Showing posts with label sustainable urbanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sustainable urbanism. Show all posts

City and River Pt. II: TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!





This is Part II of a series advocating for the reconnection of Saint Louis and the Mississippi River.

I have already examined the importance of the Mississippi River to the identity of the City of Saint Louis. But why is this historical identity important?

Identity is important because it is the one inducement Saint Louis currently has to attract new residents.

For its first two centuries Saint Louis has relied on its major transportation routes and geographic location as an economic inducement. With the rise of globalization, this will not suffice. As globalized trade decimated the manufacturing lifeblood of the city, governmental focus turned to finance and technology in order to attract well educated residents and maintain tax bases. However, the digital revolution of the past two decades has broken the location-based restraints for this significant segment of the population. Before this time period you had to live in some proximity to your job; now you can work anywhere a suitable communications infrastructure and well-connected airport exists.

If you could live anywhere in the world, why would you live in Saint Louis?
We must develop a compelling answer to this question to survive, but given the rate of out-migration of our graduates we have not.

The increased level of competition evident in this century is problematic because, as economist Edward Glaeser understands from studying Boston, the "ability [of a city] to regenerate itself is hinged upon its ability to attract residents, not just firms." In short, a reserve of talent is necessary given the increasing vicissitudes of the economy because skilled and educated workers can react more quickly to massive change and prevent urban decay.

If there is one strategy Saint Louis must embrace, it must take strong action to attract and induce new residents to move here. While policy and subsidy may prove effective, we must overcome an overwhelmingly negative national image first. Until recently, the city has focused on strategies of beautification and tourism promotion rather than creating vibrant livable communities. Over twenty years ago reporter William Allman assessed his native city:

“Coming back to St. Louis after many years ... the city’s surface has changed considerably...
[T]hese changes, while putting a shine on the old city, are merely cosmetic. The downtown areas seemed designed primarily for tourists”.
Allman, William F. “St. Louis” U.S. News & World Report, vol. 107. December 18, 1989: p.49-50. As quoted in Beauregard, Robert A. Voices of Decline. p. 222


While this mentality is still present in the city, (one snarky commentator described the visionary implementation of City Garden as "putting lipstick on a pig") the influx of 3,800 new residents downtown in the past decade (a 40% increase) marks a turning point for the city. With a modest residential population downtown and amenities beginning to develop, a bold, unifying stroke is still needed.

As I discussed in part I, the riverfront provides the authenticity and ability to attract residents by differentiating Saint Louis from numerous other competing cities. In addition, the reconnection of city and river has the potential to create an unrivaled amenity by serving as a hinge between the revitalized urban space of Gateway Mall with the Arch grounds/riverfront and the regional Great River Ring beyond. The imperative for connection in this area has been in the news for several years as a result of the Danforth Foundation's plan for a three block lid over the depressed lanes of I-70.


The 3 Block Lid would not change the miserable condition under the elevated lanes of I-70. Image by City to River.

While the lid concept is appealing, it is a band-aid solution to a much larger problem. Lids require expensive retrofitting and engineering and entail increased inspection and maintenance. The lid concept should only be used as a last resort. When we examine the use of I-70 alongside with the plans for the New Mississippi River Bridge, better alternatives present themselves.


New highway routings planned for the new Mississippi River Bridge. Image by Andrew Faulkner/City to River.

An examination of the bridge plans reveals that a four lane interstate will be constructed to carry I-70 from the junction of I-70/I-64/I-44/US-40 at St. Clair Avenue in East Saint Louis. From there a new 4 lane roadway designated I-70 will travel north in parallel with Illinois route 3, cross the new bridge and rejoin the current routing of I-70 around Cass Ave. This routing makes eminent sense as the new corridor will have the potential for eventual expansion to 6 lanes.

With the opening of the bridge, the downtown lanes will become a spur connector and duplicate the linkage of eastbound I-44 with westbound I-70. According to MODOT the downtown lanes are one of the least travelled sections of interstate in the Saint Louis area. Currently the majority of the 73,000 vehicles per day in this section is traveling through Saint Louis to points west. With the rerouting of I-70 it is probable that that amount of traffic could be reduced by greater than 50%.

