We have followed the PBS series “Blueprint America” closely and last night tuned in for “Road To The Future,” a tale of three cities and how choices about transportation infrastructure define the nature of the community.
Portland does all kinds of nice crunchy things to encourage bicycling and transit use and discourage sprawl, thereby creating substantial economic benefits for the city. Denver had a chance to resist sprawl a generation ago, but after a year or so of quivering resistance, gave in to it with total abandon and now has a vast, untamed mane of exurbs (a bad thing). New York is a totally exceptional case for many reasons that combine to make it America’s greenest and most transit-friendly city.
Nuance and contrary views are not absent from the presentation, but there is no mistaking the basic message: The more you can make your city friendly to forms of transportation besides the car, the better off you’ll be. It’ll be messy and there will be opposition and tradeoffs, but do it anyway. Be like Portland and New York.
That broader message goes back at least to Jane Jacobs in the American consciousness, but it’s going mainstream in a way that it never has before.
There are still people who disagree with this message and are probably offended that PBS would promote it, but those people increasingly seem like a minority. And next time gas goes over $4 it’s likely the argument will be all but settled in favor of “denser is better.” In other words, history is on Earl Blumenauer’s side, not George Will’s.
The show has its critics. The New York Times hammered it, taking correspondent Miles O’Brien to task for being too simplistic in his presentation of the facts, too inclined toward generic images (aerial shots of Levittown and 50s highway propaganda vids), and short on practical solutions.
Who wants to disagree with a Times review. Doesn’t that mean you’re dumb or something? But let’s say this in defense of Blueprint: A piece of rhetoric can be effective for the precisely the same reasons that it’s unsatisfying to elite audience members. The show made the questions and precedents of transportation planning feel local and approachable and immediate, which is not a small civic accomplishment in a country that has been hideously misbuilt and is only in the earliest stages of realizing it.
The show seemed to be trying to democratize a discussion that heretofore has penetrated the consciousness of a very small percentage of the population. So if that means going with slightly obvious symbols, then okay. And if you’re going to discuss a complex issue effectively with a general audience, you need tell a story–and a relatively snappy one. So if that means rounding off some corners, and trotting out symbols that might be a little stale, and steering clear of some of the more daunting questions around “solutions,” then cheers to our friends at PBS.
On a personal note, while watching the show I kept remembering how last time I was in Portland we would drive 25 minutes each way to go to a farmer’s market. Which… well, as a New Yorker it was still a little jarring. Living here I’m inclined to go weeks at a time without getting in a car with the exception of taxis on the evenings when I’ve had a bit too much to drink and/or am in the company of a particularly charming date. Whether that should be taken as a national model though, I have my doubts.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
“Untamed mane of exurbs”. Huh. I can tell that you are one of those big central planner types. I lived for 8 years in a major downtown metropolitan area and now live in an inner-ring suburb in that same city.
Let’s see. When I was living in the city I lived closer to work but had to go through 20 stoplights on my commute everyday. My car was stolen from my driveway twice. My house was broken into while I was sleeping. The bus stop and light rail dropped off some very interesting people in my neighborhood. And this area was considered a nice part of downtown.
Now I have a big yard with lots of grass for my kids to play on. We have a great park down the street. The local grocery store is ten times the size, has better product and is half as busy as downtown. I can commute to work in half the time because of the highway. I wave hi to my neighbors and can leave my garage door open without worrying about my worldly possessions walking off.
Here’s a thought. How about we let people live their lives the way they see fit. Some people want dense living and some don’t.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I thought the program was perfect because of its simple message. I have a lot of difficulty explaining to strangers and even family what it is I do as a planner, and I thought this piece brought home the complexity of trying to explain the history of transportation and housing policy for the last 70 years and why it has lead us to where we are. I could show it to anyone and I think they’d get a better sense of what I do and what I’m striving for (only if I actually had a job though… stupid ’shovel-ready’ stimulus money not helping planners!).
May 21st, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Part of the problem is that America lacks a sharp line between urban and rural. If the difference were obvious, it would be self-evident that rural folks should own and use cars, and urban folks shouldn’t. But we have all this fuzzy gray area, even within city boundaries, where everything’s too far apart to be urban and too thoroughly paved over to be rural.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Thanks for giving props to this program. I too thought it was good for what it was - an easy to understand overview of the problem. I think they also tried to present enough of the conflicting opinions to lend some credibility, though the conclusions were foregone.
Re the Times and other critics, I never really understood why people seem to expect more “solutions” from TV bits, newspaper stories, and blog posts. These are massively complex problems created by decades of politics and policy - does anyone really think a TV producer is going to solve all that in an hour?
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
I think Catbus makes an excellent point. Our nation’s ill-focused transportation and housing policies have created a situation in which the line between urban and rural is blurred, even within ostensibly urban environments.
Nowhere is this more evident than in a fantastic website I discovered recently called walkscore.com. The site’s aim is to measure and rate the walkability of several US cities, and while they clearly state that their methodology is flawed (they simply measure walkability by the density of amenities in a particular city, not taking into account safety, cleanliness, transit options etc.), it illustrates Catbus’ point perfectly.
Take Washington, DC for example (http://www.walkscore.com/rankings/Washington_D.C.). I live there, and I’d say it’s one of the most walkable cities in the US, and should be in the top 3. The reason it’s number 7 is pretty clear. Look at what happens on the outskirts of the city. The time-tested practice of using a grid street pattern completely falls apart once you leave the center city.
