Oh and...

A small addendum to my last post about reciting sentences in German. When I write the German and English sentence on the flashcards, I first read the German sentence for comprehension. Next I read the English and translate it to German, unless the German sentence was short enough that I could recite it from memory. Translating is a good way to practice the sentence without getting overwhelmed by a long sentence.

Carfree redesign web site

This free write is dedicated thinking about the possibilities for a carfree web site that provides a tool to allow people to resdesign their own city or neighborhood to be carfree. I've already thought a little bit about this, but I'm hoping that this writing will bring up some new ideas or at least organization for the site. So, the primary idea is to introduce people to the topic of carfree cities and let then access or create a sub page that represents their city or neighborhood. The user interface of this would be a bit tricky. It's tempting to simply follow the Craigslist model and list everything on the side column. The last thing I want to do is an annoying hierarchies of places. Maybe Bret can lend me some ideas about this. The next issue is what do I actually give people as far as design tools. Do I take Christopher Alexander's A Pattern Language and actually make component objects for them to drag around? That sounds awful. Or do I just give them a simple drawing program to sketch over a map. That sounds awful too. Maybe I'll just have to sit down with Bret and try to come up with some ideas. It may be easier once I actually read the Alexander books. I don't want to compartmentalize the process or make it too sterile. But I don't want it to be completely free-form either.

Let's talk about the ideal situation and then go from there. Ideally you would enter a virtual 3D space where you could walk around the place of interest. All cars and roads would be blanked out. Leaving just dirt or some form of the native vegetation. The transit would remain if it was rail or anything else non-paved (streetcars would stay.) The built forms would remain too. The ideas isn't to demolish buildings but to figure out what to do with the existing street network. There could be some allowances for going between buildings for paths, but I don't think this is very realistic or needed. Now imagine that once you had these empy road space you could begin to redesin. It's not enough to just have tools to build carfree spaces and transt. We also need to modify storefronts, pulling them out with dining outside. So it does seem that we need to feature certain things, like a plaza object, a streetcar, tables and chairs for outdoor dinineg. But I don't want to limit people. Again in the ideal world you would just be able to walk through this space and wave a wand with those things in mind. It almost needs something like the Google Sketchup library but without the difficult of actuly putting things down. The other option is to do map-based, but I don't think that's compelling enough.

The question is do we need this at all? Do we need regular people to be able to come and redesign. Why not just have people do things in Sketchup or whatever tool they want and submit them? I think that might be a better way to start up. simply exist as a repository for design ideas and offer advice about how to do it. Such advice would be: Walk down your street of interest and make an issues map. Try to determine how car traffic could be circumvented and reduced. I don't know. It's all pretty tricky. I should also encourage car reduction steps. Showing a street car introduction, lane reduction, parking consolidation, parking remove, street surface update. "What are the steps?" is the question. I also need resources about how to get in the press, contact politicians, work with business. Maybe this is less technological than I think.

Brainstorm of what our critics would say

This free write is dedicated to thinking about the questions that critics will have about our research. Ellen and I already brainstormed this topic in my last post but I figure I'll do it one more time as an exercise.

The first thing that pops into mind is the critic saying that 1) Europe isn't any better than the US, they just have historically higher density. They have as much dysfunction as we do. 2) Europe 's success is derived from their past--the fact that those places were built pre-car. There isn't really any difference in thinking between Europe and North America.

Those are fearsome critiques because they require some strong research to contradict. But one nice thing I can do is compare the ambition of the city plans between European and North American cities. When you see that Heidelberg's plan in 2010 calls for connecting all neighborhoods with tram service, there is no way that a place like Boston would make that statement yet, or even Montréal. It demonstrates evidence of difference of opinion about modern planning. As far as actions themselves, not just statements, I think we can find a lot of evidence that places that were dominated by cars in Europe have been given back to pedestrians, without significant difference in density between there and North America. Thus the changes could happen in many places in North America if there were a political cliimate for it. Critics might also contend that these European public places lack greenery and wild areas that we have in North America. I'm not sure, though, that our cities and suburbs have more green space than theirs, respectively. Critics might also contend that Europe doesn't actually care more about its people but is simply being forced to make these changes earlier for lack of oil and other resources that otherwise enable a car culture. So I'm looking for some evidence that these European cities actually do care more about their people, history, and culture than American cities. Let's look at the business development critiques. U.S. critics might say that the efforts in urban space in Europe are actually damaging to free enterprise--that it represents government playing to great a roll in the shaping of public and private property. Since most of thiese projects are in public space, the bigger argument might be about govermnet meddling too much with transportation choices. I don't think any of these arguments hold any water though, since the streets are public and there is a long proven history throughout the world of both government and private industry working independently and together to establish improtant right of ways. The same thing can be said o roads for cars. Any other obvious critiques.

