:13 PM

I just reread my post and I think one point I was trying to make was worded poorly.

I would have a much easier time forgiving and understanding the 2 generations before me that have created the problems by pursuing a living arrangement that is out of human scale if we were working towards something positive for the future, but the only thing we have been working towards is expanding the living arrangement that causes the problems.
Anon makes a good point that we often refer to suburbs as only being the post World War 2 sprawl developments when really the suburbs is something that came out of industrism, the trolley and population growth of the 19th century. I often refer to New Haven's 'traditional neighborhoods', that's just my code word for New Haven's first suburbs. Suburbs used to be designed around walking first, access to mass transit second, then after the turn of the 20th century they began to include automobiles. The Hill, for example, is an early suburb built around walking and access to mass transit. Westville is a later suburb build around walking, access to mass transit and the automobile. The post WW2 suburbs are build around the automobile first, then maybe some sidewalks (as unpleasant, unpractical and unusable as they may be) were added afterwards.