365 Cities?

I was thinking as I have been getting ready to go to Chicago in the dead of winter for a poorly-thought out birthday present to self how can we make 365 Cities?

What I mean is that we in the planning world talk about "24 Hour Streets." 24 Hour Streets are streets where there are few lags in activity throughout a 24 hour period. Think New York City streets- many of them have delivery trucks coming at the crack of dawn or in the middle of the night to make their drop-offs, then the commuters hustle along the same streets to get to work. After the morning rush hour tourists or senior citizens or work-at-home people may take a walk on the same strips of cement that a mere hour before expensive wingtips and stilettos traipsed upon. Then comes the lunch crowd and the afternoon tourists, students, and free lancers. 4 o'clock - 7 o'clock the corporate workers pour out of their office buildings and make the trek home. They mingle with the dinner crowd and after that comes the wave of pub crawls and nightlife seekers. Although last call may come at 2 or 3 AM the delivery trucks are starting up. And the cycle continues.

This is of course an idealistic concept and not every street in NYC is busy at every hour of the day. But the point is that there is usually always something going on.

Therefore, I wondered, if there are 24 Hour Streets, could we make 365 Cities?

In THE biggest cities in the world like New York and Tokyo yes we can have 365 cities. These two places, and maybe London? (I wouldn't know, haven't been) or Rome-? are such hubs of activity that like the Post Office neither rain nor sleet nor snow nor hail will deter the public from using the city be it for work or pleasure. If it's raining in Tokyo and it's your first time there are you seriously going to just stay in your hotel room and watch it come down? Unlikely!

But what about places where there may not be as many attractions to pull you out of your hotel room or there are attractions, but the weather can be mercurial? For example, Chicago.

It's easy to create walkable communities in places where it is sunny and warm at least 8 months out of the year (though it can also be potentially humid or muggy during those sunny warm times). But what if 8 of those months, or it feels like 8, are either snowing, raining, or hailing?

Although I have great respect for the New Urbanists, but they tend to gloss over the effect regional weather can have on people's desire to go for a walkabout. The New Urbanists are also are savvy enough to build their most well known developments below the Mason-Dixon line. Two of the most well-known members, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk made their names with Seaside, FL and Celebration, FL, www.dpz.com

In a related argument there are several critics who scoff at the "skywalks" of Minneapolis and other cities, saying that it takes away from the character of the street. But what if the "character" is only out for 6 months of the year? Yes, I know, 6 is more than zero. But 4 of those months you are all but guaranteed snow, wind, and/or freezing temperatures. People think I'm joking. Ha! Come to Minnesota in April or October and we'll see who the joke's on now! PS- bring a scarf. As Dean Martin said, "baby, it's cold outside!"

And I would argue that skywalks will not provide the final nail in the proverbial coffin. I first encountered the skywalks of Minneapolis in the third grade, from the street level thank you very much. Contrary to whatever futurist nightmares the critics think skywalks will produce I can assure you that Minneapolis does not look like some Bladerunner-like city out of the Matrix with tubes coming out of buildings. There are a few. They are incredibly useful in the winter. But the downtown skyline doesn't look like a cyber-punk octopus is trying to strangle all of the buildings.

However, all is not lost. Ray Oldenburg, in his work, the Great Good Place, talks about "third spaces," which I also cite a lot, especially in this blog. And I would like to propose that perhaps, although we planners advocate for increased walkability and people mingling on the streets, perhaps "third spaces" are more realistic for places with less than ideal weather and an auto-centric world.

Oldenburg's examples of third spaces include: cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons and other hangouts (to crib from his subtitle). For my pop culture reference of the day, the movie Barbershop (starring Ice Cube and Eve) predominately takes place in a "third space," a barbershop, from which the movie takes its title. The movie is also set some time in winter on the South Side of Chicago and as it is too cold to mingle on the streets for long many of the characters in the film come into the barbershop for their social contact. See if that happens at your local Supercuts be it in Chicago or San Diego.

I'm all for walkability, but I think that critics need to be realistic about what people are willing to do under normal circumstances. And if there are not ideal meteorological conditions, people will be apt to stay inside. This doesn't mean that there can't be indoor third spaces. Will this lead to 365 Cities? Probably not. What makes Tokyo and New York so special is that they're always on, they have an electric pulse that thrums with the life of their city. Should Cleveland or Rochester be strive to be like that? No, but finding ways to create third spaces within their cities would serve them well, especially when "baby it's cold outside!"

