Steven Waters Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Transit

Real Solutions to $4/gallon Gas and a Sedentary Lifestyle

Are you tired of hearing about high gas prices?  So am I.  Sure, the federal government should find a way to regulate the overseas oil futures market to prevent speculators from artificially driving up the price by about $1.20 per gallon.  But I’m also tired of hearing about it, and burning oil more cheaply is not a long-term solution.

As a pedestrian/bicyclist advocate, for years I have heard people say — with some indignation — “Well if gas prices were $4/gallon like they are in Europe, then people would REALLY start thinking about transportation alternatives.”  Well guess what, folks? Gas prices ARE $4/gallon in the U.S. now, and the amount we drive has only decreased by a tiny fraction.  That’s because all transportation is a derivative of land use—we drive because we have no choice.

Owning an automobile has become a baseline cost just to exist in America with a decent standard of living.  The freedom and independence cars were intended to provide has gradually given way to dependence on cars for almost every single trip.  The reason Europeans drive less is because the built environment supports walking and bicycling for some trips, not just because gas is $9/gallon.

What I hear people saying now is that surely the high gas prices have made it easier to make the case for transportation choices.  The answer is that in the short-term, yes, there has been more TALK about transit and more pedestrian-oriented land use patterns.  But it was way back in the 1970s that the pendulum began swinging back toward downtowns.  That was when we stopped allowing transportation engineers to blast highways through our downtowns, obliterating many thriving black business districts and communities.  Thirty years later, downtowns are finally coming back to life, due in part to changing demographics.

The benefit of walking and bicycling isn’t just that the planet will be inhabitable for a little longer.  It’s free exercise!  A physically active lifestyle makes you live longer and more healthfully. Pull that dusty bike out of the garage, and also get involved in community planning efforts to create more walkable neighborhoods.  Not because of the cost of gas — because it’s a healthy lifestyle.

Steven Waters is a citizen advocate for smart growth and an active lifestyle where walking and bicycling are real choices for transportation and recreation.  In his real life, he is an interactive media programmer.

LivingStreets.com
a blog about the active living movement in Raleigh, NC
http://www.livingstreets.com/

Bookmark: del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Reddit Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon

Read More: Transit, Other posts by Steven Waters.

Filed Under:

  • PastaFazool08/06 07:34 PM

    And…it’s FUN!!!!  Thanks for this article.

    Two years ago, we (my family) moved from a large house in N. Raleigh to a house inside the belt-line, half the size, and on a fraction of the lot.  We now ride and walk EVERYWHERE.  Even my 3 year-old doesn’t flinch when we embark on 3+ mile walks to/from stores, the library, school, parks, restaurants, etc.  Every journey is a little adventure and as much fun as the destination (often, mores so).

    Last year I averaged biking to work (7 miles one-way) 3 days/week for the whole year (yes, even in February).  I can’t imagine EVER going back.  I can’t express enough what a great way it is to start and end one’s day.

    Enjoy the ride (walk)!

  • JZ08/06 07:54 PM

    It really is quite fascinating to see how slowly and surely, the (cultural) landscape of the US was transformed over a single century with the emergence of cheap fossil fuels and the automobile.  We have forgotten how to live on smaller parcels of land, closer to our neighbor, sharing public spaces like parks and the streets.  Along with the loss of proximity, we unknowingly abandoned any accountability to our fellow citizens in favor of a self-focused lifestyle.  I wonder if volunteerism rose during the last 50 years as more socially-progressive political agendas were abandoned in favor of lower taxes/trickle-down ideologies?

  • olivia08/06 07:58 PM

    well this article is all rainbows and smiley faces for those people who find themselves living in an area conducive to riding/walking. but what about the folks who’d rather NOT live downtown? what about the people who enjoy having a little more property/personal space, less light pollution, etc.? for those people, i believe we absolutely need to focus on alternative energy solutions.

    the author said it himself “The reason Europeans drive less is because the built environment supports walking and bicycling for some trips”, and doesn’t population density play a massive role in this said ‘built environment’??

  • JZ08/06 08:08 PM

    more property + personal space + less light pollution = farms.

    that’s the way it was for 5000 years before the invention of the steam-powered engine and the discovery oil.

    proximity = efficiency = sustainability.  There will never be an alternative fuel source as efficient (i.e. how much embodied energy is converted to overcoming inertia vs. lost in heat production, friction, etc.) and sustainable as walking and biking.

  • SAM08/06 08:11 PM

    “But it was way back in the 1970s that the pendulum began swinging back toward downtowns.  That was when we stopped allowing transportation engineers to blast highways through our downtowns, obliterating many thriving black business districts and communities.”

    Uh, that statement is a bit (WAY) out of context ... it really doesn’t make sense where it is, regardless of whether it’s accurate or not (which is certainly debatable).

    Especially considering RALEIGH was guilty of obliterating downtown ... in 1977.  Not to mention, the Durham Freeway went right through the heart of Hayti near the end of the 60s.

    Point taken about the importance of a pedestrian-friendly mindset. Though, the seeds of destruction were planted in the 50s ... and the ‘return to core’ is really a product of forward-thinkers in the early 90s, which the average citizen has just recently started to embrace. The balance: a home in Oakwood is reasonable compared to the McMansions in Wakefield or Cary. It just depends an individual’s quality of life.  If gas continues higher ... urban housing will be in great demand (for all the reasons the author pointed out).  It’s the “way out theres” who’ll have some decision-making to do.

    Hence, all the suburbanites who actually pay attention to, and visit downtown every now and then ... who couldn’t find Marbles or City Market or Lilly’s without a map just a few years ago.

  • Steve W08/06 08:13 PM

    That’s right, Olivia.  According to Smart Growth America, the main tenets of smart growth are: residential density; neighborhood mix of homes, jobs and services; strength of activity centers and downtowns; and accessibility of the street network. So density is one part of what it takes to make walking and bicycling work for transportation. But I also think there is a lot that can be done to make neighborhoods more walkable in the suburbs too.