Given the imminent reduction of traffic on the depressed and elevated segments of I-70, is their contribution worth the depressing effect they have on acres of surrounding property? What could we do instead of maintaining an obsolete eyesore?

We could demolish this section and replace it with an urban boulevard. With synchronized traffic lights, boulevards in many cities throughout the country carry in excess of 40,000 vehicles a day without problems.


Replacing the existing I-70 and Memorial Drive configuration would free land for new development. Image by Andrew Faulkner/City to River.

A boulevard would also be cheaper than the lid concept. The depressed lanes currently feature five bridges and a half mile of elevated viaduct that require annual maintenance. While a boulevard would also require maintenance, it would not be as expensive as the elevated and depressed lanes. Furthermore, the removal of I-70 opens up the potential for revenue generation through new development. Currently, the transportation corridor consists of 4-8 traffic lanes and four interstate lanes that add up to between 200 and 250 feet in width. A sufficient boulevard designed to carry the predicted traffic in this area would only need to be 6 lanes and would only use 70 feet of width (or 90 if it included on-street parking). That would free between 110 and 180 feet per block for 19 blocks. That would create 16 acres of government-owned developable land in a prime location to sell or lease, and this could be used to pay for highway demolition and offset the cost of building the boulevard.


Reopening Our Front Door: Washington Avenue and Memorial Drive. Image by Jeremy Clagett/City to River.

The transformative power of demolishing a highway to reconnect the city and river cannot be ignored either. While Saint Louis is gaining momentum towards walkability, simultaneously reopening our front door to the river and creating an urban and walkable spine downtown will send a message to the region and the nation that this city has finally learned from our mistakes.

The construction of the Ronald Wilson Reagan Mississippi River Bridge and the demolition of the obsolete lanes of I-70 for a more walkable alternative will position our city for a more vibrant and sustainable future. We must take action for the future of the city and

TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!!


Transportation alternatives: walkability and sking to work






Skis on walkbridge over Metrolink tracks, Forest Park. Photograph by author.

One of the hallmarks of our species is the efficient mobility which has resulted from one hundred millennia of evolution. We developed bipedal locomotion to better watch for predators and locate food and this adaptation drove brain development and led to higher intelligence. Over thousands of years we were able to develop multiple modes of transportation from the the taming of the horse to the cart to the bicycle and the steam locomotive. Many populations in extreme climates tailored specialized transportation devices to their environments. Similar inventions in far flung locations arose separately or became globalized through trade networks. What is striking is that through this entire process humanity did not discard previous solutions, but rather added new solutions alongside existing technologies.

That is until the twentieth century.

If I were to survey today, the vast majority of Americans used automobiles as our only means of transportation. To many, anything other than automotive transportation is "strange", "a novelty", or even worse "exercise". While everyone looks fondly back on their college years when everyone walked or biked to class, loves the freedom and leisure that alternative transportation provides on vacation, or sees it as an enticement to visit the land of fruit and nuts we avoid it in everyday life.

While it may be quite easy to naïvely crusade to enlighten people and yank them from their cars, such effort will run into a half century of governmental subsidization. According to Stanley Hart and Alvin Spivak, government subsidies towards automobile manufacturing and usage account for as much as 10% of the annual Gross National Product. The reason that Amsterdam can boast more bicycle trips than automobile trips on an annual basis is that the Netherlands has never skewed subsidy in the way that the United States has. Raising the gas tax will help to close this gap, but we must rethink our entire way of living and doing business and create corresponding policy.

By favoring the redevelopment of existing urban communities and prioritizing dense, walkable infill on brownfield sites we can begin to (re)build the conditions that make multi-modality possible. However, building construction is not the whole answer. We must also devise financial assistance to small businesses in dense areas, adopt form-based zoning overlays for mixed use districts, drastically reduce existing parking requirements, and require creation of complete street infrastructure . While this will require political courage and effort, such changes will also keep cities competitive and attract a new generation of future entrepreneurs and leaders.