East vs. West, or I Always Wondered About This

I was always curious about why it can sometimes seem like the "west side" of an area is nicer than the east side. The author postulates that it was due to the direction of the wind, which would blow pollution eastward, prompting the rich to move westward.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/47486

The "west is best" argument is obviously not true in Wausau, as clllllearly the academically gifted reside on the superior east side of town. The fact that I used to live on the east side (go Lumberjacks!) has nothing to do with my statement of "fact" ;) The east side also has the gorgeous historic homes of Franklin Street and the Leigh Yawkey Art Museum.

The west side of LA is definitely "nicer" than the east side of LA. My beloved gelato shop is there, there is more shopping, and all kinds of vibrant businesses and creative venues. In fact, when many people speak of "East LA" it's in a tone reserved for the "poor Little Nells" of the world.

East LA may not have the reputation for violence that South LA has, but it does have blight and as East LA proper is unincorporated it suffers from being economically disadvantaged. But people make it their home. There are street cart vendors and small businesses. Family ties are probably stronger and stretch further than one's immediate family. And there are some lovely affordable housing sites whose models resemble market-rate homes elsewhere.

However, no matter how you frame it, it's significantly hotter, especially in the summer, than the west side which is cooled by delicious ocean breezes, even a few miles inland. And when the temperature reaches the triple digits I'd rather be at the beach than espousing the benefits of having your extended family under your roof.

The author's theory, on closer inspection, could be a sweeping generalization. In New York it's not a clean cut haves and have-nots. The Upper East Side is the swankier side, the west is more liberal. Though in some areas some boho babies are also trust fund kids who are slummin it with their beatnik and hipster buddies. And in Chicago it's kind of hard to say as it's built almost on the lake. There is the Gold Coast that is on the east side, but Lawndale, which is a really rough section of Chicago is on the west. Though if you drive for a few more minutes you are in the very nice suburb of Oak Park. And the swank city of Pasadena is on the east side of the general area of greater Los Angeles.

But in smaller cities the west side can be nicer, more cosmopolitan, etc., For example, in MSP- Minneapolis is the more cosmopolitan, while St. Paul, though lovely, is more reserved and less glam.

At least, when it comes to LA the answer is literally blowing in the wind! (And a lot of history that I am blatantly glossing over as this is a blog post not a book) For more info on the history of LA there are a ton of books, but the Reluctant Metropolis, by my former prof, William "Bill" Fulton is great and City of Quartz or the Ecology of Fear are "interesting" reads by Mike Davis. They're on my bookshelf. But Amazon.com will be more than happy to supply you with hundreds of other titles. :)

How Hazardous Driving Conditions Are Good for You, or Reflections on a Des Moines* Driving Experience

*actually, it should be Windsor Heights/Clive, Iowa driving experience to be geographically correct, but Des Moines Driving sounds better :)

I like to think of myself as a "seasoned" driver. I was taught how to drive in late fall in central Wisconsin. This included several stints of white-knuckled driving (and white-knuckled front passenger seat riding) in winter complete with snow, ice, freezing rain, hail, the works.

Receiving my driver's license (on my second attempt) in early February I was still in Wisconsin. The first time, in true Wisconsin fashion, snow had blurred the painted lane dividers and during my road test I was instructed to make a left hand turn. I did as instructed, feeling confident, until a truck pulled up on my left hand side, alerting me to the fact that I was not in the left hand turn lane as anticipated. After that I honed my driving skills in Connecticut, land of windy roads carved into mountain sides. And I rounded it out driving in downtown Chicago.

Though I have yet to drive the lawless roads of LA I am confident that I could handle whoever decides to cut me off having born witness to my friends' driving.

But driving in Des Moines can spoil a person. Although the strictly enforced speed limits, which rarely exceed 35 mph have reduced me to squeaky indignation, one gets used to it. I am a self-confessed speed demon, but I am also a creature of habit. And having been warned of law enforcement's hard-nosed approach to speed limits I have caught myself mildly panicking when I exceed 45 mph. This is from a person, who under any other driving conditions usually takes the posted speed limit and adds 15.

Also, in LA, where every third person is trying to make a left-hand turn on a two lane street, left hand turn lanes are rare and left hand turn signals a luxury. Therefore, one must often inch one's way oh so cautiously into the intersection and pray that oncoming traffic will at least be courteous not to swipe your bumper as you wait for the light to turn red. At that divinely appointed, or at least culturally accepted moment, you can crank the wheel, stomp on the accelerator, and make the turn that you've been waiting five minutes to make. Here in Des Moines, where I am spending my last full 24 hours, there are left hand turn lanes everywhere!

