StrongTowns Visits CNU 21

Those who have read this blog for awhile are familiar with the StrongTowns organization from Minnesota.  I mentioned their website and other materials frequently earlier this year.  I’ve referred to them less frequently in recent months, but that’s mostly because I’ve integrated much of their thinking into my views on urbanism, making appeals to outside authority seem less necessary.  The StrongTowns philosophy remains a potent force in much of what I write.

Those who participate in Petaluma Urban Chat may also remember that the StrongTowns founder, Chuck Marohn, spoke with us via video link at our February meeting.

On a converging path, I’ve concluded the last three weeks with links to plenary speeches from the annual meeting of the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU 21).

This week, those two trails merge.  Marohn of StrongTowns gave the concluding plenary speech at CNU 21.  As with the other plenary talks, the link includes only the audio of the speech, supplemented by Marohn’s slides.  Without the video of Marohn speaking, it’s not the most visually compelling presentation.  But the slides are interesting enough that they shouldn’t be disregarded.

Perhaps it’s the nature of CNU functions, where most of the listeners already have a good grasp of urbanism, but it seems that many of the CNU 21 speakers began their talks somewhere around the third chapter of the urbanist manual.

Marohn was no different.  He covered his introductory material, but so quickly that non-urbanists may have a hard time keeping pace.  (Another factor may have been than Marohn shared the plenary session with another speaker, so his time was limited.  This video is only thirty minutes long, compared to the other plenary videos that ran more than an hour.)

For those who intend to watch the video but aren’t already familiar with StrongTowns, I’ll offer this brief summary.  StrongTowns argues that, because of flawed funding mechanisms and a willingness to go into debt that grew so slowly we barely noticed it, we’ve been seduced into building sprawling communities that we can no longer afford to maintain.

Marohn and StrongTowns argue that a time of major readjustment is upon us and that urbanism will play an essential part in the readjustment.

Compared to other urbanist perspectives, which are often based around issues such as climate change and peak oil that have been unfortunately and incorrectly ascribed to the left-wing, StrongTowns comes from a economic/financial basis.  As a friend noted to me as he began to grasp the StrongTowns’ argument, “Marohn is arguing that even conservatives should be urbanists!”

Since his February conversation with Petaluma Urban Chat, Marohn had strengthened the finish to his standard speech, offering three strong conclusions.  First, he argued that urbanism is a more affordable land-use pattern.  Next, he contended that urbanism should be allowed to grow incrementally.  Lastly, he asserted that urbanism needed to be driven from the bottom up, rather than the top down, giving more authority to local citizens and less to regional authorities.

I have no problem with the argument on the affordability of urbanism.  It’s the fundamental tenet of StrongTowns.  However, I have quibbles with the latter two conclusions.

I concur that urbanism should have historically been allowed to progress incrementally.  However, after seventy years of urbanism being unreasonably suppressed, I’m not sure we can afford too much incrementalism.

I don’t think we should encourage thirty-acre urbanist projects under a single ownership.  I think that would be a recipe for premature obsolescence.  But finding a way to encourage half-dozen complementary and simultaneous two-acre mixed-use projects goes beyond incrementalism, but seems a reasonable reaction to the land-use missteps since World War II.

On top-down versus bottom-up, I don’t believe that either is correct.  I agree that too much direction from above is a mistake.  One solution can’t fit all situations.  But too much reliance on citizen input runs the risk the lessons already learned elsewhere must be relearned in each community.  What we need is a system of citizen input informed and shaped by accumulated knowledge from similar communities.  It would be neither top-down nor bottom-up, but a synthesis.

So, as much respect as I give Marohn for the insights he has developed and the commitment he has made to urbanism, I also disagree with some of his work, which is also a form of synthesis and therefore a good thing.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Urbanism Needs “Not So Big” and Vice Versa

I have a theory.  I’ll call it the “multiple paths equals the truth theory”.

The theory argues that that if multiple needs, whether emotional, financial, physical, or other, lead to a similar course of action, then the action must be valid.

My primary example is urbanism.  Responding to climate change leads to urbanism.  Adjusting to peak oil leads to urbanism.  Moving our cities to a more financially sustainable basis leads to urbanism.  Strengthening our economy leads to urbanism.  The commonality of those paths can’t be coincidental.  Urbanism must be a profoundly pertinent answer for our time.

Nor must the paths flow in a single direction.  Sometimes two truths can have a symbiotic relationship, each needing the other to succeed.  If one is true, then the other must be equally true.

