Skip to Navigation
Home ›
Feed aggregator
My Ultimate Urbanist Gift Guide
The Black Urbanist - Tue, 2015-12-08 10:02
This year I decided to go ahead and talk about how to buy gifts. I feel this list can be applied to
any time a year and any holiday. After all, these things are unique and they’re always greatly
appreciated by any urbanist I know. I would ask your urbanist for some guidance because they
may want some things more than others. Shall we get started?
Books
Especially textbooks. For the longest time I though like my urbanist practice was dependent on
just how much I was able to write and how profound that writing was. Maybe it was because I
came from an academic background in studying community and economic development plus
having hung around architecture and design departments in the past. I’ve always written books,
even before I was writing about urbanism. And so it seems has everybody else that I meet up
with at conferences and who actually speaks say conferences. Also textbooks are expensive and
if you’re not a student anymore it’s true but not quite starchitect level, you’ll squee anytime you
get an actual book.
Experiences
This can be anything from plane tickets hotel gift certificate/rooms, show tickets, food and
restaurant gift certificates, and transit passes. As much as you think we already have all the hip
urban stuff, again a free ticket to a hot show like Hamilton in New York is super valuable. Bonus
points if it’s something like a house tour or a transit tour that’s not normally open to the public or
only happens rarely.
Things to Make or Make With
I know this one is really cliché but still who doesn’t like Lego architecture sets or model train
sets. For those who are more realistic in their building and making , gift certificates to homeimprovement stores, art and craft stores and home design stores as well as museum stores also
work well. Or you can buy specific supplies like nice pens, markers, pencils or paper.
Clothing Actually Made for Commuting
This goes beyond a pair of sneakers that match a formal suit. This gets into rain coats that
actually wick off water, shirts and pants and skirts that breathe and come with pockets and
undergarments that keep things you don’t want to see out of sight. Also, leisure weekend wear
like bike kits is nice too. Again, ask your urbanist, but they’ll be glad you’ve considered their
commuting habits in the first place.
Donations to Organizations that Support Urbanism
They are probably getting those notices already to donate to their favorite charities related to
these different issues and causes. They may also be the type that has everything that we’ve
already listed above. So how about just going ahead and sending all good chunk of money to an
organization that they care about, namely the one for whom they work. That way, not only do
they benefit but their home city and the causes that they care a lot about do as well.
You may notice that I’ve not actually listed places to get these items. I leave it up to you to
choose vendors,books, nonprofits, stores and experiences that speak to the even deeper held
values of your individual placemaker. I’ve also listed vague categories of items, again, because I
want you to still exercise some creativity. Know that you can and will find the perfect gift for
your placemaker.
Categories: New Urbanism
My Ultimate Urbanist Gift Guide
Kristen Jeffers - Tue, 2015-12-08 10:02
This year I decided to go ahead and talk about how to buy gifts. I feel this list can be applied to
any time a year and any holiday. After all, these things are unique and they’re always greatly
appreciated by any urbanist I know. I would ask your urbanist for some guidance because they
may want some things more than others. Shall we get started?
Books
Especially textbooks. For the longest time I though like my urbanist practice was dependent on
just how much I was able to write and how profound that writing was. Maybe it was because I
came from an academic background in studying community and economic development plus
having hung around architecture and design departments in the past. I’ve always written books,
even before I was writing about urbanism. And so it seems has everybody else that I meet up
with at conferences and who actually speaks say conferences. Also textbooks are expensive and
if you’re not a student anymore it’s true but not quite starchitect level, you’ll squee anytime you
get an actual book.
Experiences
This can be anything from plane tickets hotel gift certificate/rooms, show tickets, food and
restaurant gift certificates, and transit passes. As much as you think we already have all the hip
urban stuff, again a free ticket to a hot show like Hamilton in New York is super valuable. Bonus
points if it’s something like a house tour or a transit tour that’s not normally open to the public or
only happens rarely.
Things to Make or Make With
I know this one is really cliché but still who doesn’t like Lego architecture sets or model train
sets. For those who are more realistic in their building and making , gift certificates to homeimprovement stores, art and craft stores and home design stores as well as museum stores also
work well. Or you can buy specific supplies like nice pens, markers, pencils or paper.
Clothing Actually Made for Commuting
This goes beyond a pair of sneakers that match a formal suit. This gets into rain coats that
actually wick off water, shirts and pants and skirts that breathe and come with pockets and
undergarments that keep things you don’t want to see out of sight. Also, leisure weekend wear
like bike kits is nice too. Again, ask your urbanist, but they’ll be glad you’ve considered their
commuting habits in the first place.
Donations to Organizations that Support Urbanism
They are probably getting those notices already to donate to their favorite charities related to
these different issues and causes. They may also be the type that has everything that we’ve
already listed above. So how about just going ahead and sending all good chunk of money to an
organization that they care about, namely the one for whom they work. That way, not only do
they benefit but their home city and the causes that they care a lot about do as well.
You may notice that I’ve not actually listed places to get these items. I leave it up to you to
choose vendors,books, nonprofits, stores and experiences that speak to the even deeper held
values of your individual placemaker. I’ve also listed vague categories of items, again, because I
want you to still exercise some creativity. Know that you can and will find the perfect gift for
your placemaker.
Categories: CNU blogs, New Urbanism
64 years ago, the world's first driverless parking garage opened in DC
Greater Greater Washington - Tue, 2015-12-08 09:30
by Dan Malouff
On December 5, 1951, the world's first "park-o-mat" driverless parking garage opened on K
Street NW, between 14th and 15th Streets. The building doesn't exist anymore, but this newsreel
is a neat look into one of history's previous attempts at driverless transportation.
The original park-o-mat buildling was just 25 feet by 40 feet, but at 16 floors and with two
elevators, it had room for 72 cars.
As downtown DC developed and the city's height limit began to limit land availability, property
values eventually made it impractical to keep using this building as parking. Today, a normal
building full of people replaces it.
But automated parking does still exist. At least one apartment building in DC, the Camden Grand
Parc, has an automated garage. And New York's first "robotic" parking garage opened in 2007.
Cross-posted at BeyondDC.