There are even those sections of road that are sectioned off in the middle of the road, reserved for traffic that is coming from either direction to make a left hand or a right hand turn into a shopping center. As I am not a traffic engineer I don't know the technical term for them. I do know that they are rare in LA.

And don't get me started on the number of left hand turn lights Des Moines has en masse. Oh that LA could install a few of those! Maybe Angelinos could DRV HPY.

There are even green *right hand* turn lights. I almost weep with pleasure when I see those as I know I won't be sideswiped by some jerk trying to run the light. The law is on my side! Nevertheless, the paranoid city driver in me still checks before inching into the intersection.

As much as I love these traffic conveniences and the fact that they are spoiling the heck out of me, that is also the downfall. I have opted to use the children's storybook characters the Country Mouse and the City Mouse in lieu of and to not directly offend any homo sapiens. I would argue that the City Mouse is a "better" driver due to conditioning. S/he is used to the perils of driving as s/he is faced with them every time they get behind the wheel. (This is assuming that there are cars correctly proportioned for mice. As Stuart Little had a car I would argue that there are. There's your random pop culture reference for today's post.)

The City Mouse doesn't have an illusions about his or her fellow driver. S/he knows getting on the 5, the 110, the 101, or any road for that matter, there's going to be some one who's driving distracted- be it texting on their phone, yelling at their kids, fumbling with the radio dial, etc., *Chances are the City Mouse is doing the same things too* Though not this City Mouse. Speed is my only vice. Unless of course I am employed by a city or state agency. Then, I will be the paradigm of law-abiding citizen!

Roads are also more crowded in the city making space more limited. Therefore, one has to be more aware lest one scratch that $100,000 Maserati that is ahead of you. Beautiful as they are, it is better to look not touch lest one wishes for one's auto insurance rates to skyrocket to the stratosphere.

The Country Mouse, bless those that still exist, often still harbors the notion that people, or in this case, "mice," are inherently good. That everyone else is driving just as carefully as s/he. And while one should always drive defensively, other drivers are not going to cut you off arbitrarily because everyone drives nice, right?

Two minutes on any big city road will vaporize any belief in other drivers being inherently "good." Someone's going to merge into your lane without looking, someone else will be riding your bumper like you're playing Bumper Cars, a third driver is merging onto the on-ramp without regard for the other cars that are already there. And if you're lucky all three conditions will converge at the same time like a traffic Bermuda Triangle.

Therefore, the Country Mouse is snapped out of his or her revelry that s/he was able to indulge puttering around in his or her small town accelerating or slowing at a whim, not bothering to signal lane changes This does occur in big cities too. But such actions do not go unnoticed. Many a driver anoints him or herself a traffic cop and is more than happy to tell you what you did wrong complete with hand gestures, colorful language, and commentary on your ancestry.

While I'm not advocating that we should all drive like the self-centered jerk that wants to be unleashed from our id, I do hypothesize that a little hazardous driving conditions isn't always a bad thing. Just like Midwestern winter weather driving conditions as sucky as it is to have to deal with it, given enough exposure it could save our lives. (think how vaccines work, same concept). Drive into that big city Country Mouse, you'll thank me later.

Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same)

Looking for a job my how-to-get-a-job books recommend that I define what I want in a job. They don’t recommend vagaries. So, I’ve been thinking of what I’d like to do ideally/where I’d like to live and what reality might be able to provide.

When I was young I wanted to be an artist- sleep late, have people pay me to paint, travel to lands far from the staid but comfortable Midwest in which I grew up. I also wanted to live in a big city, with exciting things to do at night, which would be waiting for me after I rolled out of bed. There would be cultural events at my disposal. Ideally, it’d be a big creative city brimming with artistic people to chat with over coffee, watch good-not-boring foreign films with, and contemplate priceless works of art together. Also, ideally my dad's last name would be Trump, Rockefeller, or other titian of industry.

Some things remain the same- in a perfect world I’d prefer to sleep late, be paid to paint, and travel. But I know that nowadays it’s next to impossible to eke out, much less make a proper living as a painter. Therefore, I’ve realigned my sights for something more realistic. I’ve always wanted to have a job that would make a difference in the world. And as much as I believe in the power of art I don’t think that a painting will solve world hunger. Mona Lisa’s been around for about five hundred years and she has yet to put a dent in the issue of international famine.