To use a personal example I am a member of the so-called "millennial generation", I can attest that, like myself, the majority of my classmates in graduate school prioritize urban life, transit accessibility, and alternatives to driving when looking for places to live. For every few acquaintances who moved to the sunbelt, many more moved to a handful of multi-modal connected hotspots such as San Francisco, New York, Portland, Seattle, or Chicago.

When I chose to move within Saint Louis, I picked my neighborhood based on a combination of known bike routes, light rail accessibility, amenities, price analysis on Zilpy, and geographic analysis on WalkScore. As Jamais Cascio writes in the Atlantic new web-based technologies "offer the capacity to do something that was once limited to a hermetic priesthood. Intelligence augmentation decreases the need for specialization and increases participatory complexity." This could well be the rallying cry of the millennial generation. We have unimagined access to data, and we have the tools to use it to shape our decisions. These developments will result in increasingly bloodthirsty competition between cities for desired demographics; conversely the complacent will swiftly decline.

WalkScore™ of Central West End via WalkScore.

Physical conditions alone constitute only half of the battle of sustainable transit alternatives. The remainder is a battle of hearts and minds. When we examine the neighborhood my priorities have led me to select, we find that it has a WalkScore of 94. According to the site, only 4% of users have a higher walkscore. Yet, when I think of my daily life I do not live like I am in the ninety-sixth percentile for walkability. While I am lucky enough to have a part time position less than a mile away, the bulk of my employment requires a commute of four and a half miles. While I am able to commute there by bicycle often, job demands and weather compel me to drive more than I'd like.

Yet, as someone who advocates for access to alternative transportation methods and tries to minimize my car usage accordingly, I was pleased to be pictured on page A2 of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on January 8th.


Photo of the author in the Post-Dispatch Image by Dawn Majors.

I was on my way to my part-time job and unable to bicycle due to four inches of powdery snow on the ground. My next instinct was to drive, but my car had been parked in. Since I was lucky enough to live close enough to that place of employment, I grabbed my skis and headed to work. On the way Ms. Majors spotted me and took a series of pictures.

Soon thereafter I received a letter from Gregory F.X. Daly, the Saint Louis Collector of Revenue commending for my "dedication to my employer". While I appreciate his kind gesture, I think that associating non-automotive transit with extraordinary dedication indicates a conditioning antithetical with the wide-scale acceptance of transportation alternatives. Interestingly enough, an identical response occured in comment thread concerning skiing to work in Madison, Wi, while in Alaska a company pays employees to bike, ski, or skate to work . Perhaps a little latitude makes all the difference?


I do not endorse this skier's disregard for traffic law nor the abuse he causes to the bottoms of his skis

In a related note, I have started a statistical microblog at Daytum where I am tabulating my life. Of particular relevance to this entry is transportation. My resolution for this year is to equalize my sustainable transit usage with automobile usage. I hope that by tracking this over the coming months I can cut down on the 152 gallons of gas (and 2900 pounds of resulting CO2) I used last year.



View my life in statistics at Daytum.

Open Source urbanism?





Via Baltimore Inner Space blog comes an interesting approach to participatory redevelopment. I have quoted Paul Davidoff's assesment of participatory planning in an earlier post: "Lively political dispute aided by plural plans could do much to improve the level of rationality in the process of preparing the public plan."

This level of lively discourse is often exceedingly difficult in developer driven projects where significant monies have already been invested. In many cases the illusive veil of a public participation process may be used to control and appease the opposition. The manipulation of statistics derived from resident surveys works to a similar end. These abuses continue to occur because the financial stakeholders of the new plan feel threatened by the efforts of resident and community members to challenge decisions. The often beneficial act of initial investment becomes the stumbling block for participation in the process.

While participatory planning processes began in the 1960's due to the enormous impact of Jane Jacobs's The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Modern Library Series) and Davidoff's work, it rarely transcended a reactionary methodology. Some efforts did begin as the result of resident groups lobbying for improvements, but most public participation existed due to legal mandate or as a reaction to proposed developments.