Another awesome feature of walkscore.com is that it shows you the population of each neighbordhood in the city. This is where you really start to see the dramatic impact of poor planning. Washington, DC, the nation’s capital, has a downtown inhabited by only 4,811 residents. There are city blocks in NYC that house more people! Perhaps the most dramatic example of this country’s failed planning policies is downtown Los Angeles. This is a city of almost 4 million residents, and I’m not talking about “metropolitan Los Angeles,” I’m talking about the City of Los Angeles proper. Take a look at downtown…7,574 residents! That figure speaks volumes…
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:15 am
I haven’t seen the show yet but as both a planner and an urban dweller, I think Jason has a point. There will never be a full scale urban renaissance in America until the problems of noise, crime, schools, and overall quality of life concerns are really dealt with in a comprehensive fashion. Sometimes I think we just aren’t that good at creating livable cities here in the US. Until those of us who are pro-density are able to really put ourselves in the shoes of those who move out of cities to the suburbs, recognize the factors at work, and articulate sound pro-density arguments, this battle will never be won.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Ken -
Amazing stat about downtown LA. It seems like one thing DC has done well is creating a lot of small independent walkable places–including some on the outskirts–whereas most of NYC is one giant walkable place (the discrete walkable neighborhoods all blending into each other) and not likely to be replicated in that respect.
Walkscore is a cool site. Freakonomics did a fun piece about it a few weeks ago.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Jason, I feel there is an inconsistency in your argument as evidenced here: “…[I] had to go through 20 stoplights on my commute everyday. My car was stolen from my driveway..”
What “major downtown metropolitan area” did you live in where you had a driveway and were encouraged, or even able, to own a car and drive to work? I’ve lived in NYC with 9 million other people, and had no car or driveway, didn’t drive to work, had no issues with crime or inadequate public services like schools or hospitals. What you’re describing is, in fact, the flaw in planning of many of our cities where people try to live a low-density, car-centric suburban lifestyle in “urban” areas. There is obviously transit where you live - you blame it for all the evils visited upon you by allowing “interesting” people to invade your neighborhood. Yet it doesn’t occur to you to USE it, only demonize it?
The old idea about the suburbs being a bucolic, crime free haven of (implicitly white) middle class people is the thinking that created them to begin with. Until we move past the stereotype that crime exists only in the cities, that education is poor only in the cities, etc. will there be any effort to broaden the national discussion on how we create the places where we live.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Walkscore is a cool concept, but at the moment it ignores too many critical variables for me to actually like it, or rely on it.
Per the site, some of the criteria NOT included in the score:
-Public transit: Good public transit is important for walkable neighborhoods.
-Street design: Sidewalks and safe crossings are essential to walkability. Appropriate automobile speeds, trees, and other features also help.
-Pedestrian-friendly community design: Are buildings close to the sidewalk with parking in back? Are destinations clustered together?
-Topography: Hills can make walking difficult, especially if you’re carrying groceries.
-Weather: In some places it’s just too hot or cold to walk regularly
And it computes distances as the crow flies, not as the crow WALKS, resulting in some very misleading conclusions.
As I said, interesting concept, though.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
James,
The problem with everyone deciding for their own is that it causes a number of social problems. Some refer to it as the “Tragedy of the green.” Comes from an old greek parable where a town had a common green to graze their livestock. The trouble being that without restrictions overuse inevitably occurs and destroys it.
In this case, ex-urban development is destroying natural habitat, insanely expensive to serve, and ultimately the driving force behind car dependent culture. If we simply let people do whatever, wherever, this country is doomed.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
“There will never be a full scale urban renaissance in America until the problems of noise, crime, schools, and overall quality of life…”
Many of those are solved _by_ increasing density. As a Portlander recently returned from Europe, I now see how sprawled out my own city is. The public transportation is great (use it every day) but only serves to accomodate the exurbs in most cases.
As an example, the company I work for moved sixty blocks east of its old location in order to take advantage of business grants from one of the outlying towns. Built a new warehouse on undeveloped land. In other words, we got paid to create sprawl. I still take the same bus to work but now it takes an extra ten minutes.
So I counter that there will never be a renaissance until it is economically favorable to centralize business and have everything else follow.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Since population densities have been decreasing worldwide for decades as people migrate to exurbs, etc, I think you’re going to have to force them if you want them to live more densely.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:33 am
@Jason:
I like the idea of live-and-let-live, yet our limited resources are getting in the way of it. The highway that makes your commute better takes away funding for the subway that makes my commute better. Your highway makes my air worse, as it encourages you and a bunch more people to live far away from their offices and drive more. Your end-of-the-day rush to get on the highway and go home means that my cross-town trip to the market takes me twenty minutes longer. Then there are the environmental problems associated with suburban homes, lawns, etc.
The old saw, to each his own, is just not possible anymore. The car has been the basic atomic structure of urban and suburban design for too long. We need our environs to restore the human scale again, and that will require fresh ideas. This documentary was a great start.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:42 am
To Jason:
Despite popular belief, transit, density and planning are not liberal vs. conservative issues.
And as much “live and let live” seems like an ideal life strategy, we have limited resources and we must learn to share them. That is the only way we will flourish in a finite world.
Planning is necessary to the efficiency and livability of cities. Would you propose that we plan nothing?
Regardless, I find it hard to believe that city planners are out plotting the interdiction of the personal vehicle or single family home…
Jebediah:
I have lived in Portland and i’m curious where you were staying, such that you drove 25 miles (!) to a farmer’s market. Portland certainly has suburbs and exurbs like all North American cities, but according to Google, a 25 mile drive in Portland would entail a drive accross the entire Metro area.