Iconic Structures of Indiana: Hinkle Fieldhouse

Butler University is located to the north of downtown Indianapolis.  Butler University is a great institution and is well known for its basketball team (currently ranked 11th in the nation).  The strength of the current team stems from the strong basketball traditions of Indiana and the investment that the citizens have made in this sport.  Hinkle Fieldhouse is evidence of this support, which was built with money donated by local businessmen. 

The Fieldhouse is a massive building built specifically to showcase basketball

 
More information can be found at the website hosted by Butler University, or at the Hinkle Fieldhouse Wikipedia entry.   The structure is named after Tony Hinkle, a former coach who created the orange basketball and developed the dribbling action of the game.

  

The building was renamed after former coach Hinkle in 1966

The structure was built in 1928, and is notable as one of the first "fieldhouse" college gymnasiums.  Almost factory-like in its simplicity, it has guided basketball arena designs such as Conseco Fieldhouse and it was the basis for the fieldhouse styling of Lucas Oil Stadium. 

Structurally, it is composed of a brick masonry facade with steel framing supporting most of the walls and the internal structures.  The roof is a barrel vault of trussed steel 3-pin arches. 

 

The exterior has windows in key locations to catch natural light

The end walls are quite tall and require steel girts to brace them against wind

The massive building is oriented roughly east-west, and originally the court was as well.  However, a few years after its construction the court was reoriented north-south.  This gave more spectactors a "half-court" seat and is generally a better arrangement.  This goes to show how early this building was built, as the sport was still developing and gaining in popularity around the nation, whereas Indiana already had built the "basketball cathedral" that was the largest collegiate fieldhouse for many years.

 

Many features were upgraded in a 1989 renovation

The roof trusses are exposed and are well integrated into the interior design.  The spectator seating allows access to many of the trusses, so that people can see the rivets and handiwork involved with the steelwork of that age.  Each truss has three pin hinges, so that it can accommodate movement and settlement without inducing large forces in the steel members near the center. 

The base of each truss is easily accessible from the spectator seating area

A modern scoreboard is suspended from the trusses that span over the court 

 The central pin is visible at the midpoint of each truss, providing an ideal hinge

Hinkle fieldhouse is a great piece of history.  It has many quirky features that show how the designers were willing to experiment with basketball and how to accommodate the spectators.  The structure has changed alongside the game that is now popular around the world.  

The spirit of place and legacy comes alive in a structure like this.  For Hinkle fieldhouse to remain so popular and useful after so many years is testament to the original investment over 80 years ago.  Few structures represent a state as well as Hinkle Fieldhouse represents Indiana.

Action on the court is some of the best in the world

An Engineer's View of the Carbon Tax Proposal

Very soon, the US political system will be involved in a serious debate regarding the merits of a tax on carbon emissions.  The main debate will center on two issues:

1. Should the US put a price on carbon emissions?
2. What should that price be, both now and in the future?

Fossil fuels have long powered the Indianapolis economy

The typical tool used in a debate of this type is the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). This type of study weighs all of the costs associated with an action against all of the benefits.  Any project with a net benefit is considered worthwhile, but trying to figure out how to distribute costs and benefits is always a difficult political problem, and especially so with something as large and pervasive as a carbon tax.

A fun, graphic explanation of this CBA is found in The Cartoon Guide to the Environment (which is a good source of conceptual information for anyone needing a crash course in environmental economics, the history of environmental regulation, or human interaction with ecology):  

As the illustration above points out, there is a large amount of uncertainty involved with assessing the risks and costs of a warming world.  However, the atmospheric models that scientists have developed thus far all point in the same direction.  Without some sort of comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions, the biosphere will warm by a small but significant amount and this will have deleterious effects on ecological systems around the world.

ASCE, along with other engineering societies, has identified climate change as a key issue and pledged to work to lower the risk and mitigate the consequences. 

One of several Indianapolis Power and Light Coal plants (Harding St Generating Station)

The US policy on carbon pricing must consider the context of our political system and the need for action.  In the past, the US has managed pollution either by cap and trade markets (see 1990 Acid Rain Program), direct taxes, or by regulations.  There is no reason to believe the US cannot establish or manage a carbon pricing scheme successfully in the future.

The debate on question #1, should we do it, is yet to be settled.  There are many in this debate who have argued for us to do nothing.  A popular argument is one presented in The American Scene "Why I Oppose A Carbon Tax".  You can summarize his argument from the first line:

I oppose a carbon tax for a very simple reason: I do not believe its benefits justify its costs.

Another such article was published in the Wall Street Jounal entitled "Time for Inaction on Global Warming".  A summary of the article is given in the subtitle:

Congress should consider the costs before passing "cap and trade."

After reading these articles, I think these authors are deliberately confusing question #1 and question #2.  The decision to set a price and the level the price is set at are two independent topics.  We can set the costs of the pricing scheme at whatever level we want, once the system is in place.  There is no reason for anyone to fear a carbon tax, because we will never put in place a system we can't afford. 