While it might be dismissed as utopian to reverse the equation to emphasize proactive community participation and reactive development, such a process would have strong advantages. The community would become the major source for ideas and inspiration and developers would vet such proposals for economic feasibility. The major advantage for such a procedural change would be the Collective Intellegence available to developers by utilizing the community as an open-source network of proposals and focus groups. While this concept seems radical, it is currently the primary advantage between of design competitions and charrettes.

Even if one remains decidedly skeptical of a technologist viewpoint it remains impossible to ignore the impact that social networking and internet-based communication has had on activism in the last decade. While the power of such technological advances was aptly demonstrated in the last presidential campaign, urban professionals are using such methods to create coalitions and advocacy organizations that may reshape local planning organizations in the decade to come.

One example of effective citizen activism is the 8664 project in Louisville. 8664 seeks to prevent a massive and illogical 23 lane highway interchange expansion on Louisville's riverfront. Furthermore, this 10,000 member grassroots organization has proved that by replacing the proposed two bridge/multi-lane expansion with a single bridge and an urban boulevard their plan will save billions of dollars, improve on a civic amenity and retain 99% of the traffic efficiency of the government's proposed plan.

While 8664 is a case study for the organizational power of new technology and is an example of the current state of many civic-powered development advocacy organizations, The Baltimorphosis proposal for the Franklin-Mulberry corridor in Baltimore shows the full potential of technology to revolutionize participatory planning. The Franklin-Mulberry corridor is a unfinished urban spur freeway through some of the most abandoned and underdeveloped neighborhoods in Baltimore. Baltimorphosis seeks to replace the existing highway trench with a combination of light rail, commuter rail, an urban boulevard and multi-story development. By developing construction within the ditch larger 4-6 story buildings can be visually accommodated in a predominately 2 story rowhouse area.



A more intensive scheme involves capping light rail and commuter rail lines and creating a large multi-story parking garage in the remaining highway right of way with new construction on the surface.


The difference between Baltimorphosis and other similar civic proposals is the incorporation of open-source design. The images above come from dimensionally accurate 3-D sketchup models which can be downloaded and reworked by interested members of the public:
You can submit designs in a variety of formats, including straight Photoshop. Humorous ideas are okay, but we prefer ideas that have some bearing on the real world. Model 2 to the right is a good starting point if you like to work in 3D. The blue and brown buildings are just placeholders that you will replace. If you have are more comfortable with 3D modeling, you might start with Model 1, an existing two-block section of the highway ditch, which is more of a blank slate.
If enough people apply their brains to this challenge, the results will prove that Franklin Mulberry has too much potential to let slip away.
If you're really ambitious, you can take a stab at the Ice House or Social Security districts at the West and East ends of the corridor by downloading Models 3 and 4.
Whatever you do, send us images of your designs so we can post them to our Gallery section. Send your name and occupation if you like, but that's up to you
-- taken from baltimorphosis.com

While this degree of public involvement is excellent for generating a vast array of proposals, it also works to build a wide coalition of citizens who can pressure government for a better solution.

Compare this process with the process that resulted with the aborted construction of the highway. In that case, a technologist
bureaucracy implemented a massive plan resulting in the demolition of hundreds of buildings and the destruction of a neighborhood. There was little civic participation and the planning took place using aerial maps behind closed doors. Today technology gives us the chance to work experientially in three dimensions and to consider hundreds or permutations of a design while utilizing the practical knowledge of residents. In effect a proactive participant planning process initiates the "lively political dispute" and will "improve the level of rationality" before development... a practice Paul Davidoff anticipated forty years ago.

Open source urban design (via Baltimorphosis Gallery).

Streetcar Urbanism in St. Louis: A Proposal





Note: This piece is the continuation of a previous post examining the proposal by Joe Edwards to build a two mile streetcar (neé Trolley) line to connect the Delmar Loop area with the Missouri History Museum and Forest Park.