How about the density critique again? People in these places live in small cramped space without their own outdoor space. I'm not sure this is much difference than North American urban spaces. Nevertheless, I think we need to look at quailty of life to answer the question. It may be true that the Europeans have smalller spaces and spend less time in their homes, but if they are out in the public space for a significant period of time, it's hard to argue that they are enjoing themselves less than Aemricans that sit in their bigger homes.

Let me think of some of the critique from last night's writing class. One is that a lot of people like driving, they like the horsepower. Well a lot of people like a lot of bad things, like smoking and fist fights. That doesn't make them right, but they may be convenient ways to solve problems. Just as buying slave labor products is convenient but by no means moraly acceptable.

How about the child and elderly critiques? Again, I think we're making public space that is better for them and improved transit coverage is more valuale to theese demographics who are less likely to own cars. One good angle is to say that  we're not trying to make Europe in North America, but we're trying to make a better North America that may borrow some ideas from Europe.

Notes from the first Europe Free Write

I decided that Ellen and I should do some free writing about our plans for our European research. Free writing is a technique we're practicing in our summer writing class. There was one free writing exercise listed in the book that asked to respond to a number of topics. The first was to simply brainstorm everything about a project. So here is what we each got for the Europe project, summarized:

Andy:

• I know we are going to a few cities in Europe to study modern planning projects to find what has worked well there and why it isn't happening at home.
•  Recent ideas that have come to my mind are to make a carfree web presence that takes various cities and encourages individuals to start sub sites about their cities or neighborhoods and talk about ideas for making them car free. 
•  If I can document how these projects got built then people will see that the same can be accomplished in their cities.  
• Can I get enough information simply by observing and researching? How many interactions to I need with experts there and how much with people that live in the space? This is the real fear of mine--trying to identify and interview these individuals, where I may not be comfortable with the communication.
• Part of what will solve this is to have a well documneted projects about which I can speak comfortably. I'd like to accomplish this in part by filling out some grant applications and continuing to organzie our wiki. This will give me the boost I need.
• I also need to rely on people that live in the countries to help out with interview setups if possible. I don't know why I say that, of course I can just do it over email. 
• I really need to identify the facet sof the places that we are going to study so I don't go into it blindly. Of course new things will pop up while we're there, including new places. But I should refer to my task list to see what I need to do to prepare for each site.
• What do I want to capture? Photos and video are obvious, interviews, written observations. Is there more? I need to look at transit maps schedules, business district maps, and history of development.
• Do I need to wrry about dimensions of things. In some cases yes. When there is a pattern that needs to be noted of the street with (Read the Christopher Alexander Pattern Language book.) Street surfaces, infrastructure are importang. 
• Try to figure out whether these places were ever like US cities as far as infrastructure and when they deviated. This should be fairly easy. I think there is a preety common point back in the 1920s or 30s. Then things started to change after WWII.
•  I keep thinking about movement. You have to talke about the experience of movement, both on transit and walking. This is critical. 
• What about ancillary stuff, health, work-life. You need to figure out a way through interviews to get a sense of these things. So it really comes to preparing extensive interview questions. 
• So we have the grant writeup of the project,  the interview questions, and the detailed list of facets we're to study at each site. 
• Does the product matter yet? I don't htink so. I know for sure that I want to make this carfree website and the Europe research will fit into that somehow. 
• Are we imitating J.H. Crawfords's work? I don't think so We're not primaily focused on car free, though it is the primary recipe for success.

Ellen:
(These are my notes from her recital, so it's incomplete)

• Solitude in a large public space
• Living entity
• How do American cities represent death
• What gives things life?
• How can public trasnit recesitate life in America?
• Hard to think of Americans having much work saving or redoing things.
• What are we supposed to do with our major fuckups?
• Asphalt--give me better material
• Mystery, options, wonder--can you make that or is it a starting point
• Pedestrianization - comprehensive success at getting somewhere else as a matter of great importance
• How do you bring it all together and how do you get people together to do that.
• I don't want to simply compare.
• Why are Euro cities flurishing?
• 5 senses in evaluation of public space.
• What are our options, what does it say about the history or cultural landscape of the place, what's being addressed?
• The notion of destination-focused versus experience of traveling. Draining and blind to get around by car. No options to get out and explore.

As you can see, we both thought very differently about our trip, and complemented each other quite nicely. I was off in my usual analytic mode, and Ellen was much more sense and emotion based.

In our next free write exercise we wrote about what makes our project so important, what are the challenging question that we pose for ourselves, and what questions would detractors pose?