12 comments
Categories: CNU blogs
Today’s Headlines
Streetsblog Capitol Hill - Tue, 2015-12-08 08:54










DOT Dangles $40M Prize for Reimagining the American City (WaPo)
You Can’t Ignore Transportation as a Key Piece of the Climate Puzzle (Devex)
Good News and Bad News for Cities in the New Transpo Bill (CityLab)
Transpo Bill a Boon for Hudson River Rail Project (NYT)
Supporters of Mileage-Based Gas Tax See Opportunity (The Hill)
Atlanta Bike-Share Held Back Til Next Summer (Atlanta Mag)
Light Rail, Trolley System Could Be Coming to Vegas (Las Vegas Review-Journal)
Walk[Your City] Trend Moves to College Campuses (CityLab)
Commonwealth Mag Picks Out Flaws in Massachusetts’ Idea for Means-Based T Fares
In the Works: Speedier Train Travel From DC to Richmond (WaPo)
Categories: New Urbanism
State of the Movement: Programming
Alliance for Walking&Biking - Tue, 2015-12-08 08:32
[blogimage]http://bikewalkalliance.org/storage/images/Blog_photos/campaigns-thumb01.png[/blogimage] In our first-of-its-kind State of the Movement report, we explored the inner
workings of the walk/bike movement, from organzation budgets to staff demographics. But we
didn't just focus on inputs; we asked about outputs, as well. What types of work are Alliance
members doing out in their communities to make change happen? Here's what we found about
the most common types of programming, including events and campaigns.
Categories: CNU blogs, New Urbanism
Sensors Listen, Count, Monitor and Invite the Public to Watch
Next City - Tue, 2015-12-08 08:30
Rendering of e-paper signage for the Knodes system
In a technerd-enviro-urbanist love story, Tommy Mitchell, a hardware designer, and Andy Glass,
a software engineer, met six months ago at a fellowship in Long Island City, Queens. Their
shared obsession with the crux of the environment, smart cities, data and the Internet of Things
led them to New York City’s civic tech challenge Big Apps 2015.
Related Stories




Would You Share Private Data for the Good of City Planning?
Google’s New Sidewalk Labs Wants to Improve City Living
Clay Johnson’s Rules for Procurement for the People
Inside New Mayor Bill Peduto’s Plan to Build “The Next Pittsburgh”
They started, Glass says, with thinking about “a way to capture data and serve it to constituents.”
Knodes is their answer. (They didn’t win Big Apps this year for Knodes, but Mitchell won for
his other project, CityCharge, to create solar-powered charging stations in the city, and Glass
won last year for his project Explore NYC Parks, which lets you, well, explore NYC parks.)
“We see Knodes as the eyes and ears of this city,” says Glass, but it’s also, in effect, a
mouthpiece. Knodes is three interconnected components. The first is a network of solar-powered
modules (knodes), which contain air quality, sound and pedestrian-counting sensors that can be
installed in public spots around cities. Currently, the pair has only developed the technology for
the sound sensor, but the other two are in the works. The second component, the mouthpiece, is
solar-powered e-paper monitors on the knodes with the ability to display this data, other data or
anything else. The third component is KnodesPortal, a back-end web-interface system that
allows users to track data collected by the sensors in real time, map the knodes in the system,
manage knodes remotely, integrate other open data sources, set alerts and schedule projects.
The design considerations in crafting Knodes focused intensely on making the product into a
viable tool specifically for cities. “We wanted to make it very easy to use,” Glass half jokes,
“because cities are not the best with implementing technology.” They tried to think “like a city
administrator” to create a system easy to configure. The hardware considerations were similarly
practical. For example, solar panels must carefully angle up to maximize sun exposure; and the
devices must be waterproof, tamper-proof and easily attachable to many types of infrastructure.
The ways the Knodes system can potentially improve city life seem practically endless.
“Creating e-paper signage to show arrival times for bus signs is just low hanging fruit,” says
Glass.
They could also provide alerts for service changes or delays. They could display points of
interest in a neighborhood or announce community events. What if the times and locations of
community board meetings were displayed at every bus stop? Would civic engagement improve?
They could also show Amber Alerts, or become emergency alert systems, especially since they
don’t rely on the electric grid. And what if they display air quality information? On an obvious
but important level, “hyperlocal emissions data could affect where people want to live,” Glass
points out.
Glass and Mitchell have also given much thought to how Knodes can financially benefit cities.
They’re looking into full-color e-paper technology so the monitors could display revenuegenerating ads. Chambers of commerce could use the pedestrian trackers to study how and when
people shop. And the modules themselves will be cost effective since they’re solar-powered and
because e-paper runs on minimal energy.
Knodes sensor prototype
They’re currently using their prototype to track the noise of a construction site outside of
Mitchell’s apartment to design a way that cities can use the sound sensors to levy fines on
construction sites for noise ordinances and operating hours. “We know the city has a lot of
problems with tracking noise and ordinances that are consistently violated,” explains Glass, “and
there’s still not a good end-to-end product with a software back end to solve this.” The admin
software Glass designed would allow cities to track revenue streams coming in from levying
these types of fines.
But the Knodes project has implications beyond the simply pragmatic. “So much data is out there
and not publicly displayed,” says Glass. And it’s true. There’s endless publicly available data
that’s only “publicly available” for the select few who know where and how to access it and the
even fewer who both have the knowledge and technology to interpret it.
Mitchell and Glass are trying to change this. “We’re interested in what can we tell people about
their local environments,” says Glass. Their back-end system allows for the combination of realtime data with any external data sources to produce useful insights. Combined with the e-paper
signage, this creates a capacity to really make data “public” in the most literal sense of the word:
displayed on street corners in what Glass called “actionable” data — in other words, data that
people can use to make decisions.
Categories: CNU blogs, New Urbanism
This App Guides Blind Passengers Through London’s Subway
Next City - Tue, 2015-12-08 08:27
Wayfindr uses audio instructions to help visually impaired users navigate the London
Underground. (Credit: Ustwo)
For those who are visually impaired, even the best infrastructure and public transportation design
doesn’t always equal accessibility. Trying a new route or navigating a new station can be
stressful. Enter Wayfindr, an audio-based navigation system with specific, personalized
instructions. Wayfindr, the first open standard for audio-based navigation, is the result of a
collaboration between Ustwo, a global digital production studio, and the Royal London Society
for Blind People’s (RLSB) Youth Forum. So far the system has been tried out in London’s
Pimlico Station, but is currently being expanded throughout London’s Underground.
Related Stories




Wanted: Creative Entrepreneur to Set Up Shop in Abandoned Tube Station
Unreliable Trains More Hated Than Slow Ones
Will Public Transportation Commuters Embrace TransitScreen?
