Addressing Food Deserts

Here is a link to a post that I wrote today for RenewLV's Crossroads blog:

http://renewlv.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/smart-food-access-the-key-to-healthy-weight/

I'd like to answer my own question that I posed at the end of the post. I asked:
“What are your suggestions for improved (food) access?” There are likely many ways of effectively answering this question, but the most comprehensive answers, in my view, must contain the following two principles:

1) Incentives to bring grocery stores into retrofitted buildings. The Weis’, Giant’s, and Wegman’s of the world currently have a real financial incentive to build on large plots of land far, far away from the city. Land is cheaper, the building can be much larger (therefore capturing economies of scale), its customer base in the suburbs has more disposable incomes, and parking regulations can be easily satisfied. Cities and Counties could offer subsidized retrofits and building costs, distribution partnerships with other area stores (thereby capturing economies of scale), and reducing or eliminating parking requirements (which would save on construction costs; remember, more than half of construction costs of standard commercial buildings go into the parking lot).

2) Development of mixed-income, mixed-use communities. The root problem with food access for all income levels is the economic segregation of our communities. Historically, problems of food access and obesity (as well as high rates of inner city poverty and crime) did not exist on large scales until cities began funneling the majority of municipal investments away from city centers. The way to fix this is to do the exact opposite of what is currently being done: economic integration and central investment. Central cities and inner-ring suburbs should be redeveloped to lift the skills and provide opportunities for people of low-incomes, attract people of middle- and high-incomes, and build communities around both groups with necessities and amenities at their cores. At the same time, outer-ring suburbs must densify to various extents (the closer to the city, the denser) and offer housing and employment options for people of lower-incomes, while also offering convenient amenities and opportunities for alternative modes of transportation (walking, biking, light rail, etc.). These types of economically-integrated communities will better attract food establishments.

Implementing the first principle without the second requires an increase in taxes and many significant political fights that can tear a community and city apart. Yet, if the second principle does not garner any support, incentives alone are worth it and can work if done properly and with public input and buy-in. Implementing the second principle, however, makes the first largely unnecessary. Although distribution partnerships and property tax incentives may be used to further encourage food development in comprehensive communities, the already extant customer base and relaxed parking requirements of a mixed-use community might be incentive enough.

My Beef with Climate Change

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recently submitted a Climate Change Action Plan to the public for comments. This plan contains 52 action items that the State intends to implement to save 36% of Green House Gas emissions between now and 2020. As some of you may know, I have a significant image problem concerning the Climate Change debate. I am a student of science, and therefore I know that the entire scientific community now concurs that climate change is occurring according to a warming trend (thus the term “Global Warming”). What very few scientists, and a good chunk of the American public, disagree on is the cause of this change. Most scientists attribute the change in climate to human use of fossil fuels for transportation, home and office climate control, and industrial production. Very few scientists disagree with this assessment, and those that do have the ears of a significantly forceful segment of the media, who in turn have the ears of about 30 percent of Americans. As a result, the terms “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” have become overly politicized to the point that it is very difficult to solve any local environmental problems without the divisive issue wedging a divide.

I believe that consumer excesses, backed by a culture of “Me”, are causing local environmental problems, which all combine together to create the global problem of climate change. If you ask any supporter of the climate change agenda, he or she would likely agree with that assessment, yet the way the issue and its solutions is presented makes it seem as if individual consumer behaviors on the local level are largely irrelevant. The problem with the Climate Change issue is one of marketing, and reflects a complete misunderstanding of human psychology. By and large, people are driven to act locally, because they live and breathe and think locally. There’s a reason why it is said that, “All politics is local.” As much as polar bears look cute and cuddly and most of us feel sorry that they are losing their home, it is difficult to understand that that is connected with my driving habits. If the presenters of climate change information and solutions understood this at all, they would realize that their efforts are working against their goals.

You can read the plan, or at least the parts you are interested in, at the following link:

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/energy/cwp/view.asp?a=1532&q=539829

You may also comment on the plan by sending an email to epclimatereportcomments@state.pa.us. I thought some of you might be interested in a comment that I sent earlier today:

Thank you for your work in creating this Climate Change Action Plan. I am glad to see that Pennsylvania emits 4% of US GHGs (we are 4% of the population) and that our population growth is greater than our GHG emission growth, but it is disheartening, yet not particularly surprising, to know that we are emitting 1% of the world's GHGs (we are .2% of the world's population). I have been educated as a Smart Growth urban planner, so I will make a couple of comments about the Land Use and Transportation section of the plan.

First, I think we would be doing ourselves a disservice by relying on fuel efficiency standard increases without coupling it with increasing state gas tax rates. There is a phenomenon known as the "rebound effect" in which the consumer cost savings of better fuel efficiency encourages drivers to drive more. Unless CAFE standards are drastically increased from what they are currently, the gains we will make in fuel efficiency will be quickly lost in increased VMT. Thus, our GHG emissions from fuel efficiency will be cancelled out and, likely, increased. The evidence for this phenomenon is not conclusive, yet it is intuitive and well known. One goal that could be used in concert with higher CAFÉ standards to counteract the rebound effect is an increase in the amount of state tax added to gasoline purchases. This approach has worked well in many areas of Europe to discourage people from driving unnecessarily and encouraging them to use public transit and other low-energy transportation options, as well as encouraging municipalities to invest in Smart Growth options. The point here is that fuel efficiency in the absence of higher gas prices and other disincentives for driving will not only counteract your Smart Growth plans but will also nullify GHG emission savings in the long run.

My fear with this document, and the climate change debate as a whole, is that it encourages decision-makers to think of reducing GHGs as the end-goal and not as a byproduct of the end-goal. Personally, I believe the end-goal should be to create vibrant, inclusive, and healthy (economically, environmentally, and human-centered) cities and communities. Gasoline consumption is largely dependent on the design of our cities. Diesel consumption is largely dependent on how much of our materials can be produced and obtained locally. Electricity consumption is largely dependent on the size and efficiency of our buildings. Climate Change is a local problem that has global consequences, and focusing on the global consequences encourages us to take one of two flawed actions: 1) treat the symptoms and not the causes; or 2) completely dismiss the validity of Climate Change because it is presented as too large of an issue to fathom. Overall, you have done a decent job of presenting locally-based solutions, yet the fact that these solutions are presented as Climate Change solutions (no matter how much evidence exists to support those solutions) will largely work against you politically.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments to your plan. I wish you well in passing and especially implementing these actions. For questions or return comments, you may contact me at the address below:

Analyzing the Fat Tax

There has been a lot of controversy recently about a so-called “fat tax” that would essentially discourage people from buying products, such as soft drinks (with generally consist of more than 99% high fructose corn syrup), that are known to be high in empty calories and low in nutritional benefits. One of the main proposals right now would place a penny per ounce tax on soft drinks, which would raise about $15 billion per year for obesity prevention programs. Check out the following video for the full story:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/23/weighing-the-fat-tax/

I like the idea. Raising $15 billion for obesity and physical education, as well as physical environmental improvements that would encourage exercise, would go a long way in improving Americans’ quality of life. And that’s just from soft drinks. Imagine how much more money could be raised from candy, chips, sugary cereals, frozen dinners, high-fat restaurant foods, and (as much as it pains me to suggest) desserts. This is not the most popular idea, however. Many people are against adding any more taxes on American consumers, even ones that would likely be of significant benefit to us. It is seen as interfering with the market and making our current economic hardships even tougher.

There’s something to the economic hardship argument, but not in the way most people who argue for it are thinking. These high-fat foods are, by and large, the cheapest foods one can find at the grocery store. They also do not require a lot of time and energy to prepare. These foods are priced and ready-made for people of low-incomes. This is the reason why so many people living in poverty are also over-weight, a paradox that draws criticism from many people who don’t live in poverty because of the false belief that those people in poverty remain so partly because they spend so much money on extraneous food. In reality, people of low-incomes lack the resources to obtain extraneous foods, but they have just enough to obtain foods with extraneous calories, such as the ones mentioned in the paragraph above. They do not, however, have the resources to purchase the healthier foods that are priced at a premium and require time (which comes at a premium to people of low-incomes) to prepare. So, placing a tax on high-fat foods would essentially price people of low-incomes completely out of the food market.

Here’s what I would suggest: tax the unnecessary food items, such as soft drinks, candy, and (cringe!) desserts, and give tax credits for purchasing healthier items, such as fruit, raw vegetables, and whole grains. There are already government and private programs to visually mark foods as healthy. We could add a process to the system which would allow people to sign up for “credit cards” which can be swiped after each food purchase to keep track of healthy food credits. Those credits could then be cashed in during tax season. For people of the lowest incomes that cannot afford to wait until a tax credit comes, we could use some of the money raised from the “fat tax” to add more nutritious items to the food stamps allowances, which are currently sorely lacking. The credits could also be paid for by the tax, which would, unfortunately, leave less money for obesity prevention programs, but at least it would be a sensible solution that would likely work and appeal to both conservatives and liberals.
But my proposal seems too simple for someone not to have thought of it (and dismissed it) before. Am I missing something? What do you think? I would like your critical feedback.