Clearly, these authors are willing to sell their future for a lower price than a Greenpeace advocate.  But what are the values of society in general?  We already know that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels will lead to greater energy independence, cleaner air, better transportation systems, and a chance to become producers rather than consumers of the green revolution.  Are US citizens willing to throw away rational and effective strategies to reduce carbon emissions, even when the benefits are so great?

Indy's inefficient transportation system is another big source of emissions (Indy MPO)

I believe there are more important things in life than money.  The US must have policies that balance our need for economic activity and our need to manage our resources carefully.  We should not squander our natural capital in search of greater financial wealth.  Community health and ecological integrity deserve priority over personal wealth.

The Covanta incinerator and cogeneration plant (Resource Recovery Facility)

So the choice we all face, but especially those who write public policy and design our built environment, is whether or not we should take action.  We know that inaction because of political expediency or high costs will be a shameful legacy for future Americans.  We know that the costs of doing nothing will begin to accrue immediately.  We know that any environmental costs of global warming will be borne by those most unable to cope with the changes.

I find inaction to be unacceptable. Engineers are ethically bound to prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the public.  In my opinion, a mistake is made when any engineer argues that the costs, while small, justify the destruction of our environment and an impending human crisis.  At that point a line has been crossed.  That is no longer the argument of a civil engineer, but something else entirely.

Indy Connect Meeting

I attended an Indy Connect meeting this Tuesday, February 23rd at Pike High School (Northwest Indy).  The Indy Connect is a joint venture between the Indy MPO, CIRTA, and IndyGo.  The meetings are the first step towards the creation of a new Long-Range Transportation Plan.

These meetings are a great opportunity to meet and discuss issues with a group of people that determine the future of Indianapolis transportation.  I strongly encourage anyone interested in the state of transportation in our city, including pedestrian, biking, rail transit, bus transit, and automobility to attend one of these meetings.  The planners need feedback to ensure they are delivering the best plan possible.

The planners are real people and not politicians.  There is no need to argue with them or blame them for the traffic jam that happened on the way to work.  Their job is to interpret the values of the community and form a comprehensive strategy to meet the region's needs.  It is clear that the values of our region are changing.  While many continue to argue for more and wider roads, the MPO realizes that there is no strategy that can meet the region's needs that does not involve multiple modes of transportation. 

I have some suggestions to help anyone interested in attending on of these meetings to get the most from their experience.  First of all, come prepared to discuss.  The room is filled with stations representing important issues, such as biking or pedestrian plans, with planners hosting each one.  This is everyone's chance to discuss these issues in-depth with the planners.  I suggest bringing a list of questions about topics that matter.

Next, come prepared to fill out questionnaires and surveys.  Each station has a special survey for people to complete.  The typical survey asks people to prioritize their concerns about different issues.  At the bottom of each survey is a free response area where people can write down anything they want.

Finally, feel free to disregard the static.  Some people love to say "NO!" and these events are no exception.  It is unlikely that anyone with this attitude will change their mind, so concentrate instead on how to learn from the planners and how to communicate priorities of the public to them in a civil manner.

Indy Parking Policies Fail its Citizens

Many people are now familiar with the MDC hearing examiner's recent denial of a variance.  Current coverage on IBJ's Property Lines, Huston St Racing (w/photos), and Urban Indy.  This variance would have allowed a renovation of an old urban property consistent with its original and proposed use.  Basically, the developers wanted to eliminate the requirement for off-street parking.

The neighboring property owners were worried this would force the tenants to park illegally in nearby surface lots.  After review of the case and a private meeting with the interested parties, the Hearing Examiner concluded that no compromise was forthcoming and denied the petition for a variance.

I think the Indianapolis planning staff summarized the issue quite well in their analysis, which recommended *approval* of the petition.  Here is the planning staff's opinion:

Urban sites should be developed to the highest intensity possible. To require this site to meet the required off-street parking standards, would require the demolition of a portion of the building or acquisition of adjacent sites. A practical difficulty is met by this request since the site is fully developed. Additionally, there are several IndyGo bus routes that travel along Meridian Street and nearby streets that substantially reduce the need for parking. Finally, it is a common and preferred planning method that little or no off-street parking be added to a reuse of an inner city site. If residents require off-street parking, there are three off-street parking sites directly adjacent to the site to the north, northeast and east that could meet that need.

MDC documents are here (p. 85), results from the hearing are here (p. 3).

I think it is time that Indianapolis accepts that off-street parking requirements are the bane of true urban renewal.  The minimum parking requirements are a senseless way to devalue our CBD.  They are an existential threat to urban life, and therefore the core identity of Indianapolis.

