Making Mega Projects

The recent article from The Bay Citizen highlights the difficulty in cities handling growth management. On the one hand we hear that our cities our growing and that we must prepare for the millions more that will need to be housed in the global cities of tomorrow. But on the other hand, we have the millions already in the city, resistant to such planning, hesitant for such sudden mega-projects.

Some opt for more "small scale infill" projects - a less obtrusive, abrupt design procedure that operates perhaps more on the scale of our human comprehension, a better sense of security...

What have we learned from the mega planning projects of the Modernist? Where do we now stand in the forethought to prepare for the future while sensitive to the presence of "now"...

The "urban acupuncture" ideas throw into question a lot of the common place zoning, property rights and such that many would be hard pressed to allow (NIMBY - not in my backyard).

Is it the "master plan"? The large scale, cream colored shaded squares, tied together in a network of make-believe roads surrounded by green geometric shapes? Is the way we represent the future leave out the concerns of today and thus leave the viewer, the concerned citizen, out of the picture? (or the environment, the nature preserves...)

In times of emergency, we adapt to large adaptations...Massive planning is comprehended through massive loss or destruction. But when we have just a trickle of people entering the cities, the vision of massive planning is intimidating...its not for the city perhaps, but for the anticipated city...a plan for the others...

piecemeal development, renovation, in-fill allows the resident to feel the scale of self and its city in a comfortable relationship with the addition of the new, the other. What we as architects vision is a reality of the new, but perhaps we fail to create a vision for the old. 

Slumburbia

Opinion Piece by Timothy Egan

"...a few lessons about urban planning can be picked from the stucco pile.

One is that, at least here in California, the outlying cities themselves encouraged the boom, spurred by the state’s broken tax system. Hemmed in by property tax limitations, cities were compelled to increase revenue by the easiest route: expanding urban boundaries. They let developers plow up walnut groves and vineyards and places that were supposed to be strawberry fields forever to pay for services demanded by new school parents and park users.

Second, look at the cities with stable and recovering home markets. On this coast, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and San Diego come to mind. All of these cities have fairly strict development codes, trying to hem in their excess sprawl. Developers, many of them, hate these restrictions. They said the coastal cities would eventually price the middle class out, and start to empty.

It hasn’t happened. Just the opposite. The developers’ favorite role models, the laissez faire free-for-alls — Las Vegas, the Phoenix metro area, South Florida, this valley — are the most troubled, the suburban slums.

Come see: this is what happens when money and market, alone, guide the way we live"

photo and article credit

Municipal Financing

image: Solar Panels 365

Affording solar panels for the typical American home can cost nearly 50,000$. The money to get those panels usually is covered by some home improvement loan...putting the home owner at risk if they decide to move...usually leaving the panels with the house, while hanging onto the loan.

Municipal Financing sees the implementation of solar panels in a community as a more infrastructural issue: ICC explains:

"Under municipal financing of solar power systems, initial solar power investments are covered by a loan from the city, which is secured by property taxes and paid back over time, generally with interest. The advantage of this system over private borrowing is two-fold. First, any homeowner is eligible (not just those with good credit), and second, the loan repayment obligation attaches to the house, not the individual. This means that if a homeowner invests in a solar power system and then moves, they are no longer covering the cost of the upgrade, but instead the loan repayment obligation passes to any future buyers."

Californians already have this option for increasing their local production of energy...with cities in states such as Texas, Colorado and Virginia tagging along.

Novel idea....treating energy production as real estate...and being financed by the city, it becomes a community investment...as energy that isn't consumed by the individual homes is fed back into the grid...

sources:
Institute for Southern Studies
NYTIMES: Harnessing the Sun, With Help From Cities

other energy sources:
wind: Staten Island Harnessing the Wind

New Suburban Landscape

Interesting article in the Times recently.
with the downturn in economy and thus home sales, a new urban landscape has been discovered by the skateboarding types. Within the suburbs of many a California town, homes are left empty with tempting swimming pools in the backyards, yearning for some kind of playful activity again.

Skateboarding frontiersmen have staked out neighborhoods, "mapping" different finds, usually going to the point of cleaning out the pools themselves. Activity is limited in time and noise, and the code follows to not enter the empty homes, litter or tag.

While this network plays out, others continue...and opportunities seem ripe for their intersection. Local government need to keep these pools free from waterborne insects and the like and work day in and out, seeking out pools that are risking public health. All the while, local pool businesses are suffering with less occupied homes and less homes with the ready cash for clean up.

What opportunities could arise when the three networks come together?
What work/health/community opportunities could arise?
How can the shifting state of suburban living create new frameworks for work/play/health?