  • Steve W08/06 08:22 PM

    Sam, I said the pendulum STARTED swinging back toward downtowns in the 1970s, when we as a nation began to realize that “urban renewal” so touted by urban planners actually turned out to be a complete disaster.  It took a couple more decades before cities began reclaiming waterfronts, removing highways through downtown, destroying high-rise tenement housing, and other urban renewal failures.

  • Fred08/06 09:03 PM

    “but what about the folks who’d rather NOT live downtown? what about the people who enjoy having a little more property/personal space, less light pollution, etc.?”

    JZ has it about right, but there’s another alternative - “New Urbanism” isn’t just for stereotypical urban areas, it’s for small towns too. In a small town, you can still have a little more property, personal space, etc, as long as your small town is built on a human scale. And that’s really the fundamental thing that cheap energy changed in the 20th century - the built environment has exceeded human scales in urban areas (sterile, imposing, wind-swept downtowns), suburbs (30-mile commutes, parking lots 20 times the size of the stores they serve), and rural areas (1000-acre monoculture farms dependent on cheap fertilizer) alike.

  • Betsy08/06 09:03 PM

    “what about the folks who’d rather NOT live downtown? what about the people who enjoy having a little more property/personal space, less light pollution, etc.?”


    Those people make their choices, don’t they? 
    There’s a trade-off to everything. 


    One consequence of living farther out is you might find yourself stuck driving most places. 


    That being said, if we didn’t have to surround every building site with 4x the land area in the form of blacktop parking lots, there might actually BE a little green breathing room in the suburbs.  (instead of thousands and thousands of cars zooming back and forth, and a lot of big parking lots, which is what characterizes most modern suburbs)


    And transit-friendly suburbs are possible. 


    In fact, the very first suburbs were ALL transit suburbs.  Cameron Park is a great example of an early trolley-car suburb.  It’s as green and ample and breathable as any place in Raleigh, but walkable as hell (with nearly all life’s needs within 1/4 mile).  It’s so ped-friendly, most house lots there don’t even have driveways! 

    The entire Five Points area was another trolley-car suburb.  It certainly seems green and ample, and there’s plenty of breathing room there.

    What I may hear you saying, though, is that you would like an alternative energy form so you can keep driving everywhere, but cheaply. Is that right?

  • JZ08/06 09:20 PM

    Bottomline….no energy source will be available in the next 10+ years with the “efficiency” of petroleum…..“efficiency” is in quotes because only about 1% of the embodied energy in gasoline actually contributes to making PEOPLE go FORWARD.  Well over 50% of the energy is lost in the form of heat.  The remainder overcomes the inertia of our heavy, antiquated, car designs to make the vehicle move forward, not you. Whereas a bicycle utilizes up to 80% of energy expended in moving your body forward.  (Maybe I’m stating the obvious).  All alternative fuels for vehicles either have toxicity (i.e. batteries) issues long term equal or greater what petroleum products cause or require so much energy to be invested that gallon-for-gallon, your actually spending more energy making energy than using it (i.e. ethanol from corn or sugar cane, etc).  Live where you work. If you can’t, live along a transit corridor, period.  If you can’t right your representative and demand a more diverse public transit system.  Otherwise, start acting like the wealthy land baron you are and pay the real costs for the privilege of living out beyond society’s reach.

  • yep.08/06 09:37 PM

    first of all, that photo is amazing.

    biking is the way to go! i recently started biking to work a few times a week and it not only cuts the cost of filling up my car every week, but it makes me feel great and helps me work off the crapfest that is my typical workday.

    i agree with pastafazool. i enjoy it so much that i am considering LEAVING raleigh in favor of a better community for living locally. that really sucks to say because i loved it here, but it’s just the truth. i worry that the economy here might collapse because gas will get so high that people cannot afford to commute to their jobs. that would be disastrous and it is partly due to irresponsible planning and development.

  • PastaFazool08/06 10:52 PM

    Olivia, I think you missed my point.  I WAS one of those people who “enjoy[ed] having a little more property/personal space, less light pollution, etc.”  However, we came to the realization that just because we WANT something and just because we CAN afford it, doesn’t mean we should get it.  There is a very steep price the environment and society pays to support that lifestyle.  Simply, it isn’t fair to the planet.


    So, we made the decision to live in a way that is more sustainable - at the expense of all those things you mention.  And what I’m here to tell you is, we spend more time outside, together, and communing with nature (in parks and other places) in a month than we did in the 12 years of suburban living.


    Suburban living is the SUV lifestyle.  Folks that drive them convince themselves they need one, yet 99% never leave a paved surface or tow a single thing.  It’s a fallacy and it’s burden is carried by many more entities than just the owner at the pump.

  • ChiefJoJo08/07 01:17 AM

    “but what about the folks who’d rather NOT live downtown? what about the people who enjoy having a little more property/personal space, less light pollution, etc.?”

    I want to point out the irony of that question.  It’s the *collective* choice (assisted heavily by pro-auto/suburban policies at all levels of American govt) of millions of people that are adding light pollution, more traffic, and reducing open space.  One might say that the management of those millions of collective choices is why we need planners.

    I, like PastaFazool, moved to an urban environment from suburbia several years back.  If a person is open to a new living paradigm, what you realize is that you might trade some of your own personal space (garage, back yard) in an urban area, but you gain fantastic access to more *collective* space (walk/bike to park, shops).  Maybe that’s not a great trade-off for some, but for me, I found that the extra stuff (rooms, garage, deck, lawn and the junk filling it up) I didn’t miss at all.  Life is simpler, more enjoyable, more fun, I’m healthier and more active without even trying (walking to actual *destinations*, not around the cul-de-sac), and to top it off, I save thousands per year by using fewer natural resources (petrol, electricity, water).  Tell me again why our public policies are so skewed in favor of suburbia???