New Starts: L.A. Subway Inching to the Sea, Night Trains in London and Rail Returns to
Mauritius
Here’s how it works: Small radios powered with Bluetooth beacon technology placed in strategic
locations around the Underground triangulate the location of anyone using Wayfindr on their
phone. The app then gives the user audio instructions in orthogonal phrasing that’s specific to the
listener — such as telling the reader to turn left or right instead of walk diagonally. The app is
focused on getting the user from point A to point B as efficiently as possible, and omits
unnecessary info about the user’s surroundings.
The immediate goal, according to Ustwo’s website, is to “empower vision-impaired people to
independently navigate London’s transport network, using the smartphone they have in their
pocket.” But their vision extends far beyond the Underground. With the help of a $1 million
grant from Google’s Global Impact Challenge: Disabilities, the Wayfindr team plans to
eventually expand the system to hospitals, retail locations and more.
After successful initial trials, the creators shifted their focus to creating an open standard of
guidelines, rather than just an app. Umesh Pandya, co-founder and CEO of the nonprofit
initiative, told Wired that he didn’t want to end up in an app war with other well-meaning
developers trying to create navigation systems for the visually impaired. “We just thought
somebody needs to step up to bring this all together,” Pandya said. “Twenty systems isn’t the
way forward, it’s just not going to work.”
Ultimately, the system could become an integrated option in Google maps or Citymapper, or
used in combination with something like Microsoft’s Cities Unlocked project. But we’re still a
long way off from Wayfindr being a global standard, and for now, there’s still a lot to test: What
is the most effective way to orient someone in space? Is it more effective to start a direction with
a verb or a point of reference? How can the user experience stay consistent in very different
locations?
The first open release of the Wayfindr rail stations system is set to launch in early 2016.
Categories: CNU blogs, New Urbanism
Breakfast links: Catch the bus
Greater Greater Washington - Tue, 2015-12-08 08:04
by David Koch
Photo by FaceMePLS on Flickr.BRT or bust: Montgomery County councilmembers want the
county's bus rapid transit to move faster, and are worried they're losing ground to Virginia.
Meanwhile, mayors in Rockville and Gaithersburg are already looking at ways to speed up buses
in their cities. (Bethesda Beat, Chester B., WTOP)
Hit the ground running: Metro's new head Paul Wiedefeld knows he has his work cut out for
him. He has ideas for ways to better communicate with passengers about repairs and service, and
he's recruiting for a new safety chief. (City Paper, Post)
Keep it simple: The 62-year-old Cleveland Park library will be replaced by a "bold yet
restrained" new building. Its design has been controversial, Cleveland Park being home to some
of DC's fiercest neighborhood activists. (WBJ)
DC's dime: The District will pay to overhaul Franklin Park, even though it's owned by the
National Park Service. The National Capital Planning Commission has signed off on the new
park design, and work could begin next fall. (WBJ)
Office worker walkers: Montgomery County should make it easier for pedestrians to get around
Bethesda and White Flint. That's according to experts the county brought in to look at suburbanstyle office parks that are mostly empty. (Bethesda Beat)
Feds riding Metro: Federal workers make up about a third of all Metro's passengers, and the
federal government's office locations have a big effect on who rides. Many more non-federal
workers are choosing to ride, influencing its growth. (PlanItMetro)
Transit saves you money: Metro estimates that driving is still more expensive than taking
transit, even with gas prices at historic lows. Driving includes costs besides gas, like
depreciation, insurance, and maintenance. (PlanItMetro)
Fairfax school space available: Fairfax County is pondering what to do with a soon-to-be
empty school in the Mount Vernon area. An Islamic school uses the building now but is moving
close to Herndon next year. (Post)
Ditch this deal: Some DC Council members still want to nix the Pepco-Exelon merger, despite
the mayor's support for the deal. The city's Public Service Commission won't make a final
decision until next year. (Post)
And...: Listen to the DC streetcar song. (Post) ... GGWash contributor Joe Fox took some
amazing photos of the Bay Bridge. (Post) ... Chevy Chase Village is one of the wealthiest
communities in the US. (The Guardian)
Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.
79 comments
Categories: CNU blogs
10 Reasons to Apply for Vanguard Houston
Next City - Tue, 2015-12-08 08:00
Houston will host Next City’s 2016 Vanguard Conference in May 2016. (Photo by Alex via
flickr)
Vanguard is Next City’s annual gathering of 40 of the best and brightest urban leaders age 40
and under. The conference is free, and the window to apply closes Monday, December 14th at
midnight. Here are our top 10 reasons to throw your hat in the ring to be part of the 2016
Vanguard conference happening in Houston, May 10th to the 14th.
Related Stories




Houston Is Next City’s 2016 Vanguard City
Urban Planning and Design Aren’t Optional
Cleveland’s Evergreen Cooperatives Finding Better Ways to Employ Locals, Keep Cash
Flow in Town
We Put 31 Artists, 25 Architects and 18 Urban Planners in a Room. Guess What Happens
Next.
1. Get to know 39 amazing leaders in your generation all doing innovative work in cities across
North America.
2. Experience a city on the rise. Houston is tackling racial and economic inequality in a
densifying urban core, taking the lead on data sharing and open government, and rethinking
public transportation in a city often known for its sprawl.
3. Hear from academics and professionals about trends in urban policy and practice, including
leaders from the Kinder Institute, a “think-and-do” tank at Rice University focused on urban
issues in Houston and beyond.
4. Finally get your chance to not be the biggest urban planning geek in the room.
5. Explore Houston’s gorgeous Bayou Greenways with new friends who also want to talk about
inclusive development.
6. Participate in the annual Big Idea Challenge, which will leave a lasting impact on the city.
7. Form deep and lasting connections within an influential network of your peers.
8. We’ll be staying at the Magnolia Hotel Houston, home to a rooftop pool, billiards room and an
evening cookie buffet. Do we need to say more?
9. You won’t be just another tourist. Yes, there are fun photo ops, but Vanguard classes dive
deep into host cities. Check out what we packed into three days in Reno last year.
10. After six years of hosting the Vanguard conference, we’ve built an influential alumni group,
and many past participants will be attending. You’ll get to meet them — and join that growing
club.
Categories: CNU blogs, New Urbanism
Does Wendell Cox Realize He Just Supported Smart Growth?