I also think that problem-solving and liaison with multiple parties is something that I’d like to do and would be great at. Ideally, I’d work in an education or sustainability-emphasis capacity. And I’d definitely like to have new challenges every once in a while. I did go/am at planning school. But I am 95% confident in the hiring potential probabilities in the planning realm. All I hear about are people being laid off. However, I get most of my planning news in California. Now is definitely time to start expanding my horizons, especially those that could provide an optimistic boost.

Regardless of where I end up, being in a big city is still very important to me, and especially one that has creative areas. Again, with the utopianism, I’d like to stay in LA. The weather is perfect about 360 days out of the year, there’s always something interesting to do, and we have a vibrant, active creative community. Even if some of them pay too much for clothes that they could pick up at Good Will for 200 dollars less, same look.

However, I have a mental list of places that I’d like to live in before I settle down somewhere for a really long time and Texas is one of them. I’ve lived technically in the four parts of the US. They’re not the true cardinal points. But it is definitely the four major regions of the US= the Northeast (Connecticut), the Southeast (Savannah), the West Coast (California), and the Midwest (Chicago, Wisconsin). But I haven’t lived in Texas, which I consider a country unto itself. It’s certainly big enough to be. And guys that say ma'am like George Eads of CSI fame make me weak in the knees. Granted, that wasn't terribly professional, but it's true. I also visited Charlotte, North Carolina over spring break last year and I loved it there. It reminds me of Savannah, where I went to undergrad, but there is more to do.

I’m open to moving anywhere, that is the perk of moving around a lot as a kid. Just nowhere with wretched amounts of humidity and within reasonable driving distance of a major metropolitan area.

I'll keep you posted on what unfolds! And where I end up. :)

And That's When I Realized, I Was Home, a valentine to the City of Angels

I just got home from a trip to Sin City, Las Vegas, with a bunch of my classmates at USC. As much as Las Vegas reminds me of a zoo, they really shouldn't exist, but they're here, so we may as well enjoy them, I had a great time.

The problem with Las Vegas is that if you're there for only a short time there is a desire to squeeze out as much fun and debauchery as possible. This leads to dehydration, exhaustion, and other unpleasant sensations.

We were only there for a day and a half, so we rushed around to the Bellagio, the MGM Grand, Caesar's Palace, etc., having a grand old time. But after a while I grew tired and was relieved that we were going home so I could collapse on my own bed.

But what I wasn't counting on was the reassuring sensation that came over me as we pulled into the city. I saw the skyline and familiar road signs and I thought to myself, I am home.

Home is an abstract concept for me as my family and I have lived in a ton of places, I have lived on my own in a variety of settings, and I have friends all over the U.S. I have written about this before, but it is still something with which I am wrestling.

I never expected to fall in love with L.A. other than enjoying wearing t-shirts in January while my parents are still shoveling snow in Minnesota. But I really have fallen in love with L.A. There is such a diversity here that is unmatched by any place on earth, even New York, or my beloved Chicago.

I went back to Chicago for New Year's and there was so much that was familiar and felt like I'd never left. But at the same time I yearned for things that were in L.A. that didn't exist in Chicago, and not just warmer weather. They don't have taco trucks, or especially Korean BBQ trucks (horrors! though they do have the vendor pushcarts i.e. roach coaches) nor is their Asian population as large as L.A. There is a Chinatown in Chicago, but no Thai Town, Little Tokyo, or Koreatown. Though in their defense they have Greektown and a much more predominant Polish and Irish population than the City of Angels.

It was also a little eerie seeing American Apparel stores popping up in Chicago. American Apparel is based out of Los Angeles, including their manufacturing plant. But to see it in the Windy City with negative wind chills was surreal, though inevitable as American Apparel's population increases without abatement.

Chicago still outpaces L.A. any day in terms of public transit and the way it so seamlessly woven into the urban landscape is inspiring. But the cold and ice is miserable.

Quite a few of the architectural hallmarks in Los Angeles are grounded in pop culture, not architectural history, such as Capitol Records and the Hollywood sign versus the Sears Tower and the Hancock Building. But there is also an abundance of Art Deco to be found in L.A., for which I am a HUGE sucker.

I still love Chicago, but I don't think that I will be planning there any time soon. Chicago politics being what they are is a huge obstacle and I don't think I want to move back to the Chicago "area" to plan one of its suburbs, though I may change my mind on that in the future.

