Fixing Cities
Nov. 15th, 2021 04:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithHere are suggestions for fixing cities. Some are better than others.
1. Don't issue any new bonds until the city's current debts are fully paid off.
Don't spend money you don't have is generally good advice. If people want to build new things, they can donate or invest money instead of loaning it.
In general, if you want people who know how to handle money, look for working-class folks and single parents. Claiming that this is expert territory doesn't make sense when the experts have created ghastly problems. Let's bring in some folks who know not to bounce checks.
2. Don't accept unfunded maintenance obligations.
Absolutely essential to stop digging the hole deeper. Developments must pay for themselves and generate revenues.
At some point, you will also have to ditch unsustainable developments if you can't make them sustainable. Some suburbs can be salvaged by working to create hubs. But overall, rural and urban life are different for reasons; you can't have your cake and eat it too.
3. Throw out your parking ordinances.
Universal solutions are more problematic than flexible solutions. Big sweeping reforms are more prone to big mistakes than small reforms. I suggest that you test new ideas on a small scale and then spread the most successful ones. Be aware that you will probably need a mix of solutions in different areas to account for local needs. Some places need much more parking than others, people who want to live car-free may want areas with no cars, and there are other places where it simply isn't safe.
Allow on-street parking everywhere,
This is a dangerous idea. You don't want cars on snow lanes in winter, which is why there are "no parking after 1" of snow" signs in so many places. Stroads are bad precisely because they mix parking, walking, and fast traffic; parking near fast traffic is hazardous. It's also undesirable to mix street parking and bike lanes, because that increases cross traffic of different types and therefore collisions. If you want both, put them in different places; alternating them on side streets is an excellent option.
and use parking meters as needed to limit on-street congestion in high-demand areas. Let the market figure out the off-street supply and demand balance.
We have abundant examples that the market is stupid. Leaving it to run wild seems less prudent than small-scale test projects.
4. Don't permit greenfield development when existing infrastructure is highly underutilized.
Use what you have.
Also, if the building industry wants to design buildings for a maximum lifespan of ~40 years and a desirable lifespan of maybe 10-15, then require people to tear down buildings that nobody wants anymore. They shouldn't be left up to be an eyesore, attract problems, or worse attract tenants and kill people in a collapse.
5. Require buildings to front the street.
This is another case where universal rules are probably less helpful than flexible ones. Some places have sound reasons for wanting the parking lot in front -- say, if they use it for sales that don't block the sidewalk, for busking space, for food trucks, a patch of greenery with a bench, etc. Others are better set back to minimize noise, crud, and hazards like at a lumberyard. A better approach would be to remove rules that require the parking lot in front.
Don't forget the value of promenades and alleys. You can have businesses or homes fronting the main streets, with parking or other practicalities on side streets or behind in alleys. This maximizes the safety and appeal of human-powered travel while maintaining access for disabled transit, deliveries, utilities, etc.
A different approach is a common-yard block where everything fronts the perimeter, each building has a small private area, and they share a large central greenspace. This works great both for homes and for business parks, although not so much for shopping. If you have a downtown district, though, you could have one common-yard block for restaurants and put a picnic parklet in the middle.
6. Dramatically simplify your zoning.
This tends to be wise given the mess that zoning has turned into.
7. Dramatically simplify your traffic hierarchy.
From observing local towns with pretty effective infrastructure (it's old) I would suggest four levels:
* Major Expressway -- gets people from one end of a large city to the other, or between settlements.
* Minor Highway -- gets people from one activity cluster to another within a city, connecting its sections for on-off traffic; map your areas of interest and ensure they have both road and mass-transit connections.
* Shared Space -- most active neighborhoods like shopping, restaurant, or business districts; many old towns have a named section of 9+ blocks like the Old Market, and it really needs to be a grid.
* Quiet Neighborhood Street -- used to reach houses or small businesses, and not used much by nonlocals, thus low-traffic and safe; preferably a grid but you may need squiggle suburbs where terrain breaks up.
8. Stop building stroads.
Probably a good idea, but I would test it with local conditions. Do you have some? Most places do. Are they more, the same, or less profitable than other options? Likely less. Do they have more, the same, or fewer accidents than other options? Likely more. If these are locally true, then you should not build more less profitable and less safe infrastructure. But I wouldn't assume it's true everywhere just because it is generally true. If you have one that works well for you, then extending it to meet a compelling need might make sense.
9. Set a maximum block perimeter of 2000' and enforce it.
Survey your town. Do you want blocks larger, the same, or smaller than what you have? How walky are your citizens? Some people just like bigger blocks than others. Also, it's a lot more feasible to make big blocks in a flat area than broken terrain. Pick a size range that works for your locale. Base it on concrete facts and public preference. Don't just grab a random number.
10. Fire anyone on staff who believes the above is unworkable.
If you want to institute major changes, there is some validity in saying, "This is the new plan. For anyone who's not comfortable with it, we'll help you find a new position." But see above re: big mistakes. Smaller, incremental changes are safer and then it's much less defensible to fire people over it.