Someone raised an interesting question on the IBJ website:  What are the requirements for becoming a hearing examiner in Indianapolis?  I suggest we remake the qualifications process, and that it only have 1 component:  survive in Indy for one month without a car, and then we'll take you.  A human's eye view of the city might do some of these people some good.

One of the commenters on Huston Street Racing offered an apology of the Examiners actions, stating:

He is a thoughtful and even-handed person, and a thorough lawyer. He is not a dolt or hack, as portrayed on the IBJ comments thread. ...  It appears to be his belief that someone will part with some parking spaces if offered enough money to do so. 

All of this may be true, I won't dispute it.  But off-street parking should *never* have become an issue with this property.  I am not sure the examiner even read the planner's report, because it pretty clearly laid down the rationale against parking requirements and why they wouldn't apply in this case anyways.  Just in case anyone didn't want to read the full report, or even my summary, just read the part in bold above.  One sentence is all you need to know.

This situation is yet another lost opportunity for a representative of the City of Indianapolis to address the real infrastructural problems that have ruined the city.  Indianapolis I love you, but you're bringing me down.

Infrastructure is Key to Successful City Market

The City Market Building

The Indianapolis City Market building is a treasure of downtown.  The original structure was built in 1886.  Unfortunately, the latest incarnation of the City Market has been a financial failure.  It did not manage to turn a profit and the city was spending a significant amount on subsidizing higher-than-expected utility costs.  (It's confusing to me why the city did not market this property and the business model more effectively - the building is on National Register but doesn't even have a Wikipedia page)  The silver lining of this failure is that we now have an opportunity to study the building and see what can be done with it.  It is my understanding that the city wants to:

1. Set up the market as a self-sufficient enterprise; currently the city subsidizes utility costs
2. Use the structure and property to draw people downtown
3. Integrate with cultural trail and proposed Market Square Arena replacement

In order to facilitate these changes, the city issued an RFP last year and six proposals were announced in January.  See the IBJ article for a full run-down of these options. I thought many of these presented some exciting new ideas for the downtown space.  It will be interesting to see if the city chooses one of these as a winner, or just continues to operate the market as-is, or tries to combine ideas into a chimera-like blend of proposals.  

A Sign of the Times for City Market

If the city chooses to operate this space as a market or a space for restaurants, they would be wise to read the critiques of the previous business model.  American Dirt's thorough diagnosis of the situation (part I and part II) laid bare many of the problems and proposed many of the solutions.  I accept his work completely, but I also want to add some of my own thoughts. 

My own opinion about the city market proposals is that the city can choose to do any of these proposals, or none, and it will result in failure.  There are underlying infrastructural issues that the city has refused to address in the past few decades, and these will act as a significant detractor for people using the property.

The Indianapolis City Market must be supported by a change in the priorities of the city, its policies, and its infrastructure.  In particular, the following issues must be addressed:

1. Make pedestrians the priority of downtown planning
2. End traffic management policies that have high cost and little benefit
3. Make design and excellence an integral part of city products
4. Don't force tall buildings until market rates support them
5. Update building codes to make downtown areas a haven for pedestrian streetlife
6. Stop subsidizing free parking

To see how these issues can be addressed in the planning for the City Market renovation, I have made a site plan showing the different areas of the property and its surrounding infrastructure.  With the rest of this entry, I have detailed specific actions that can help create a new future for the City Market property.

Aerial View of the East Market St Area

Aerial View of the City Market

Main Building
The original city market building has stood up to the test of time well.  The brick materials and arch windows matched nearby buildings, creating a style that set the area apart from the business area or the state capitol area.  It was created as a way to host market activities indoors, not dissimilar from its most current incarnation.  The best the city had to offer.

City Market Building from courthouse tower in 1888 (HABS)

To be honest, this building was not well suited for its purpose.  The building is long and tall.  The interior aspect ratios, high windows, poor lighting, double-height cathedral ceiling, and entry vestibules make it seem very similar to sacred architecture.  This building would be more effective as a church than a market. 

The Cathedral of Independent Commerce

In its current configuration a mezzanine wraps all around the exterior walls and a central area in the middle is used for market vendors.  This arrangement allows for most of the square footage to be used as leasable space, but it does not create a special relationship between the viewer and the space.  In fact, this space forces a feeling of agoraphobia rather than a feeling of comfort and closeness.  Contrast this with Circle Center Mall.  It is a similar space, tall and long, but has overcome its spatial arrangement to create areas that encourage exploration, interaction, and commerce.

I think the upcoming work on the City Market will need to address whether this space should really be used as a market or if there is a higher and better use.  In any case, this space will need to overcome the problems inherent in its configuration in order to be successful.  Honestly, I don't know of many churches that have been converted into street markets. 

