Heathrow Airport's PRT

Going Dutch

Here is a good article about living in the Netherlands. Known as the bike Mecca, it has a long history of taking pretty good care of its citizens. It is long but a good read. Some good excerpts below:

First, as in the United States, income tax in the Netherlands is a bendy concept: with a good accountant, you can rack up deductions and exploit loopholes. And while the top income-tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, the numbers are a bit misleading. “People coming from the U.S. to the Netherlands focus on that difference, and on that 52 percent,” said Constanze Woelfle, an American accountant based in the Netherlands whose clients are mostly American expats. “But consider that the Dutch rate includes social security, which in the U.S. is an additional 6.2 percent. Then in the U.S. you have state and local taxes, and much higher real estate
taxes. If you were to add all those up, you would get close to the 52
percent.”

The Netherlands has universal health care, which means that, unlike in the United States, virtually everyone is covered, and of course social welfare, broadly understood, begins at the beginning. In Julie and Jan’s case, although he was a struggling translator and she was a struggling writer, their insurance covered prenatal care, the birth of their children and after-care, which began with seven days of five-hours-per-day home assistance. “That means someone comes and does your laundry, vacuums and teaches you how to care for a newborn,” Julie said. Then began the regimen of regular checkups for the baby at the public health clinic. After that the heavily subsidized day care kicked in, which, Julie told me, “is huge, in that it helps me live as a writer who doesn’t make a lot of money.”

Decent housing is another area where the Dutch are in broad agreement. As does nearly every Western nation, the Netherlands has a public housing system, in which qualified people get apartments for below-market rents. About one-third of all dwellings in the country are “social housing.” But here again, attitudes are different from those in the United States. I was surprised to learn, for example, that a friend who is a successful psychologist lives in a social-housing apartment, which he has had since his student days. It turns out the term does not have the stigma attached to it that “public housing” does in the United States. (“In the U.S., public housing is a last resort, but here it’s just a good, cheap house,” said Fred Martin, an official at Impuls, an Amsterdam social-services organization.) Beyond that, while my friend obviously can afford to pay more than his bargain-basement rent of 360 euros ($470), the system doesn’t require him to move on, and one reason is that there is perceived to be a value in keeping a mix of income levels in the units.

And while I certainly wouldn’t wish the whole Dutch system on the United States, I think it’s worth pondering how the best bits might fit. One pretty good reason is this: The Dutch seem to be happier than we are. A 2007 Unicef study of the well-being of children in 21 developed countries ranked Dutch children at the top and American children second from the bottom. And children’s happiness is surely dependent on adult contentment. I used to think the commodious, built-in, paid vacations that Europeans enjoy translated into societies where nobody wants to work and everyone is waiting for the next holiday. That is not the case here. I’ve found that Dutch people take both their work and their time off seriously. Indeed, the two go together. I almost never get a work-related e-mail message from a Dutch person on the weekend, while e-mail from American editors, publicists and the like trickle in at any time. The fact that the Dutch work only during work hours does not seem to make them less productive, but more. I’m constantly struck by how calm and fresh the
people I work with regularly seem to be.

Although the grass always seems greener on the other side, can we not learn from other models and see what can work better of us locally?

Protecting the River or Nimbism?

Article below:

Parking lot, park or apartment complex?
By Cristof Traudes

Developers want to build a second phase of the Stone Arch Apartments. Neighbors say it’s on the wrong side of Main Street.For an example of what happens when a group of developers has an idea for a site that has a half-dozen plans and a concerned neighborhood attached to it, read closely.

First, some history: In the early part of this decade, Bluff Street Development created the Stone Arch Apartments near St. Anthony Main despite a heavy flank of disapproval from the Marcy Holmes neighborhood and the University of Minnesota. Overruling the outcry, the City Council approved a necessary zoning change in 2001. A lawsuit from direct neighbors Metal-Matic followed. That was later settled, the apartments were built and most controversy faded away.