In the first article I compared the Loop Trolley project to a streetcar project in Columbus, Ohio:

"...the Loop Streetcar connects an already developed area (named one of America's 10 Greatest Streets in 2007 by the American Planning Association) with Forest Park and would run a mere two and one quarter miles. Of this length, only around eight blocks have any potential for the streetcar to serve as a catalyst for significant redevelopment. The Columbus proposal would have been greater than five miles in length, would have connected five distinct economic centers and could have provided the catalyst for over thirty blocks of undervalued property."


My contention is that the Loop Trolley should not be envisioned as a tourist attraction as it is now, but should be understood to be the start of a restoration of an effective surface transit network and as an engine for incremental growth.

"Cleveland’s [St. Louis's] leadership has no apparent theory of change. Overwhelmingly, the strategy is now driven by individual projects. These projects, pushed by the real estate interests... confuse real estate development with economic development. This leads to the 'Big Thing Theory' of economic development: Prosperity results from building one more big thing."
- Ed Morrison, "Cleveland: Reconstructing the Comeback" via The Urbanophile

St. Louis, like many mid-sized cities, represents Morrison's assessments of Cleveland to a tee. The influential industrialists that motivated major changes a century ago are gone. Names like Wachovia have replaced the financial firms that outlasted the demise of industrial powerhouses like the St. Louis Car Company or the American Stove Company. Other powerhouses such as Anheuser-Busch have been sold overseas. As the Urbanophile describes, transactional businesses such as real estate have completely replaced the industrial/commercial ogliarchy of old. Thus, real-estate development is conceptualized as economic development, and the major infrastructural improvements that could drive the development of revitalization and attract the necessary workforce for innovation are sacrificed for strip malls, warehouses, or failed commercial redevelopments.

The political and economic situation bears striking similarities to Paul Collier's assessment on post-conflict recovery:
The first principle is, it's the politics that matters. So, the first thing that is prioritized is politics.

[Development should proceed in the most apolitical way possible. Decisions should be made with the entire city and region in mind, not for one ward at the expense of another or one region at the expense of another.]

And then the second step is to say, "The situation is admittedly dangerous, but only for a short time."

[Development decisions should be made with a view towards fostering sustainable growth and future development, not through short-term job creation and TIF-baiting]

And thirdly, what is the exit strategy for the peacekeepers? It's an election. That will produce a legitimate and accountable government.

[Development (especially infrastructure development) should be freed from electoral cycles and the control of aldermanic discretion]

So that's the conventional approach. I think that approach denies reality. We see that there is no quick fix. The reality is that we need to reverse the sequence. It's not the politics first; it's actually the politics last. The politics become easier as the decade progresses if you're building on a foundation of security and economic development. The rebuilding of prosperity.

Why does the politics get easier? And why is it so difficult initially? Because after years of stagnation and decline, the mentality of politics is that it's a zero-sum game. If the reality is stagnation, I can only go up, if you go down. And that doesn't produce a productive politics. And so the mentality has to shift from zero-sum to positive-sum before you can get a productive politics. You can only get positive, that mental shift, if the reality is that prosperity is being built...

But the objective of facing reality is to change reality.
--Paul Collier "New Rules for Rebuilding a Broken Nation", 2009.
(emphasis and bracketed comments added)

In the interest of changing reality, I will show how extending the Loop Trolley beyond Joe Edwards's vision could begin to act as an economic driver for urban redevelopment and could be leveraged in subsequent phases for future growth.

Phase I: 2015
Changes to proposed route: Light Blue
Beginning with the initial route proposal, I examined the street widths along the route and efficiency statistics from several cities. The Loop Trolley is currently planned to occupy two traffic lanes (two way traffic) on Delmar through the Loop. At this point Delmar is only 48' wide and Loop Trolley planners intend to retain two lanes of street parking. Note that Portland's Streetcar System Concept Plan predicts an average speed of 7 mph riding in traffic. By comparison, a streetcar in a median right of way will typically achieve a speed twice as fast.

In order to facilitate a separated right of way, the streetcar has been routed to run westbound on Delmar, looping around to Kingsland via Loop S. The streetcar would the head north on Kingsland before heading eastbound on the Vernon Ave. Loop bypass and would rejoin Delmar at the MetroLink station (Des Peres Ave.).


