Green Urbanism Vs Coalville Utah

There is a pretty stark difference when comparing Coalville Utah to the various green urbanism places of note such as Freiburg, Copenhagen, Vienna, Nieuw Sloten, Understenhojden, etc. The following is a brief summary of the two contenders in this death match.

Green Urbanism is mass transit centric, high density, mixed use, and master planned. There are a myriad of housing types, accessory dwelling units, unit configurations (i.e. housing over shops, row houses, condos, etc), and a focus on reducing resource consumption. There exists a focus on bringing everything down to the human scale in size as well as speed, and on creating a desirable human experience rather than the most efficient experience in regards to time and money. There is an integration of nature and man-made, with emphasis given to preservation and reuse. Sadly, all of the examples used had far greater population than Coalville with approximately 1,400.

Coalville is an automobile centric, extremely low density, Euclidian zoned separation of uses, weakly planned place. There are essentially three types of homes: single family stick built, single family modular, and 2-4 plexs, with no focus as far as I can see on resource consumption. Though main street is at a human scale in size, there really isn’t much to walk to and there is way too much traffic coming off of the freeway for a parent to feel comfortable with their little children riding their bikes on the sidewalk. Coalville is surrounded by mountain scenery, and there is plenty of green space, but I don’t know of any real preservation initiatives for both green space and the historic nature of the place. Just about everyone in Coalville commutes to work, making it a very non-resilient city.

I’m not satisfied with the way that the buildings and neighborhoods engage my life. I don’t feel the small town charm anymore that I felt when we originally moved to Coalville in 2006. There have been so many 2-4 plex structures built, and so few entry level houses, that it is more and more merely a commuter suburb rather than a small town.

I wonder what needs to be done to return Coalville to the lazy small town that it was, and I’m not sure that it even can be. To have the type of commerce in the city to be able to sustain itself and reduce the commuter nature of it, would drastically increase the amount of people and the amount of activity in the city. Then again, if no new business are created then the development focus will shift continually to more 2-4 plex, low income units which will not amount to much of a tax base, and again increase the amount of people and activity.

Maybe the day and age of the lazy small town are gone because of mass production driving down prices so low that everyone drives to the box stores rather than doing most of their shopping in the local markets. I just keep feeling like I want to move to a more rural area, but of course there aren’t any employment opportunities in development to speak of in the smaller more remote areas. Guess I should just get with the trend and move to the city, but I really don’t fit in to that lifestyle either. Makes me wish I was born in the 1800s, into a far more simple world.

 

May I Have Your Attention Please. Will the Biophilic Places Please Stand Up!

Paying strict attention to biophilic places is the fundamental requirement to restorative urbanism. A love of nature, gained through experiencing it in diverse ways over time, will breed the desire from within to change the way our cities are structured. But I think it is experiencing nature outside of the city, not just the sparse remnants of what is left within.

I hate that the reading goes into this positive tone of there is life all over in the city, and then gives weak and sparse examples. So there are mosses, lichens, and water bears in the urban canopy, and some peregrine falcons and bobcats, so what!? There has got to be a better argument than that, and it comes from experiencing the richness of untouched nature. Let’s just call it how it is! Most cities are barren wastelands of concrete, cars, and carcinogens; the best way to reverse this is a large scale reintegration of actual nature (and not man made) into the city.

I love the great real estate development add at the beginning of the reading, “ ’The NICE THING about the city is that it eventually ENDS’ … The implications were clear – if you want any meaningful exposure to nature, quickly exit the city.” I COMPLETELY AGREE!!! With the only qualifications of the statement of “nature is all around us in the city” things like the examples above, I say that you’ve failed the prove it, show me” test.

This is the reason that I’m an exurbanite. I refuse to be constrained to a concrete jungle, when my soul hears the call of the wild! I long for the biophilic city of the reading, “a green city … with abundant nature and natural systems that are visible and accessible to urbanites.” Make salt lake city that and my family and I will move back down from the mountains, well maybe….