Planetizen blogs - Tue, 2015-12-08 08:00
Smart Growth critic Wendell Cox recently endorsed White House Economic Advisor Jason
Furman's criticisms of zoning codes that limit infill development, essentially endorsing Smart
Growth policy reforms.
Categories: CNU blogs
Does Wendell Cox Realize He Just Supported Smart Growth?
Todd Litman - Tue, 2015-12-08 08:00
Smart Growth critic Wendell Cox recently endorsed White House Economic Advisor Jason
Furman's criticisms of zoning codes that limit infill development, essentially endorsing Smart
Growth policy reforms.
Categories: CNU blogs, New Urbanism
City, University Partner to Help Homeless College Students
Next City - Tue, 2015-12-08 07:51
San Diego (Photo by: Rufustelestrat)
Half of all community college students are struggling with food or housing insecurity, a recent
survey of more than 4,000 undergraduates found. Twenty percent are hungry, 13 percent are
homeless, and more than 20 percent have difficulty paying their rent.
Related Stories


Op-Ed: Finding Redemption in Recycling Electronics
Policy and Plastic Tarps: Surviving Winter While Homeless


Denver Arts Groups Have Creative Differences Over Funding
Feeding Cities: Learning Sustainable Design from Bees and Termites
A housing-first initiative in San Diego aims to provide help for those college students
experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The San Diego Housing Commission is partnering with
San Diego State University to provide about $1 million in rental assistance for up to 100
students.
“Students should be focused on learning, not whether they have a place to sleep at night,” Kevin
Faulconer, mayor of San Diego, said in a press release. “By focusing on getting people into
housing first and off the streets, we continue to make progress to end the cycle of homelessness.”
The partnership between the city and the university is part of a three-year “Housing First San
Diego” homelessness action plan kicked off last year by the San Diego Housing Commission,
which provides homelessness and affordable housing programs for the city.
Since colleges aren’t required to keep statistics on homeless students, and some students are
hesitant to admit they’re homeless, it’s hard to know the exact number of homeless students in a
given year. According to federal financial aid records, more than 56,000 college students were
classified as homeless during the 2013-2014. A year earlier, the number was 60,000. California,
Texas and Illinois have the largest populations of homeless students.
Formal efforts to identify and help homeless college students — like the partnership between San
Diego and SDSU — are relatively recent, but an increasing number of colleges are launching
programs for that purpose. At UCLA, a response team is in place to provide emergency financial
aid assistance, meal vouchers and even professional attire for interviews. Florida State University
offers an “Unconquered Scholars” program for students who have experienced homelessness to
provide additional academic, social and emotional support. And an increasing number of
universities have on-campus food banks for students. In 2007, Michigan State University was the
first U.S. college with a food bank. Today, the College and University Food Bank Alliance has
more than 240 active member institutions.
Shirley Weber, a San Diego assemblywoman leading a committee to address homelessness and
food insecurity on college campuses, told KPBS that most public colleges in California now
have food pantries. Her committee is continuing to look for new ways to help students. “We
began to look at all kinds of things on campus that impede students from being successful,”
Weber said. “Students are also seeing it’s their responsibility to help their peers.”
Categories: CNU blogs, New Urbanism
Connecting Real Estate Developers to Meaningful Social Change
Next City - Tue, 2015-12-08 07:00
(Illustration by Sarah Jacoby)
In Providence, Rhode Island, the Mercantile Block houses 22 affordable, live/work artist studios,
a business incubator and office space for two nonprofits in a restored historic building. In Upper
Manhattan, Sugar Hill is a stunning, modern development that includes 124 units of affordable
housing, a preschool and a children’s museum of art and storytelling. In North Texas, Meals on
Wheels of Tarrant County delivers over a million meals a year to 5,000 vulnerable individuals,
while connecting people with an array of essential services, all out of their new 63,000-squarefoot facility.
Related Stories




D.C. Proposes Keeping Rowhome Neighborhoods Quaint
A New Affordable Housing Plan Puts de Blasio Just to the Left of Bloomberg
How Cities and States Are Fighting Gentrification’s Displacement Factor
California Cities Can Require Affordable Housing in New Developments
Across the country there is a small sub-sector of nonprofits, community developers and socially
conscious private developers working to build important assets like these that focus on social
impact — improving people’s lives and making our communities stronger and more prosperous.
I call it “impact development” — and it deserves more attention.
With today’s expanding focus on impact investing, millennial developers’ desire to do well and
do good, and subsidies like New Markets Tax Credits becoming ever more competitive, impact
development may represent one of the most significant new shifts shaping the landscape of
America’s cities.
There is certainly some fuzziness around what qualifies as impact development. Is it helping
vulnerable people? Job creation? Space for nonprofits? Filling gaps in community goods and
services? Sustainable design? Smart growth? Ultimately the answer is yes to all of these, and the
most impactful projects are the ones that can holistically hit on most or all of these points. At the
concept’s root is a developer who is aware of how a project can effect social change and who
makes meaningful efforts to realize that potential based on a community’s identified needs.
Impact development represents a great opportunity, but these projects also face serious
challenges in the current marketplace. In my hometown of Philadelphia, a children’s museum
and a theater conducted large capital campaigns, but ended up struggling to service their debt. A
local charter school, burdened by the high cost of the tax-exempt bonds that financed it, needed
to lay off teachers and cut services for students. One could argue that market-rate developers and
operators face similar challenges all the time. But with impact development, the stakes are much
higher. If the project suffers, public assets can disappear and scarce subsidies can go to waste.
Social impact projects are, by nature, hard to finance. They are higher-risk and offer lower
(financial if not social) return. In low-income communities, projects often need more subsidies
than is typically available. Building values may not be sufficient to obtain mortgages. Due to
nonprofit tenants and uses, cash flow from operations may not support enough debt. And often
sponsors lack balance sheets capable of guaranteeing deals in weak-market neighborhoods.
Currently, impact development is, in part, enabled by a number of subsidies including the federal
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, New Markets Tax Credit, HUD 108 loans, and various other
federal, state and local grants, loans, tax credits, and loan guarantees. Community development
financial institutions remain an extremely important source of accessible capital for impact
development projects and the groups that operate them. But CDFIs are only one piece of a
multifaceted puzzle.
There are some emerging financing sources as well. Several firms are testing the boundaries of
crowdsourcing equity while philanthropies are developing program-related investment (PRI)
funds. There are myriad “impact investors” looking at real estate as the next frontier. These
innovations are exciting but few have figured out how to harness them through new
marketplaces, or successfully incorporate them into a predictable toolkit for financing social
impact deals.