The “not so big” work of Sarah Susanka has that kind of a symbiotic relationship with urbanism.  Susanka argues that many of us desire more and more square feet in our homes, when what we really need is more quality in the square feet we can afford.  So she offers design elements and strategies to add that quality.  The quintessential Susanka house feels livable, comfortable, and bigger than it really is.

Although one can conceive of a “not so big” house on acreage, the “not so big” approach achieves full fruition in an urban setting.  The design of a “not so big” home encourages use of the outside common area, which is a stronger common area when urbanism is the adjoining land use.  Meanwhile, urbanism is most successful when people need less room to lead comfortable and fulfilling lives, with the greater density creating the demographics that will support walkable businesses.

“Not so big” needs urbanism.  Urbanism needs “not so big”.  Urbanism is a fundamental truth for the 21st century.  Therefore, “not so big” must also be a fundamental truth for the 21st century.  Perhaps that proof wouldn’t pass the test of a strict logician, but it works for me.

Susanka spoke at the annual meeting of the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), bouncing comfortably between her life path and her philosophy.  I recommend listening to what she had to say.  The talk is audio only, unless you count the power point slides.  The video is 72 minutes long, so requires an extended stay at your computer.  But it offers a wealth of content for those with patience.  (If you must skip ahead, Susanka doesn’t begin speaking until about 16 minutes in.  However, the School Street project in Libertyville, Illinois, which is presented during her introduction, is also worth your attention.)

For those lacking a free hour, I’ll offer highlights.  Transplanted as a child from an English village to Palos Verde, near Los Angeles, Susanka learned early that not everyone could take a footpath to a village grocery where one could chat with neighbors.

Carrying that lesson into her profession, she became an architect who believed that architecture should be about preparing an environment for living.

She argues that we should be living better not bigger and that what we need are smaller, higher quality homes.   She suggests that we want our dwellings to give us a feeling of home, but we keep looking for that feeling by building bigger homes, which is the wrong place to look.

Susanka argues that we have a notion of how we live, but that the notion is often unrelated to the reality of our lives.  (I’ve suggested that suburbia is often driven by people buying homes suitable for elegant Christmas parties and happy backyard barbecues, when their day-to-day life is actually about helping with homework and doing laundry.  Indeed, many folks haven’t hosted a party in years.)

I’ve been a fan of Susanka for over a decade.  In fact, I’m disappointed that I haven’t yet mentioned her name in this blog.  I was thrilled to have the opportunity to listen to her at CNU 21 and intend to begin incorporating her thoughts into this blog.  Until then, I suggest listening to her.  It’ll be worth your 72 minutes.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Andres Duany – Ego Not Optional

I recently attended a meeting about a North Bay land-use project.  As the group assembled and exchanged greetings, one of the participants noted a copy of “The Smart Growth Manual” on the table.  He pointed to the name of Andres Duany on the cover and made a derogatory comment about the size of Duany’s ego.  It seemed an odd comment, especially from someone who claimed to share much of Duany’s philosophy, but there was no opportunity to delve further.

Since then, I’ve thought several times about the comment.  I can’t disagree with the factual assertion.  Andres Duany is a notably egotistical human being.  I retain an image of Duany wearing an unvented white tuxedo jacket and smoking a big cigar while leaning against a wood fence at the concluding party after the 2013 annual meeting of the Congress for the New Urbanism 21 (CNU 21). As a key founder of CNU and an aging lion of the new urbanism movement, he was looking with pride over what he had wrought.

But as much I agree that Duany has a giant ego, I can’t find a way to be disparaging about that fact.  To truly change the world requires an idea whose time has come and the self-confidence to continually push the idea even when much of the world isn’t interested in listening.

And Duany, with his cohort of other new urbanists, truly is changing the world.  The change is nowhere near complete, but the tone of the land-use conversation has changed because of Duany and others.  Which I think is a great thing.

Duany’s ego and still fertile thinking were on full display in the plenary talk that he gave at CNU 21.  Except a few Photoshop slides that he didn’t begin showing until he was nearly an hour into his speech, the YouTube file is audio only.  I’ll understand if only a few readers have the time or patience to listen to a 90-minute speech.  But there are some remarkable ideas that will reward the dedicated listener.

For those who don’t have the time or attention span to listen, a few highlights are:

++ Because the U.S., unlike Europe, still had areas of complete wilderness when the environmentalism first arose, American environmentalism is fundamentally different than other environmentalisms.  American environmentalism views every action by mankind as a negative, while other environmentalisms acknowledge a place for human beings in the environment.  As a result, American environmentalism is reaching a dead-end.  CNU can lead a way out of the dead-end by providing a role for human beings in the environment.  (Yeah, there’s a bit of ego in that statement.)

