Month: June 2010

Old/new Charlotte photos, plus – ta-da! – ‘Voltron’

If you’re a sucker for old photos of Charlotte (or you like the phallic gallery of new building photos) hop over to CLTblog, and/or to urbanplanet. Folks have posted a number of old photos, postcards and cityscape scenes, many of them from uptown/downtown, shown in varying degrees of glamor.

The photo atop this is of South Tryon Street. It strikes me dumb whenever I see it, that the city allowed that street scene – and all the similar scenes – to simply vanish. It’s more than just a lack of interest in historic preservation, although that’s part of it. It’s a loss of the collective will to create architecture with a human scale, I think. Compare that street scene to the thrusting, oh-so-macho towers depicted in the newer photos.

I’m not saying nothing new should be built. That’s silly. But what would have been wrong with saving a few blocks of buildings that look like this? If you want to see a downtown where some of the old fabric has been saved, visit downtown Raleigh. Its city planning department also has an Urban Design Center right on Fayetteville Street, its main downtown street. Go figure.

Here’s a quick plug, as well, for a great little video-with-music of the new Duke Energy Building with its lights running, a sight I have yet to see although I look out my vintage-’60s gun-slit windows at the Observer building and see the building multiple times a day.

(Just to disclose: The Observer building is NOT one you’ll see many loving photos of in those aforementioned building-photo collections. And it’s as functional as a place to inhabit 10 hours a day as it is delightful as a view.) Here’s the link to the Voltron video. (It’s embedded below.)

If you prefer different music, Justin Ruckman at CLTblog has done a three-movement series of videos, set to Beethoven’s String Quintet in C, op. 29. Check them out here.

U.S. youth less car-crazy than their elders?

Something is changing in America. People aren’t driving as much – even taking into account that the recession and unemployment reduces commuting. Several people, including a writer for Ad Age magazine, have noticed a dip in the rates at which young people are getting driver’s licenses.

Jack Neff, writing in the May 31 AdAge.com, says, “The automobile, once a rite of passage for American youth, is becoming less relevant to a growing number of people under 30.” His piece shows the stats that back up that thesis.

Similarly, Nate Silver, writing in the May 6 Esquire, opens his piece this way: “This is surely one of the signs of the apocalypse: Americans aren’t driving as much as they used to.”

And the ubiquitous Richard Florida, writing at theatlantic.com, points to Neff and Silver’s articles and ponders whether his predicted “great reset” is taking place. This view dovetails nicely with Florida’s new book, “The Great Reset.” He’s been writing about “resets” for the Atlantic for some time now.

If you read the pieces it’s hard not to think they’re onto something. AdAge, especially, is known more for pointing to consumer trends than for worrying about issues such as the fiscal and environmental irresponsibility of suburban sprawl.

But here’s another sign that something truly is changing. Automakers *#8211; who have nothing if not a history of extraordinarily effecting ad campaigns – are changing the backdrops on their ads, using more sexy urban scenes and fewer beautiful wilderness scenes. Catherine Lutz and Anne Lutz Fernandez point this out in a June 3 Huffington Post piece, From Upstream to Downtown: Car Ads Head to the City. The two are authors of the book “Carjacked: The Culture of the Automobile and its Effect on Our Lives.” In the HuffPost piece, they write, “Just when some of us have decided we want to live in places where we don’t have to be quite so dependent on the automobile, the automobile is trying to follow us there.”

If you’re interested in more about “Carjacked” – a book I recommend as one that looks at the world in ways you probably hadn’t thought of before – here’s a Q/A I did with Fernandez for OnEarth.org.

More delays for Charlotte’s tree ordinance

Charlotte has lost half its tree canopy since 1985, and Mecklenburg County has lost a third of its. (Read the report on that – see page 70 of this pdf.) So plenty of eyes are on a proposal – moving through the bureaucracy with the speed of Providence Road traffic at 5:30 p.m. – to strengthen the city’s aging tree ordinance as it applies to commercial and multifamily development.