A view of the enclosed market space

Another issue that will need to be addressed in the renovation is the lack of quality workmanship in the city market.  The previous renovations focused more on budget than on excellence.  I got a close look at the building a few years ago when I was responsible for designing structural support for the mezzanine expansion.  The original structure, including the walls and roof, is beautiful.  There is some great handiwork preserved in them.  Unfortunately, the members from 1970 and newer look out of place because there was no attention to detail.  Exposed bolts, exposed welds, carrier angles, and all sorts of steelwork that should have been higher quality or hidden. 

The poor attention to detail creates some aesthetic problems

I have never been happy with the mezzanine.  Looking at all of the newer work, in addition to the doors, and the market vendors spaces, all these items just look cheap.  The sad thing is they aren't cheap.  They probably were very expensive.  If the city wants to preserve historic properties, then they need to fully invested in the process.  The 1970's were a different time, but any new work should meet the stricter requirements of Architecturally Exposed Structural Steel (AESS) at a minimum. 

One specific complaint that the city has about the main building is that it is expensive to heat.  I think one reason for this is that the city tried to cut corners when the 2007 renovation was done.  They reused the old HVAC equipment rather than spending the money to upgrade to newer equipment and systems.  As can be seen in the photo below, the work required a new slab so why did they not just put in a radiant heating system at the same time?  Combined with a geo-tied heat pump, the city could be saving many tens of thousands of dollars over the design life.  

An ideal time to install radiant heating system (Feb 2007)

If the City Market is going to be the "best of Indy" then we need to make sure everything in it is saying the right thing about our city.  Design excellence, product excellence, and operational excellence.  Now and forever.

Historically insensitive ducting, exposed speaker wires fastened to the steel with zip-ties

The Wings
If my criticisms of the main space include poor spatial arrangement and poor lighting, then my criticisms of the wing spaces are *dreadful* spatial arrangement and *dreadful* lighting.  The catacombs below the market building probably have more charm than these spaces.

I have no problem mixing modern and historic architecture, and certainly I.M. Pei's glass pyramid for the Louvre or the Indianapolis Central Library proved that it can be a good idea.  But central to this idea of mixing old and new is that the old and the new must both be able to stand on their own as successful works of architecture.

I can't believe they built two of these

Here's a quick rundown on why I hate these wings:

• Too much unfiltered light
• Traditional buildings have 25% transparency on the southern face
• The wings boast 100% transparency;  too hot in summer, too cold in winter
• No windows on east, west, and north Faces
• Nothing to offset the blinding effect from the south 
• Difficult to accommodate lack of natural light, too many fluorescent make-up lights
• Nothing to look at
• Is the CCB worthy of that much attention?
• Why is there a gravel parking lot across the street?
• People watching is only interesting when there are people to watch

If someone proposed to tear down these wings, I would not object.  If people want them to stay, as some sort of historic preservation effort, then I would not object to that either.  I suppose they do kind of mirror the modern style of the Death Star, er CCB.  But don't expect them to contribute to a sort of dynamic, shoppers paradise kind of downtown area.  Because these buildings are horrible.

East Plaza
The main concept that I wish to communicate about this area is that pedestrian plazas should not be parking lots.  Please Indianapolis, make pedestrians the priority of downtown planning.  With our new priority in place, we realize that it was a horrible idea to run vehicular traffic through a plaza.  Glad we got that settled.

The conversation pit and skewed parking lanes eliminate pedestrian usage

Now, lets address the other problems with this space.  The conversation pit sucks.  I appreciate that some mid-century modern visionaries tried to make these work in expensive homes.  But to use this in a public space?  I can't imagine that random strangers looking for a place to sit for a few minutes would choose a space that:

• Forces them to look at other people
• Forces other people to look at them
• Forces people to gather in a small area rather than spreading out, filling in as others join the area
• Prevents any use of the space other than talking in a group
• Discourages use by any disabled, elderly, or people with strollers
• Conversation Pit?  Next to police car parking, an urban highway, and a county court?  

This space can be so much better.  Turn it into a real plaza, one that has a real chance at attracting pedestrians, and drawing their attention away from each other towards a central or distributed feature (think Columbus Circle).  Integrate into the pedestrian plans, make this the eastern pedestrian gateway for the cultural trail towards the Circle. 

West Plaza
How many plazas does an area surrounded by parking lots really need?  Counting the east and west City Market plazas, and adding the 1/2 block CCB plaza, we have lots of wasted space.  This is the equivalent of throwing away tax revenue.  I think some of these spaces need to return to profitable use.  But lets assume the city wants to keep its own building surrounded by empty plazas, parking lots, and urban highways.  How can the west plaza area be rebuilt to take advantage of its location and encourage pedestrian traffic?

Tables, chairs, and benches have been installed to give the impression of streetlife

I think that this area should be rebuilt along market street to provide frontage area for businesses.  The area currently used for tables and chairs can be retained (at a new elevation) as patio seating if desired.  The new building could incorporate the random arch retained from an earlier demolition.  This new building would continue the streetfront shopping experience from the western blocks and provide a space for restaurants, brewery/restaurants, or fast-food eateries.  Putting the seating out back but keeping the space open to Delaware St would preserve the opportunity for people-watching.  I would always recommend street level dining as an option but traffic would need to be calmed for this to be effective.