++ LEED-ND (Neighbor Development) may be technically accurate and valid, but if it doesn’t allow the development of a new Charleston, South Carolina, then it’s fatally flawed.

++ Urbanism is now a paradigm.  Many people and firms describe themselves relative to urbanism rather than relative to past land-use paradigms.

++ The world is excessively attached to high-tech solutions which are inherently maintenance-intensive and unstable.  It will become increasingly difficult to live in a world dependent on high-tech.  A key part of the future will be a reintroduction of low tech.  CNU owns low tech.  A key role of CNU will be to deliver a future in which the young can live. 

++ The 21st century began in 2008 with the collapse of the real estate bubble, the reaching of peak oil, and the growing awareness of climate change.  CNU has effective responses to all three.  The role of CNU will be to restore idealism about the future.

As he heads into his senior years, Duany remains a seminal figure.  Absolutely egotistical and absolutely worthy of attention.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Nature–Deficit Disorder

Many years ago, a single mother with whom I worked had a son who was making dubious life choices.  The young man was 13 at the time.  His choices weren’t horrible.  He hadn’t yet gotten in trouble with the law.  But they weren’t the best choices and his mother was concerned about the direction.

She asked if I’d spend time with her son.  It needn’t be rigorous mentoring or tutoring, but only a chance for the young man to chat with an adult male.  I agreed.

For our first outing, I picked an undeveloped park on the outskirts of the town where we lived.  We spent two hours walking along a creek and through a pine forest while talking about school, life, and whatever else came to mind.

Early in the walk, he spied an abandoned Frisbee wedged against a log in the creek.  He freed it and let it become the talisman for the remainder of our walk.  When he wanted a break in the conversation, perhaps a chance to gather his thoughts, he’d move ahead of me on the trail and we’d toss the Frisbee back-and-forth as we continued to walk.

The tosses weren’t long, no more than twenty feet.  It wasn’t a park that accommodated long tosses.  But it was a chance for him to collect himself.  When he was ready to resume the conversation, he’d let me catch up to him and we’d resume our chat.

As we finished our outing and walked toward my car, the young man suddenly turned back and put the Frisbee atop a post near the park entrance.  Surprised, I asked if he didn’t want to keep the Frisbee for our next outing.  He responded, “No, I’d rather leave it for someone else to talk the way that we have.”

It might have been his most mature life decision in weeks.

It’s possible that the young man was subject to what author Richard Louv calls a nature-deficit disorder.  And a two-hour walk in nature was the best thing for what ailed him, far better than any words I offered.

Louv, author of “Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder”, argues that, as a nation, we’ve systematically deprived our children of the exposure to the natural world that they need to grow up with good emotional health.

He argues that the deficit has resulted from many causes.  He cites “the criminalization of natural play” in which children are discouraged by neighborhood rules from unstructured outside play.  (Louv has also written a book “America 2” in which he argues that we’ve given to homeowners’ associations a level of control over our lives that we’d never give to a government.)

Louv also notes the increased time spent in front of electronic screens.  And he’s particularly concerned that too many children aren’t given a chance to learn what nature is, such as the 34 percent of elementary school students in San Diego who’ve never been to a beach.  San Diego!

Louv lacks the credentials to describe nature-deficit disorder as an official psychiatric condition.  But he provides a mound of compelling evidence for his hypothesis.  He notes that executive function, our ability to manage our many cognitive skills, has rapidly declined in children in recent decades, the same decades during which children have become increasingly divorced from nature.  He reports that cognitive skills are shown to improve after time spent in nature.

Louv describes how outside exercise shows more benefits that the same exercise inside.  And he reports that attention deficit disorder is often reduced after time spent in nature. 

Louv’s nature-deficit disorder hypothesis may seem unrelated to urbanism, but he argues that they should be complementary.  Louv notes that walkable communities offer more opportunities than sprawling suburbs to connect with nature.  Children on foot, and adults too, are more willing to explore a creek bed or a copse than the same people in a speeding car.  And a denser form of development offers more opportunities to leave undisturbed pockets of nature.

Louv also suggests that urbanism, with a renewed connection to nature as a key component, can become the new environmental movement.  He reports that the average age of environmental organization members is 67, with new members at 64.  He suggests that the environmental movement is dying because it’s increasingly focused on what human beings shouldn’t do.  He argues that an environmental movement based on urbanism can have a more positive, affirmative message.

Because of this suggested connection to urbanism, Louv was invited to give the opening plenary at CNU 21, the recent annual meeting of the Congress for the New Urbanism.  If his nature-deficit hypothesis interests you, I suggest giving a listen to his talk.  I was at the plenary session and found the speech effective and compelling.