By many accounts one of the most successful subsidy programs is the federal Low Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). It is a deep subsidy and most states have predictable sources for
filling the gap with other grants or tax-exempt bond revenue. However demand far outpaces
supply. Still LIHTC represents a model of a program that enables social impact projects, attracts
significant private market interest and has relatively low risk.
Outside of affordable housing, however, the subsidies become scarcer and more catch-as-catchcan. A big problem is that the subsidies we have are not deep enough, and they are too scattered
and uncoordinated. They often do not work well with each other, or require matching funds that
are just as difficult to secure as the initial subsidy.
Take for example the New Markets Tax Credits program. It is an important and valuable
subsidy, but it does not work well for many social impact projects. The subsidy is too shallow,
and the projects often cannot support the leverage they need. Good sources of capital grants and
sufficient low-interest loans are often not readily available. In fact the national philanthropic
community has been moving farther away from capital grants, favoring program investments and
policy work instead.
Many financing sources have incompatible requirements that are hard to juggle. I worked on one
deal that had 11 different financing sources: federal, state and local grants, PRI, and some lowinterest debt. It worked out in the end, but few developers have the experience, capacity and
patience to manage so many different sources.
Finally, the most successful impact developments require time on the ground in communities.
Great deals happen when developers and investors commit to community engagement and
partnership. Through community needs assessment, they can determine demand for the social
impact components. They find ways to support the community to enhance the deal’s long-term
impact. And they assess the project’s impacts based on both quantitative and qualitative on-theground research.
Many developers are new to the social impact space and, while well intentioned, simply do not
understand it. One developer recently told me that his approach to providing healthy food access
to a very low-income community in Philadelphia was to include three white-tablecloth
restaurants in his project ($40 chops are not exactly the answer to food insecurity). Still, I see it
as an encouraging sign that developers who do not fully understand it are looking to enter the
social impact space. With some education and resources, those who are interested and committed
can build great impact developments.
Then there is the issue of how smart we are being with our existing subsidies. Should we be
pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into stadiums, for example, when there are developers
looking to invest in low-income areas that could potentially put those dollars to better use? It is
up to all of us to make sure that, in a world of scarce public dollars, we are being smart and
responsible, and making the greatest impact with the programs we have.
The aforementioned projects in Providence, Manhattan and North Texas are notable examples,
but they are still too few and far between. Government and private-sector actors alike need to
focus on integrating social impact into our urban developments and creating stronger and more
coordinated financing mechanisms that still realize a decent return. Enabling impact
development could truly change the way we rebuild our cities and communities in 21st century.
Categories: CNU blogs, New Urbanism
Chaotic, But Smart
John Sanphillippo - Tue, 2015-12-08 05:19
Americans are used to a development pattern that’s orderly, but bumb and expensive. It wasn’t
always like this. But over the last few generations we’ve become used to installing a huge
amount of very expensive public infrastructure first, then slowly building some skimpy private
structures on that chassis.
Then, because people fear density, traffic congestion, lower property values, “the wrong
element”, et cetera… rules are put in place to make it impossible to build anything more in the
area. The end result is that over time our towns are increasingly incapable of maintaining the
systems required to sustain them. Municipal, county, state, and federal governments slip ever
deeper into insolvency as expenses outstrip tax revenue.
I thought it might be instructive to examine how we used to build towns using a chaotic, but
smart approach. What did New York or Chicago look like in their earliest days? The best modern
examples can be found in other countries where this process is still unfolding. Here’s how it
works in India. This isn’t in any way different from what our great grandparents did in the
1800’s so don’t let the local color distract you from the underlying development pattern.
First, the simplest possible structures are built to provide basic shelter and allow commerce to
begin. Small portable water tanks and fuel cylinders do the job in these humble spaces. Latrines
in the back suffice. Notice that this can be created with almost no money by people with limited
construction skills and no political connections.
Over time families and businesses succeed in earning enough money to replace their tents and
kiosks with small one or two room brick buildings. These still don’t have running water, but
people manage.
As this incremental process continues the buildings are expanded and improved. This level of
development is still largely self financed without much involvement from mainstream
banks. Electricity makes its way to the neighborhood. The roads aren’t yet paved, but the local
authorities have installed public water tanks. Rudimentary surface sewers carry dirty water away
from homes and businesses.
Here the neighborhood has become viable enough to support piped water, underground sewers,
and paved roads. Schools and medical centers have opened in the area.
The same little scraps of land that once held tents and one room huts now sport six story
buildings occupied by professionals with middle class incomes. Banks have become involved at
this point and spacious modern apartments are sold with mortgages by a developer. You can
imagine how this process will continue over the next decade or two. Municipal services will
improve as tax revenue increases and the sophistication of the inhabitants forces a tidier
environment. The neighborhood will become cleaner and more beautiful with better quality
shops.
If you’ve ever been to a romantic historic village in Italy, Spain, or France… this is how they
developed too. You’re just seeing the mature wealthy version instead of the pimply adolescent
stage.
Notice that if regulations had forced nothing but six story buildings to go up immediately with
paved roads, electricity, sewer, and water from Day One the local economy probably couldn’t
have supported any of it. Also notice that the poorer people in the area benefit greatly by having
incrementally more work, wealthier customers, and higher property values in a steady stair step
fashion that manages to lift most (if not all) boats with the rising development tide.
My point here isn’t that we should allow open sewers and unsanitary conditions to exist in North
America. Instead, we could embrace variations on the theme of incremental urbanism and steady
slightly irregular development mechanisms. Sooner or later we may not have much choice in the
matter.
You may very well prefer life in a comfortable suburban home with its freshly paved arterial
highways. Fine by me. But these neighborhoods are designed to age and decline. They’re trapped
in amber with a culture that rejects any form of thickening or evolution. Once the sewers and
other public infrastructure need to be replaced the money simply isn’t going to be there. Full
stop. The only way these places can remain viable is for some other portion of the town to
become more productive so revenue can be skimmed off to subsidize things over time. That
works if most places are dynamic and only a few places are in need of subsidies. But we’ve
managed to build out an entire continent of structurally insolvent places and only a small handful
of places that generate more than they consume. The clock is ticking…
Categories: CNU blogs, New Urbanism
How Oklahoma City Decided to Change Its Image
New Geography - Tue, 2015-12-08 00:38
I was in Oklahoma City for the first time earlier this year. I got to see a lot of the things I’d heard
about, such as the in-progress Project 180, a $175 million plan to rethink and rebuild every
downtown street.