What’s frustrating is that the activist community is so fragmented that they aren’t able to organize at a large scale or on a unified topic. Case in point, the bird friendly rating system mentioned. HOW MANY STINKING RATING SYSTEMS DO YOU NEED?! Let’s get on the same page on the most important issue, and let the others be subordinate or fringe benefits for the time being.

I completely agree that “every city can and must find better ways to acknowledge, design within, and profoundly connect with the unique physical and ecological context in which they sit.” I don’t care what Portland and Copenhagen do! They aren’t Salt Lake; they have different climates, demographics, economics, everything! Stop trying to take the easy way out and say what would Portland do? Why not ask what can Salt Lake do?

I like how the author said “perhaps we need to look for ways to tap into the fun of looking for and finding things in nature at a community or collective level (i.e. BioBLitz). My 8 year old daughter would love this! She is a little stinking scientist, and always tells me about the animals and places she is learning about in school. What a great event that would be if we did it here in Utah!

To close, “experiencing nature in cities is as much about hearing, smelling, and feeling as it is about seeing.” Until you have truly experienced nature, with all your senses, until it has become an inseperable part of your soul, you won’t be able to provide strong enough arguments to convince others to do the same. And until there are enough like this to really have a strong political voice, then we are an ant on a busy sidewalk in the city just waiting to get crushed.

Can a Commitment to Copenhagen Style Biking Justice Transform Salt Lake City?

( http://www.streetfilms.org/cycling-copenhagen-through-north-american-eyes/ )

What a great film about the North American perspective being run over by Copenhagen bicycling. I was shocked with the sheer volume of bikes buzzing along the roads, especially the amount of cargo style bikes transporting anything from groceries, to tables, to 4 kids! One woman even said this, “I don’t have a car, because I have this [cargo bike].

The cargo bikes don’t stop themselves at merely transporting your own goods, but an entire industry segment of cargo bike venders has popped up. Fruit vendors, newspaper vendors, even a cargo bike relay race.

It’s plain to see that many people use their bikes in Copenhagen, but can the same thing occur here in Salt Lake? I’m not so sure. Andy Clarke from the film best illustrated the cause for my concern, “one of the things we’ve lacked in the U. S. is the real belief that this stuff actually works … until you really see it, touch it, and feel it for yourself and you ride the streets of Copenhagen during rush hour, it’s really hard to believe.”

It is really hard to believe by just seeing and not experiencing! What if the times that the film was shot were abnormally heavy use, it seemed to coincide with a biking convention. Does this give a false sense of viability, or is it normal?

It is utterly unreasonable for every citizen of the US to go to Copenhagen to experience this for themselves, especially for the hard-working, 9-5 middle class which I fall into. There really isn’t enough free time or money to go drop everything and buzz around a bike in Copenhagen.

The obstacle of paradigm shift from current Salt Lake automobile commuter mentality to a Copenhagen model extends beyond my ability to envision. Even if enough people were able to experience for themselves, the segregation of uses and distances commuted in Salt Lake are serious hurdles to cross, especially when Copenhagen’s population density is 17,000 per square mile and Salt Lake’s is 1,666. It seems to me that we lack the population density to make this work.

There are many other issues that this proposal would have a hard time addressing. The fact that it took a number of decades to build the Copenhagen system, allowing for multiple generations to learn a new way of transit and to begin to develop the trust in cars not hitting them that Copenhagen enjoys. Mikael Colville-Andersen from the film said of automobile drivers that “We trust them on such a fantastic level because that lady, or that guy in the car, they’ve got a bike at home. They were on the bike lanes when they were five years old, six years old, so we understand each other. We’re all cyclists.” That is a minimum of a two decade lag.

Additionally, automobile drivers are accustomed to be the dominant form of transit. Peter Furth from the film said that in the Copenhagen system the “The drivers get tamed. That’s my expression, they get tamed.” With the amount of people showing up on Capitol Hill in their trucks to spew particulate matter in opposition to a clean air initiative, I’m sure they would go hog wild with a notion like this.