Why tear down a building if you can't replace it with something useful?

My final recommendation for the plaza space (and this applies to city market plazas and the CCB plaza) is to remove those ugly brick planters.  They are a disaster as far as placemaking is concerned.  They contribute nothing to the area and take up useful real estate.  They divide rather than integrate.  They look cheap.  And they are ugly. 

North Lot
Hopefully this area will be developed as urban town-homes in the near future.  This will bring in new pedestrian traffic.  Of course, the city and the developer could always ruin this opportunity by enforcing the rules of the parking requirements.  The development codes in US cities must have been developed by some weird urban designers with a fetish for car fenders.  Totally not needed in downtown areas.  (see The High Cost of Free Parking if interested in reading more)

Alabama St and Market St intersection, now a gravel parking lot

To be honest, I don't know where CBD lines are drawn and what parking requirements are set for this area.  Let me be clear about this, though.  Any requirement greater than zero (0) cars is a mistake. Just remember, neighbors don't complain about density, they complain about more cars.  No additional cars means no remonstrators at the next hearing.

South Lot
The former Market Square Arena stood here, which came and went before I moved to Indianapolis.  Finding a developer for this plot of land has been difficult, since at least 2001.  The discussions I have seen regarding this project have been worrisome to me.  They seem to focus on how tall to make this building, how many car parking spots they can shoehorn onto the project, and how much tax abatement will be gifted to the project.

The replacement for Market Square Arena presents a great opportunity

If we review the original list of priorities above, we can see that these discussions are heading in the wrong way.  Indianapolis does not need another empty skyscraper, and we don't need any more parking spots.  We probably don't need another tax subsidized construction project, but I think that is dependent on the particular project so I'll hold my tongue for now.  I think creating a project that benefits the entire downtown region would be worth some subsidizing, but not a new enclave that just provides a gated community downtown.

If the city is going to subsidize construction and operation for a few years, then the citizens deserve input into what goes in here.  I recommend a 3-4 story structure built out to the property lines, with no parking whatsoever aside from on-street parking.  All bottom floor streetfront space must be small, leasable spaces.  Upper floors can be mega-stores, restaurants, residential, or whatever the market will support.

While we are on the subject of parking, maybe the city of Indianapolis needs to re-evaluate its theory on parking space availability.  I have no sympathy for the laments of developers who refuse to build unless they have a dedicated parking facility.  You won't find a single urban parking expert who thinks that downtown Indianapolis is lacking parking spaces.

Delaware, Market, and Alabama Streets
Here we come to the main problem with the City Market.  Vehicular traffic has been given so many advantages compared with pedestrian traffic in downtown Indianapolis that modern citizens don't even know what we have given up.  The streets in cities used to be filled with people instead of cars.  A few months back Infrastructurist posted a video of San Francisco in 1905 from a Market Street streetcar, it is a perfect model of what cities can become when vehicles are regulated properly.  The video is below:

Many of the proposals for the City Market, and certainly my own thoughts and ideas, suggest that the city address the transportation infrastructure problems surrounding the building site if the overall project is to be successful. The best way to begin the transformation from vehicular oriented to pedestrian oriented is to roll back the traffic management schemes that increase vehicle speed.

Both Delaware and Alabama are one-way streets.  This is unnecessary.  It allows the cars to speed through the area.  This is the most dense neighborhood in the state, so it is beyond my ability to understand why the city wants quicker traffic in this area.  Elimination of the one-way street infrastructure will create psychological friction between the travel directions and slow down traffic.  A small decrease in vehicular speed leads to a large increase in pedestrian safety.  

The one-way streets also limit economic activity from tourists and convenience shopping.  Both elements are key to any City Market proposal.  By allowing people to drive by the structure from any direction they are maximizing visibility and the chance to make a sale.

Another important infrastructural issue is connectivity.  To take advantage of the City Market's location, the city should create a portal or gateway element between the new cultural trail and the circle.  It doesn't have to be expensive or voluminous, maybe just LED signs or something visual.

The bike hub proposal is a good idea, in my opinion, and would be a great way to engage a significant portion of citizens who choose a different form of transportation.  If the bike hub proposal doesn't win this time around, I would love to see it used for the plaza just south of the CCB.  That area is in desperate need of a makeover. 

The final infrastructural issue that needs to be addressed is public transit.  The new CITI plan has been released and would use Washington Street as a light-rail corridor.  This proximity to a heavily traveled corridor would mean many potential customers (without cars or a need to park them).  If the city doesn't begin taking this into consideration then a real chance at greatness could be lost.