View Streetcar Proposal in a larger map

This route would have other benefits beyond merely increasing line speed. The eastbound routing on Vernon follows the #2 Bus and would connect the 1,500 residents in the Parkview Gardens neighborhood with the MetroLink station. This proximity to transit would also spur redevelopment of the underutilized commercial strip along Vernon between Kingsland and Westgate.

Amendments to proposed route: Light Blue
The two major problems with the existing route are that the History Museum is not a strong enough draw for a terminus, and it does not service any major job centers. In the turn of the twentieth century streetcar companies addressed this issue by building amusement parks at the end of their lines to draw more traffic.

To solve this problem, I proposed extending the route on Delmar to the Central West End and looping around the West End. While the Olive streetcar originally ran in a zigzag west from McPherson to Waterman (at Kingshighway) to Pershing (at Union), Delmar is an excessively wide boulevard with ample width for two dedicated and separated tracks.
The CWE loop would take advantage of the wide median on Kingshighway to loop south to Laclede (within easy walking distance of the Barnes Jewish/Wash U/Children's hospital complex) and then continue on Buckingham (reversed one way from present) to North Ct./York Ave. and then through the heart of the CWE on the old Maryland #12 Streetcar ROW. The loop would then follow that ROW left on Boyle and turn westbound at Delmar.


View Streetcar Proposal in a larger map

Besides connecting an estimated 26,000 employees at the hospital with numerous commercial businesses in the Loop and the CWE, this alignment would provide a major impetus towards redevelopment on the north side of the CWE. Over 14 blocks of underdeveloped land would see an increase in value and the streetcar would provide considerable assistance to redevelopment efforts in the former Gaslight Square area. This route, around seven miles in length, would require more route investment, but would not require additional carbarns or maintenance areas. Such an extension would drastically increase boarding and would secure the viability of the Loop Trolley proposal.

Phase II: 2020: Green
Pending successful operation of the Delmar Loop/Central West End, an expansion could be easily planned along the former Olive St. ROW and McPherson/Washington. This expansion would be a compact figure eight meant to connect the Delmar Loop/Central West End with the museums and entertainment facilities in Grand Center. The figure eight would run as a spur from the CWE route during designated hours. The estimated time on the extended original line from City Hall in University City to the Fox theater would be 25 minutes.

At the same time construction would begin on the reinstallation of the #70 Grand streetcar line between a loop opposite John Cochran VA hospital to a loop just north of Grand and Gravois. This section would completely follow former streetcar right of way and be able to run in a dedicated median as a result of the wide street width.


View Streetcar Proposal in a larger map

This route would replicate one of St. Louis's most used streetcar routes and would connect the VA Hospital with Saint Louis University Hospital, and the cultural institutions in Grand Center with the populations of both University City and the near south side. The CWE extension could bring more redevelopment on the eastern fringes of the Central West End and both routes provide valuable support to the nascent efforts of the Locust Business District.

Phase III: 2025: Yellow
Phase III would include a Washington Avenue/Olive Street line that would run from the Blue line loop east of Grand through the loft district to Laclede's landing and the Arch MetroLink station. In addition, a new line would be built running south on Florissant from Palm St. through downtown on Tucker with a connection to the 14th St. Greyhound/Amtrack/MetroLink station, and south on Gravois to Grand.


View Streetcar Proposal in a larger map

The Washington/Olive route would provide economic support for the underdeveloped areas between Grand Center and the Loft District and would integrate the faltering entertainment district at Laclede's Landing with downtown institutions such as the Convention Center. The Florissant/Tucker/Gravois route would connect some of the most densely populated areas of the city with jobs downtown and with other necessary amenities while spurring redevelopment in St. Louis Place and integrating Old North St. Louis with downtown.

Phase IV: 2035: Purple
Phase IV would include an extension on the #70 line north from the VA Hospital to N. Florissant Ave, an extension south on the Gravois line from Grand to Germania St, and a line on Natural Bridge from the UMSL South MetroLink stop to Palm and North Florissant.