    Not long after I moved downtown, I felt like I had just swallowed the red pill… the way I did things before is like a strange dream.

  • RaleighRob08/07 01:45 AM

    Wow…I wish I could go back in time and be one of Pastafazool’s kids.  I grew up in the suburbs and downright HATED it.  I so would have loved to have grown up in an urban area, being able to walk and bike to school, library, etc.  Kudos to you…you’re a GREAT parent!

  • Deb08/07 12:09 PM

    “but what about the folks who’d rather NOT live downtown? what about the people who enjoy having a little more property/personal space, less light pollution, etc.?”

    I have heard this a lot, and agree that everyone is entitled to their own preferences. However, I often wonder if these same people would prefer that same lifestyle in a world where auto transportation didn’t exist. If all the cars and buses disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow never to return, would they still prefer the far-flung lifestyle?

    I grew up in what was considered a “suburb” in a metro area that most people here would consider the city. But it was still a suburb, because despite the fact that there was no “wide open spaces” and tons of traffic, we still had 1/2 acre lots of residential SFH’s and couldn’t (within reason) walk to get anywhere other than another neighborhood. I never thought of myself as “city girl” until I went to college and had the pleasure of biking everywhere because of where I lived in proximity to school and entertainment. I loved it, and continued the live-close-to-work philosophy when I moved back to my big city hometown. I had a blip when I moved to Raleigh because of limited house-hunting time, ending up in NW Raleigh in the ‘burbs for a year. I was miserable! I couldn’t walk to much of anything, and I was constantly making the 10 mile drive downtown where I spent most of my social time.

    As soon as the lease was up, I was out of there and am now living quite happily in the Glenwood South area. The majority of driving that I do is the 5 mile commute to work (to North Raleigh, ironically), but other than that I walk or bike most of the time. I love it, and really hope that I will eventually be able to afford to own something downtown. I think raising a family in a walkable urban neighborhood is a far richer experience than out in an isolated suburb. Not to mention the environmental benefits of using less resources, and the health benefits of being more physically active during run of the mill activities. But that is just my preference.

  • CarnifeX08/07 12:12 PM

    So, since everyone is supposed to move downtown and live this Utopian walkable lifestyle, where are we gonna live and what are we gonna do with our houses?

  • Steve W08/07 12:19 PM

    CarnifeX, I don’t think anyone is supposed to do anything.  I believe in freedom and the right for people to choose where and how they live. My assertion is that there is tremendous latent demand for walkable neighborhoods, and not just in downtown. My goal is to make sure public policy does not stand in the way of smart growth so that we can accommodate population growth without sacrificing quality of life.

  • JZ08/07 12:25 PM

    Its not going to be a Utopia. But resources will be much more manageable.  A sense of community will be stronger.  Our children can walk to school rather than ride a bus for as much as an hour and a half in the mornings.  But to imply that folks who praise people-centric vs. auto-centric communities are wearing rose-colored glasses is a bit narrow.  Almost 100% of new developments proposed for downtown (or built in the last 3 years) offer the most urban forms of living: the flat.  The Blount Street Commons will offer a range of single family, townhouse, apartment, live-work and carriage house dwellings for approximately 1000 people.  I am eager to see how Blount Street emerges because there was an entire section of the Raleigh zoning code written specifically to address this type of dense mixture of residential and commercial uses.  It will serve as a guideline for similar development in other brownfield development.  North Hills could have benefited from it.  All the surface lots throughout Raleigh have the greatest potential, IMO

  • OCOG08/07 12:30 PM

    Wow is right…For all of the unfounded accusations here in these posts. 99% of all SUV’s aren’t used for towing or don’t leave a paved surface? That’s a lot of vehicles…do you actually know that many people? What study are you citing with that proclamation? As for ‘live where you work’, that’s not feasible for many folks. If one works in Apex, Holly Springs, Garner, Cary, etc, he/she may not be so inclined to live there. Chances are they’d rather live in Raleigh, as would many people, or whatever nearby metro area instead of the styx, and that distance is not reasonable for bus or bike riding or bike riding. If you’re living in Raleigh and close to work, good for you! Just think twice before tossing allegations around and blaming good, hard working citizens as the source for making the planet inhospitable.

  • JZ08/07 12:35 PM

    Oh, its never the hard-working American citizen’s fault. They’re all victims.  Exempt from having to make a change until a solution is handed to them.  <Cue “America the Beautiful”> 

    So who’s fault is it?  Well, I think its all of us.  We all bear the responsibility because we accepted what was handed to us instead of following the higher path. 

    Basic demand-side economics…...

  • Steve W08/07 12:39 PM

    Just because most of us are good, hard-working citizens doesn’t mean our lifestyle isn’t destroying the planet (and our own health.)

  • Jedidiah08/07 01:14 PM

    I think there needs to be a HUGE attitude shift in this town towards walkers, bicyclists, and those who ride the bus. When I’m on a bike anywhere outside of proper downtown, I feel like I’m about to get flattened by a person speeding way to close to me. Bicyclists, walkers and bus riders feel foreign in this town…just last night I was harassed by a security guard in a new parking deck (where I was riding to the top to get a good view of downtown). She had some spill about vandals and I could only think that I was targeted because I was on a bike (which has become like the skateboard and directly connected to vandalism and mischief). If I was in a Lexus SUV, I may have been left alone.

    As well, This morning two cars were having a speed competition with blaring horns just in front of my bus stop. Dangerous indeed, but this isn’t evident inside of the machine (where most people spend most of their zombified commute time).

  • Steve W08/07 01:18 PM

    Cars seem to have a dehumanizing effect upon their operators. But then again, so does the interweb!
    (This message brought to you by The Real World (tm) and active streetscapes.)

  • go go girl08/07 02:05 PM

    <<We all bear the responsibility because we accepted what was handed to us instead of following the higher path. >>


    Following the higher path implies knowledge of a higher path – and while anything related to <smart growth> has probably been on the radar of folks affiliated with building or design for years and years – it hasn’t necessarily been on everyone’s.

