Vertical Farming

$1 homes

Detroit is in trouble and has been for some time now. $1 homes are not the way that this city is going to make a small climb back to its former glory. While this is a very top down approach, Detroit needs to get its density back. Yes, this means that raising entire blocks and clustering the housing should be a new approach. Let's get the folks closer together, share the infrastructure, and improve the mass transit system. For the land, it seems Detroit is well on its way to urban farming and feeding themselves.

Once again I am troubled by the cheap homes (that need serious capital to be livable) seems to mean housing for artists. I am not under the impression that this can't play some role in Detroit's future, but it can only be one very small piece to a much larger plan.

Here is a quote from this Guardian article:

Some might say Jon Brumit overpaid when he stumped up $100 (£65) for a whole house. Drive through Detroit neighbourhoods once clogged with the cars that made the city the envy of America and there are homes to be had for a single dollar.

You find these houses among boarded-up, burnt-out and rotting buildings lining deserted streets, places where the population is shrinking so fast entire blocks are being demolished to make way for urban farms.

"I was living in Chicago and a friend told me that houses in Detroit could be had for $500," said Brumit, a financially strapped artist who thought he had little prospect of owning his own property. "I said if you hear of anything just a little cheaper let me know. Within a week he emails me a photo of a house for $100. I thought that's just crazy. Why not? It's a way to cut our expenses way down and kind of open up a lot of time for creative projects because we're not working to pay the rent."

Houses on sale for a few dollars are something of an urban legend in the US on the back of the mortgage crisis that drove millions of people from their homes. But in Detroit it is no myth.

My experience here in the Twin Cities has proven to me that even a dollar house is usually not worth it. The foreclosure crisis and years of neglect have made many of these home financially unfeasible to rehab because the costs exceed the cost to build new. While I am usually the last person who wants to see homes torn down, Detroit has some hard decision to make moving forward.

MOA: The Mall of America

For those of you who don't know the Mall of America is here in Minnesota. It has become a regional, national, and international destination. In the Twin Cities region, like it or not, it has become a destination. With 4.2 million square feet you would think that we would have figured out to take full advantage of the mall's success.

The Mall of America has to be one of the largest public/private spaces in the country. It does connect to LRT and buses, but has also become an automobile storage facility. Currently the mall supplies over 20,000 parking spaces and the built environment around the mall reflects this. Rather than challenge the mall and its parking space issue, why not take advantage of this destination to create a friendlier, healthier, and more diverse environment for all. The mall can be challenged to created a better mixed-use plan for the larger area.

I propose outdoor recreational areas, walking paths, and better bike facilities. Why not even throw a mix-used development in the plan. With its close proximity to the airport and Health Partners it could provide work force housing where people would only be a few LRT stops away from work and home.

The Mall of America can be a further success by embracing the surrounding area and tying in what happens inside the mall to what is happening outside. Is this a crazy idea, just might be, but what I do know is the MOA isn't going anywhere, anytime soon, so let's make it a positive anchor in the region.

Breaking the Law, Breaking the Law

As a daily bike commuter I will admit that I break the law. While this issue rears its ugly head in the cycling community and other transportation networks we still don't see the real issue at hand.

I break the law because the current system is set up for one mode of transportation: the private car.

The renegades are out in force rolling through stop signs and red lights across the nation. You had better put the car in the garage and keep the kids inside, or at least this is what the media would have you believe when it comes to cyclists. We are car hating nuts and that is why we ride our bikes. As with every group some cyclists are reckless, no doubt about it. Let's look at the facts for a moment.

People killed by cars: 37,261 (2008 numbers)

People killed by cyclists: Not enough to record (let me know if you find a reliable source)

This NY Times article and study prove it all. Cyclists = Danger. My concern is that we are trying to put a square peg in the circle. The current infrastructure, design, and laws are not set up for cyclists or pedestrians. We are trying to work within a system that simply does not see us as relevant. If you don't believe me, dust of that 10 speed hanging in your garage and ride your bike to work, school, or the store tomorrow. It will be an eye opening experience for sure.