View Streetcar Proposal in a larger map

These routes would leverage existing streetcar routes and would connect with existing transit corridors. Furthermore these routes would tap into dense population centers in the city and would facilitate small scale economic and storefront redevelopment.

Phase V: 2050: Brown
The final planned phase would consist of three lines along former streetcar routes. A Goodfellow/Union/Hampton line would connect from the Riverfront transit center to Forest Park and the end of the Gravois streetcar in far south city. A Martin Luther King/Cass Avenue streetcar would provide an East/West connection on the near north side from the St. Charles Rock Road MetroLink Station to downtown. A Broadway/Chippewa line would connect the Cass Ave. line through downtown/Soulard and south city to the Shrewsbury MetroLink station. While it is too far in the future to prognosticate development potential, this line could provide a great development impetus to the neglected industrial land along the south riverfront.


View Streetcar Proposal in a larger map

While this was an intellectual exercise, it emphasized some key lessons. First, any proposed transit as expensive as a streetcar line must serve a vital connection need and must connect key employment destinations. Cultural destinations are important draws, but major employers are vital. Secondly, while there are parts of the city that suffer from a lack of transit, the best route is an already successful route. More revenue upon opening will provide a greater impetus to expand the system. Finally, due to the era of development in St. Louis, the built environment and infrastructure was specifically designed for streetcar-based transit and a considerable amount of infrastructure remains to this day. Therefore, implementation is not as difficult as in other cities.

For other route proposals look here and here.

So many shades of green (or how to get the green)






Avenida Luis Xavier, Curitiba Brazil by Mathieu Struck

Well, it is officially summer again and that means it is time for an annual ritual. No, not Naked Hiking Day which was notable this year for the supposed attendance of one governor. Rather, this week marks the onslaught of numerous new rankings of sustainable cities. While sustainability remains a term that, in its complexity, allows for astonishingly broad leeway, lists of sustainable cities even exceed that flexibility. While metrics for ranking sustainable cities may range from personal indoctrination to more objective analysis, there are of course a number of common finalists.

MotherNature Network listed their Top 10 Green US Cities today:

1. Portland, Oregon
2. San Francisco, California
3. Boston, Massachusetts
4. Oakland, California
5. Eugene, Oregon
6. Cambridge, Massachusetts
7. Berkeley, California
8. Seattle, Washington
9. Chicago, Illinois
10. Austin, Texas


On June 17th Treehugger listed their picks for 5 of the Greenest Cities in the World to Visit

1. Portland, Oregon
2. Freiburg, Germany
3. Zermatt, Switzerland
4. Montreal, Quebec, Canada
5. Austin, Texas, USA


While comparing an international green travel list to a national green city list is strictly a chronologically motivated artifice (much like apples and oranges or electric and diesel locomotives) certain commonalities are striking. The majority of the cities on the list are home to institutes of research and higher education which provide both a foundation for diverse and advanced economies. The majority of cities on the list are located on navigable bodies of water that may again serve in the future as thoroughfares for freight and goods. The majority of cities have carefully balanced bold political decisions, such as banning automobiles or plastic bags, with bold economic decisions such as the creation of large-scale alternative energy generation. These cities have also thoroughly embraced low-tech solutions such as tree planting and public composting. All cities on the list have championed transportation flexibility by facilitating widespread bicycling, developing walkability, and supporting public transportation.

The single most striking element shared by the majority of cities on the list was an educational component. While the majority of cities on the list exhibit higher than average socio-economic and educational statuses, such programs could prove even more vital for more average cities. An educated public is the cornerstone of sustainability. Without an understanding of the economic and environmental results of current lifestyles and an appreciation of the long term effects on the community any recycling program is doomed to fail. Furthermore, without education and appreciation of sustainable measures, even citizen-initiated progressive efforts are doomed to fail.