     

    People have their own reality, their own priorities and their own fears - and while education is the key – IMO suggesting that another’s might be of lesser merit is not a very tactful way of getting them to change their paradigm.

  • JZ08/07 02:09 PM

    Its a cultural issue.  We all share the blame as a collective. Passing the buck on it being the planner’s fault or a the car companies or our grandparents parents doesn’t mean a hill of beans.  Its our responsibility to change.  We’re all culpable because we choose to be a part of this society.

  • OCOG08/07 02:11 PM

    To be contrary to the chicken little supposition that the sky is falling and we are destroying our planet, I would argue that the earth has existed for millions of years prior to our arrival, and will exist for millions more after we are long gone despite the methods of madness we concoct. I don’t quite understand how victimhood was established by illustrating that ridiculous accusations were being thrown at people without any basis in reality. And there are some people who don’t ride high horses, and therefore can’t access this ‘higher path’.

  • Steve W08/07 02:14 PM

    JZ, let’s say we are all a product of our times, and our responsibility is to do exactly what one person can do to leave the world a better place than we found it. No guilt required.

  • JZ08/07 02:20 PM

    I’m not accusing others without including myself.  Like I continue to say: We are all responsible. 
    Since you make a point regarding the endurance of the plant, might I suggest to begin with James Lovelock and “The Gaia Hypothesis”.  His work has been available for the last 40 some-odd years and readily informed the first Earth Day in the 1970s.  He’s not the only one, nor the one necessarily with the correct answer, but it may help give one an entrance to more sensitive considerations.

  • JZ08/07 02:21 PM

    excuse the Typo…plant > planet.

  • Deb08/07 02:26 PM

    “As for ‘live where you work’, that’s not feasible for many folks. If one works in Apex, Holly Springs, Garner, Cary, etc, he/she may not be so inclined to live there. Chances are they’d rather live in Raleigh, as would many people, or whatever nearby metro area instead of the styx, and that distance is not reasonable for bus or bike riding or bike riding.”


    I know it isn’t scientific, but I read a regional forum where people discuss where to live in this area, and the majority of people who want to live in Cary, Apex, Holly Springs, Clayton, etc. are working in Raleigh, RTP and Durham. It’s actually the opposite problem form what you mentioned: they WANT to live in the sticks and commute to the “city”. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say, my job is in <insert one of those towns>, but I would rather live in Raleigh. There are just more jobs in Raleigh, RTP and Durham. People want the bigger yard, bigger (and often less expensive) housing that is available in these areas.


    But that is what the sprawl issue is about. If the bedroom communities had a way of attracting more businesses to actually provide jobs there, people could live where they work more easily. That doesn’t mean that everyone is going to want to live where they work, but as I said, would that change if cars were taking out of the equation? If there is no “easy” way to get to work, people’s ideals will change. As it is now, most of those towns are not substantial business centers, but rather they are just suburbs. I would fully support the smaller towns drawing in more companies to proivde jobs close to established residential suburbs, thus reducing the sprawl factor.

  • Diane08/07 02:26 PM

    Likewise, Jedidiah, I feel the same as a pedestrian in Raleigh… I nearly get flattened at least once a day, often by people pulling out across the sidewalk into traffic and just not looking to see if there are pedestrians coming. This is such a car town, it really bums me out sometimes!

  • JZ08/07 02:47 PM

    I’m going to offer my apologies, folks, for my ranting…it was not my intention to separate myself out as somebody “holier than thou”.  I’m thankful for Steve’s initial post about what it means to lead a healthier lifestyle. Its great to see discussion regarding what we want the future shape of our community to be.  I hope this yields more insight to public transit and walkable communities (where ever they may be). Mostly I hope it helps folks to feel empowered to lead a healthy life that is good for all.  Stepping out of the conversation…..

  • OCOG08/07 03:36 PM

    Before you go JZ, I wanted to let you know I appreciate the book recommendation and would like to recommend to you “Climate Confusion” by Roy Spencer.

    And Deb, I’d say you’re right in that many bypass living in Raleigh to have a place in the small surrounding towns. I do my best to try and destroy the misconception that they get more for their $$$ out in Holly Springs, etc. I was incorrect to say most wanted it the other way, but there are those who are in the other category. Land can definitely be cheaper outside of the city for businesses, and there seems to be an increasing # of large businesses that set up out there and employ people from this area who still prefer actually living in Raleigh, but have to commute against their better wishes. Even RTP can be a haul if you live ITB or inside of 540. I don’t think it’s realistic to remove cars from the equation though. And isn’t it the point that by making public transportation and cycling more viable that it ultimately becomes “easier” to get around for everyone, cars included?

  • Steve W08/07 03:41 PM

    Deb,
    Your point about the jobs being in more central areas really gets at the question of why do cities still exist at all in this modern age of advanced communications and transportation technology.  Many have predicted the extinction of cities, to be replaced by virtual reality, but I am heartened to see so many cities coming back to life.  Some people will telecommute and some will drive long distances, but that’s no reason to stand in the way of a downtown renaissance. The only reason those suburban/rural areas are even on the “map” (economically) is because of those central areas. Cities are our economic engines and everyone benefits from a strong, vibrant downtown even if they prefer living in the ‘burbs. 30-50% of the population wants a more walkable, urban lifestyle, but the market is not always able to supply that demand when individualism trumps community planning.

  • Jeff S08/08 12:27 AM

    You had me worried for a minute there… I thought you were agreeing that cars were mandatory. Thank fully you came around.

    Add me to the list. I have been riding my bicycle to work for two years. My house in north, north (not quite wakefield) raleigh is going on the market next week, my car has been sold and I’m moving to the North Hills area.

    I’m not making a house change, I am making a lifestyle change. I am sick of feeling trapped in the suburbs, sick of driving and riding in cars.