I Pay For Your Free Parking

I wanted to point out something related to my recent post on the Renew Lehigh Valley blog. I mentioned some numbers toward the end of the entry, and I want to discuss the implications of those numbers. I wrote:

“Though many of us recognize the benefits of TOD, it will probably take quite an epiphany for banks to begin to buck the industry standard of about 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of building space (which works out to about 15% more parking lot surface area than floor area at a cost of $30,000 per parking space [or about $50,000 per for structure parking], a cost that banks have no problem financing).”

As I said, this cost is financed as part of the overhead of the development. The new Walmart in your neighborhood must not only pay for the costs of its building, but it must also pay a great deal more to construct its massive parking lot. Now, since retailers, such as Walmart, see their profits as dependent on the customer’s convenience, parking (the ultimate convenience in suburbia) is most often “free.” Of course, when I say “free,” I mean that the costs of parking are added to the retail prices of the products that are sold. We pay for the parking one way or the other, and in the case of retail establishments that offer free parking, the cost is distributed evenly throughout their products.

This arrangement works out well for people who drive to these retailers. Motorists get the psychological benefit of thinking that they are parking for free. Plus, they are likely paying a lot less through the added prices of their food purchases than they would have if they had to insert coins into meters, because retailers who offer “free” parking pass on the costs to all consumers, even those who don’t drive. So, every time I walk to the Giant grocery store in Bethlehem to buy food, I am partially subsidizing the parking of almost everyone else in the store. And my reward for subsidizing those wealthy enough to afford a car? A few honks and several dirty looks as I inconveniently (for them and for me) walk across the parking lot that I am paying for them to use. I would rather they smile, wave, and say “thank you very much!” But most of them have no clue that their “free” parking has made my groceries more expensive than they should be, and that, through the wonders of trickle-up economics (which is more prevalent than we want to admit), they are benefiting from my car-lessness.

Many people would call this small and frivolous because, when the costs are spread out, the resulting price increases are small. But in light of the healthcare debate, why don’t people think about spreading the costs of covering the uninsured as small and frivolous? Despite the fact that healthcare premiums would likely decrease if everyone was covered, why are people not willing to pay a little extra so that everyone can be covered? I do it so that you can park at the store for “free,” so why can’t you do it so that Joe Uninsured can be healthy? Instead, healthcare for all is called “socialism.” Well, if that is your idea of socialism, then you better start screaming at town hall meetings about “free” parking too (along with Social Security, Medicare, the U.S. Postal Service, urban taxing for extraordinarily costly suburban infrastructure, etc.), because it is exactly the same thing.

When Walking is Illegal

Childhood obesity is a major problem in our country, and the planning of where we place our schools is a major cause of this problem. Most, if not all, of our newly-built schools are purposely located on large tracts of land far from the neighborhoods which they serve. Of course, it is easy to see that this type of planning makes it almost impossible for children to get to school without being driven there, whether by bus (which is infrequent) or by car. What is frightening, though, is when this is taken even further. Even after reading it, I still can’t believe that this is happening:

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190

That’s right! Some school districts are actually making it against the rules (or in the case of Saratoga Springs, NY, against the law) for children to walk or bike to school. This leads me to the question: do we want our children to be unhealthy? In this case, it sure seems that way. Schools have sold out to fast food and other low-quality food vendors for lunch, have taken away most recess and physical education, and now some have made possibly the only daily physical activity these kids can get illegal.

Of course, the point of this rule is that the school doesn’t want to be held responsible for the deaths of children hit by cars traveling the only path to the school (a major suburban arterial). This is understandable, but it brings up an important issue that lies behind this fear. Neighborhood-based schools do not fear how their children get to and from school, and if they do, they certainly do not make rules about it and call on the police to enforce it. Why? Because neighborhood schools are located within safe walking and biking distance from most of the households they serve. Bethlehem is full of these schools, and I see children on a daily basis as I take my own walks. So, the choice for our school boards becomes this: Do we build smaller neighborhood schools more frequently in order to allow kids to get to school however they and their parents see fit (not to mention the benefits of higher teacher-to-student ratios and the ability to effectively involve the students in their home communities as part of the curriculum); or do we continue to build massive, regional schools out where it is unsafe for children to get there and back home outside of a vehicle, and, if we deem necessary, make laws prohibiting walking and biking? If you ask me, this is a no-brainer, yet somehow we have made the wrong choice.

Although it is good to see people fighting this and civilly disobeying a rule that doesn’t make any sense, in the end, it all comes down to money. Big surprise! It is cheaper to build big schools out in the middle of nowhere. The land is cheaper, less teachers need to be hired, and neighborhoods can use the land that would have been devoted to the school for more housing, thus increasing the tax base. Oh yeah, and municipalities can justify paying less taxes for school support. Anything to pay less in taxes! But I have to wonder: what is worth paying for these days? Obviously nothing that a stupid law against walking can’t fix.

Getting the Word Out: Community Design and Health

Today, I am cross-posting a column I wrote for Crossroads, the blog for RenewLV, a Smart Growth advocacy organization in the Lehigh Valley. Check out their website if you are interested:

Almost 50 years ago, Jane Jacobs made the following diagnosis:

“Decaying cities, declining economies, and mounting social troubles travel together. The combination is not coincidental.”

The diagnosis is as true today as it was then, but there are other issues in the “city ecology” (as she called it) that have come to light since the early 1960s, one of which is the health of the city’s inhabitants. This link between city design and human health is not exactly an obvious one, but it is one that is growing in recognition as the obesity crisis worsens. In 1950, 30% of Americans were overweight or obese. 50 years later, the CDC reported that the percentage of overweight or obese Americans had risen to 64.5%. Click on the following link to see a fantastic graphic that shows these drastic changes by state from 1985 until 2008 (http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html).

According to Dr. Jeffry Weiss, this massive weight gain cannot be attributed too heavily to genetics (genes do not evolve that quickly), and it cannot be attributed to lack of nutrition knowledge, since, during the same 50 year period, the amount of nutrition information made publicly available doubled every 7 years. Clearly, there are larger forces at work than those dealing with the body and knowledge of individuals. Food economics are biased toward getting more food for less money. Portion sizes at restaurants and packaged foods have ballooned between 50% and 400% in the last 40 years (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute). Our work and recreation activities have become more sedentary with the continued loss of physical labor and rise of the technology economy, as well as the proliferation of televisions, computers, and video games. And our cities have de-intensified densities and segregated land-uses, resulting in increasing dependence on the use of automobiles to get around.

But we have a tendency to forget or ignore this final, and perhaps most important, reason for obesity, perhaps because most really just don’t see it until it is presented to them; and we do a poor job of getting the word out. An Atlanta, GA resident, featured in a video promoting the next Congress for The New Urbanism conference, expressed just such a problem: “I never saw the connection: how community design can affect your health” (http://www.cnu.org/cnu18). This person was definitely not alone in his lack of awareness, but there are plenty of people – influential people – who are not so ignorant. So why are there not more public campaigns geared toward influencing consumer housing decisions toward more compact and mixed-use urban areas? Why do we continue to encourage suburban sprawl through lopsided mortgage subsidies, unbalanced tax structures, and new highway and road funding? How can public health departments address this issue in a meaningful and effective way?

A new bi-county Lehigh Valley Health Department would be a terrific start to addressing the our local obesity problem. At present, a campaign hoping to really make a difference would be difficult to achieve because it would lack significant funding due to the geographical size of its service area. A joint department would also serve as a model for regional governance of land-use, transportation, and tax-sharing, the absence of which has been a significant reason why suburban sprawl remains unchecked and obesity has increased exponentially.

What are some other ways in which we can begin to help people make the connection between community design and health? What partnerships could a regional health department in the Lehigh Valley enter into to ensure the greatest effectiveness of its campaigns? I encourage you to comment with your ideas on the Crossroads blog or on my personal blog, Bethlehem By Foot.

The Limits of Sustainability

I spent a nice long weekend with my cousins near Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the de facto center of the Amish world. Having never before experienced anything of the sort, I was fascinated by their chosen style of life: partially because it is so foreign to a good portion of the rest of America, but also because, in a lot of ways, it is exactly what the rest of America needs to emulate. They pool their resources for the good of the community, help their own who have fallen on tough times, pay cash for everything, and they have a long (and recently publicly displayed) history of forgiving completely in response to being horribly wronged. These are all wonderful things, and if I were authoring a different type of blog I would certainly do these qualities more justice. But what I want to commend them for is the way they think about their relationship with their environments. In fact, this way of thinking may be so important that it lies at the root of the other qualities that I mentioned above.

When I think of the most basic difference between the Amish and the rest of Americans, I cannot help but think that the great disparities boil down to the fact that the Amish have set limitations and boundaries on themselves and have recognized those boundaries as good, while the rest of us often fail to recognize any limitations whatsoever. Take, for instance, our opposing transportation preferences. The Amish choices of transportation are limited to walking, biking, and riding in horse-drawn carriages. From what I saw this past weekend, they make ample use of all three of these modes. For the rest of America, the choices are much wider, and seem to be growing and getting faster by the decade. We can still walk and bike and ride horses (though the carriages have gone by the wayside), but we can also attach a motor to the bike or scooter, step onto a Segway, ride a bus or train, drive our own personal high-speed vehicle, or (very soon, hopefully) sit in a bullet train that goes 200 miles per hour. None of these, mind you, are inherently bad, and, in fact, some of them are a vital part of a sustainable city, yet we have to consider what the impacts are of such variety, speed, and general “no boundaries” outlook on ourselves, our cities, and our world.