Although the link is through YouTube, the talk is audio only.  Personally, I re-listened to it through headphones connected to my phone, while talking notes on my laptop and watching a baseball game on a nearby muted television.  The irony didn’t escape me.

Remember the young man with whom I took the long walk?  He and I spent a couple of years in occasional outings, including nature walks and mountain lake canoeing.  Eventually life intervened and I moved away.  But at his request, I flew in for his high school graduation.  These days, we only email occasionally, but my wife keeps an eye on him through social media and advises me whenever he makes a good life decision in which she sees evidence of my long-ago mentoring.  I hope she’s right.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Congress for the New Urbanism, CNU 21

There are many organizations promoting new urbanism.  Smart Growth America, StrongTowns, and Reconnecting America immediately come to mind.  And that’s barely scratching the surface.

But the organization that first came to my attention, and that continues to hold a primary place in my thinking, is the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU).  Its founders were among the leading lights in the early days of new urbanism and its “Charter for the New Urbanism” was the early manifesto.  Perhaps not up there with Martin Luther nailing his theses to the church door, but on the same list.

Shortly after I began this blog, a friend reinforced my interest in CNU and suggested that I attend a CNU meeting.  I didn’t give adequate weight to his advice and missed a CNU transportation conference last year in Long Beach that seemed to have been fascinating.

Unwilling to repeat the mistake, I returned late last evening from Salt Lake City where I attended the annual CNU meeting, CNU 21.  My friend was right.  It was inspirational.  And I met lots of great folks.

One blog post is inadequate to convey the breadth and depth of the meeting.  Instead, CNU 21 will be covered, explicitly and implicitly, in this space for long time.  But to whet your appetite for the urbanism buffet at which I feasted and am now eager to share, here is a partial list of memories and highlights:

·       The first morning, I found myself in the breakfast buffet line behind Ellen Dunham-Jones, the CNU Chair.  Dunham-Jones often jokes that she already has the urbanist name for the rock band she wants to lead in her next life.  I’d forgotten the name, so asked for a reminder.  It was the Underperforming Asphalt, a developer term for a parking lot that needs to be upgraded to a higher and better use.

To reinforce her rock dreams, she then did an air guitar rendition of the opening riff of a Talking Heads song.  As far as air guitar performances go, it was fairly sedate.  But one must remember that it was a breakfast buffet line.

·       Andres Duany, a seminal figure and now the aging lion of the urbanism movement, was in fine form for his plenary speech.  He argued that the American environmental movement had gone down a flawed path that, while successful for many years, was now running out of ideas.  He suggested that urbanism could be the savior of environmentalism.

When the CNU president tried to come onto the stage to tell Duany to wind up his speech, Duany asked for a show of hands of who in the audience wanted him to stop.  No one raised a hand.  The president accepted his defeat and returned to his seat.

·       Opticos, the consultant who helped develop the Petaluma Station Area plan, was honored with a CNU Charter Award.  The award was for work they’d done in Richmond, but the award spoke to the skill that went into the Petaluma plan.  For those who remember the Opticos team from the Petaluma meetings, the team members who were in Salt Lake City to accept the award were Dan Parolek, Ed Starkie, and Lisa Wise.

·       I watched the Charter Award while sipping on Wasatch Beers Polygamy Porter, subtitled “Why have just one?”  Salt Lake City has a surprising number of brew pubs.  I was consistently impressed by their quality.  I also noted, and several other folks confirmed, that, although the flavor was full, the alcohol content was surprisingly low.  (The Polygamy Porter is at only 4.0 %.)  The Salt Lake City brewing approach results in beers that can be enjoyed all evening with no ill effects in the morning, which is good for urbanism.  Many CNU folks did rigorous testing.

·       Charles Marohn, who did a video conversation with Petaluma Urban Chat in February, delivered the closing plenary.  It was much the same presentation that he shared with Urban Chat, with the addition of a several strong closing points.  The attendees gave him a standing ovation.

·       Last is a remembered picture of the closing party, held in a public space in the middle of a street in the Granary District of Salt Lake City.  (More about the location at another time.)  Duany, dressed in a vent-less cream-colored dinner jacket, was smoking a large cigar and looking with satisfaction over the gathering in which his career has had such a major effect. It was an image that will linger.

Perhaps the only downside of CNU 21 was the realization that I’ve been writing this urbanism blog for 18 months despite huge holes in my knowledge.  I think I’ve consistently tried to delineate the limits of my understanding.  But CNU 21 was a reminder to double and redouble my caution on that point.

For now, my primary goal at this point is to do justice to the knowledge that I gained last week.  And to figure out how to get to Buffalo in 2014 for CNU 22.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)