The future remains unwritten, but for now I have found my place, and it is under the sun.

the Car-less Experiment

I have been car-less for the past two years and for the most part it has been incredibly freeing.

However, lately, it has been putting a crimp on my social schedule. Superficial, but true. And if you'll bear with me I'll also explain that my social schedule is also my professional networking schedule.

My bff J is currently playing part-time chauffeur to me and my grocery store-Target-Barnes & Noble needs, and the carpooling has been great for us and the environment. We catch up, act silly, sing along to the music, and reduce our carbon emissions.

However, there SC events that could be of great use and interest to me- such as a visit to an artist's studio, who builds architecture models, which is in downtown LA in the evening. I have asked if J, who has an interest in urban planning, would be able to come too (as she would be my ride) and the powers that be said that they thought so, but to check back. I have also submitted a request for carpooling if she is unable to come due to space limitations.

My legal professor was sharing a story in class today about his dinner party encounter with a planning commission member for the city of Culver City (CA), who made the error of asking him what they should do to improve Culver City. He said that they should reduce parking (anathema in LA!!!), widen the sidewalks, narrow the streets, and reduce the speed limits to 15 mph. Needless to say, the other party did not talk to him for the rest of the night. He was saying this in all seriousness and I agree with him. But he also has a job (and a car I presume) and doesn't need to get to an internship!

One of the good/bad things about SC is that there is a mandatory internship- it's between 400- 1,000 hrs. (to be completed over the course of your studies). It forces you into getting real experience in the real world. But things get a little trickier when one wants to work in Santa Monica, but has no access to get there, short of lots and lots of excruciating long bus rides- Chicago and your amazing El trains, where are you when I need you?!

Also, I suspect that it will start to get a little unspokenly "weird" if I keep dragging J to SC social events that I want to go to and she isn't an enrolled student nor is she my girlfriend in that sense of the word. And people start to wonder, who is that girl? I never see her around. . .

And whenever there are field trips listed on a syllabus I wonder who I can charm into picking me up and taking me, or if there are other people who are car-less. :(

I totally admit that currently I am unable to meet friends for drinks anywhere as 1) I would need to find a way to get there and 2) I would need to find a way to get back- safely! And relying on the kindness of friends wears thin on all parties fast.

And I realized that I have to limit my studying on-campus at this present moment. As the a/c guy failed to show today I tried to stall as long as I could before I trudged home. But it was fast approaching dusk and I've never walked home at night and I wasn't in the mood to conduct a social experiment. I don't live in a super "sketchy" neighborhood, but we don't leave our front doors unlocked either.

The final realization I have come to, is that I need a car in order to not only get around, but to literally succeed!

Alas, one of those things you hear about LA that "you need a car to get around" is pretty much fact.

Obviously, many poor people do not own cars and have to rely on public transportation. But I also doubt that a lot of them need to put in a 1,000 hour, or maybe it's 400 hour mandatory internship for school! Can I also say that a lot of them also have very strong local social ties so in order to meet their friends they don't have to traverse three different zip codes? I have friends in Little Tokyo, Los Feliz, and Marina del Rey! None of the places, with the exception of LT are that easy to get to by public transit :P

There is a strong emphasis on social justice at my school, so hopefully one of my peers in the transportation concentration will be able to start addressing our abysmal state of public transit. Though the big big and big green buses to Santa Monica and Culver City, respectively are cute. And our metro local is a zippy shade of orange.

Unfortunately, I was not smart enough to put aside the money that I saved on transportation each month- partially because I was paying off the bill for a rebuilt tranny on my last car (RIP) and partially due to Target- darn you Target! Why must you be filled with shiny objects?!

So, now I am crunching numbers on 2009 Honda Fit's, wondering if I can eat and make a car payment. I'll keep ya posted.

This isn't due to ego. If I had my way I'd buy an old beater and drive it into the ground until I get a real job. The problem is my last car, my baby, was a used vehicle and I opted against buying a dealer-certified vehicle. This meant that I'm pretty sure I inherited a daddy's girl/boy's car, which they drove around and didn't pay any mind to the maintenance. Final result? I wound up paying for a completely rebuilt transmission, which cost almost as much, or more than the car was worth. And I don't even own it anymore. (the fact that this was due to a cross-country move is beside the point. Then the timing belt/the engine blew on said car. When it rains it pours. Too bad it was owned free and clear.) And I don't know a crankshaft from a gear shaft, so if anything goes awry I'm at the mercy of a mechanic.