An Amish community, by choice, must confine itself to a fairly small geographical area. The work that a family and a community takes on must be limited to what they can physically handle with their own bodies. The products that they consume must be kept within the bounds of what they can really afford. The by-products of one portion of life must by the sustenance for another. Thus, they have no use for wastefulness or excess in any form, including landfills, fossil fuels, agricultural chemical inputs, soil nitrogen replenishments, payday lending, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, state budget disagreements, and especially not suburban sprawl. We, on the other hand, are slaves to all of these things, because we don’t know when to say no.

What would it mean to recognize limits? Would cities exist without these limits? I’m sure they would, though probably in much different forms than what we currently have. Limited cities would be more walkable and equitable, just as unlimited cities have become car-dependent and discriminatory. David Orr, a professor of environmental studies, makes a strong case that we cannot live in healthy environments, or be healthy ourselves, as long as we do not recognize the boundaries that exist. And this is precisely the point: the boundaries exist, whether we acknowledge them or not. There is a limit to which life and community can sustain itself, and if that limit is exceeded, systems will begin to fail. Orr argues that in order to recognize this, we must be taught to think in systems or ecologies (in which one part is a component as well as a product of many other related parts); and in order to recognize that we must think in systems, we have to recognize that there are natural limits to the actions that we can take in order to maintain sustainability. Until we accomplish this unlikely feat, we are unlikely to solve our environmental, social, or economic problems.

The Paradox of Prosperous Suburbs

In the previous post, I briefly mentioned the relationship between cities and their suburbs as one of, essentially, predator and prey. More specifically, I made the claim that suburbs suck the life and the money out of cities. There are several reasons why this is so. The most important reason is that the people that move out to the suburbs are a group of people that are more likely to have money and influence, are more likely to know people that have money and influence, and are more likely to feel as if their voice matters when dealing with policy and planning issues. Consequently, this group, though they don’t outnumber city folk, votes at much higher rates, has a penchant for fighting growth and development that are not in their perceived best interest (“Not in my backyard!”), and produces a great demand for suburban economic development that would otherwise occur in the city. Suburbs drain cities of economic development.

A second reason why suburbs drain cities is because of the way city taxes that support infrastructure are collected and distributed. Since cities already have their infrastructure, such as sewers and streets, in place, the cost for maintaining it is minimal, and the people utilizing the infrastructure are, in general, more than paying for it; and although suburban dweller taxes are also funding city infrastructure, it is at a very low rate, and they are likely to use that infrastructure to travel to work. As suburbs continue to pop up, however, new infrastructure must be built to support those areas at a cost that is far beyond the maintenance of already existing infrastructure. Guess who funds a good majority of those costs? Sure, suburban dwellers pay taxes, and a good portion of those taxes supports their municipalities, but this is as it should be since those people are the users of that infrastructure. But a good portion of city-dweller taxes (in fact, probably a greater portion of a person’s annual income, based on per capita incomes in center cities being generally lower than those of suburbs) also support the suburban infrastructure that they hardly ever or never use. Suburbs drain cities of their tax funding for basic services and require city dwellers to pay for services not even rendered to them.

A final reason why suburbs drain cities has to do with the means of transporting suburbanites to their work places, the majority of which are either in the city or nearer to the city than the suburb from which workers are traveling from. Public transit is inherently inefficient in these suburban areas because of lack of density (as well as other reasons), and other alternative modes are not possible, so that leaves expressways; and we have plenty of those to speak of. But expressways in and of themselves are not necessarily bad. When done right, they provide a decent option for traveling quickly within a region. The main problem is that they are hardly ever done right. Freeways were never meant to be constructed through the hearts of cities, as they have been; they were originally intended to exist on the edges of cities. When entire downtown city neighborhoods were demolished to make way for expressways so that residents of the suburbs could reach their places of work more quickly, those parts of the cities were quickly and quietly destroyed. And since a city is a sum (or more like a sum of squares) of its parts, when one part languishes, the rest suffer as well.

So, there are three good reasons to reach the conclusion that in order for suburbs to flourish, cities must, in turn, fail. This couldn’t be more of a true assessment, but there is an unexpected twist to it: suburbs that border failing or failed cities, though they appear to be strong for a little while, all eventually fail as well. The suburbs of Phoenix, Detroit, and Los Angeles, just to name a few, have learned this lesson well. In order to get the best quality of life from those metropolitan areas, one must keep buying homes further and further away from the ever-more-failing main cities. So the paradox is this: suburbs cannot thrive without the failure of cities, yet they cannot continue to thrive with those failed cities either. The only way to fix the problem is to purposely invest most of the region’s resources into the cities, and the prosperity of the cities will actually spill over into the suburbs, at least those close enough to be beneficiaries of the economic and cultural success. For the system to work properly, we must accept that our suburbs will never be as prosperous as our cities can be; though, I suspect, this is not something that most of us are willing to accept.

Mixed-Uses: The Anatomy of a City

Since I’m reading the incomparable Jane Jacobs, whose lay-person’s analysis of the way cities work 50 years ago is recognized as the single most important reason why we planners and urban thinkers today are cleaning up the messes of the planners and urban thinkers of yesterday (and, actually, today as well), it makes sense for me to address one of the four most important ingredients to a successful city: the mixing of land-uses. For those of you who don’t speak Planner, mixed land-uses refers to zoning codes that allow a variety of building uses in a single area. For example, many old city centers and small downtowns are rich with two- or three-story buildings in which commercial shops, such as restaurants and retail stores, attract people on the bottom floors while offices and residential living spaces occupy the top floors. This is an example of vertical mixing. Horizontal mixing is also possible and can be just as effective. This often occurs in old inner-ring (just outside of the center city) suburban neighborhoods which contain single-family or multi-family detached homes right next to shops, offices, restaurants, and other commercial and business uses.

Bethlehem has a great variety of vertical and horizontal mixed-use neighborhoods. Both downtowns (north and south) have a good selection of vertical mixed-use areas of restored old buildings that are charming, attractive, and (most importantly) still functional. West Bethlehem and the eastern portion of the Southside present excellent (though not perfect) examples of horizontal mixing, with residential units separated from but within easy walking distance to daily needs and entertainment. These types of developments stand in stark contrast to most modern city designs, which have a penchant for isolating residential areas from commercial areas, and separating both of those from office areas. What we get from such segregated uses are bedroom communities, strip malls, office parks, and a stagnant local economy that increasingly depends on (yet sucks the life out of) nearby central cities.

Mixing uses, however, does not automatically determine a successful neighborhood. Jacobs points out that most older cities are full of mixed-use communities, but most of them have spectacularly failed as lively and vibrant places. The key to a successful mixed-use neighborhood (indeed, any neighborhood) is its ability to be in a constant state of dynamic use. Take, for instance, West Bethlehem’s Broad Street (west of 8th Avenue). Although a very nice area, this part of the city is beginning to lag. Residents attribute this downward trend to “riff-raff” moving in, which couldn’t be a more prejudiced and incorrect assessment. According to Jacobs, the reason West Bethlehem is lagging is because its mix (which gives it an edge over most modern neighborhoods) is not optimal. First, very few of businesses operate out of buildings that are designed to allow the employees and business-owners to keep an eye on what’s going on outside. There are some, such as Denny’s Barber Shop, run out of a retrofitted old house, but they are significantly lacking. Second, even if there were more “eyes on the street”, so to speak, the actual street is too wide to allow much life in the area anyway. In order for a neighborhood or district to have life, pedestrians must be able to safely and easily cross from one side of the street to the other (see 4th Street South Bethlehem and Main Street North Bethlehem for good examples of this). Third, there are no restaurants or grocery stores. This is a very important absence because it means that those who work in the area must go somewhere else to eat around lunchtime and after work. So, even if there is life in the mornings and afternoons as people are going to work and others are patronizing the businesses, lunch hours and evenings are dead. Finally, as a tag-on to the last sentence, there is nothing in West Bethlehem to sustain life after 5pm. Shops close, workers go home, and bars, clubs, and restaurants are not there to attract anyone else.

When an ineffective mix of land-uses is present, two things begin to happen. The most important occurrence is a decline in safety and a rise in “incivilities.” When the neighborhood cannot sustain life and people are not able to keep an eye on what’s going on, bad things tend to happen. Even something as small as graffiti can play with people’s perceptions of their own security. While I have not felt unsafe in West Bethlehem, neighbors that I have talked to who have lived here for years say they can see it going downhill. Along with perceptions of insecurity goes economic vitality. Without a good, effective mix of activities (5 hair-cutters are too many for such a short distance), and without a crossable road, West Bethlehem will struggle to compete with the more lively, interesting, and effective mixed-use downtown, where there is life going on almost 24/7.

Does anyone have a different assessment as to why many cities and neighborhoods fail to thrive? Can anyone convince me that the great Jane Jacobs missed something?