OKC is not yet where it needs to be in a number of respects. Very little of the side has sidewalks,
for example. But they are pedaling in the right direction, and making some smart choices about
what to do – and equally as importantly, how to pay for it. If you visit you’ll also get a sense of
the city’s ambitions for more.
I have a short piece in the most recent City Journal about OKC, which is now available
online. Here’s an excerpt:
In 1991, Oklahoma City lost out to Indianapolis in the competition for a United Airlines
maintenance base. Mayor Ron Norick wanted to know why. He was certain that Oklahoma City
had put the most compelling financial deal on the table for United. The company answered that
its decision had nothing to do with the subsidy package. Rather, United simply couldn’t imagine
its employees living in a place as bleak as Oklahoma City. “The quality of life had sunk so low
we couldn’t buy someone’s attention,” as current mayor Mick Cornett puts it. “No matter how
many incentive dollars we put in place, corporate America wasn’t interested in us.”
Click through to read the whole thing.
Aaron M. Renn is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Contributing Editor at City
Journal. He writes at The Urbanophile, where this piece originally appeared.
Categories: New Urbanism
Single Family Zoning in Seattle and The Limited Logic of Euclid
Old Urbanist - Mon, 2015-12-07 21:59
I'd wanted to write a few words about the recent controversy over single-family zoning Seattle,
but that debate has been addressed so well and thoroughly by other writers that I'm not going to
rehash the details. Apart from the local politics of that debate, one thing that it has accomplished
is to assist in highlighting exactly what single-family zoning means in an American context.
Although it sounds self-explanatory, the term "single-family home" has a distinct perception and
legal meaning that goes well beyond the mere physical form of a dwelling. Through a series of
court cases, including the Euclid v. Ambler decision, American courts have gradually allowed the
enshrinement of this perception into law with hardly so much as a dissenting opinion.
Many of those debating single-family zoning in Seattle (and in other cities) take these various
legal incidents for granted as an integral part of an area devoted to standalone houses, although
they are conceptually and legally separable.
The American Conception of the "Single-Family Home"
The typical American single-family home, and the zone within which it lies, are defined by (at
least) five key legal elements which I've laid out below. I call this conception "American" in line
with Sonia Hirt's analysis in her recent book, Zoned in the USA, where she discusses how the
single-family zone, as defined below, is a century-old American invention, and is rarely found in
the land use codes and regulations in other countries.
Although the the debate generally focuses on the third of these (limitations on units), and
sometimes the fourth, each of these supporting elements are essential to sustaining the American
ideal of the single-family zone. Remove any of them and the concept breaks down.
That allowing some non-residential uses would transform single-family areas seems too obvious
to mention, although the consequences of doing so are often greatly exaggerated. Many
residential streets are simply not economically viable sites for commercial activity, and certainly
not those which depend on a high volume of customers.
An abolition of minimum lot sizes, in fact, might be even more transformative. On the typical
housing lot of 6,000 square feet bordering street and alley, three or more detached homes might
be built. On Twitter, Mike Eliason provided a photo of how this very result was feared by the
incumbent homeowners of the 1920s (at right). These were single-family detached homes, to be
sure, but they violated the perception of what a proper single-family home should be (aside from
stirring up various other anxieties and prejudices).
Setbacks and FAR limitations predated limitations on units, and in conjunction with minimum
lot sizes were used to achieve the same result, as well as to enforce aesthetic preferences
(specifically, for large front lawns). With their intention of making impractical and
uneconomical all but detached, one-family houses, they incidentally also forbid other types of
single-family housing, including the ancient typologies of courtyard homes and rowhouses.
Limitations on units are the the essence of the single-family designation, and lend the category
its name. This limitation often tests the bounds of rationality and common sense: on what
ground, for instance, could one permit single-family homes on lots of 5,000 sq. ft. but prohibit a
two-unit structure on 10,000 square feet? Occupancy limits, covered thoroughly by Alan
Durning in a series at the Sightline website, are a means of closing a final loophole and
preventing detached, single-unit homes from being adapted to multi-household use as dormitorystyle SRO housing with shared kitchen or bathroom spaces.
Zoning Ideology and Housing Prejudice
As should be clear from the above, the single-family zone, far from the straightforward concept
that it it pretends to be, is a complex and artificial legal construct with many interlocking parts
designed to forbid any deviation, no matter how slight, from the ideal. Nor is some universal
concept which is simply given recognition in law: in many or most countries, the idea of
regulating housing in such a manner is not even conceived of. In Japanese zoning law, for
instance, only bulk and height are regulated, and no attempt is made to restrict how the space
within the building envelope is divided into living quarters.
The phantom triplex: using the language of interior spatial
division to imply differences in outward form.At the dawn of American zoning, there was some
concern that this sort of regulation -- one which specified that having more than one unit in a
structure was sufficient to make that structure a different type of use -- would be found to exceed
a city's legislative power (this from Edward Murray Bassett's Zoning):
At the time of Bassett's writing, courts had already upheld lot coverage maximums and height
limits, which together could be deployed to greatly restrict net buildable square footage on any
given lot. The question remained whether within this building envelope a city could restrict the
number of units (kitchens, essentially). Bassett, a lawyer who always seemed to worry more as
to whether courts would uphold his ideas than whether the ideas themselves were sound, was
concerned that this would go beyond the legislative purposes for which zoning had been
authorized by the states.
By the time the Euclid decision was issued by the Supreme Court in 1926, however, rhetoric was
already triumphant over meaning, so much so that it rendered specious nearly all of the court's
reasoning with regard to the exclusion of multi-unit structures. That reasoning, casually tacked
on to the court's primary analysis regarding use-based zoning, is set out below:
"With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached
house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses . . . . Moreover, the coming
of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free
circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the
smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident
to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked
automobiles, of larger portions of the streets . . . ." (Emphasis added).All the court is doing here
is recapitulating its decision in Welch v. Swasey in which it upheld restrictions on height and
bulk (essentially, the establishment of a three-dimensional building envelope). It does not
squarely address whether a city could restrict the number of units in buildings constructed within
existing height and bulk limits.* It does not address whether a city could ban multi-unit
buildings even where they are no denser, in units/acre, than single-unit structures. It does not
address whether parking concerns are valid in an area where on-street parking is prohibited or
where parking and traffic is managed by some other means than the one imagined by the
court. In other words, Bassett's primary concern regarding the constitutionality of single-unit
structures, as a separate use, goes entirely unaddressed.