What you can do is track in evaluations how comfortable and capable each employee is at implementing current plans. Are they enthusiastic? Do they have good plans? Or are they dragging their feet? If they're a bad fit, then you can talk to them during an evaluation and see whether they need more training or would be happier finding another job. Just firing people because they disagree with you is unlikely to improve your community. Remember that unwillingly losing a job ONCE causes a permanent reduction in civic engagement.
I'll add one more vital step: Don't approve any housing construction unless it meets your community's needs. Each town is responsible for housing its souls on board. There is no point building McMansions or condos if what you need is affordable housing.
As a general premise: Ask why things are the way they are. If you don't know, you can ditch tangled rules and start over. But some things have sound reasons. For every solution, ask whether it is better, the same, or worse than other solutions or doing nothing.
Remember to eat the elephant one bite at a time. You don't have to revamp the whole town at once. You can do one neighborhood at a time -- say, start with the historic downtown and focus on revitalizing that, which many people have found useful. If it's big enough to have district representatives, put them to work. Make each rep responsible for their share of a common project, e.g. assess parking or zoning and propose improvements based on their district's details. "I know mine is half Heavy Industrial, but six blocks of that is going boho. Can we change that bit to mixed-use and find a new place for some of the industry?" "Mine is residential but folks are clamoring for food security. It's on the fringe of town, so can we allow more light agriculture like community gardens and backyard chickens?" "Most of our parking space is wasted. Let's densify downtown and depave elsewhere. We can use some of that space for new infrastructure aimed at walking, biking, or mass-transit."
You do the math. It's your town.
1. Don't issue any new bonds until the city's current debts are fully paid off.
Don't spend money you don't have is generally good advice. If people want to build new things, they can donate or invest money instead of loaning it.
In general, if you want people who know how to handle money, look for working-class folks and single parents. Claiming that this is expert territory doesn't make sense when the experts have created ghastly problems. Let's bring in some folks who know not to bounce checks.
2. Don't accept unfunded maintenance obligations.
Absolutely essential to stop digging the hole deeper. Developments must pay for themselves and generate revenues.
At some point, you will also have to ditch unsustainable developments if you can't make them sustainable. Some suburbs can be salvaged by working to create hubs. But overall, rural and urban life are different for reasons; you can't have your cake and eat it too.
3. Throw out your parking ordinances.
Universal solutions are more problematic than flexible solutions. Big sweeping reforms are more prone to big mistakes than small reforms. I suggest that you test new ideas on a small scale and then spread the most successful ones. Be aware that you will probably need a mix of solutions in different areas to account for local needs. Some places need much more parking than others, people who want to live car-free may want areas with no cars, and there are other places where it simply isn't safe.
Allow on-street parking everywhere,
This is a dangerous idea. You don't want cars on snow lanes in winter, which is why there are "no parking after 1" of snow" signs in so many places. Stroads are bad precisely because they mix parking, walking, and fast traffic; parking near fast traffic is hazardous. It's also undesirable to mix street parking and bike lanes, because that increases cross traffic of different types and therefore collisions. If you want both, put them in different places; alternating them on side streets is an excellent option.
and use parking meters as needed to limit on-street congestion in high-demand areas. Let the market figure out the off-street supply and demand balance.
We have abundant examples that the market is stupid. Leaving it to run wild seems less prudent than small-scale test projects.
4. Don't permit greenfield development when existing infrastructure is highly underutilized.
Use what you have.
Also, if the building industry wants to design buildings for a maximum lifespan of ~40 years and a desirable lifespan of maybe 10-15, then require people to tear down buildings that nobody wants anymore. They shouldn't be left up to be an eyesore, attract problems, or worse attract tenants and kill people in a collapse.
5. Require buildings to front the street.
This is another case where universal rules are probably less helpful than flexible ones. Some places have sound reasons for wanting the parking lot in front -- say, if they use it for sales that don't block the sidewalk, for busking space, for food trucks, a patch of greenery with a bench, etc. Others are better set back to minimize noise, crud, and hazards like at a lumberyard. A better approach would be to remove rules that require the parking lot in front.
Don't forget the value of promenades and alleys. You can have businesses or homes fronting the main streets, with parking or other practicalities on side streets or behind in alleys. This maximizes the safety and appeal of human-powered travel while maintaining access for disabled transit, deliveries, utilities, etc.
A different approach is a common-yard block where everything fronts the perimeter, each building has a small private area, and they share a large central greenspace. This works great both for homes and for business parks, although not so much for shopping. If you have a downtown district, though, you could have one common-yard block for restaurants and put a picnic parklet in the middle.
6. Dramatically simplify your zoning.
This tends to be wise given the mess that zoning has turned into.
7. Dramatically simplify your traffic hierarchy.
From observing local towns with pretty effective infrastructure (it's old) I would suggest four levels:
* Major Expressway -- gets people from one end of a large city to the other, or between settlements.