Back to the present: Bluff Street is back, a sequel of sorts in hand. The scene is fairly familiar, with a similar name (Stone Arch Apartments, phase two), a plan for mostly small apartments, and the same general location — plus, like all good sequels, most of the original controversy’s cast.

Bluff Street wants to construct a new six-story, 98-unit mixed-use building on a triangular plot at 600 Main St., currently a parking lot between Stone Arch Apartments No. 1 and the Southeast Steam Plant. Steve Minn, a former City Council member and one of the project developers, said it would be a beneficial project, creating more housing in Minneapolis.

The site’s current zoning allows for a building to go up, but it doesn’t allow for some of the more unique ideas Bluff Street wants, Minn said. They want to be able to tilt the building so that it doesn’t block views of the Downtown skyline for Stone Arch Apartments residents. They want to add some distance from Main Street and include green space to reflect its park-like surroundings.

When Bluff Street approached the city to request a rezoning, here’s what happened: The Marcy Holmes neighborhood, the Friends of the Mississippi River, the Friends of the Riverfront, Council Member Diane Hofstede (3rd Ward) — all came out strongly in opposition, providing numerous concerns.One was a case of aesthetics. The development would be located at what some Marcy Holmes residents consider the gateway to their neighborhood. The view of anyone heading northeast on the Stone Arch Bridge would likely be overwhelmed by the sight of the new building. Irene Jones, of the Friends of the Mississippi River, called it a wall at the end of a scenic artery.“We just have one riverfront, and we’re very protective of it,” said Melissa Bean, executive director of the Marcy Holmes Neighborhood Association.Another argument involved precedence.

Despite the boom of new residential projects along the Marcy Holmes side of the river, none have been proposed or built on the Mississippi’s side of Main Street. More than any other argument, though, this is what was most repeated: A 1978 agreement signed by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board marked the site as a probable plot to be purchased or condemned for parks purposes sometime in the future. A 1982 Park Board plan for Central Riverfront Regional Park labels it a parkland parking lot.

The Marcy Holmes neighborhood plan marks it as green space. At least three more plans continue in the same vein. Not one labeled it a site for development.“This is not an ordinary parcel of land,” Hofstede said.But does it matter?Not really, according to Bluff Street. They own the site, and they can build regardless of the rezoning. It’s simply a matter of the quality of what will be built, Minn said.Still, the arguments weighed on members of the City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee. They denied the rezoning by a 3-2 vote.

While they can’t direct Bluff Street to build a park, they said they couldn’t support possibly intensifying development along the river.Council Member Lisa Goodman (7th Ward), who dissented, was concerned the committee set up Bluff Street to build a lesser building.“I think it’s a case of be careful what you wish for,” Goodman said.But committee Chairman Gary Schiff, of the 9th Ward, said council members weren’t calling a bluff. There’s no guarantee, after all, that Bluff Street would build anything, without or even with the rezoning. In other words, maybe the developers will have a change of heart and 600 Main St. could end up parkland after all.

“This is not going to be a park,” Minn said adamantly. Or not.

Where's the office of urban policy?

With current economic dive down and recovery act money heading out the door is this not the reason a federal level agency was going to be created to inject urban issues? While money is going to states to repair roads and highways our cities are starting to crumble under the pressure of reduced tax revenue, increasing unemployment, and disinvestment because of city budget issues.

In the current economic conditions why isn't more attention, and yes, money, being directed to help out urban regions. If we want to stimulate our economy this seems like a logical direction. Pumping money into transit improvements, green collar job creation, and a real foreclosure plan would help revive cities, rather than leaving them on the sidelines being treated like bench warmers. This article in the Root breaks down some of these issues.

But celebrations about the potential triumph of urban policy may be premature. In recent weeks, the Obama administration has begun referring to the office as “urban affairs,” rather than “urban policy,” a small but notable downgrade. And while other offices and Cabinet agencies have been staffing up—the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships has representation in 12 government agencies—100 days in, urban affairs has announced only two senior staffers: Derek Douglas, who was special adviser to New York Gov. David Paterson, and former Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion, Jr., who faces allegations of mismanaging campaign donations and development projects in New York City.