But I am nothing if not a scrupulous researcher and I've done my homework and the Fit has earned rave reviews. It also meets my needs exactly- a small car = easy to park, loaded with safety features and a/c and a CD player come standard. :) My needs are simple and few- I only want the best!

Apparently, shopping in October is the perfect time to wrangle a deal. There's also a tall drink of water in my classes who I hope will be able to come with me as I've heard that dealers are outright biased against women buyers. So I'll bring me a tall strappin' fellow to do the talkin'. And a former co-worker was a former car salesperson so I'm tapping her for tips too.

Plus, with a car I could pick up a small job, ugh, maybe. Unless my parking costs eat up what would be considered my paycheck. Hmm, I'm rather partial to Trader Joe's, and they always have ample parking!

The adventure continues! If it's not one thing, it's another!

If I Ever Leave This World Alive -Flogging Molly

I thought it appropriate to use a Los Angeles-based band, and one of my favorites, as the title for my latest posting.

Grad school is soon upon me, and I like to have everything nailed down as much as possible. So, I thought that I had a place all lined up. It was cute, private, and close to school.

Then I called the property manager to check on whether the owner was agreeable to my lease terms and he thought that I had found another place and found another tenant! This is despite my pronouncement that I loved it and that I would take it. In the City of Angels where you can't throw a Variety newspaper without hitting a waitress-actress hyperbole is just bole.

This is not something you want to hear during the middle of your work day. I raced home and immediately hit Craig's List.

I've lined up a few prospects in a variety of situations: a thirty-something married couple, a grad school film student, a professor, and a recent grad whose parents own the house- all different, but all potentially good fits.

I enjoy variety including my living situations. I've mainly lived with one another person, but in may different places: the ghetto of Chicago, a nicer section of Chicago, an island off Savannah, Georgia, the Central Valley of California, and even alone in the suburb of Chicago.

And I've met a variety of people living in these different places: a vegetarian interior designer, a Scientologist "chiropractor", a fencing enthusiast/part-time nudist, a sociologist/music moron twin (I can say that I'm her "sister"), a graphic designer whose never met a rainbow she doesn't love, a landscape designer/ VW enthusiast, etc.,

As unnerving as it is trying to find a new place in a strange city, I've enjoyed meeting all kinds of different people as prospective housemates, or even potential friends? :) "Cold calling" prospective housemates feels a little like going on a blind date- putting your best foot forward, inflating your good qualities, etc., But sometimes things work out! I'll keep you posted. Happy 4th y'all!

How Far Is Too Far?

I am getting a new apartment in Los Angeles this weekend, actually, hopefully, ideally, renting a room in a house that rents out all of the rooms to individual tenants- and USC grad students only if everything goes according to plan.

But the age-old question of location, location, location had me thinking- how far is too far? Points A and B being your place of residence and your consistent destination- work, school, your kid's school, your place of worship, your favorite protesting spot, whatever.

For some of you who know me, I have lived in 11, soon to be 12 places in 26 years. And for the most part my family and I have selected our dwellings within reasonable proximity to our locations that we would frequent often i.e. work, school, and church. When I say reasonable proximity I mean about 15-20 minutes. We never lived in any big, big cities, so traveling times were pretty consistent, with weather being the only variable- black ice? add at least 5 minutes for safety.

It threw us for a loop when we moved to Connecticut and people lived in different towns, but knew each other as if they were in the same zip code. Like I said, we lived in small towns and yes people from Wausau knew people from Merrill, but they went to different churches, their kids to different schools, etc., To live in Avon, but to go to church in Canton was very strange to us. The Connecticut way of life still remains very strange to me. I'm surprised no one has spontaneously combusted yet.

When I moved to Chicago on my own it took me a good hour to get to work via public transportation- bus + the Red line, not counting delays due to linework, which was a constant in the summer of 2006.

Sometimes I took my car, but during the holidays working retail in Lincoln Park made it impossible to find a spot for my car, so I relied on the ease of the public transportation. And when my car was damaged beyond repair my prior experience using public transportation made the journey less of a hassle and more of just a part of my going-to-work routine.

When I moved to the suburb of Naperville I chose an apartment whose location was only ten minutes driving time away, but unfortunately was not located on a road that was safe enough to get to on foot.

Now it takes me about half an hour (on foot) to get to my current job. Some people are horrified when I tell them how long it takes and more than three people have offered to pick me up on their way to work. But my walk not only gives me exercise, it also gives me a chance to wake up and really immerse myself in my surroundings.