Without a concrete controversy before it, the court had no need to utter the notorious words in
the passage above, which as noted above were largely irrelevant to the actual issues in
controversy surrounding multi-unit buildings. It would have sufficed to note, as the court
actually did later in the opinion, that zoning ordinances must be assessed in detail rather than in
generality. The court realizes this toward the very end of the opinion: "In the realm of
constitutional law especially, this Court has perceived the embarrassment which is likely to
result from an attempt to formulate rules or decide questions beyond the necessities of the
immediate issue." This humble admission appears in the same opinion in which the highest court
in the land slanders apartment buildings as "mere parasites."
The court did issue one opinion two years later striking down a zoning law in detail, in the
slightly less well-known Nectow v. Cambridge case, but afterwards fell largely silent on
zoning. Bassett's question was not and has not ever been addressed by the Supreme Court, a fact
which has been appreciated by a few authors going back at least as far as attorney Richard
Babcock's 1983 article The Egregious Invalidity of the Exclusive Single-Family Zone.
New Jersey's Reaction and the Final Triumph of Single-Family Zoning
A little-known postscript to Euclid, as described in William Fischel's recent Zoning Rules! book,
is that the pro-property rights New Jersey Supreme Court refused to be swayed by the decision,
instead adopting the narrow reading of it that I have suggested above. Prior to the issuance of
Euclid, the lower court, following New Jersey precedent, had done the following in a process
reminiscent of the Mount Laurel doctrine's "builder's remedy" from many decades later:
"The Oxford Construction Company [applied] for a permit granting permission to erect four
brick apartment houses upon a plot of ground located at the corner of Highland and Lincoln
avenues, in that city. The application was refused upon the sole ground that the zoning ordinance
of the municipality prohibited the erection of such buildings in that locality, no suggestion being
made that their presence there would constitute a menace to the health, safety or welfare of the
public. Thereupon, the construction company moved before the Supreme Court for the allowance
of a writ of mandamus to compel the inspector to issue the permit applied for. Upon the final
hearing of the cause, it appearing to the court that the presence of the proposed apartment houses
in that locality would not endanger the public welfare, health or safety, a peremptory writ was
directed."The city appealed the decision claiming that this reasoning was invalidated by Euclid,
but the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appears disagreed and upheld the lower court's result. In
response to this decision, Fischel explains that the New Jersey constitution itself was amended to
permit single-family residential as a zoning category. The text of that initial amendment, which
seems to no longer appear in the constitution, is difficult to locate, but in any event the question
at issue was not and has never been passed upon by the US Supreme Court. With New Jersey's
pro-property rights judiciary having been outflanked by the people themselves, single-family
zoning seemed triumphant.
The Ongoing Debate
Ninety years after the Euclid decision, land use debates in the United States continue to be
distorted by this same dichotomy between "single-family zoning" and "multifamily"
areas. Rather than talking about housing in terms of units/acre, or total floor area, or some other
similar metric, we tend to use purported building types -- whether single-family, duplex, triplex,
ADU or other such classification. Yet these classifications are in a sense illusory. Whether a
builder puts up three detached homes on a lot, three stacked units in a triplex, or three side-byside units in rowhouse form really shouldn't matter a great deal to the regulator.
The court's confusion on this point may have stemmed in part from the lack of a concrete
controversy. The respondent, Ambler Realty, was seeking to use its property for industrial
purposes, and had no intention of constructing any residential buildings, much less
apartments. The dispute was an abstract one which only pertained to the value of the land. Had
the court been confronted with a scenario in which an individual builder sought to construct a
two-unit building conforming to height and bulk regulations within a single-family zone, it could
not have evaded the question so easily.
Writing in 1983, Babcock assessed the situation as follows: "Today, there can be no justification
under the police power for compelling the construction of single-family houses. The daring trial
lawyer who chooses to litigate this issue will undoubtedly lose in the trial and intermediate
courts. But he should prepare his record with the Supreme Court in view. Using as witnesses
builders, demographers, engineers, planners, environmentalists, and land economists, he should
build a record that once and for all demolishes the notion that the single-family detached house is
to be forever isolated and protected."
Has this question been posed to any American court in the recent past? Perhaps not as directly as
this, but there have been small victories here and there against unreasonable minimum lot sizes
and minimum home sizes in the courts of various states. Victories have also been won, on
occasion, under a fair housing rationale. A combination of the reasoning from these victories, in
the proper context, might yet succeed in the courts of one state or other.
-------------------*As Alex Cecchini astutely notes in a recent post at Streets.mn, if we assume that the
preservation of natural light is a valid purpose under the police power, it is not clear why these
concerns are better addressed in a scheme where single-unit structures and multi-unit structures
are segregated then where, by contrast, multi-unit buildings are scattered among single-unit
structures. In the former scenario, the multi-unit structures receive abundant light while
shadowing only a small number of houses, whereas in the latter the multi-unit buildings all cast
each other in shadow, resulting in a net loss in well-lit units.
Categories: New Urbanism
Ramirez-Rosa Discussed Need for Better Urban Planning at Streetsblog Party
Grid Chicago - Mon, 2015-12-07 18:40
Daniel Ronan, Alderman Ramirez-Rosa, and Steven Vance. Photo: John Greenfield
Thanks to all of you came out to support Streetsblog Chicago and Moxie, the LGBT group for
LGBT urban planning and public policy professionals, at our holiday party last Thursday at El
Morro Lounge in the Hermosa neighborhood. Steven and I had a great time talking
transportation with SBC readers at this cozy pub.
“We were encouraged by the strong turnout of Moxie as well as Streetsblog Chicago followers,
as well as 35th Ward alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, who came to raise funds for our two
organizations pushing for concrete change in Chicago,” said Moxie founder Daniel Ronan.
“‘Moxie’ really defined the night’s spirit, with $300 raised for each group, and hundreds of
dollars spent to support local businesses on the Armitage Avenue corridor.”
Photo: John Greenfield
Alderman Ramirez-Rosa addressed the crowd during the party:
You guys are a group of policy wonks that are LGBTQ and have intentionally come together and
created a space where you can talk about policy through a lens that a lot of policy makers don’t
necessarily have. I’m a politician. I haven’t studied urban planning. But I need smart individuals
like yours to come forth and bring the solutions that I can then champion for my community.