The Demand-Induced Supply Fallacy and Why Fire Trucks Matter

In the midst of other things, I had forgotten that I gave a “24 hour challenge” that, unfortunately, only one person took me up on, and even that one was late. This is what happens when you have a mind that is constantly thinking of many different yet related things and you don’t write a note to remind yourself to stay on track. So, thanks Big Daddy for being brave enough to be the only one to venture a guess at the challenge.

The question was: “Moving cars quickly is an underlying purpose for wide streets, but can anyone tell me what the most significant reason for our wider-than-needed streets is?” (Read the entire post)

The answer that Big Daddy gave was “The [drivers] and their zig zagging, foot stomping, hair raising commuting events … are the reason for those wide streets, not to mention those rounded corners.”

Essentially, this answer reflects an interesting, but probably not uncommon, misconception that drivers have demanded such a road design, thus it was built. This may work in the marketplace to a certain extent, where a Furby craze will induce stores to devote entire isles to annoying little electronic creatures (the demand-induced supply model), but not when it comes to roads and other similar public investments. In the case of such large-scale public infrastructure investments, Shoeless Joe Jackson, as portrayed in Field of Dreams, had a perfect understanding of how things work: “If you build it, they will come.” More specifically, if we design streets to support wild driving, then wild driving will occur, but if we prevent “zig zagging, foot stomping, hair raising commuting events” by making it obviously unsafe for drivers to behave in such a manner (narrower streets, wide-turn corners, on-street parking), then streets will become much less unruly.

Incidentally, this concept of “supply-induced demand” also applies to suburban housing. We tend to think that we have so much suburban housing because that is what we the people want. In fact, we have an abundance of suburbia because that is what some people want, and that “some” includes politicians, developers, bankers, and, yes, planners. The demand for urban or inner-ring suburban housing is currently at around 51%, according to Chris Nelson, a premier housing demand researcher, meaning that the majority of people actually prefer to be closer to the city and all of its amenities and culture, not further away. Yet, we keep building the majority of our new housing as far from the city as possible while neglecting our decaying cities. Do we really think demand is inducing supply here?

Actually, the answer to my question above is so obscure that almost nobody outside of planning circles (and a good portion of this group has no clue) will have ever thought of it. The biggest reason why suburban streets are wider than urban streets (and why urban streets are under constant pressure to widen, to the outrage of their inhabitants) is because of fire department rules that changed several decades ago. The reason these rules changed: longer fire trucks. Fire chiefs wanted to make sure that new municipalities were built to support such beastly machines, so they began to “strongly suggest” (with political backing, making it a virtual requirement) that new suburban streets be wide enough for a fire truck to do a complete 180 degree turn in order to get back out of the neighborhood in which it was needed. Now, besides the ridiculousness of needing such a long fire truck (its length was meant to support longer ladders) in low-density neighborhoods where the tallest building is perhaps 3 stories, this is actually a reasonable request because suburban neighborhoods are built to impede through traffic. If the fire truck wants to get out of such a neighborhood, it must turn around and go back the way it came. But the pressure to widen urban neighborhood streets doesn’t make a whole heck of a lot of sense, because urban streets are laid in a grid pattern, meaning that the fire truck would need to simply make 3 right or left turns to get back to where it came from. The urban areas that have the tallest buildings to support the need for longer fire trucks already have the street structure to handle the vehicles without needing to widen, and the suburban areas do not need such long trucks, and therefore do not need the wider streets. This, of course, is to say nothing about the inefficiencies of suburban street patterns, which I have already addressed before.

The Relationship Between Federal Spending and Recessions

I recently received a Wall Street Journal article (“Big Government, Big Recession,” August 21, 2009) in the mail from Big Daddy that makes the claim that recessions are made worse by Big Government spending (which it claims started in the 1930s with Roosevelt’s administration). This is an interesting claim for several reasons. The most obvious reason is that the Great Depression began before Roosevelt took office (indeed, the greatest leader we’ve had this century probably would not have been voted in without a drastic time of national suffering). We have not had a recession anywhere near as catastrophic as the Depression since it ended in 1941. Big Government spending on infrastructure and making sure people’s basic needs were met brought us out of that Depression. Some people argue with that by saying that the War ended the Depression, as it did in several other countries, but the U.S. was out of the woods before it entered the fighting.

Another reason this claim is debatable: recessions have always been intricately tied to government spending and regulation actions, but not in the way most conservatives claim. Here are some reasons that recessions have begun and ended since 1900:

~The recession of 1913-1914, during the Woodrow Wilson administration, began as real incomes declined in a very unregulated market and ended around the time of the institution of the Federal Reserve System.

~The recession of 1921 set off the greatest deflationary period in the country’s history at just over 36%. This is largely recognized as a result of the conservative fiscal policies of the Harding administration.

~The recession of 1926-27, interestingly, is thought to have occurred because Henry Ford shut down is factories to transition from production of the Model T, the machine that began the period of government road, and thus infrastructure spending, expansion.

~The Great Depression began as a result of lax fiscal policies of the expansion period of the Roaring 20’s and widespread environmental destruction of farm lands (the Dust Bowl), both reflections of the federal policies of the Hoover years. It is important to note that economists don’t think the U.S. was actually in any kind of recession between the years of 1933 and 1937, a reflection of Roosevelt’s policies.

~The recession of 1937 was caused by crumbling infrastructure and a large population who were falling through the cracks in the system. The New Deal was instituted, putting vast quantity of people to work, rebuilding a large chunk of the country, and providing basic services for millions of people who needed them. The economy continued to grow following this period of vastly increased government spending until Roosevelt died and many parts of the New Deal were repealed.

~The recession of 1945 was caused by a great decline in federal spending after the War.

~The recession of 1953 is thought to have been caused by a change in Federal Reserve policy.

~The recession of 1960-61 ended when President Kennedy increased federal spending to improve GNP and unemployment.

~The 1973-74 recession coincided with the Oil Embargo. If U.S. policies did not entangle the country and make it completely dependent on oil to run almost every sector of the economy, this recession and many more to come would never have occurred to the extent that they did. The same issue caused a recession in the early 1980s after the Iranian Revolution.

~And, of course, our current recession has been attributed to lax fiscal policies and financial sector regulation, in which many abuses took place, as well as a vastly underfunded infrastructure.

If there’s any lesson we can learn from this, it is that Small Government led to many of these recessions, including the Depression and our current recession, and Big Government spending has gotten us out of them. The article makes a good point that we cannot say with much confidence that government spending has gotten us out of the current recession because not much of the increase has actually been spent yet, but it is clear that we got into the mess during a time of less government spending and regulation, and continuing that trend to get us out of it would not be reasonable.

The chart in the following link shows Federal spending from 1920 to 1941.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1920_1941&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy10&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=Total%20Spending&state=US&color=c&local=Total%20Spending

This graph shows clearly what I have been trying to explain: once the spending increased at the end of the 30s and beginning of the 40s, the Depression ended, just as Keynes, the economist discredited by the article, said it would. It’s easy to see that the recessions described above were ended with more spending, not less.

The argument against this way of thinking is that we are “mortgaging our future” by spending so much. I understand this and would tend to agree in general, except for the fact that our economic, land use, transportation, and foreign policies of the past 60 years have already mortgaged enough of our future that we need to spend wildly just to keep up with the system we have set up. The vast majority of the almost $800 billion stimulus is to be spent on infrastructure, the backbone of our economy, and yet the investment will come up about $2 trillion short. Why? Because we have built our economy on the backs of roads, oil, and automobiles, and we have not cared to pay the full costs of such an inefficient system. As of now, our roads and bridges are in desperate need of repair and updating, but we have defrayed the costs for so long that our infrastructure deficit, now estimated at between $2 and $3 trillion, is more than we’re willing to pay. This tells me that we need to change our entire system if we are worried about bankrupting ourselves over a mere $800 billion when we really need to spend 3 or 4 times that amount. If there is anything that I fault the stimulus plan for, it is that it puts the vast majority of its money toward improving the road and bridge infrastructure that will just cause of bigger problem down the road when the infrastructure deficit will be even larger.

The final interesting portion of this article claims that increased government spending over the past year has decreased our GDP over the past 12 months. But the article cannot accurately claim that the new administration’s spending policies are to blame for our yearly decrease in GDP for two reasons: The largest decreases in GDP over the past year occurred before President Obama took office and the stimulus was passed, and, as the article claims elsewhere, only about 1/8th of the stimulus has actually been spent to this point. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the economy shrunk 1 percent between both the 1st and second quarters and the second and third quarters of this year, while it shrunk 6.4% between the 4th quarter of last year and the 1st quarter of this year. What we have spent so far has drastically slowed the growth in unemployment, and thus slowed the decreases in GDP.

I have no problem with conservatives taking issue with increased spending (except that there is never any complaint among them when it comes to excess war spending and oil and automobile subsidy increases). What I do take issue with is when these opinion articles are presented with misleading numbers and information to support their position. I’m not the biggest fan of government spending excesses because I think the money often goes to the wrong areas, but if you are a fan of the way our economy is currently structured, as I’m sure most conservatives are (though I am not especially), then history shows that these periods of drastic government spending increases are necessary for supporting such a flawed system.

Dan "The Road Warrior" Hartzell Has Got Nothing On Me!