Finally, the plan was, the City Council’s environment committee would render its recommendation today at an 11 a.m. meeting. This isn’t final adoption, mind you, just a recommendation to be sent to the full council. The environment committee, which until Anthony Foxx was elected mayor last November was dominated by Republicans (on a council with a Democratic majority, mind you), has been gnawing on the ordinance since June 2008.

I don’t know what all local developers think of it, because that’s a large and diverse group – a fact you wouldn’t know if you listen only to the local developers’ lobbying group, REBIC. But REBIC and its members have been raising issue after issue for five years, first on the stakeholder committee, which could not reach consensus, and now as the ordinance is before the committee. During the stakeholder discussions REBIC used the time-honored “stall-it-by-demanding-a-cost-benefit-analysis” gambit, which took more than a year, in part because a few non-developers on the stakeholder committee suggested that maybe the anti-tree-ordinance folks shouldn’t be the ones who got to choose the sites on which the cost-benefits were being analyzed.
REBIC didn’t like the idea of pushing the required “tree save” from the current 10 percent up to 15 percent. They didn’t like the idea that trees in parking lots should be planted closer together. Those issues have been, I think, resolved.

Today two sticking points remained: The city staff’s proposal for how to deal with development on already-developed sites, and how to set the fees for a “fee-in-lieu” proposal, under which developers could opt to pay a fee rather than save the trees on a full 15 percent of the site. (It’s all very complicated.) REBIC’s preferred “fee-in-lieu” was laughable: just decide that all land in the city, for tree ordinance fee-in-lieu purposes, is worth $40,000 to $50,000 an acre and set the fees as if that were the case.

Council members offered several proposals to “compromise” between staff’s recommendations and REBIC’s ideas. Why the council members so rarely seem to just opt for their paid staff experts’ recommendations, which have already been compromised during stakeholder talks, is beyond me. But instead of voting today, the committee has punted until June 21.

Best quotes of the day: Both courtesy of District 6 rep Andy Dulin.
– In the context of his worries that the tree ordinance will add costs to development: “We’re going to jack up the cost of building a strip shopping center.”
– “Developers love trees.”

For traffic geeks, policy wonks and more

Sharing tidbits and links:

– Lew Powell shared this article about a math whiz in Manhattan who is devising an intricate Excel program to show the cost to everyone from each car, truck, taxi or bus that enters Manhattan daily. It’s in Wired magazine. For congestion-policy geeks and others.

[Lew, for you who don’t know him, is now retired from his long-time role as Observer Forum editor, Buzz editor and office “wag” – as when people would write, “an office wag quipped … ” and recount a pithy and witty observation.]

– A sad, ironic note. The Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department recently learned it’s one of three finalists for the 2010 NRPA Gold Medal Award. It’s an annual award from the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) honoring excellence in management and planning of parks and recreation agencies. Of course, the county park department’s budget is being cut almost in half. It’s losing dozens of staff to layoffs, and some of its programs will have to be eliminated.

– Want to see a new promotional video for the city, done by the Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority (CRVA)? It’s at the bottom of this page. Cameos by Michael Jordon,
Winston Kelly, Anthony Foxx, a tray full of homemade biscuits and more. I note one shot early on is from – gasp! – the Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens in Belmont (not Gastonia, as I wrote in haste Thurday night). That’s legit if you think of “Charlotte” as the region. Not sure about that Childress Vineyard clip, though. It’s up the road rather a ways, outside Lexington. Pick you up some Lexington BBQ on your way …

– Here’s a link to the piece in the Atlantic magazine about Andres Duany – a piece I referenced in my May 21 op-ed, “Jane Jacobs, Robert Moses and NIMBYs.” If you missed them, here are a couple of earlier posts on related topics, here and here. Both were written at a conference where Duany spoke, sponsored by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Nieman Foundation and the Harvard Graduate School of Design. Anthony Flint of Lincoln Institute sure wished I’d have mentioned that sponsorship in the print oped. I should have, he’s right.

– ‘Bright flight’ changes the face of cities, suburbs/Younger, educated whites moving to urban areas for homes, jobs – It’s a link to an Associated Press story on the msnbc.com web site. It refers to a Brookings Institution study released in May, but the link to the study on Brookings site is temporarily broken. This link takes you to the main Metropolitan Policy Program site at Brookings.