What about bicycling in the winter? With the volume of snow and ice we get, is it viable? I know there are various areas in the world even outside of Copenhagen that make snowy winter biking work, but will Salt Lake residents be willing to make the change? With the minimal people I see walking outside in the cold, let alone exercising, I don’t think it is on our near term horizon.

How about the regulation of the entire cargo bike industry? Clearly we like to regulate the crap out of things in Salt Lake, and Utah too with the recent rejection of bikes entering drive through windows. If we are that resistant to bikes now, what is it going to take to get us to holistically embrace them? I can’t rightly say.

And then come the normally voiced concerns of cost of changing infrastructure, reduced convenience to automobiles due to dedicated bike lanes, and complaints of the discourteous or reckless behavior manifested by some bicyclers that is then project on all of them. To be frank, I’m not sure that this will get off the ground. But hey, it’s worth a shot at least!

Stupid Simple Fix to a Dumb Mobility Design

Merging from I-80 Westbound to Foothill is just dumb! Five days a week, though I can clearly see the 45 MPH posted speed limit, I keep my speed at 65 MPH to be able to thread the needle into the traffic coming off of I-215 that also disregards the 45 MPH posted speed limit. This merger begs for high speed car accidents, especially with a street light not too far to the north and the volume of traffic that goes through this point daily.

My fix, stupid simple. Halfway between exiting the interstate and the merger for both lanes of traffic, put large 45 MPH signs with flashing lines, and at the same point make a deep, not too tall speed bump with yellow stripes that look like this ////\\\\////\\\\////\\\\ the width of the lanes that can be safely traversed at 45 MPH but will give you a serious jolt if going faster. Forcing function as described = slower merge speed and less chance of an accident.

“Big gulps huh? Well, see you later!” Dumb and Dumber Design

Speaking of dumb design, let’s talk Euclidian zoning. Euclidian zoning was created when Ambler Realty wanted to develop some property in an industrial manner; to stop them, a set of zoning use, height, and area classes were created. This segregation of uses were a large factor in suburbanization as we know it. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want a cattle processing plant next door to my house any more than the next guy, but I don’t believe that we’ve the right to specify to a land owner what they should and should not do with their land.

How to fix this? Every city/county designate noxious uses by class, and create a noxious use area with a specified buffer (i.e. 500 feet) of a green belt. The municipality uses eminent domain to take the green belt property, and pays a reasonable amount for the property owners within the area for restricting their property to only noxious industry and give a onetime tax deduction to everyone outside this area for restricting the noxious use. Outside of this area, let people develop how and where they may.

If you don’t want someone taking your view shed, buy the air rights of the properties heading in that direction, if you don’t want a certain type of use in your area, buy the property and then put a private restriction on it. Stop using the government to force your neighbors to play by your rules, and steal their property rights. That’s just plain dumb, and the legal vehicles created to support this is just dumber-er.

What’s Hampering Transition Strategies?

Lack of leadership: In order to have a successful movement, you need strong leadership. No matter how noble the cause or time sensitive the issue, if you have poor leadership then you are sunk.

Lack of initiative: Just about any idiot can notice a problem, and it doesn’t take a genius to craft creative solutions, but it takes gumption and discipline to be able to make the abstract thought a reality.

Too realistic scheming: We are fettered by reality, but to shift a paradigm those chains need to be broken. Perception is reality, so it makes sense that you have to “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work.” as Daniel Burnham would say. Identify your desired reality and then work hard at achieving it.

Too little time: Changing things takes time, a LOT of time. Though there are simple things that you can do, to have systemic change you need to dedicate a large portion of time.

Too little money: Though the best things in life are free, you have to have some capital for your cause to be able to make things happen. If people are too focused on earning and spending for their own wants they won’t focus on the larger picture.

Good old boys club: Governmental and business organizations are here and familiar. Most people would rather stick with the sinking ship that they are familiar with, than to jump out on an unproven raft headed in a different direction. You have to fight the entire system, with all of the corresponding systemic addictions.

Soliphilia, Say What!?

So we were told about soliphilia in class, and I had absolutely no idea what that is. Did some google scrounging and found a great article http://neuroanthropology.net/2010/01/30/solastalgia-and-the-ecopsychology-of-our-changing-environment/ which defines it as “the love of and responsibility for a place, bioregion, planet and the unity of interrelated interests within it.”