The comparative silence from urban affairs has not gone unnoticed. Diana Lind, editor of Next American City, a journal that covers urban policy, frets that “this isn’t going to be as serious and as powerful a role as many urbanists had hoped.”

The office faces challenges aside from Beltway bureaucracy—namely coordination on a national scale. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has lobbied repeatedly—and “unsuccessfully,” he said last week—for Recovery Act funding to bypass governors and statehouses and go directly to city officials better attuned to constituent needs. Twenty-five mayors, including Bloomberg, have sent a letter to the president asking for a federal “Urban Innovation Fund” that would strategically invest and rigorously evaluate outcomes when it comes to urban policy. But there has been no indication that the White House or the office will lobby for more city-friendly appropriations; in fact, Recovery Act negotiations stripped $40 billion in aid that would have directly helped city budgets. And, when asked about the mayors’ letter, Douglas said that the two-person leadership team “is tossing around” a similar idea but is not working with the group.

Let's hope that time will prove us wrong.

Planning for Shrinking Cities

Growth, growth, and more growth is all that seems to be talked about these days. I have to say it was great to see the topic of shrinking cities come up a few times at the 2009 APA conference. Some planners are actually dealing with issues of lost economic base, population loss, and vacant land. Growth, and smart growth, plays no role in the lives of residents in Youngstown, Flint, or Detroit. Instead new models and approaches need to be taken to deal with the issues for cities that are shrinking in size. It is a great opportunity for reuse, preservation, and open space. This article in Crosscut is a good example of many of the concepts.

A big question facing urbanists is, what to do with shrunken cities? One possibility would be re-populating them. Could the New Homestead Act be revised to give a boost to places urban zones like Detroit? Isn't it more environmentally sustainable to re-populate existing cities where land has already been cleared, infrastructure is in place, and homes can be re-inhabited? Possibly. But in very distressed urban areas that cannot count on a resurgence of urban settlers, cities could be permanently re-scaled to something smaller. There's a new movement to reclaim urban areas by clearing parts of them and even letting them go back to nature.

Instead of waiting for an economic or growth upswing that might never come, county and city planners can work with land bank properties to pick and choose which neighborhoods to invest in, and which to bulldoze. In other words, why fight for more growth when downsizing and re=greening a city might make the city more viable and more livable for those who remain? Business could be relocated into more dense, more transit friendly neighborhoods. Cleared areas could be turned into open space, parks, greenbelts, or even forest. It would be a reversal of urban sprawl.

If you are interested check out the Shrinking Cities Institute.

Zoning out uses

This is an interesting article about zoning codes that restricts bars and restaurants. It seems a bit top heavy, but an interesting concept for areas that rapidly gentrify and retaining some of the local small businesses. One main issue I see is that retail recruitment for more investment in an area usually starts with trying to attract restaurants. I have been working with commercial corridors from Brooklyn, NY to St. Paul and what is evident is that food, coffee shops, and bars are the things that attract local residents and other visitors.

Restaurants, especially those allowed to serve alcohol, can afford higher rents than neighborhood-serving businesses, like grocery stores, hardware stores, pharmacies and dry cleaners. As bars and restaurants become successful, an area draws more foot traffic, attracting more of those businesses. Landlords can charge higher rent, which pushes out the local businesses. This is basically an economic game theory problem: the most natural equilibrium states are a mostly-vacant corridor on the one hand, and nothing but bars on the other.

Can zoning or other regulations help keep corridors in more of a balance? Is that desirable? One options is to allow market forces to determine the retail mix. But many residents are concerned about their neighborhoods becoming "another Adams Morgan." At the same time, regulation also hampers business, leading to more vacant storefronts. Is there a way to strike a balance, encouraging free enterprise while also maintaining some diversity of store types?

I am intrigued about a comprehensive approach and some local control of what does go into a commercial corridor, especially those that have had disinvestment for years.

The Future of KC

Imagine KC from Arnold Imaging on Vimeo.

Via TC Streets for People via Livable Streets Network