Another interesting point is that we must judge sustainability through the lens of cities. While there are dozens of lists of top "sustainable" or "green" cities there are virtually none for states, provinces or countries. This is especially interesting given the tenuous stance of cities in the United States. While Europe and Africa have strong traditions of city states (Venice and Carthage come to mind) cities have no legal basis within the U.S. Constitution. Rather the American city exists solely as a subunit of state government. Despite this subservient status, in the United States and in countries throughout the world, the city unit has played the primary role in the struggle for urban sustainability. While city administrations typically lack the technical proficiency and ability of bureaucrats at higher levels and often make corrupt and shortsighted decisions that impair future efforts, their smaller size typically makes them more responsive and often allows for greater flexibility in decision making than higher forms of government.

The downside to the primary role of the city in sustainability is increasingly uncoordinated and cutthroat competition for green sector industries. As the carbon clock ticks, cities must keep themselves ahead of the curve in order to attract skilled residents and create new jobs. Cities will benefit from investment programs in existing industries as well; for every million dollars invested in retrofitting infrastructure and increasing existing energy efficiency, 22 new jobs are created. Furthermore, European companies like Siemens have capitalized on the slow response of United States industry towards sustainable products and stand to gain billions from world-wide bailout programs. A century ago the majority of light-rail infrastructure in the United States was manufactured by companies like the St. Louis Car Company .
St. Louis Car Company circa 1908

Today even the Metrolink trains operated in St. Louis are manufactured by Siemens. Since 1982 all new subway cars ordered for our nation's capitol have been manufactured overseas. While this phenomena is endemic across all industries, it points to a huge opportunity for American cities who are seeking to center their economic growth on sustainability. Many of the cities on the list above rank highly only because they have outsourced most of their manufacturing to India and China. Despite greening claims and endless restricted bike lanes no city can remain sustainable or think of self-sufficiency without an industrial base. Anything else will be a missed opportunity. The challenge assumed by the leading cities of the twenty first century is the balance of clean industry with waste remediation. After all, innovation is the foundation of sustainability and, while important, planting trees and recycling cans can only take you so far.

Methods for increasing urban sustainability





#1 REUSE existing buildings and STOP privileging automobiles


Files


Save the SAN LUIS!
Preservation Board hearing concerning the application for demolition of Charles Colbert's iconic DeVille Motor Lodge/San Luis Apartments for a surface parking lot by the Archdiocese of St. Louis. Please attend and send our elected officials that the wholesale destruction of the urban fabric for automobile accommodation must end if Saint Louis is to ever aspire to more than regional mediocrity.

1015 Locust Street, Suite 1200
Downtown St. Louis, 63101
4 PM



#2 SUBSIDIZE the installation of productive green roofs
As I covered (in my ghostwriting role) over at the SOS Northside Blog Professor Steven Chu, a Nobel prize winner and President Obama’s nominee for Energy Secretary recently pointed to the problems of heat absorptive roofing in our cities:
“if you take all the buildings and make their roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of colour rather than a black type of colour, and you do this uniformly . . . it’s the equivalent of reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars on the road for 11 years.”


Now the New York Times covers programs that incentivize edible green roofs.

Green roofs are something of a no-brainer. One of the biggest environmental problems for urban areas are rapid stormwater discharges that result from rainfall being channeled across impervious surfaces. Without any surface to absorb or slow the rain the runoff is much more violent and shorter in duration. These pulses erode stream banks, cause flash flooding, carry toxic chemicals into streams and overwhelm combined sewer systems. Cities are faced with the choice to dig up existing systems and separate them (extremely expensive) or devise strategies to reduce runoff input into the system. Green roofs allow water to percolate through vegetative matter, slowing or preventing any runoff.

Edible green roofs go a step farther. As I alluded in an earlier post the availability of nutritious and fresh foods and produce are another challenge facing the underprivileged residents of most cities. By creating edible green roofs as part of a community gardening initiative residents can learn cultivation and maintain a degree of self-sufficiency. Produce from large municipal roof areas such as convention centers and government buildings could be donated to food pantries. Schoolchildren could help participate in the cultivation of the food they eat at lunch. Nutrition would be improved, attendant healthcare costs would be reduced and stormwater runoff-caused pollution would be reduced for a fraction of the cost of other efforts.

Perhaps this could be a federally mandated CBBG-funded program?

More methods coming soon...