This goes hand in hand with Solastalgia: noun. From the Latin solacium (comfort) and the Greek root –algia (pain). “the pain experienced when there is recognition that the place where one resides and that one loves is under immediate assault . . . a form of homesickness one gets when one is still at ‘home’.”

As I pondered on these concepts in my own life, I realized that I don’t have these feeling for a certain geography, but I do for my family and America. We used to be a God fearing nation that believed in hard work and thrift, taking care of your own, and not accepting handouts. People used to think that we were accountable to God for our actions, and that the nuclear family was of the utmost important.

America of today is an abomination of the proud heritage of our founders, with entitlements running rampant, post-modern relativistic morality, and God and family under attack by our own political system.

I long for the days of yesteryear, and am pained by the current state of the nation. Yet, I will continue the best I can. My children will grow up knowing that the love of God and their fellowmen is important. That the nuclear family is the foundation of a free society and is not substitutable. They will learn to work hard, love the constitution, and be willing to fight for liberty and justice.

Until we care about the foundational system of government that is meant to keep us free, worry of acid rain, urban heat island, smog, impervious surfaces, and ozone holes is absolutely ludicrous.

Quit Smoking, Or Shut Your Yap!

I’m so sick and tired of entering the planning building through a cloud of second hand smoke! I hate having to time the wind and distance just right to be able to hold my breath and make it into the building without passing out. If you’re determined to give yourself lung cancer, do it in the comfort of an enclosed space instead of trying to give me lung cancer too.

What makes this worse is some of these same people complain about the pollution problems of modern society. Listen here hypocrite, you are deliberately poisoning your internal ecosystem every time you smoke, so you have absolutely no right to voice an opinion other than “I love destroying ecosystems with noxious particulates”. Plain and simple: quit smoking, or shut your yap!

Alleviate a Symptom, or Treat the Ailment?

In class today, we worked in small groups to try to solve the problem of the negative health effects of living close to a highway. We had a lively discussion, which really brought to light the nature of this “wicked problem”, but it ended with a discussion of problem solving scale. Are we trying to alleviate the symptom or the ailment?

Symptom response would be filters, barriers and greenscape screening, and steering people from purchasing the properties. But the health problems are only a symptom of the underlying ailment of automobile dependency. Until there is wide scale acceptance that there an ailment, there will be only token efforts made to alleviate the symptoms.

The question of whether or not there is even a problem is left up to each individual to decide for themselves. I disagree with paradigm shift by compulsion, there should be a choice involved. The question is what is the best way to educate people about this? Granted informing planners and politicians can help on a policy side approach, but it should be the 35 million people in Utah that are living near the freeways clamoring for change.

So how do we educate the masses? I don’t think it is something that can be done in cubicles or in public meetings at the municipal building. I think that it is going to households that live within the “danger zone” and show them not only documents, but have a way to go outside and test right then and there. If it is as big of a problem as it is purported to be, the local test results should convince each affected household that action needs to be taken. It’s time for planners to get off their chairs and have kitchen table meetings with neighbors of the freeway.

Danger, Will Robinson!

I’m interested in creating places that have high levels of sustainability, livability, and quality of life. That’s the whole reason I took the green communities class. Today I was hit by something concerning within the book The Ecology of Place. On page 28 it says that “Planning for sustainability means reorganizing the social, physical, and political-economic landscape in very fundamental ways.” What the heck does that mean!? Does it mean that we will no longer have a federal democratic republic? Does it mean that people will be forced to comply with various mandates or be displaced? What exactly is the topography for the new social, physical, and political-economic landscape?

Like was said in the movie we watched today in class about Samso Denmark, participation must be voluntary. I don’t think that anyone should be forced to be sustainable if they don’t want to be. I would like a clarifying document to express exactly what the new landscape is so that I can decide whether or not I want to put my efforts into a movement that I may fundamentally disagree with. I fear I may have unintentionally began swimming in dangerous waters….