• Cities are important from the standpoint that they represent the most significant concentrations of civilization and the most sustainable way to house large portions of the population.
• Unfortunately cities are pretty bad right now. They are dirty, loud, and dominated by an inefficient form of thransportation. Most of the problems are caused by this form of transportation. It pollutes and takes away the space that would make living in cities pleasnt. There's no doubt in my mind that this is a key problem. But many people argue that auto transportation is needed in the modern city. This isn't true, but I need eveidence to prove that. I can show that a compact medieval city or Venice works without cars. But I need to show that more moden cities can be transormed to be carfree and have good transit. I mean to show that they functioned better than previously and better than their counterparts that din't make those improvements. 
• I also need to show the economic benefits of this configuration. How are these places improved economically? Are people more likely to linger in public space (econ+)? Is crime less likely than in a car dominated culture, who knows? Are people healthier, why yes. Is it easy for unique culture to develop, probably? Is efficiency gained, of course. Does it actually make society function better if people aren't getting around by cars and have space to gather? Yes, but I don't have economic measures to prove that necessarily. 

 So what would the sketpic say:

• How are you going to do errands? Well let's take a look at how Europeans do errands and whethere there is any hardshop they suffer that Americans do not. 
• How do the elderly get around. Let's take a look at how the elderly move. Do they do better in these Euro places or worse. 
• What about the children, are they more free than they would be in a car place.
• (These are  good interiew questions)
• Have things gotten better for children and the elderly. 
• What about racial tension? Does a carfree/good transit make that better or worse? Clearly people are seeing more of each face to face. 
• What about the naysayer that says you simply can't match the convenience of the car and people are never going to give them up. Maybe so, but does that matter? Do we need to worry about the people that insist on cars. I don't think so. Because I think you can remove a lot of drivers with better transit and supporting services. You can remove a lot of drivers with limited car access in business centers. 
• Will this hurt business? I don't think so, as long as there is an obvioyus way for people to do their business without cars. Are Europeans going downtown to purchase large items, or do they rely on going out to the suburbs to Ikea also? Does this full-amenity downtown break down for some types of errands. 
• The subway/metro isn't safe? Perception or reality? Let's take a look a t the crime numbers and see what we come up with.
• Density is a big criticism. But we've learned that density isn't that bad if you don't have to deal with the cars. 
• What about road trips?
• What about having more lockers for carfree people?

Ellen:

• Look what your government does for you. What does government provide that people like? Look what we're trying to do for you. We need that government push, presence.  Government Deals. "We need you to use transit and we're gonna provide it for you."
• What makes ____ such a strong point, and how can people be serious about it? How can I convey my seriousness about it when you thnk about public space. It's one of the most difficult things to pass on to others. We come accross so few beautiful scapes here, and taking advantage of our culture and history to do it.
• We put glass covers on precious things, isolating them and preserving them but not incorporating them into what is current. Overly conserved areas are so separate from the living parts. Why does  it have to be separate?
• New urbanism lacks character, no layers, and layers make everything interesting. Give me the most intereseting spaces and see what we can attract
• Why should anyone agree with preservation, identity.
• What does the city mean to you. I fear your answer won't be the comprehensive (externalities)
• I have a sense that Europeans have planned in a comprehensive manner, and even though they might have done that there were things they didn't anticipate that made it more dynamic. What are some of the negatives that they might of planned in a comprehensive manner? 
• What about the John Adams houses, how often do Bostonians go there? 
• Seamlessness of Europe. Here we force things or turn them into a circus.  Like New Urbanism. If we could plan in a comprehensive manner, perhaps we could make something a little bit more seamless, where it's not just a show.

Obviously a lot of strong ideas emerged from this free writing and the previous on that are worth documenting here. We'll continue to do these exercises. We're also starting to do free-writes that are place based. We go to a public site and each write our thoughts about it. This will be great practice for Europe. I'd also like to incorporate photography and spontaneous interviews into these place-based sessions.

Narratives

One very tempting way to frame some of our work is to take a look at the lives of individuals that grow up in our selected European places versus those that grow up in similar American places. In comparing two children in similar socio-economic backgrounds, we might be able to demonstrate what it is that makes the quality of life and ecological footprint better in the European city. I can imagine interweaving theses narratives with a description of the process that went into improving a European space, whether it was removal of cars from the downtown, an increase in streetcars, or creation of a public space where people felt invited to gather. It think showing the before and after images in Europe would be especially compelling--where old town squares were taken over by cars only to be reclaimed for pedestrians and tramways (like in Montpellier, France.) The infrastructure improvements in Europe could then be contrasted with places like New York and Berkeley that struggle to make an environment that is comfortable for people. Then we could outline some best practices that American towns and cities can use to change their public space and transit systems. I think approaching some of this project from a documentary standpoint would open some doors to important interviews with people that might be inclined to share more information with a camera in front of them. Thoughts?

The product of this project is for us

Ellen declared that the product of our work should be something that satisfies our own needs as students entering the urban planning field. Previously, I had at various times postulated that the product of our research would serve as some kind of guidebook for other planners. Entreating ourselves as the target of the work really makes more sense at the present time. Why write for others rather than providing ourselves with guidance first?

What good examples exist of those who complete a study for themselves only to end up sharing it with the world?

Initial Post

Sample Post