I thought this was an interesting story and video in the local newspaper. Click on the link to see it:

http://www.mcall.com/news/all-a5_5warrior0821.6993181aug21,0,7175467.column

I’ve heard about “stings” like these, but I had no idea they were being conducted here in Bethlehem. Good for us! I finally feel as though I am part of a protected class: the endangered pedestrian. Unfortunately, I think the city is treating the symptom while being completely blind to the root cause.

It’s the design, stupid! On streets in the middle of a dense city, such as Bethlehem, there’s no way a driver should feel comfortable enough to go over 25 miles per hour. But they do, and the reason why? Because the streets are too wide. Bethlehem has done a great job with allowing on-street parking in many areas (which narrows the street a bit) and avoiding one-way streets in most cases (which serve to encourage speeding). But they have dropped the ball in many cases with street widths. Many perfectly good urban neighborhoods and commercial districts in the city have been tainted by street widths that limit safe walking, as displayed so clearly in this video. Motorists are much less likely to speed on narrow streets because they feel less safe doing so. Of course, one of the main purposes of designing streets for cars is to move them as quickly as possible, which is in direct opposition to pedestrian safety measures.

Have you ever been on one of those streets that seems too narrow for two-way traffic? Or at one of those 5, 6, or 7 way intersections that confuse the crap out of everyone? We have largely “fixed” these streets, but guess what? They are the safest streets in America by far. There’s a very good reason for this: drivers become confused and cautious, which improves safety for both pedestrians and other drivers. So, what’s our goal? To move people quickly, or to do it safely?

Moving cars quickly is an underlying purpose for wide streets, but can anyone tell me what the most significant reason for our wider-than-needed streets is? You have 24 hours!

P.S. It's amazing to me that Mr. Road Warrior is putting these stings down, as if pedestrians don't belong in crosswalks. It's like saying drivers don't belong on the streets, which as much as I would love to make that argument sometimes, it's just a dumb statement. I think I have found my calling: to be the literary arch-nemisis of the Road Warrior.

~The Pedestrian Pacifist

Comments on the Comments... Please comment

Since comments can only be so long, I decided to post my reaction to Big Daddy's comments on the main page. I'll also write another posting about a completely unrelated topic so that I can virtually run from this controversy!

********************************************

I don't doubt that people are afraid or that they have every right to be afraid that something in their lives will change, I just think it's a little ridiculous the way a chunk of them are acting. I don't think reactions of this nature are helpful in the least. The same kind of reactions to war decisions and spending a few years ago were called unpatriotic, but now the same actions are being touted as the opposite by many. I think it is neither patriotic nor unpatriotic, but an unofficial attempt to filibuster any attempt at reform, which I consider just plain selfishness.

I think it is a poor argument that no one has had time to read the large bill and only lawyers can understand it. The bill has been around for almost a month now, and members of Congress never actually read or write bills anyway. Staffers get the intent of the bill from Congress, then the staffers write it and disseminate it, at which point other staffers read the bill and summarize it for their bosses. And most bills are lengthy and “legal-y”, so to put this one down for its length and legalese is hypocrisy. The legally-trained staffers write it and interpret it just as they have always done.

But I never said I liked the current plan. In fact, the plan I laid out couldn’t be further from any plan that is coming out of congress, perhaps precisely because of special interests, as you pointed out. I do realize, however, that my plan would never work in our current system, so in its place, I am more than willing to accept an insurance company that is willing to get rid of its pre-existing conditions rules, submit to some sort of cost-controls, and stop operating as if only certain people deserve health coverage. There are always special interests at play, but not all of them are considered bad. People don’t complain when Auto companies get billions a year in subsidies after campaign contributions, so why do they complain about this? Because “health care for all” doesn’t fit in with their own entrenched interests.

There is only one study that refutes that 47 million are uninsured, and it does so by saying that there are, indeed, 47 million people who are uninsured, but about half of them can afford insurance but are just not enrolled. This may be because they believe in the virtues of eastern medicine, or they would rather be unhealthy or stick the rest of the country with their bills, or maybe what we consider affordable just isn’t true. Millions of people earn just above the threshold of Medicaid but still cannot afford private health insurance. But even if they could afford it, then this is a perfect reason to mandate coverage. If the argument is that our uninsured numbers are inflated because people are turning down coverage, then make them get coverage. It seems as if people are making this argument to show that reform isn’t needed because things aren’t as bad as they seem, but really the argument is a perfect one for requiring coverage.

I also think it is a poor solution to cut people a check to buy coverage. Even if only about 20 million (per the dissenting study) are not covered because they can’t afford it, giving them the $5,000 (average yearly premium cost) to buy coverage every year would mean $100 billion per year. This would mean $1 trillion over a decade, which is exactly the amount that the first health reform bill was shut down for. Actually, now that I think about it, this would be preferable over doing nothing, but with this price tag, the bill would never get through a committee let alone come up for a vote. Conservatives would make a fuss over the price, and Liberals would scoff at its simplicity.

The government has been there all along to only set regulations, and look where it has gotten us. If you listen to any respected macroeconomist, he or she will tell you that a regulated free market is best for almost every class of consumption except when a system that provides significant externalities is involved, such as education, infrastructure, and, yes, healthcare. The reason is that large systems such as these in the hands of the free market tend to funnel toward monopolization, and prices of monopolies, as we have seen from the example of OPEC, are unruly and cannot be regulated. This is why privatizing education is a really bad idea if we want everyone to have a basic level of education (if all education was private, millions of children would be priced out), and it is also why privatized healthcare has been unattainable for millions of Americans. To say that the government has no place in the development of a country’s human capital (education, health, etc.) is to deceive ourselves. The only countries in the world in which the government does not supply universal, government-funded education are those that are the poorest of the poor. And the only countries in the world in which the government does not supply universal, government-funded healthcare are those that are the poorest of the poor, slowly developing, and us. We don’t seem to realize that investments in the health and well-being of everyone are the best investments we can make.

Oh, and by the way, Euell Gibbons had an enlarged aorta, smoked his whole life, and added large amounts of bacon grease and butter to his vegetables, all of which led to his heart attack at the age of 64 (pretty darn close to the average age for men). Pine nuts, some of which he choked on while having the heart attack, probably prolonged his life.

Are we talking about Healthcare, guns, or politics?

At the risk of being booed off of the blogosphere, I’m going to resume my regular writing by going outside of my normal subject area and ranting about the one thing that everyone else is talking about right now: healthcare. First of all, I believe that everyone should have access to affordable and quality healthcare, just like everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of … Okay, you in the back… yes, you with the picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache… please keep your ridiculously nonsensical Nazi comparisons to yourself. And you with the assault rifle, please stop waving it around claiming that it’s your right to make me feel like my life is in danger just because you don’t agree with my opinion. And you, with your finger threateningly pointed my way, please stop acting like you bear no responsibility for the health and welfare of your fellow Americans and human beings. And you, in the way back, with your non-stop, unintelligible shouting for no other reason than to be obnoxiously dissenting against something you really know nothing about, please shut your trap and listen for once; you might learn something. Same goes for you, liberal ideologue who is shouting back, as well as you, overly-partisan Joe-Congressman. And you, former governor of Alaska turned Rush Limbaugh, please speak in complete and coherent sentences and stop sensationalizing EVERYTHING. And you, the “inconvenient” drama king of the FOX network, please try to remember your own healthcare debacle last year and stop pontificating out of both sides of your mouth. And you, madam Speaker, please loosen up a bit and at least acknowledge that good ideas can exist outside of your own head. And you, the great Changer, please change something. And of course you, the general American public, please get a spine and stop only thinking about what’s good for you.

Look, I don’t care how we get this thing done, just as long as we do get it done. I’m sick of politics and arrogance getting in the way. One side is trying to claim the moral high ground, but when it comes down to it, they are not willing to sacrifice their political careers to get it done the right way. And the other side, while bringing up serious and valid concerns, have not even attempted to put forward any solutions and so, as far as I’m concerned, can only claim moral bereavement and partisan one-upmanship. Is this really what we are all about as a people? Is this how we are best represented?

Here's what I suggest: 1) Mandate health care (courtesy of the only major rational thinker we have left: John Stewart). We do it for car insurance so that the insured aren’t paying double for the uninsured. Sound familiar? Even Romney supports it. 2) Civic group coverage. We need to take insurance coverage out of employment and only offer it through civic organizations. If we mandate coverage, then everyone will have to be involved in some kind of civic cause, which will give us some sort of sense of community and interdependence again. This type of model worked for and, I would argue, even created our “Greatest” generation, and it could work again. 3) Take the profit out of healthcare. As long as someone can make money off of something, that thing is bound to be corrupted and ever-more expensive. What decision do you think a healthcare provider makes when a more profitable but less healthful option is pitted against a less profitable but more healthful option? As long as the primary focus is on bringing larger profits to shareholders (the definition of a for-profit enterprise) and not providing the best services for customers (the whole reason government designates non-profit status: in order that a community-focused enterprise can compete with a profit-focused one), we will never get better care at affordable rates. Mr. Obama is right: we don’t absolutely need a public option to fix our problem, but we do absolutely need to take the profit out of sickness. 4) Prevention, please! We need the non-profits before we can get this one for the simple reason that it is not profitable in the short-term to prevent anything. But, at least 75% of our healthcare dollars are spent on treating preventable illnesses, and prevention yields, on average, a life-time savings ratio of 5 to 1 (meaning that preventing an illness costs 5 times less than treating that illness). This means that by simply preventing illnesses, our long-term healthcare costs could be 40% of what they are now. But this model does not maximize the healthcare industry profits, even though it maximizes our health, so it will never happen under our current system.