    Raleigh really isn’t the best place to try to pull this off, but our situation doesn’t allow for the cross-country move right now…

    —————-

    Steve, regarding your 30-50% figure… I’m having a hard time with that. They may “want” a walkable lifestyle, but they also want 3000 sqft on an acre lot, located near the “new” schools and be able to afford it. Walkable/urban tend to the be the first thing crossed off the wish list.

  • ChiefJoJo08/08 02:54 AM

    Good discussion.  I think the more “urbanists” among us (or others too) ought to notice something.  Why is it that when people advocate FOR more urbanism (built environment, public space) there is always a strong backlash of 1950s Red Scare McCarthyism?  As if the evil planners are going to remove the ‘burbs and all it’s trappings.  This seems to be a very common reaction, and I all I can figure is that it’s threatening somehow.  Last time I looked around, probably 90% of the land area of most US cities are made up of a sea of auto-oriented sprawl (Raleigh might be 99%).  Hell, we could probably do nothing but build urban multifamily infill for 10 years straight in every US city and still be have plenty of single family homes to go around—especially with all the speculative overbuilding of the last 7 years.

    Steve is right.  Arguing insesently over the past mistakes isn’t productive.  My argument for urbanism is that ‘suburbanism’ has had it’s chance for 60 years, and we need a strategic shift in govt policies that actually reflects all the positive benefits of smart growth and negatives of suburbia being discussed here.  Hey, if in 10 years you still want that big house with a big yard *and* are willing to foot 100% of the bill of what it actually costs to build and maintain that lifestyle (instead of innumerable hidden govt. subsidies to highways, oil, etc.) go right ahead.  I just want a level playing field.

  • Enigma08/08 11:28 AM

    There have been many interesting comments about this but the fact is people live where the houses are built, and developers build them where they can.  When is the last time the public supported an urban infill redevelopment, especially inside the beltline?  Every time a smart-growth urban infill project breaks the news, the ITB NIMBY activists dust off the “fight the rezoning” play book and do their best to shoot it down.  Remember Coker “towers”?  Sprawl? I think it’s time to stop blaming the developers, and our elected officials, and start looking in the mirror.

  • OCOG08/08 11:54 AM

    If I remember correctly, one of the main arguments that Coker Towers opponents had was that Oberlin road would become more overloaded than it already is, and this charge was definitely lead by ITB NIMBY’s. Most folks that I knew OTB either couldn’t care less or were all for it.

  • BK08/08 12:50 PM

    Smart growth or urbanism isn’t simply high-density high-rises.  Coker Towers would have been an entirely auto-dependent development, only 10 times as dense as anything around it.  It was the traffic generation counts that ultimately shot down the first proposal.  As far as transit and walkability, the thing was located on one measly city bus line.  Yeah.

    Destabilizing a dense, central-city neighborhood incompatible isn’t the way to promote central urban living.

    The key to successful infill is compatibility.

    If you hate what went up in its place, and everyone seems to, just remember that the original proposal was about three times as tall and three times as much stuff.

  • Jeff S08/08 02:13 PM

    BK, 99.99% of everything in Raleigh is entirely auto-dependent. We don’t seem to think twice about allowing a 1000 home clearcut suburb go up, requiring massive expenditures in utilities and roads.

    Yes, every time a new building goes up they’re nitpicking them out of a floor here and four units there.

    Yes, both styles of building generate traffic, but the difference is that the 1000 home neighborhood can never be served by any kind of mass transit and will forever mean 2000 more cars on the road.

  • BK08/08 02:53 PM

    Jeff, I don’t think it’s *quite* that high, but basically yes.

    The problem is that just building density “anywhere” doesn’t make anything more transit- or ped-friendly.  You have to have a coordinated plan for providing those services.  Otherwise you just have high-rise sprawl, with gigantic parking structures. 

    The reason that Raleigh nitpicks a floor here and a unit there is because our regs and guiding plan have yet to establish a clear guidance and framework for where we want the density and how it will fit in (i.e., urban form and functional design) and how it will be served with transit (no transit plan to speak of yet exists, other than the aforementioned woefully inadequate bus service). 

    Instead, we still have this archaic suburban zoning code, which penalizes and prohibits urbanism, and which is based on separating land uses and surrounding them with giant “vegetative buffers” as well as mandating humongous blacktop parking lots.  This is what’s in our zoning code. 

    And politically we still think that the way to get what we want is for developers to propose (LOTS of something) and the neighbors and pols to dicker them down to (ACCEPTABLE).  This is no way to build a great, transit-friendly city with walkable streetscapes.

    But some insiders benefit from it because it turns development approvals into a political game.

    We need an approach that combines urban form zoning with quality streetscape mandates, and spreads the density out a bit across an entire mixed-use district—not just a tower here and a tower there, with a paper cup blowing across a parking lot in between. 

    Because we don’t have that (some of our peer cities do), we are left with this:  a developer proposes a whole big pile on their own parcel, and they try to get 5 votes on Council.  And who can blame them?  Our city has provided no viable alternative for either the developers or the neighbors.  The uncertainty costs everyone money and time, and no one knows what will happen next.  It’s all just a matter of political gamesmanship. 

    Meanwhile, what passes for a sophisticated urban-planning maxim in Raleigh is:  IF IT’S REALLY DENSE OR A HIGH-RISE, IT MUST BE SMART GROWTH!

  • BK08/08 02:56 PM

    PS I’m going on vacation now, so looks like someone else will have to have the last word!  Great thread, lots of education on the issues happening here.

  • PastaFazool08/08 04:02 PM

    OCOG, et al.

    I apologize for my hyperbole.  I assumed most people knew that, while I was exaggerating, the difference from reality was in fact by only a modest amount - if at all.