But my latest relocation had me thinking. The champions of New Urbanism argue that our auto-dependent society has allowed people to live farther from their jobs- not necessarily a bad thing at the end of the day- but not great for the environment either when you consider how many emissions and pollutions one can accrue over simply a five-day work week when mass transit is possible.

Note I didn't say plausible as many people in the suburbs can attest to- I don't even want to know how few suburbs even have a bus line running through or within reasonable walking distance of the major sub-divisions.

Unlike say, Chicago (how I love their transportation department!) where one is hard pressed to find a major neighborhood that is not near some form of public transportation. And New York? Fugghedaboudit! In one ill-planned trip I managed to get from Wall Street to the West Side to midtown with the help of the NY subway system and my own dogged determination.

We have family friends who live up in the Bay Area and the father commutes two hours-each way! each day to get to his job. This is beyond crazy to me. Yes, I understand the need to have your kids be in "good schools," "safe neighborhoods," etc., But Dad has to schlep two hours each way each day? Oi. . . This is not uncommon for people in the Bay Area- my housemate's dad, when he (my housemate) was growing up- would ride his motorcycle- come rain or shine between the lanes of stalled cars (think the opening scene from Office Space)- two hours to get to his job.

I have no doubt that this is true for families across the country, especially in bigger, non-mass-transit oriented cities, especially in the South like Atlanta and Charlotte. But I think that it is a time for a revolution.

Hopefully as part of the "green" movement more funding will be devoted to mass transit, and innovative forms of it- light rail, anyone? And two hour one-way commutes will become a thing of the past. Here's hoping.

Parks Are Good, Right?

By now everyone has come to accept that green is good. Unfortunately, green can also be expensive. I am speaking specifically of parks.

For some urban planners, one can never have enough parks. New urbanists like to design nieghborhoods around a park or community center that is centrally located. We have all seen the success of great parks such as Chicago's Millennium Park and Savannah's Forsyth Park and the most famous park, Central Park in New York City.

I say that there is nothing wrong with parks. I loved eating my lunch at Millennium Park in Chicago when I worked at the Art Institute, which is right across the street in the heart of the Loop. Exeter, CA has the most adorable recreational park across the street from a school and it is also flocked on all sides by pre-war homes that would make a new urbanist swoon. And I can recall many a picnic spent at the local park in my former hometown in central Wisconsin.

Parks provide greenery, vegetation, a change of scenery and a place for people to gather and relax. Parks often are the only source of nature in some sections of cities. Although I love New York City with a passion, there is very limited green space in the Big Apple. When I think of New York I think of a vibrant city, but one that is composed of miles and miles of cement and very little greenery with the exception of the trees that line the sidewalks.

Other cities, like Savannah, GA have lots of greenery. Savannah is known for their "Jewel Plan" and in the heart of the city every square has a small park at its center. Each is unique, but you can often find centuries-old oak trees strewn with the ever-present Spanish moss, myrtle, azalea bushes, etc.,

But when it comes to parks, a few problems arise. For the sake of objective arguments, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. For one, who pays for a park's upkeep? Sure, most everyone likes them, but does everyone want to pay to make sure that the park remains pristine? Park maintenance costs can sneakily be written into city budgets, but if people really knew how much it costs to keep their parks nice they would probably balk.

For those penny pushers I point out that park maintenance provides employment to people and beautifies our cities.

Another question is who has the right to the park? The obvious answer would be everyone, but at the same time does this blanket term of everyone come with restrictions? Just about everybody likes a picnic, but what about the homeless person who is slumped under the nearby tree? You and your significant other are enjoying a quiet romantic picnic in a secluded area and suddenly a slew of kids sets up shop and shows no signs of leaving. Whose park is it now?

Just like any other part of the city, parks belong to everyone, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc., The police and other law enforcement may say that the parks shouldn't serve as an outdoor sleeping quarters for the homeless and other destitute members of society, and for the safety of all parties involved I do agree. Being homeless puts a person at much higher risk for being attacked and no one should have to sleep under the stars unless they're deliberately camping.

But this points to a bigger issue, how to help the homeless?

The suburbs- save me a spot? Or when pigs fly I'll hire them as my movers

I am curious to know how many of my peers are considering moving to the suburbs, either in the future, are there now, or will never set foot there except to visit friends.

I am also curious as to what influenced their decision.

I have a friend who was born and raised in Chicago, and except for a stint in Mexico and college in Michigan, she has spent her whole life in the Windy City. She said one time that the only way she would ever leave Chicago is in a pine box.