* Minor Highway -- gets people from one activity cluster to another within a city, connecting its sections for on-off traffic; map your areas of interest and ensure they have both road and mass-transit connections.
* Shared Space -- most active neighborhoods like shopping, restaurant, or business districts; many old towns have a named section of 9+ blocks like the Old Market, and it really needs to be a grid.
* Quiet Neighborhood Street -- used to reach houses or small businesses, and not used much by nonlocals, thus low-traffic and safe; preferably a grid but you may need squiggle suburbs where terrain breaks up.
8. Stop building stroads.
Probably a good idea, but I would test it with local conditions. Do you have some? Most places do. Are they more, the same, or less profitable than other options? Likely less. Do they have more, the same, or fewer accidents than other options? Likely more. If these are locally true, then you should not build more less profitable and less safe infrastructure. But I wouldn't assume it's true everywhere just because it is generally true. If you have one that works well for you, then extending it to meet a compelling need might make sense.
9. Set a maximum block perimeter of 2000' and enforce it.
Survey your town. Do you want blocks larger, the same, or smaller than what you have? How walky are your citizens? Some people just like bigger blocks than others. Also, it's a lot more feasible to make big blocks in a flat area than broken terrain. Pick a size range that works for your locale. Base it on concrete facts and public preference. Don't just grab a random number.
10. Fire anyone on staff who believes the above is unworkable.
If you want to institute major changes, there is some validity in saying, "This is the new plan. For anyone who's not comfortable with it, we'll help you find a new position." But see above re: big mistakes. Smaller, incremental changes are safer and then it's much less defensible to fire people over it.
What you can do is track in evaluations how comfortable and capable each employee is at implementing current plans. Are they enthusiastic? Do they have good plans? Or are they dragging their feet? If they're a bad fit, then you can talk to them during an evaluation and see whether they need more training or would be happier finding another job. Just firing people because they disagree with you is unlikely to improve your community. Remember that unwillingly losing a job ONCE causes a permanent reduction in civic engagement.
I'll add one more vital step: Don't approve any housing construction unless it meets your community's needs. Each town is responsible for housing its souls on board. There is no point building McMansions or condos if what you need is affordable housing.
As a general premise: Ask why things are the way they are. If you don't know, you can ditch tangled rules and start over. But some things have sound reasons. For every solution, ask whether it is better, the same, or worse than other solutions or doing nothing.
Remember to eat the elephant one bite at a time. You don't have to revamp the whole town at once. You can do one neighborhood at a time -- say, start with the historic downtown and focus on revitalizing that, which many people have found useful. If it's big enough to have district representatives, put them to work. Make each rep responsible for their share of a common project, e.g. assess parking or zoning and propose improvements based on their district's details. "I know mine is half Heavy Industrial, but six blocks of that is going boho. Can we change that bit to mixed-use and find a new place for some of the industry?" "Mine is residential but folks are clamoring for food security. It's on the fringe of town, so can we allow more light agriculture like community gardens and backyard chickens?" "Most of our parking space is wasted. Let's densify downtown and depave elsewhere. We can use some of that space for new infrastructure aimed at walking, biking, or mass-transit."
You do the math. It's your town.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-11-15 11:49 pm (UTC)Well ...
Date: 2021-11-16 12:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2021-11-15 11:56 pm (UTC)There are some people who believe that you don't 'count' enough to make decisions until you reach x-level income/wealth. This is used as a "stop arguing with me, I'm better than you," argument. Really not a good argument, in my opinion, but I think it might have enough traction that hiring a lot of working-class folks might not go over well.
Also interesting epiphany I had the other day:
1 America considers begging to be unethical
2 It is now common for people to beg for money to pay medical expenses (i.e. crowdfunding.)
3a Therefore, I hereby introduce the concept of 'white collar begging,' which is somehow more respectable...
3b ...and I so want to see a meatspace fundraiser advertise itself as "3D GoFundMe."
>>A different approach is a common-yard block where everything fronts the perimeter, each building has a small private area, and they share a large central greenspace. This works great both for homes and for business parks, although not so much for shopping.<<
It would be interesting to see one where the central area was used for communal homesteading...
...and for shopping, just put the stores around a park area. Or choose stores that go with an 'outdoor theme.' A garden center, animal shelter, or hardware store might all do nicely with an outdoor 'display area.'
>>What you can do is track in evaluations how comfortable and capable each employee is at implementing current plans.<<
Firing people who disagree as a universal policy is bad, you will miss out on important feedback. (It may be neccesary occasionally, if someone is a very bad fit and it cannot be handled gracefully.)
>>For every solution, ask whether it is better, the same, or worse than other solutions or doing nothing.<<
I'll suggest crowdsourcing info. If I were a politician, neighborhood planner, I'd want to have a social media platform for neighborhood discussion of new proposals...and likely some more old-school setups for people who don't have or don't like the social media.