Smart Growth isn't FREE

Development of any kind always comes with a price tag. Even good development, smart growth, can actually cost quite a bit. Smart growth also has another kink in the chain because it also has to do with timing. Smart growth needs to happen early and often, yes, the usually means money before concrete plans for any development are in place.

For instance- I run a community development corporation in St. Paul and we are working on a corridor that is going to lead into one of the new light rail stations. Now, for about a year now I have been trying to secure funds for a smart growth plan for this corridor so it can take advantage of the opportunities and challenges that are going to be presented with the new LRT line and station. My requests to date have fallen on deaf ears.

My fear is that we are going to wait too long and private developers are going to move in and the community with be on the defensive, instead of the offensive, which is where we want to be. This process, planning, and work all takes money. Smart growth plans are great, but who is going to fund this planning five years out?

From the Washing Examiner article:

A lack of money is hobbling local governments' plans to transform their towns from sprawling cul-de-sac suburbs into dense urban centers. "The future of this region lies in creating walkable, livable communities," said Cheryl Cort of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. "Our country is broke, our local governments are broke and we need to make much better decisions about our investments."

Instead of clash for clunkers how about cash for communities, it has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Denver's Regional Transportation Plans on Hold

Denver had achieved what few metro regions can: a transportation plan and buy in for increased taxes to build that plan. Most know regional transportation planning is extremely difficult when you are trying to get all the different players to cooperate and then agree on a way to pay for. Unfortunately the down turn in the economy has basically stalled the entire project and some lines now might never get built.

From this Economist article:

IN 2004 Denver became a public-transport planner’s dream. The sprawling western metropolis approved a $4.7 billion project, known as FasTracks, which aimed to add six new light and commuter railway lines along with 18 miles (29km) of bus lanes across the metropolitan area, all to be built by 2017. Thirty-two regional mayors backed the plan and residents agreed to help pay for it with a 0.4% sales tax, topped up with federal grant money. At the time, John Hickenlooper, Denver’s mayor, said that “the whole community came together in the region at a level that we’ve never seen before.”

Nerves are starting to fray. Critics argue that RTD’s revenue projections were flawed and that it lacks the capacity to build several lines at once. Towns and businesses north of Denver are angry that a northbound rail line is scheduled to be one of the last completed, arguing that it may never be built even though their residents pay an equal share of the sales tax.

Like many western cities, Denver is in desperate need of more public transport. Its metropolitan area has grown by half a million residents since 2000, and the population is predicted to increase from 2.7m in 2005 to 4.3m by 2035. Years of highway-driven sprawl have stretched the city and its suburbs across more than 700 square miles (up from 530 as recently as 1995), meaning that few people live close to work. The average commute is expected almost to double by 2035, adding to the time wasted snarled in traffic.

We need to find new ways to pay for transit other than our local tax base. In difficult times, such as these, when transit improvements are usually needed the most, cities are barely getting by. Let's hope that the Denver region can think outside the box and find other sources of capital.

The Walkable Suburb

While Rockville seems to be a success by many measures for a walkable pedestrian friendly suburb parking still plagues the town center. Merchants struggle with lack of shoppers and have (per the usual) decided the parking is the key issue. Parking usually is an issue, but retail experts have illustrated that parking is only one minor reason people stay away.

From the Washington Post article:

Rockville Town Square is two blocks from a Metro station, but merchants said many customers drive there. Suburban shoppers accustomed to free parking have balked at paying for garage parking, merchants said.

Rockville officials reduced garage rates and offered free parking during the winter holiday season. Town Square merchants also agreed to hand out fliers at the Shady Grove and Rockville Metro stations, advertising $60-a-month commuter parking in the town center garages. The hope is that those commuters might shop or eat on their way to and from work, even if it means they contribute to traffic congestion.

Seth Harry, founder of a Columbia-based urban design firm, said the willingness of area residents to drive to Rockville Town Square shows that "people crave the experience to park and walk around. . . . People want to be somewhere. There's a 'there' there. That's an experience people don't always get in suburbia."

I doubt the real issue is parking but more that people want a more authentic experience. It takes years and decades to create the most desirable neighborhoods in cities, so when developers create the mix-used planned communities they should realize it will also take years for it to gain its grip and become the "spot" to be.