    The SUV industry claims only 15% go off-road:

    http://4wheeldrive.about.com/od/offroad4x4atv4wd/a/offroadstats.htm

    That’s 85% never leaving the pavement.  At most, I was off by 14%.  Now, consider:

    1) That’s the SUV INDUSTRY making this claim.  Which way would you say that bias goes?
    2) That’s including VERY rural areas and farming applications.  We are certainly on the more urban side of the scale.

    It’s arguable the 99% number, in this area, is within reason and reality.

    Regardless, my point in this analogy was to draw the similarities in what people will tell themselves they NEED and what they can be sold to believe they NEED by societal forces.  Living in suburbia is sold in the same manner.  Like JZ proclaims above, I too am part of the we.

  • OCOG08/08 05:44 PM

    I hear ya, but other than going off-road there’s always towing and hauling for biz and personal use. Actually, 15% off-roading is higher than I expected. These days some SUV’s get better gas mileage that a lot of sedans do, esp if that SUV’s a V6. My point was that lambasting people you don’t know is not helpful for achieving your goal.

  • PastaFazool08/08 06:28 PM

    I fail to see how I’m “lambasting people [I] don’t know.”  I apologize if it reads that way.

    Is your point that most SUVs are purchased and used in a way that justifies their extra consumption of resources for their manufacture and operation?  You’ll have to show me.  The data is against you.  Simplest being the HUGE decline of sales since the rise of fuel prices (http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/05/23/dumping.suvs/index.html) 
    Clearly, there is/was a HUGE percentage of folks owning and operating those vehicles that don’t/didn’t need to be.  If nothing else, anecdotally count the number of SUVs you see towing something with the number of SUVs you see.  And do they really need an SUV to do the towing?  A 38 MPG small car can also tow a trailer.

    My point, once again, is to draw the analogy between the forces that suck people (including me) into suburbia with those that cause people to buy vehicles they don’t need.  Finally, a new point I’d like to make is that these forces are so subtle and so strong, too many of us will spend more time and energy justifying their wasteful positions instead of taking responsibility and reflecting on/changing over to less consumptive lifestyles.

  • Jeff S08/08 06:46 PM

    No, I think the point was that criticizing people for their decisions won’t change their behavior.

    BTW OCOG, that an SUV gets the same gas mileage as a sedan only proves that plenty of sedans get horrible gas mileage too - certainly nothing to celebrate.

    Then again, I’m sure plenty of people would be quick to offer a reason why they really need 250/350/etc horsepower.

  • OCOG08/08 07:06 PM

    To each his own. I refuse the burden of questioning why someone is riding in a bigger vehicle than mine. It’s not my business. I’ve known contractors who use Suburbans for hauling 8’ 2x4’s b/c it’s the only vehicle that could do so to their satisfaction. I can’t see the 2x4’s inside the vehicle if I’m not in it. Suppose someone is running a nonprofit organization and uses their SUV for hauling donated items around neigborhoods. Again, I’m not peeking in their vehicle to see why this possibly undeserving person is driving an SUV. And that small 38 mpg sedan may not tow a weighed down 8’ or 10’ trailer without causing some serious damage to the suspension. If you start blaming people for driving SUV’s for causing untold destruction, where does it stop? Consider that the 4Runner next to you on the highway might actually be getting more or equal mpg’s than the other guy’s 4-door Taurus. But that Taurus isn’t such an easy target is it? If you want to lead a less consumptive lifestyle, have at it. Tell your friends as well and demonstrate how great it is by the results you get. Write a book, etc to try and influence as many as possible, but if you try to control and demand behavior modification from those that don’t agree with you regarding resource waste and its effects, I think you’ll get frustrated. Especially if you state your positions with bitter, generalized accusations.

  • OCOG08/08 07:09 PM

    Jeff, I was typing before I saw your post. Just wanted to say that I agree with you, I don’t understand the reason people buy super fast/powerful cars and don’t take them to the tracks. Driving that vehicle around neigborhood streets and inside a city must be torture.

  • PastaFazool08/08 07:57 PM

    OCOG, I refuse to let you paint me and my comments with such a broad and, what is sounding more and more slanderous, brush.  I am not frustrated nor bitter.  My comments are not out of frustration, or bitterness, nor are they accusatory.  I stand by my statements and the facts (see links) that a very significant portion of the driving population is driving a vehicle that is more consumptive than they need - by their OWN measure.  For the third time, my point is not judging these individuals.  I’m saying they are duped.  I’m saying we are all duped into being more consumptive than is necessary or fair to the rest of the world population and the planet as a whole.  I’m saying the suburban lifestyle is another example of this.

    While I appreciated you adding your perspective to the thread, I find your attempts at shifting the argument away from Steve’s original article tiresome and no longer provide substance to the conversation.  Have a good weekend.

  • MS08/09 08:22 AM

    “The balance: a home in Oakwood is reasonable compared to the McMansions in Wakefield or Cary. It just depends an individual’s quality of life.”

    As someone who grew up in the dreaded suburbs (i.e. Cary), I’d like to remind people that we’re not all mindless, SUV-clad jerks. My mother cycles 30 miles roundtrip to her office in RTP, and my father does the same when he’s not working from home. I know lots of people in Cary who are similarly looking for alternate and healthier forms of transportation. With a population of 100,000+, Cary’s actually a small town, and not simply a tacky Raleigh outpost. So maybe progressive Raleighites should think about how they can collaborate with their neighbors, rather than continually using them as a rhetorical scapegoat.