Most of all: 5) We all just need to step back, settle down, stop listening to the propaganda on both sides, and start thinking for ourselves. Turn off the TV. Turn down the radio. Get rid of the distractions. Put away your guns. Go for a walk (shameless plug) and seriously discuss with yourself or, preferably, another person what you really think needs to happen. When you hit the inevitable point at which you start thinking about how a change would negatively impact you personally or politically or financially, stop in your tracks, think about the millions of uninsured people who are less fortunate than you are, and repeat the following phrase five times, out-loud and as slowly and deliberately as possible: “It’s not about me!” Make sure someone else could reasonably hear you say it without having to listen too intently. Really let the phrase sink in to your psyche. Comprehend its meaning as deeply as you can... and then start thinking all over again.

Don't Bank On Pedestrian-Oriented Suburban Banks... and I Love You Mom!

My “biggest fan” commented on my previous post that she doesn’t know of a bank that isn’t pedestrian-oriented. As much as I will probably regret correcting my own loving mother (I feel like I’m about to break a Commandment here), I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. I can't remember a single pedestrian-oriented bank in the Phoenix metropolitan area; not that they don’t exist there, but I suspect that they are few and far between, and there’s a simple reason why.

It doesn't make sense to build pedestrian-friendly banks (or any other type of business) in standard suburban areas, because people aren’t likely to walk to them. Since residences and businesses are purposely separated by segregated zoning laws, it is just not practical to "walk with a purpose" in these areas. Basically, it would be illogical to design a pedestrian-oriented bank in a standard suburban area.

This is, ultimately, not the fault of business owners or developers. Developers get a bad rap in planning circles, and sometimes for good reason. Developers often are only focused on their bottom line and not on what would be good for the community in which they are building. I don’t subscribe to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” and neither do the laws of nature (I’ll write about this some time, I promise), so I have no problem with trashing developers for their selfishness. However, some (maybe most) developers are simultaneously looking out for their own interests while trying to provide economic benefits for the community. The only reason these developers create poor products is because they are playing by poor rules. Our planning is the problem, and poor development is simply the highly-visual result.

Now, I need to apologize profusely to my mom because I have committed the cardinal sin of family life: I have publicly disagreed with the person that brought me into this world. As self-inflicted punishment (and because my beautiful wife will be receiving my full attention while she is in town), you have heard the last of me until at least the end of next week. So long, and happy trails!

A Tale of Two Design Philosophies

Many skeptics of Smart Growth and pedestrian-oriented development policies assume that such policies are inherently anti-growth. In fact, this is not true. If Smart Growth (emphasis on the word “Growth”) policies were meant to discourage development and “progress”, then we would see in these areas noticeable decreases in standard suburban features, such as parking lots. While it is true, in the case of parking lots, that many New Urban and traditionally-designed towns and cities have less need for parking spaces due to more efficient public transportation (thus smaller parking lots), most commercial, office, and civic buildings in these areas still offer parking lots to their patrons. The key difference between traditional urban and standard suburban designs is not the absence of any particular feature but, instead, its rearrangement.

West Bethlehem provides a striking example of this difference in design philosophy (see the video here). The beer store on one side of the street is set to the back of its lot, forcing a large slab of black-top parking to greet its visitors. What is wrong with this arrangement? Primarily, it fails the equitability test. With the parking lot facing Broad Street, drivers have a clear advantage when patronizing the business. Pedestrians must compete with cars entering and leaving the parking lot, a competition that we, the walkers, are likely to lose. Is the positive connection between driving and alcohol really the message we want to be sending?

On the other side of the street, however, the former Bank of America building (which, if you ask me, would be perfect for a much-needed Westside restaurant) was built in a completely opposite fashion. The building, which would likely be placed in the middle or to the back of a suburban lot, is placed right up against Broad Street, relegating the parking lot to the back. Drivers can still just as easily patronize the business, but pedestrians can just as easily do so as well without competing for space. This design levels the playing field and encourages alternative transportation.

I’m sure some of you will be thinking, “If pedestrian-oriented designs are so effective, why did Bank of America shut down the branch?” I’m not exactly sure why B of A left this location, but the pedestrian-oriented PNC Bank down the street is doing just fine. Perhaps it has to do with toxic loans: While B of A received $45 billion in bailouts, PNC actually took over a troubled bank.

Nude Pedestrianism... The Final Frontier

Traveling around by foot or by bus is so(ooo!!!) much more interesting than by car. I’ve known this for a long time, and I’ve already written one post about meeting an interesting neighbor, but this truth was confirmed yet again today. Since my wife is flying in to the Lehigh Valley International Airport this week, I decided to take a bus out there to see if it was possible to bus it between the airport and the city (it is!). As the bus was leaving the airport, something out of the corner of my eye caught my attention. I knew instantly what it was, but I didn’t believe it. It’s not every day that you see it (hopefully), and, in fact, it may be a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. Despite its scarcity, we humans intuitively know what it is before we even get a good look at it, and then we proceed to talk ourselves out of it until we, indeed, see that it is exactly what we had feared it would be. As the object came into clear view, my fears were confirmed as the bus driver mumbled, “Holy…”: a middle-aged, overweight, hairy naked man. He was just walking toward the terminal as if he wasn't aware that everyone could see his “cargo.” The Asian couple in the back of the bus that had just flown in was laughing hysterically. The bus driver remarked, “I need a new job.” I couldn’t help but smile as I shook my head in wonder.

The funny thing about seeing a naked person in public is that, as much as you wish you hadn’t seen what you saw, you (well, I guess I should speak for myself here) inevitably wish you had brought a camera to capture the ridiculousness of the moment. Maybe the camera would have captured the look on his face (for those of you who are curious, you don’t really get a good look at the facial expressions of an unexpectedly nude person). What could he have possibly been thinking? Was he enjoying his freedom from the societal norm of wearing clothing when others are present? Was he nervous? When someone is that brave (or stupid) to do something that you would never do, it makes you curious as to who this person is and what made him that way. Why is he so different from me? It was then that I realized how he was choosing to get around Bethlehem: by foot! Perhaps he and I would be kindred spirits if we ever had a chance to get to know each other, but I don’t think I could get too comfortable with him. After all, if he’s that calm about showing his junk in public, one can only imagine what he would be like with his friends.

This Just In... Garages Lead To Urban Decay

As I explained in the previous posting, there are two different types of houses: those that have garages that are flush with the house and counted as part of the façade, and those that place the garage, if there is one, somewhere else on the lot. This little design feature actually has some large consequences for sense of community and neighborhood safety. When the garage is flush with the house and facing the street, it is often the case (though not always) that the house lacks a front porch. Front porches are important for the cohesiveness of neighborhoods, and thus cities, because they allow neighbors to see each other. When neighbors can see each other, they converse together about local politics, local idiots, and meaningless things. Neighborhoods, and again cities, are built on these simple yet intimate relationships. These things don’t often occur when porches are absent. Even when porches and front garages exist in tandem, the porches are often recessed to the point where the street is hardly visible, which completely defeats the purpose of front porches. Front porches are meant to be public, not private. Private porches are meant to be located on the sides or backs of houses.

We like our private porches, whether in front or back. What does this say about us? I could go into a sociological explanation of American individualism and how it leads us think that we need more privacy than we really do. But I think it is more about our fear than our freedom. It is the same fear that drove many of us away from the cities into the suburbs in the first place. Everything is so… well, public in the city. For some reason, a good portion of us react strongly against the word “public.” Is it because it carries with it negative connotations of inner-city life? Or socialism? Whatever it is, many of us have let our fears overtake us in such a way that a true front porch would be completely unacceptable. We moved to the suburbs to escape from seeing people all the time, so why would we want a porch that encourages us to possibly interact with others? What if the neighbors don’t like me? What if they are annoying? What if they’re satan worshippers? What if the neighborhood kids are getting into mischief and I have to speak up? Won’t that be embarrassing? There are just too many possible things that can go wrong with putting myself into the situation where I might have to talk to my neighbors, so I like my privacy, thank you very much!

I would argue that these fears, begun at some point after the Pilgrims arrived in the 1600s, have directly led to the physical and social decay of our cities. We often wonder how our inner city poverty rates got so high, or how our schools became such a joke, or how guns and drugs became so prevalent, or how so many lots (27%, to be exact) have become abandoned in Detroit. Are we missing something? We fear these places, because the people are different from us, buildings are not kept up, and any hope that they might have had as children of “movin’ on up” were dashed by the time they reached their dead-end high school. We now have every right to fear these places because their problems are self-perpetuating and are only getting worse, and because their own residents fear them. So, even in these depressed cities, houses with front porches (and most have them) have very little positive effect because people are, ironically, just as afraid to use them as the suburbanites are, but for very different reasons.