Conclusions
The city should take this opportunity to think about what the City Market will be used for in 20 years, and while downtown should continue growing eastward the City Market will always remain the most significant historic property in the area.  Maybe acting as a gateway or centerpiece of a special district would be a good use, similar to the old Armory in the Pearl District of Portland.

I still believe that any of the proposals for a new use of the City Market building would be a good step forward, as most investments in historic assets tend to pay off in the long run.  The City of Indianapolis will be well served by these ideas.  However, none of these ideas alone will be sufficient to stave off financial ruin after the initial Wow! factor wears off.

The City must take the initiative to look at the real causes of urban malaise in Central Indiana.  The policies governing pedestrian rights, vehicular traffic management, and lack of connectivity are all infrastructural issues that have simple but far and long-reaching consequences.  If we get the policies right, the future of our urban core will be shining brightly once again.

New Transportation Plan for Indianapolis

For anyone interested in seeing the next vision for transportation in Indianapolis, please visit the website at Indy Connect.

This study recommends proven technologies, and proven infrastructure investments.  It starts small, with an affordable and effective system that can quickly integrate into the streetscapes of Indianapolis. I approve of this plan, it is a great start to a city-wide transit system.

There are two problems with this proposal that we should seek solutions to in the public input phase:

1. Limited Coverage Area for Rail
2. Ability of Special Interests to Influence Outcome

Limited Coverage Area for Rail
The first issue will be present no matter how the system is arranged.  No system can provide the convenience of a transit stop 1 block away from each front door. 

The main problem here is that there is always a conflict between the need for especially dense clusters, or Transit-Oriented-Development, and the need for tax investments to be spread around equally.  In the case of transportation planning, simple is best.  The proposed plan lays out a very simple system.  This would be most efficient and probably most successful.  Any deviations from the simple plan will result in a confusing legacy that will inhibit future use. 

Whatever layout is chosen, the proponents of transit must ensure that a comprehensive plan will be developed that will involve the entire city.  A certain amount of this has been done in the plan, whereby express bus routes, expanded bus service, and road expansions have been proposed.  Unfortunately, this is not yet comprehensive.  A truly comprehensive plan must show how every person in the city will benefit from this proposal.   

The study authors readily admit that all transportation planning is connected.  Let's do more than acknowledge this fact, lets use it to our advantage.  The plan can show that with complete streets policies, integrated and interconnected multi-modal transportation systems, walk-to-school subsidies, and similar programs, the transportation system in Indianapolis and the surrounding counties can be improved for at least 95% of the residents over the next 20 years. 

Ability of Special Interests to Influence Outcome
This is part I am most concerned about.  Many interest groups will be attempting to influence the study results so that their constituents will be served.  The system was most likely optimized during the study process, so any changes to the proposed system can have negative consequences for the city as a whole.

My worst fear is that a repeat of the Miami transit system will occur, where special interests blocked a transit line to the airport to maintain the monopoly of taxi service.  Since then, Miami has been struggling to maintain service between the most important source of tourists and their destinations with express bus service.  Short-sighted compromises to the business community can have horrible consequences.

Indianapolis needs every advantage it can get when competing for big events like the Superbowl, World-cup hosting, and many other smaller events and conventions.  The City can not afford to put in a transit system that satisfies the special interest groups while hurting the city's prospects in attracting tourism and conventions.

Conclusions

In the end, I see any investment in the city's alternative (non-highway) transportation system as a great step forward.  I imagine that it will facilitate a lot of independent investments, so that when it is fully built the city will see property values directly increased by a large factor compared to its cost.  This is equivalent to building equity in the city.  We can leave a more valuable city to the future citizens.

And the final reason I approve of this plan is because it is not about spending more, it is about shifting our priorities.  We can take a small amount of funding from our single mode of transport (highways) and shift it to 4 or 5 different modes of transport.  This would directly reflect the wishes of the population to start investing in multiple modes of transportation, without abandoning our legacy infrastructure in automobiles. 

I trust that the study's authors have taken a neutral position and truly evaluated the costs and benefits of the many options.  With faith in their efforts (to be verified by a thorough evaluation of their report later), I hope that we put this plan into action as soon as the next stage begins!

Engineering Humor: Calvin's Bridge Test

Calvin's father always had the best answers. I remember reading this as a kid and really hoping they test bridges this way. Reality continues to ruin my life.

 For anyone who love Calvin and Hobbes as much as I do, there is the complete set available from Amazon.  It's not just a cartoon, it's a complete philosophy for living.