  • Enigma08/09 11:59 AM

    Back to Steve’s original subject, as he said, burning oil more cheaply is not a long-term solution, and we drive because we have no choice.  The real issue; pedestrian-friendly smart-growth is something most every progressive city is either promoting, or actually requiring in some cases.  What we need are leaders that promote the concepts and benefits of smart-growth, which coincidently, is exactly what we have.  What’s missing is the legal mechanism to mandate its principles, goals, and ultimate rewards.  Once again, the developers aren’t necessarily the bad guys.  Not as much as “we” are in a number of cases.
    My previous mention of the successful NIMBY protest and ultimate denial of the Coker “towers” rezoning sparked a couple comments.  A better example of how we, instead of our City leaders or developers, shape and control our land use patterns is the highly controversial Dix Hospital property.  Our leaders, planners, and other smart-growth groups desire a mix of uses, and a 100+ acre park.  The opposition comprised primarily of the usual ITB NIMBY activists demand a 306-acre park only.  Why should the privileged elite minority be allowed to control and dictate their personal agenda on the rest of us that may choose to LIVE there?  With gas at $4/gal, how many OTB suburbanites will make the trek to an in-town park on a regular basis?  How many DIX 306 yards signs were displayed OTB? 
    If we want to work toward the goal of a smart-growth pedestrian-friendly future, let’s stop allowing NIMBY activists fortunate to live that lifestyle already stand in our way of joining them.  We can’t make smart choices if the choice opportunities don’t exist.  Suburbanites have rights too!

  • JZ08/09 01:05 PM

    Two things:

    1.  The state has no intention of giving up Dorthea Dix.  It’s a wild hair idea that got way out of control.  The recent debacle regarding the prison expansion revealed this to be the case.

    2.  If they WERE to sell the Dix: a 306 acre park would not be desired by residents because of some fear of “unsavory types” moving on in (Bolyan Heights is already hemmed in by the prison, the Dix campus, and the economically-depressed South Street neighborhood) but because it is envisioned as Raleigh’s equivalent to New York’s Central Park, which a) gives relief to density and b) common outdoor space for all city residents to take advantage of.  When Central Park was planned, Manhattan Island was not even 1/2 of what it would come to be, but the forward thinking planners realized a necessity if growth was going to continue, which it was.

    In lieu of Dorthea Dix being off the table, I have an idea:  The Eliza Pool Playground at 1660 Fayetteville Street in South Raleigh sits next to the old Bain Water Treatment Plant. Together this is a pretty decent sized parcel. Not the size of Dix, but a comfortable size.  Being along Fayetteville, its an extension of our cities Main Axis that you could say begin in the north with the state government complex, passes through the legislative building, through the Capitol, down to the performing arts center. Now I know only a designer would get excited about the formal relationship here, but Raleigh is actually one of only a few planned capital cities and this axis goes right back to the city’s origins. 

    My point here is that the Bain plant is a historic structure, on the National Park Service Register. Its absolutely beautiful inside with a long gallery with high windows and tile floors. Could we combine the existing park facility with the Bain plant building and grounds to create a city park where the building could act as an cultural arts anchor?  Festivals could be held there, folks could enjoy the grounds which could be developed into gardens and lawns.  It would be great for the city as well as great for the neighborhood and begin to engage South Raleigh in this reawakening in the interest in living close to downtown.  The nice thing is that Empire Properties owns the Bain plant and the city already owns the Eliza Pool park.  No need to negotiate with the State.

    Perhaps the wrong post to discuss this topic…but I saw a window of opportunity and took it….play through….

  • JZ08/09 03:42 PM

    couldn’t find this earlier…but here’s an arts project already moving to use Bain as a focus:

    http://www.bainproject.com/

  • Steve W08/09 05:15 PM

    Enigma, on the issue of redeveloping the Dorothea Dix property as mixed-use infill development, it’s important to note that preserving open space is a big part of smart growth.  You may not use Dorothea Dix Park every day, but neither do all New Yorkers use Central Park every day. (If that was your measure, there wouldn’t be any Central Parks anywhere in the world.) The problem with developing it is that once it’s gone, you can’t get it back. This is one time opportunity not to be squandered.

  • Jeff S08/09 05:34 PM

    Funny thing… Central Park isn’t filled with hundreds of parking spaces.

    The whole idea of a “destination” park is contrary to smart growth and livability.

    Just for example… if this were a store, generating the same amount of traffic as this park, the residents would be all up in arms against it.

  • Enigma08/09 05:38 PM

    Central Park, and other great parks such as Forest Park in St. Louis, were established at a time and in an area where the cities could be built and then grow around them.  The point I was making at Dix, there’s plenty of room for both.  Since Raleigh can’t be built around Dix Park, why not build 200-acres of smart-growth mixed-use, AND build a 100-acre park? Sorry if I was unclear earlier.

  • JZ08/09 05:48 PM

    Since Dix off the table for development of any kind anyway, so I think Raleigh needs to regroup and decide as to whether they would like something like a NYC Central Park and Chicago’s Grant/Millenium Parks.  Or whether we could sustain a series of well groomed parks more of the scale of “Bryant Park” behind the NY Public Library in Manhattan.  Personally, I think we need the one big one that we can all point a finger at and say, “That’s Raleigh’s park!”.  A park that is a culmination, rather than a compromise of our area’s aspirations.  Where large functions and activities can happen simultaneously.  Unfortunately, I think there’s just not a large enough parcel intimately linked with downtown the way Dix is.  I’m glad it will continue to serve the needs of NC’s mentally ill, but, man that would have been a great park….

  • Steve W08/09 06:30 PM

    I strongly believe that regardless of the issue, what “the state wants” is anything but set in stone.  Politics has a funny way of rearranging itself as soon as everyone thinks they have it figured out.  I maintain the future of the Dorothea Dix property is still in our hands.

    I am the biggest advocate there is of pocket parks that can be accessed on foot, by bike, etc. yet I also believe Raleigh needs a Central Park, parking spaces notwithstanding.

    I support DIX 306, the notion that it should be preserved in its entirety.  Development of any open space is a slippery slope.  We should be extremely cautious about conceding on development over open space.

    Right?

  • JZ08/09 06:40 PM

    Unfortunately, Steve, the Dix Hospital is not going to be closed by the State.  The notion that the City had potential to buy it was a wild rumor that got out of hand due to the relocation of some services to Butner.  An associate of mine, also a Boylan Heights resident, learned of this reality in his vigilance in seeking some State accountability regarding their poor handling of the process for the Prison Expansion. If we desire a Central Park, we’re going to have to find another location for it.