I have another friend who grew up in the rareified air of suburban CT. She didn't mind it as a kid, but finds it stifling now. She is currently in L.A., but the non-stop traffic is getting to her. I think she'd be happiest in San Francsisco, as she is very environmentally-oriented, but as it is so expensive to live up there, one needs an iron-clad job or very flexible outlook toward housing. Four extra roommates anyone? Rent'll only be $3000/month each! Utilties not included.

In a prior post I noted that, I think, that most people of my generation have always assumed that the suburbs have always existed. I would like to take this one step farther and ask, how many people see themselves living in the subrubs in the future?

I don't care if you see yourself in a suburb of the city that you live now, or would like to live in A suburb, just not one of your current city's outlying ones. My question is simply, do you see yourself living in the suburbs? And if so, why?

If it's because the industry in which you work is out there, please note as such. If you want/have kids and want a good education for them, please remark on this.

There is a new ad for State Farm of a late-twenty-something guy, who bears a slight resemblance to Dominic Monaghan's character on the TV show, Lost. He's tattooed and looks vaguely edgy, but he also has a baby on his hip, HIS baby. And looking at that ad I realized, omygoth, all those life insurance ads are now being targeted at my demographic.

I realize that this is the age when people start to settle down- ALL of my friends with whom I have kept in touch from grammar school are married- a few have kids. But my question is, how many people will be trekking it out the suburbs? And how soon?

Downtown revival

There is a great book called Downtown, Inc.: How America Rebuilds Cities by Bernard J. Frieden and Lynne B. Sagalyn that I picked up completely by accident at a great bookstore on Haight Street in San Francisco. (Forever After Books, 1475 Haight St.) Although it is a little dated, (original publishing date July 1, 1991) it details how some of the downtown shopping centers and public centers came to be through public entrepreneurship and public-private entrepreneurship.
Again, a little history is in order. During/after the Industrial Revolution people did their shopping downtown, as that is where everyone lived and the suburbs were not even a twinkle in a developer's eye. But once the suburbs came to be, people did their shopping in the suburbs because that's where they lived.

In fact, people began to stay away from the downtowns- for numerous reasons. As more and more prosperous people moved away from the downtowns, people began to see the declining downtowns as dirty, dangerous, stressful to navigate, and parking was non-existent. However characteristics were absent in sunny, sterile suburbia while ample parking abounded.

People used to shop the downtown department stores, but even some of the major department stores packed up for greener pastures. And while some stores stayed, ensconced in their beautiful buildings, some never recovered from the economic blow. Chicago's beautiful Carson Pierre Scott building, designed by Chicago architect, Louis Sullivan (inventor of the skyscraper and mentor to Frank Lloyd Wright) closed its beautiful iron doors last year, February 21, 2007.

My alma mater's library, the Jen Library, in Savannah, GA is housed in a former downtown department store.

And don't get some people started on what they would consider nothing short of a bastardization of their beloved Chicago institution Marshall Field's being turned into another Macy's. The building has not been altered except for cosmetic signage, but the feeling has changed.

Obviously, it need be pointed out that some flagship stores, such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Bloomingdale's in New York never left, they only expanded. But other department stores, some of equal status, others much lower, closed their doors, even in the cities of their birth.

However, some urban planners and intrepid developers thought that they could lure the crowds back to the very places that they had fled. Part of this was due to the fact that many national stores had overextended themselves in suburbia and needed new markets.

Like I said, this book is a little dated and it's weird thinking of shopping areas like Chicago's Water Tower Place as anything but a tourist stop along the Magnificent Mile if you've been there in the past five years. But historically it's fascinating reading learning about the steps needed to be taken to bring to life some of the urban market places that seem so commonplace now, but were innovative for their time. Boston's Quincy Market is cited. As is Seattle's Pike Place Market and many other locations that thanks to these successful efforts.

This is not to say that this movement has not had its critics. (Jeff Ferrell and his work, Tearing Down the Streets: Adventures in Urban Anarchy is one particularly vitrolic example. I had a hard time trying to see his side of the story I was so busy wiping the angry spittle that emanated from the pages. )

This is not to say that a new shopping center is the cure-all, Band-Aid solution for every ailing downtown in America, but say what you will about building downtown shopping centers. If nothing else it points to the enduring spirit of capitalism and its power to wrest many a city back from the edge thanks to America's never-ending quest for stuff and novelty.