Innovation in Seismic Bracing Design

Over the last decade, one new seismic design technology has been rapidly adopted in the US.  The Buckling Restrained Braced Frame (BRBF) system is one of those rare innovations that radically improves the ability of structures to resist earthquakes, while at the same time is completely backwards compatible with previous technology.  (See MSC articles from Sabelli & Lopez and Robinson for more information)

The ability of this system to resist earthquakes comes from a dramatically simple idea:  decouple bending and compression.  To show how easy this concept is, let us review how the inventor came up with it.  An engineer, Benne Narasimhamurthy Sridhara from Bangalore, wanted to get more strength out of his braces (see my earlier post on braces for more info).  He created a simple physical model using a small rod and a plastic pipe.  He put the rod inside of the pipe and applied force on each end of the rod.  Instead of the rod buckling out of shape and failing, the pipe held it in place.  Brilliant!

A typical column buckling under applied load

Because the pipe (or sleeve) is not participating in resisting compression, it is "decoupled" from the rod.  This means that the rod is continuously braced and will develop full material capacity.  The implications of this small change are huge.  It allows engineers to specify braces that:

1. Will fit easily into existing designs, allowing retrofits and new construction
2. Will act similarly in tension and compression, eliminating the need for paired braces at every location
3. Help dissipate destructive seismic energy by steel yielding (like a car's crumple zone)
4. Remain stiff and strong even after the initial event
5. Cost much less than comparable technologies

It's a really awesome invention (patent info).  The rapid uptake of this technology shows how important it is to the future of seismic resistant buildings.  A recent article from India uncovered a little more of the interesting story behind its creation.  It makes me wonder what structural engineering inventions will be discovered in the coming years. It goes to show that the simplest solutions are sometimes the best, and they are hiding in plain sight.

This technology can be applied in even more interesting applications as engineers grow familiar with its use.  I am anxiously awaiting the first use of this in a bridge application.  Congratulations to Mr. Sridhara for figuring out how to do more with less.

Energy Modeling Software

Energy modeling software has become quite important in the last decade, mostly because of the LEED credits involved with energy usage (and the need to reduce long-term energy use because of costs). Energy use estimations in these cases have tended to be inaccurate, for as of yet unknown reasons. The USGBC is now mandating energy use reporting periods in order to track down the problems, and I have no doubt that eventually the problems will be found.


In the meantime, what are building designers to do? A good idea is to use any results from energy modeling as a guide rather than a gospel.

Energy modeling is still a very useful process. If for nothing else it makes you think long and hard about decisions that were once hidden behind a veil of complexity. Lighting issues matter, HVAC issues matter, renewable energy sources matter. With a little bit of attention and ingenuity, our buildings can start saving money and emissions from the first day of operation.

Software that allows one to calculate the true effects of every project decision is somewhere in the region of non-existent or too expensive. But we have great reason to celebrate, because energy modeling is about to become widely available and much more accurate.


The US Dept. of Energy has been steadily working on their EnergyPlus program for several years. This program is the calculating engine behind most of the software packages today. It incorporates everything that people know about heat transfer and energy usage. The one thing missing is a Graphical User Interface. Previously there was only one option if you needed a GUI - you can purchase a commercial package such as offered by Bentley, Autodesk, or IES.

If you can can't afford this, or are just looking to play around with some fun freeware programs then I strongly suggest everyone investigate the new SketchUp plugin IES-VE Ware. With this setup, you can draw a design in SketchUp and do limited energy analyses with the plugin. It won't be enough to estimate your monthly bill, and certainly nowhere near the sophistication needed to qualify for LEED points, but it's a good start. (see the plugins at SketchUp's own site)


It's only a rumor, but I have heard that ASHRAE believes a new user interface for the EnergyPlus engine will become available within the next year or two. This would usher in a new era of energy modeling of the people, by the people, and for the people! Keep your fingers crossed, we may get lucky.

Andrew Carnegie's Great Legacy

Steel construction maintains a huge market share in the US. Structural engineers design steel buildings every day, and most never think twice about the man whose name was once synonymous with the material: Andrew Carnegie.

Carnegie, the Scottish immigrant as industrial magnate

Carnegie did not invent steel. However, he was the first one that both realized how it would transform the world and with enough capital to do something about it. Steel, even the old-fashioned alloys that most engineers thumb their noses at today, was still such an amazing material that Carnegie became the 2nd wealthiest human ever based on his investment in steel.

Indianapolis' Union Station structure bears his name throughout the building

Andrew Carnegie had a great business sense and knew a good deal when he saw one. But Carnegie realized that money was not all that important. He already knew that giving money to people not prepared to receive it was a bad idea. Instead of leaving a large inheritance or giving it away in a lottery, he wanted to do "real and permanent good" for people.

In fact, responsible management of charitable giving is hard work. For Carnegie, giving money away was more difficult than making it. It took a long time to give away so much money. In the end he set up many institutions to continue the process after his death. He laid out his philanthropic principles in his "Gospel of Wealth" publication.

His institutions sponsor all sorts of work even today, and his educational initiatives are legendary. The thousands of Carnegie libraries and the Carnegie Mellon University (my alma mater) are testament to the enduring power of educational efforts sponsored by his fortune.