It’s funny how a discussion about garage design can lead to a lesson about front porches, our tendency to choose privacy over publicity, and inner-city problems. It sounds like a large mass of tangents, but that’s our problem: We are so trained to look at things linearly that we get confused when non-linear or organic connections are made. Fortunately, we as a society are beginning to think “organically” again, front porches are making a comeback, garage design and its implications are being discussed, the “privatize everything” movement is losing steam, cities are slowly being revitalized, and Generation Xers are the most civically-involved, community-focused, and mission (not profit)-driven group of Americans since the great generation before the Boomers. There’s hope after all!

"Houses For Cars"

One of the major differences between new suburban housing and their older counterparts is the presence and position of the garage. Almost all new housing structures feature front-loading garages, most with space for two vehicles, but many holding three or more. These “homes for cars” often comprise about a third of the entire façade surfaces of the houses that contain them. This was not always the case. Most older houses either contain a single-car garage on the front façade, a single- or double-car garage off to the side or back of the lot facing an alley or facing the street but set back from the facade, or no garage at all. These design strategies served several purposes: 1) presenting the home, not the garage, as the main focal point; 2) pushing the footprint of the home closer to the street for neighborhood surveillance purposes; and 3) to relegate automobiles to their place as simply one form of getting around.

Take a look at this short video of a Bethlehem neighborhood that epitomizes traditional neighborhood design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI9OAtqSLaI&feature=player_profilepage

Since I have very little access to suburban-type housing in Bethlehem due to my lack of wheels, I’d like to challenge you to post a video or image of your suburban neighborhood so that we can all visually compare the two. Let’s get out and learn something about our neighborhoods, folks!

The (il)Logic of Rounded Curb Corners

Piggybacking on yesterday’s post, I thought I would discuss the larger concept that underlies rounded curb corners. Again, for reference, you may want to watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwPpuPfkjss&feature=player_profilepage

Suburban designs take most of their inspirations from the needs and desires of drivers, so let’s take a moment to look inside the mind of a typical motorist, whom I will call Minnie (Minnie the Motorist, or Minnie Driver, which ever you prefer). Minnie, not unlike the engineers that design suburban streets, is an economic rationalist: time and gas are money. Thus, Minnie wants to be able to get from Point A to Point B in as little time as possible using as little fuel as necessary. Engineers have figured out that satisfying Minnie’s basic desire can be accomplished by doing what all manufacturers of low-quality products do: cut corners (in this case, literally). Although Minnie thinks these intersections are ugly and wouldn’t be caught dead walking across one of them, she enjoys the fact that she can speed around 90 degree turns, cutting about 1.5 seconds off of her driving time for each of these turns that she makes. That can add up to a whole 10, 20, or even 30 minutes in a year! Since Minnie is the average American female, she earns a little over $34,000 in gross income per year, meaning that she takes in about $17 per hour. Assuming she saves 30 minutes of driving time per year with rounded corners (a very, very liberal estimate), rounded corner features would be worth $8.50 per year to Minnie, or 0.025% of her income. Also, since the average gas price is $2.50 per gallon and the average car gets 22.4 miles per gallon (average SUV gets 18 miles per gallon), and assuming that the average suburban surface street has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour, saving 30 minutes (20 miles) of driving time would be worth $2.23 for cars and $2.78 for SUVs in yearly gas expenses. This means that Minnie’s convenience is saving her somewhere between $10 and $12 per year, or less than an hour’s worth of work! Some convenience!

But Minnie is easily satisfied by small conveniences such as this. It’s the same attitude that is involved when a car that has been tailgating you passes you only to be stopped by the traffic light one car length in front of yours. Don't you think that person is satisfied by her better position? Of course she is, and you are undoubtedly jealous of her. We all like it when we save time and money, no matter how inconsequential, and being cheap and efficient aren’t inherently bad things, but there comes a point where this kind of attitude can become counterproductive and no longer cost-effective. Is the minute amount of money “saved” with rounded corners worth the costs (obesity, sense of community, safety) that come along with discouraging pedestrian activities? In other words, should the average American take a “loss” of $12 per year to make sure that pedestrians are given a fair chance at crossing the street? You tell me… I’m biased.

Putting Pedestrians On Equal Footing With Drivers

As a change of pace, I thought it would be interesting to begin adding short videos to much shorter posts than I have been writing so far. I conceive of these new posts as small lessons on single issues relating specifically to the design of Bethlehem streets from the perspective of a pedestrian. Don’t get me wrong: I am likely to write some days about larger issues that may or may not specifically pertain to Bethlehem, but I will always try to make sure that these larger rantings are connected in some way to these new short vignettes. Please don’t expect a new video or new subject every day, but you can be certain that at least one or two a week will be posted… until I decide to change pace again. Finally, I’m a writer, not a photographer nor a news anchor. My videos are not intended to be of the best quality, and my voice isn’t supposed to be catchy or interesting. The videos are intended to supplement my writings, which are meant to be the interesting part (easy for me to say, I know). That being said, I apologize in advance for the crappy videos and hope you can give me some constructive criticism… or recommend someone that can do them for me!

*************************************************

I first want to talk about the design of sidewalk corner curbs at intersection crossings. Please watch the following video of a Bethlehem intersection to gain a clearer understanding of what I am referring to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwPpuPfkjss&feature=player_profilepage

There are two basic opposing design philosophies: squared edge and round edge. Now, these are not exclusive categories but have varying degrees of each, ranging from 90 degree angles to completely semi-circular. A squared curb does the best job at putting pedestrians and drivers on as equal footing (pun not intended) as possible. The pedestrian has the obvious right-of-way when crossing the street, and drivers must slow down, almost to a stop, to negotiate the turn, even if no pedestrians are present. Square intersection curbs are widely-recognized urban features. A round curb, as the video depicts, gives the advantage squarely to the motorist. Pedestrians must walk farther to cross from one side to the other, and drivers hardly need to apply pressure to the breaks to make the turn. Rounded curb corners can be extremely dangerous for pedestrians attempting to cross them because drivers are able to take the corner at relatively high speeds. If the driver is distracted and doesn’t notice the pedestrian, there is more momentum and less time to stop when taking a rounded corner rather than a square one. As you can imagine, rounded curbs are prominent in standard suburban areas.

At the risk of slightly contradicting myself, I do have to mention a third type of corner curb design: the extended corner curb. This type of corner extends the sidewalk and narrows the street at each intersection. This decreases pedestrian crossing distances even more while requiring vehicles to take turns even slower. This is more of a New Urban, or neo-traditional, feature that does not often appear in traditionally designed cities, such as Bethlehem. If a city’s goal is to increase walkability, pedestrian trips, and safety, installing extended corners is a superior way of altering the environment to meet that goal.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/210/502590159_a35c2dd97c.jpg
A corner curb that extends toward the right side of the photograph.

Taking a Different Path... or Avoiding the Apostle

Quite accidentally, I have found a new reason to praise neighborhood street grids: easily avoiding annoying neighbors. I was walking home the other, taking my normal path and passing the neighbor (he lives a couple of blocks from me) who is always sitting out on his lawn. We always say hello to each other as I pass, but on this particular day he decided to engage me in the most frustrating conversation I have experienced in a long while. After our usual greeting, as I continued to walk, he called after me, “Do you know the Lord?” Now, this is always a dangerous question because anyone that is brave enough to ask it of a complete stranger in a public place is likely to be a little too hardcore for my liking. I decided there was no way out of it, so I turned and said, “Yes, I’ve been a Christian for many years.” I thought maybe this would placate him so that I could get home and make dinner (I’m always starving by this time). Instead, he asked me what church I attend. I told him that I just recently moved in and have not found a home church yet, but that I attended the Lutheran church down the street once. This is when he explained to me that Lutheran pastors are “apostates” that lead their “flock” astray. He made sure to let me know then that he has several theology degrees (I said “Wow! That’s great”), so he obviously must know what he’s talking about. I knew from the beginning of the conversation that it would be interesting, but this was getting ridiculous very quickly. He proceeded to tell me that he is a pastor trained in the charismatic Assemblies of God tradition that “strictly follows Biblical teachings,” which apparently “no other church does.” He explained to me that God may have some grace for the “flock” of these churches for a little while, but “these pastors are held to a higher standard, they know better than to manipulate the Word, and they will pay dearly on Judgment Day,” which, according to him as he looked at his watch for effect, “is coming soon!”

It was at about this point when I began to slowly back away as he continued talking to me. He mentioned that he knew many senior pastors that were disqualified from being senior pastors because they weren’t married. I must have had a confused look (I’ve never heard of that rule!) on my face because he began to explain in an accusatory way (as if I, a Christian, should have known this and been appalled by it) that the Apostle Paul said that only married men could be senior pastors. Once again, he mentioned that he should know because he has “several degrees in theology,” to which I replied, “So I’ve heard.” He went on about the sinfulness of these pastors for a while as I nodded and continued to slowly back away. He then admitted that he was “Biblically divorced” (whatever that means) and out of a job, but he was looking to start a church. I don’t know why I decided to make the situation worse by asking a question, but I did. “So, if you start a church, will you be the senior pastor?” This got him all riled up. In, again, an accusatory manner, he slightly chastised me for thinking he would do such a thing. “You would think so, wouldn’t you! That’s what all of these so-called men of God are doing these days.” Then he said something that convinced me once and for all that I needed to avoid this guy from this point forward. “Don’t they know that only apostles can start churches?” I was completely dumbfounded. This guy actually believed that he was an apostle! I had learned my lesson at this point and didn’t answer or challenge him. I wanted to ask him how he came to personally listen to Jesus’ teachings while he was alive (the definition of an apostle); what makes him think his interpretation of the Bible is better than others; if he had ever eaten pork, stoned a prostitute, cast lots, or given everything he owned to the poor, as the Bible instructs. But I held my tongue and eventually told him that I needed to get home. Unbelievably, he found a way to mention one more time, “You know, my theology degrees…” before I finally got away from him.