If I had a dollar for every time an alderman or a policy maker said, “Oh, I don’t like that idea,”
“Well why don’t you like it?”
“Oh, I just don’t like it.”
If we could remove that personal bias and instead focus on outcomes and data-driven analysis,
and really have good conversations about what it is that we’re trying to achieve, and what’s the
research, and what’s the path that we’re going to take to get there, I think we’d be in a much
better place as a society.
And I think that if we had more people that had been pushed to the margins say “I want to play a
role in policy,” I think that we’d be in a much better place as a society.
Steven and I would like to thank Daniel for organizing the event, and the alderman for showing
his support. We’d also like to give thanks to everyone who donated prizes for our raffle: Gabe
Klein and Island Press, who provided copies of Klein’s book “Start-Up City”; Sam Schwartz’
and Public Afffairs who donated copies of Schwartz’s book “Street Smart”; Boulevard Bikes,
which provided a fancy set of Planet Bike lights; and Green Machine Cycles, which donated a
Kali helmet and a water bottle cage.
Streetsblog Chicago will be doing monthly meet-ups all through the winter as part of our efforts
to raise funds for next year’s Streetsblog coverage. Stay tuned for info about our next event in
early January.
Categories: New Urbanism
Can Charlotte become more walkable and bikeable? The conversation continues
The Naked City - Mon, 2015-12-07 18:34
AARP volunteers get ready to begin a walkability audit uptown with guest speaker Gil Penalosa
of 8-80 Cities in October. Photo: Juan OssaIt isn’t every day in Charlotte that within five hours
you hear the World Health Organization invoked in conversation about planning and livability.
But as a Charlotte discussion continues about whether the city needs to purposefully shift its
primary emphasis away from motorists and toward to bicycles, pedestrians and transit, the
“livability” term just keeps coming up.
Monday morning, I learned that the Town of Matthews in southern Mecklenburg County is the
first, and to date only, municipality in North Carolina to sign on as an AARP Age Friendly
Community.
That AARP initiative, as it turns out, is an affiliate of the WHO’s Age-Friendly Cities and
Communities Program, a global effort dating to 2006 to help cities prepare for both increasing
urbanization and for an aging population, as the huge Baby Boom generation hits retirement
age.Michael Olender, the Charlotte-based associate state director for AARP, says he’s in
conversations with the Charlotte mayor’s office about whether Charlotte should also seek to join.
What does “age-friendly community” have to do with walkability and livability? Simply this: As
planners and policymakers focus on the wishes and needs of the huge Millennial generation,
Olender says, not much attention is being paid to the needs of what the older generation wants.
But, he says, “What Boomers want mirrors very closely what Millennials want. They want to
walk. They want good public transit.”
Fast-forward a few hours. I’m at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission’s monthly
work session. Planning commissioner Deb Ryan, an associate professor of urban design at UNC
Charlotte, is giving a short presentation on the role of livability and public health in city
planning. She pointedly did not call it “sustainability.”
“ ‘Sustainability’ means everything and nothing,” Ryan said. Instead, she talked about becoming
a “livable city.”
“While you may be opposed to sustainability, you can’t be opposed to better public health,” she
said.But what about the World Health Organization? As Ryan described how cities throughout
history have acted to improve the health of their residents, she showed the WHO’s definition of
health: “A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence
of disease or infirmity.”
“We’ve created a world where it’s much easier to drive than to walk,” Ryan said. “We’ve created
neighborhoods where to get anywhere you have to drive. People have grown up with this. They
think it’s normal.”
To show how transportation choices are a public health issue, Ryan pointed not only to the air
pollution from auto exhaust, but to the role of physical exercise and to diseases today. In 1900
tuberculosis was the second leading cause of death in the U.S., with pneumonia (often related to
TB) and influenza No. 1. By 1998 the leading cause of death was cardiovascular disease, with
cancer a distant second. And research from the Activing Living Research project has found, for
instance, that people who live in walkable communities are two times as likely to get enough
physical activity as those who don’t. The planning commission is an appointed advisory body
that offers recommendations, not final decisions, on rezonings and planning policies.
Nevertheless, Ryan urged her fellow commissioners to consider taking a stand in favor of
stronger measures to move the city toward livability. “We have such a car-centric city now,” she
said. “Are we stuck with what we have?”
And I’ll go out on a limb to note that not many people or neighborhoods in Charlotte can claim
to have “complete physical, mental and social well-being.” But can we do better at the way
we're building the city? Absolutely.
Categories: New Urbanism
Driver Fatally Strikes Bicyclist, Injures Pedestrian in North Lawndale
Grid Chicago - Mon, 2015-12-07 17:14
The crash site. Image: Google Street View
A driver struck and killed a man on a bicycle and injured a pedestrian Sunday night in the North
Lawndale neighborhood, according to the Chicago Police.
At around 11:20 p.m., the driver of a gray sedan hit the 55-year-old male bicyclist on the 1400
block of South Kostner, police said. The motorist then struck a 45-year man walking nearby.
The bike rider was transported to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead,
according to police. His identity has not been released, pending notification of next of kin,
according to the Cook County medical examiner’s office.
The pedestrian was taken to Mount Sinai as well. His condition has stabilized.
As of this morning, charges were pending against the driver. Major Accidents is investigating the
case.
Fatality Tracker: 2015 Chicago pedestrian and bicyclist deaths
Pedestrian: 29 (11 were hit-and-run crashes)
Bicyclist: 7 (two were hit-and-run crashes)
Categories: New Urbanism
Mr. Kimmelman's Metropolis
Planetizen blogs - Mon, 2015-12-07 17:00
The New York Times architecture critic is making good on his promise to focus on the social
context and redemptive qualities of urban architecture and design. A recent lecture in Denver
identified several imperatives for the planning profession.
Categories: CNU blogs















« first
‹ previous
…
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
…
next ›
last »






About us
Advertise
Books
E-updates
CNU
Cart
Search


My Account
Log In

Home
o
o



Best Practices Guide
SmartCode Manual
Submit News
Nonprofit
News Briefs
Follow us on


About Us
Contact


Privacy
Copyright 2010 New Urban News Publications
PO Box 6515, Ithaca, NY 14851-6515 | tel 607-275-3087
Site development by FreeThought Design.