  • ChiefJoJo08/09 07:15 PM

    Maybe this is all moot, but…

    I was initially attracted by the 306 concept, but I think there are plenty of reasons to allow some limited high-quality development on Dix.  Access to Dix is horrible for such a large parcel.  Farmers Market, NCSU, prison, Historic Boylan Heights on all sides but one… Caraleigh. No one with the 306 movement wants to address the realities of what would happen with their TIF funding concept for the perimeter.  All they talk about is how much of the original we have lost… while it may be true, much of that is water under the bridge now.  Given that all the surrounding land is either institutional or preserved (BH), the entire force of redevelopment and gentrification would be directed at Caraleigh… but you never hear anyone address that.  I would love to believe in the Central Park analogy, but it’s just not applicable in almost every way.

    I would like to see some limited, very high quality development allowed near Lake Wheeler, and refurbishing of the old hospital grounds into some other productive uses.  Improve the road, bike, transit and ped connections into Dix from downtown and NCSU (all sides, really), and then use the remaining 200-250 acres for a fantastic park.

  • Georgia08/10 06:03 PM

    Dix Hospital was, at one time, a self contained facility. Food was grown on the farm, I imagine labor may have come some from residents, illegally perhaps. There are little houses all over the campus where some employees were able to live with their families for a reduced price. The campus is large and spacious. It is the perfect place for a 21st century treatment program.

    The model for this program exists in programs in other areas. For example, Ridgeview Hospital in Atlanta is a private treatment program that has 3 levels of housing. In-patient, on-campus, and halfway, as well as day treatments. As I imagine what a good program like that (which treats all of the 21st century problems as a family systems program) could do with a campus like Dix, I wonder why we are closing the hospital rather than transforming it?

    As Barry Saunders column said recently, why do we make treatment available AFTER prison and not doing everything we can to offer services before hand. It was in the 80s, before the start of the tax cutters, that Dix developed one of the premier Adolescent and CHildren services program. It included residential care and family system therapy. On weekends the campus was full of family activities as families and patients visited. RIFed by Reagan economics.

    SO now we have a 306 acres with buildings, little halfway houses already built, a walkable restorative campus, a hospital, a chapel, tennis courts, roads, a farmers market nearby ... and we are discussing what to do with it?!? I think it would make a great treatment center for the 21st century problems families are struggling to solve today. Public/private if you have to, but golly gee, what a waste of a tremendous opportunity.

    I am trying to figure out how to figure out who/what is sane after watching this whole thing evolve.

  • Enigma08/10 07:00 PM

    The following exert is taken from the History of Dorothea Dix Hospital website. 
    “Overjoyed at the success of the plan, Dorothea offered to stay on to help in the selection of a site for the new hospital and to assist in many other ways. In 1851, the first commissioners of the “Insane Hospital of North Carolina” reported to the legislature: “They selected a site for the said building and after carefully examining the whole country in the vicinity of Raleigh, they chose a location west of the city and about one mile distant, on a hill near Rocky Branch to provide a water supply. This location has a commanding view of the city and is believed to be perfectly healthy.” The Insane Hospital was located outside of Raleigh in pleasant surrounding countryside. It was thought that insanity was caused by social conditions and patients should be removed from family, friends and community. They purchased the 182 acres from Maria Hunter Hall and Sylvester Smith for $1,944.63. Both tracts of land were originally part of the plantation owned by Col. Theophilus Hunter in the late 1700’s.”
    Shouldn’t we show some respect and follow Dorothea’s criteria by finding a pleasant countryside setting outside the insanity driven social conditions of Raleigh?

  • georgia08/10 11:07 PM

    Ah, but you don’t see that it is that already, and can be that for us as well.

  • Steve W08/11 01:31 PM

    Dorothea Dix hospital has transferred patients to the new facility in Butner. At this time, Wake County is leasing beds at the hospital until the County, in conjunction with both public and private partners, can build a facility to meet Wake County’s needs. It is anticipated that this arrangement will remain in place for about 3 to 5 years.
    Efforts are underway to identify and fund a new building for the Department of Health and Human Services. While this effort is years in the making, the Dix Visionaries and other advocacy groups are very supportive of Representative Deborah Ross’s efforts to site the new building in Garner - freeing up space for the development of a world-class, 306 acre destination park.
    The Dix Visionaries are fully aware that creating a great park will not happen over night. Creating something of this magnitude will take years and the combined efforts and passion of thousands of citizens. We are very pleased with the effort thus far and feel confident that 2009 will see major positive movement towards creating Dorothea Dix Park.

  • Enigma08/11 10:31 PM

    I’m happy to hear the patients are finally back in the country as Dorothea wanted.  If Dix does ever become a park, then maybe it could also be the central hub of the mass transit rail system for the entire area.  Similar to Central Park in NYC, maybe the station and required parking could all be underground.  Seems like there’s a way to have a great park, and also provide a home base for the much needed mass transit system.  Back to the original subject, could “Dix Park Central Station” a start in providing a real solution?

  • vanessa08/26 09:29 PM

    honestly I am afraid to ride a bike on these roads b/c people are mean an inconsiderate to bikers.  now if we had bike ways like in Oregon.  I could get with it.  Maybe we should take a better look into how Oregon integrated bikes and cars.

  • JZ09/10 01:38 PM

    Good Article for reflection

    http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/why-not-in-america?utm_source=bronto&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Why+not+in+America?&utm_content=6939point6@gmail.com&utm_campaign=Newsletter+9/10/08

Welcome to New Raleigh. We welcome your participation in the ongoing discussion. Before posting we ask that you read our Comment Policy and we invite you to register with our site. If you want to keep up with the news on our blog, subscribe to the RSS feed or get emailed every time we post.




Remember my information for next time I comment

Send me an email of follow-up comments?