After that experience, I thank God (whether my neighbors version of Him or my own) for gridded streets! Ever since that day, I have simply taken a different route home, which has not taken any more time to walk. If I lived in a suburban neighborhood, it is likely that, because of the suburban desire to have no through traffic, there would only be one path home. In a more urban neighborhood, however, there are always several different paths to one destination, which efficiently spreads traffic evenly throughout the streets… and provides me with a less annoying path home.

Disclaimer: I really do feel sorry for the guy, because he must be lonely with his penchant of proclaiming his religious superiority to others. If you are the praying type, please pray for him. I don’t mean to make fun of him, and I will never reveal who he is, but I began this blog with the purpose of describing my experiences as a pedestrian in Bethlehem… and this was quite an experience! It was one that I would not have had if I had passed his house in a car.

Recipe To End Obesity

To wrap up my series on obesity, I thought I would present some possible policy solutions to the problems that I have discussed. I’m not a huge policy-wonk, and I’m not a Washington insider, so I don’t have the greatest feel for what is feasible. Perhaps I’m too idealistic, but I tend to think that anything is possible, and when we stop striving for our ideals, we’ll fail as a people and as a nation. So, this is my best attempt at applying my ideals to practical solutions.

First, we need to change our development policies and processes. Currently, a city sets a zoning code for a plot of land, and developers must either conform to that code (which includes type and use of structure, density, setback distances, etc.) or apply for a conditional use permit with the city council. Most of the time, conditional changes in zoning are not granted for land uses that are seen as drastically different or incompatible with current surrounding areas. Some municipalities are stricter than others. One city might allow multi-family housing in a predominantly single-family neighborhood while another may not. Similarly, some cities might permit certain industrial sites to be converted to commercial uses while others would not. Very few cities, however, will allow a plot in a residential zone to be converted to commercial. There are a variety of reasons why this is frowned upon, one of which involves a fear among residents that a corner store or restaurant will bring too much unwanted traffic into their neighborhood, which may cause their property values to decrease. While this fear has not been corroborated by evidence (in fact, mixed-use neighborhoods tend to be better valued and are steadier over time), the NIMBYs (residents that have a history of opposing any changes to their neighborhoods by saying, “Not in my backyard!”) have significant power in local decision-making.

The problem with this system is that, while the zoning policies sound good on paper, once those policies are used to guide design and development, the results are often disappointing. Surveys have shown that the majority of Americans who admit that their ideal neighborhood is a bedroom community (only upscale single-family homes) think that current suburban bedroom communities are not visually appealing and are not ideally designed. According to my thesis findings, the reason for this disconnection between policy and design lies in the fact that we set the zoning policy before we have any clue what the resulting design should look like. Anton Nelesson, a New Jersey planner, found that when, in fact, residents of an area were gathered and asked to design and make a model their ideal neighborhood, people in every case (he conducted dozens and dozens of these workshops) built traditional, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. What does this tell us about how our zoning process should be changed? We need to take a cue from the Germans (who gave us the concept of zoning in the first place about 100 years ago) and design before we zone. Codifying a policy before we have an accurate vision of what it will result in is backward, but this is exactly what we do. A great deal of experience and research tells us that neighborhoods which are developed based on design, and not code, encourage more physical activity. So, Policy #1: Design before we zone.

Second, we should look seriously at how our land use and transportation policies can be better coordinated to provide for more options for people to get around. Currently, most cities and regions set land-use policies based on computer models that can only interpret automobile impacts. After land-use and road designs are set, then alternative forms of transportation are considered. This is the biggest reason why transit systems are ineffective and inefficient in most cities in which they operate. When an automobile-based environment is built, it is very difficult to go back and retrofit it with features that encourage transit use, walking, or biking. Most cities are unwilling to make the necessary changes, and for good reason: most of them would need to change so drastically that it would hardly be feasible. The solution lies in either laying a comprehensive transportation network first and building the city around it (which takes an up-front commitment that most cities are unwilling to make), or design land-use and transportation in tandem. While this is inherently more complicated than doing one before the other, its results would be much more equitable for all forms of transportation, including walking and biking. Marrying land-use to transportation policy 60 years ago would have made sloppy suburban development virtually unheard-of. Policy #2: Plan for land-use and transportation simultaneously and co-dependently.

Third, there is too much inconsistency and inefficiency in the divisions and collaborations between neighboring municipalities. This can be seen on the west side of Bethlehem where the city ends and Allentown begins. West Broad is a great mixed-use street with residences and local businesses; but as it crosses Pennsylvania Avenue into Allentown, it becomes predominantly commercial, which serves to bring in more traffic into the Bethlehem area than would otherwise occur. This has the effect of suburbanizing a perfectly good walkable urban neighborhood. Problems of this nature can be rectified through the authority of a strong regional planning body that can coordinate land-uses in areas in which one municipality transitions into another. Policy #3: Give strength to regional planning organizations.

Once the first three policies are in place, we can begin to look at laws that focus on public health initiatives, commercial disincentives for offering unhealthy foods, and consumer protection from those foods. Our fourth policy would actually be a set of policies that mandate the use of social marketing principles in every community to increase physical activity behaviors as a form of disease prevention. Social marketing is a well-established set of business and psychology strategies that seek to discover a population’s specific barriers to performing certain behaviors as well as discern the benefits that people experience from those behaviors. The goal of the research is to inform how best to implement an intervention that will break down those barriers while increasing the perceptions of the benefits. For example, a public health official might find through administering surveys to a random sample of city residents that the largest barrier to engaging in regular moderate exercise is that people are self-conscious about being seen exercising alone. Similarly, it is found that the benefit to exercising most identified by the same residents was the sense of accomplishment that is obtained. In order to address these two issues, the health official might decide to institute city-sponsored exercise clubs that double as support groups. These groups would allow residents to identify neighbors that enjoyed similar physical activities so that people could connect with the purpose of exercising in groups and encouraging each other to reach set goals. A set of policies that mandate city-specific interventions would go a long way in encouraging people to exercise more, thereby preventing obesity-related illnesses. Policy set #4: Obesity prevention through city-level social marketing strategies.

Fifth, while I would personally like government to ban certain foods outright, I know that this is not a popular or realistic solution. As an alternative (and probably more effective) solution, the federal government needs to create an incentive program for food producers, distributors, and restaurants. To begin with, food producers and distributors need to be rewarded with tax breaks and subsidies for meeting very stringent nutritional levels and punished with higher taxes for foods that have little nutrition or that are unnecessarily high in fat, sodium, or sugars. I’m not a nutritionist, so I can’t give specifics on how incentives could be tied to calories, fat, sodium, or sugar (mostly high fructose corn syrup) levels, but I don’t have to be a food expert to know that overkill on any one of those things should be discouraged and moderation rewarded. The two-headed goal would be to discourage unhealthy food while making it more expensive than good quality food (which is exactly opposite of how it is currently). Next, grocery stores should be encouraged to open in under-served areas (called “food deserts”) where low-income people often lack adequate access to high quality nutritious food. Tax incentives could be tied to the number of blocks away from under-served areas that the store locates. To top off this set of policies, portion sizes and calorie levels at restaurants should be incentivized to encourage healthier dining. As I discussed in a previous post, we are notoriously poor at recognizing how portion sizes impact our eating habits, and restaurants have taken advantage of this. In the case of restaurants, tax incentives need to be applied to an average of the establishment’s calories per order, which would be publicly displayed at each restaurant. Policy set #5: Encourage the production and sale of healthy foods and portions.

Finally, since we can only disincentivize and not eliminate unhealthy food environments, policies are needed to better protect consumers. Consumers should have the right to know what exactly it is that they are consuming (in the case of most soft drinks, 99% high fructose corn syrup… in case you didn’t know), where the food is coming from (the local farm or an industrial feed lot?), what unnatural chemicals or antibiotics were used to grow the food or to keep it from dying (please read Michael Pollan’s “Omnivore’s Dilemma”), exactly how many calories are in the meal (taking portion size into account) set in front of them, and how many miles the average person would need to walk or run to work off those calories. Consumer rights should unequivocally be placed above industry rights, and consumers should not be afraid or feel powerless to raise hell when something isn’t right. If it isn’t the job of the government to protect its people, then what is? Policy set #6: Protect the consumer over industry.

This has, by far, been the longest post yet (and probably the longest I will ever do), and I won’t apologize for it, because I think this subject is extremely important (and this post the most important of the obesity series). If any of you have suggestions for further policies, concerns with the policies I’ve mentioned, or want to debate me as to whether I’m making too big a deal over this issue, I welcome any of your comments.