Let's imagine that Andrew Carnegie was alive today, with the same intense philanthropic desire to help people. What changes would a modern day Carnegie seek to effect in today's society? What progressive programs could a person with $300 Billion kick-start, how could they usher in a new period of social growth in American Society?

I think Carnegie's most successful charities were ones that engaged the efforts of others and resulted in secondary effects. His libraries brought great literature and books to cities throughout the US. The people who took advantage of these opportunities created the conditions that helped the US prosper in the 20th century.

But his libraries also helped create communities. The physical presence of the library cemented the status of city on many towns. The simple, institutional architecture was a visible reminder that people could build the US into a great nation.

However, the most important effect of his libraries was unseen. It was the fact that cities had to set up a permanent taxing structure to ensure support for the libraries. Without the ability to regulate taxes and set budgets, no library would be awarded. Thus, the populace willingly taxed themselves to help the common good.

So we revisit the question: What would Andrew Carnegie do today?

If we view his legacy in light of civic reform, I have some good ideas. Sponsor or subsidize the creation of some public amenity, institution, or capital improvement project and put some strict requirements on it. Maybe ask cities to bid for different projects, and instead of bidding money they bid in terms of civic reform.

Want a new university or voc-tech school? Then put in place a new zoning code that allows high-density development and mixed use space.


Want to rebuild a blighted urban streetscape? Enact an iron-clad complete streets policy and an urban growth boundary.


Want a regional High-Speed-Rail or local subway system? Maybe the cities could enact TOD requirements on top of other minor reforms.


Want a new dock or freight rail intermodal facility? I think it's time for exclusive wildlife corridors or wildlife overpasses throughout the state.


Of course, when the cities are very thirsty for capital projects, the bidding could get even more intense. How about a health insurance exchange program for the state, or a Robin Hood educational system, or even reform of the inane and discriminatory US drug policies? I digress, but my point should be clear by now.

Carnegie's charitable givings were great for their intended purposes, but the unintended consequence of responsible civic government were probably even greater. A few cities here in the US could use a carrot to lead them to better governance. Maybe the Carnegie Library phase of this nation is over, but it's still a fun fantasy for any urban planner.

Facade Issues in Steel Buildings

Of special note to anyone who been working with facade connections in steel buildings is two documents from AISC. The first is their "Design Guide 22: Facade Attachments to Steel-Framed Buildings" and the other is a recent article in MSC: "Steel Framing & Building Envelopes".

The Design Guide 22 is free to AISC members (~$60 otherwise) and is probably one of their best. It has a great amount of information about spandrel beams, connections, facade issues, and even backs it up with some FEA work.

The MSC article "Steel Framing & Building Envelopes" by James A. D'Aloisio, PE, SECB, LEED AP should be considered as an addendum to the design guide, specifically dealing with the issues of thermal bridging and building envelope thermal performance. Basically, if an engineer applies the suggestions from DG22 without considering thermal bridging effects, then the R-value of the wall assembly could be halved (!).

D'Aloisio's has published some interesting details he is experimenting with. His recommendation is to always use a thermal break, and he shows a Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic shim plate to isolate steel lintels and hangers from the exterior environment. As he points out, many LEED NC buildings are not meeting their expected performance levels. The reason may be because of conventional details used by the construction industry.

Green Starts at Home... Or Does It?

This past month I saw a lot of New Year's articles that addressed going green as a resolution for the upcoming year. Obviously their heart and mind were in the right place. But I wanted to be a bit cynical in this post.

Any home was once an empty piece of land. That piece of land was a special niche in the local ecology. A foot deep of priceless topsoil. Earthworms tilled the soil, butterflies hatching from cocoons on a nearby shrub. All sorts of life forming an interwoven, dynamic web. When you really think about it, that home wasn't built on an empty piece of land, it was built to replace a grassland or a stand of old hardwood trees.

To build this house, people decided to "improve" the land. They built a shell from the carcasses of trees as a shelter, the inhabitants themselves part of the extinction of half of biodiversity and the spoiling of every watershed on the planet. Mankind's capacity to upset nature is only matched by their capacity to delude themselves into thinking they benefit the planet by their presence.


It might sound like I am saying all human development is bad. In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying. But the environment can tolerate a little bad. Just not bad on the scale we've been doing. Going green is all about less bad.

So let's return to the issue of housing. Can going green at home really make a difference? It depends. Housing is a big piece of the puzzle, but the actual houses and what's inside of them aren't the problem. The problem is the way we organize our neighborhoods and cities. The built environment in the US forces a huge energy investment to accomplish anything.

The "go green at home" idea implies that we can save the world from climate change by buying products that are better for the environment. This makes the assumption that buying different things will give us different results. The truth is that we can't buy our way out of this.

Here is a chart showing the best ways to help the environment versus perception:



I'm no environmental saint. My own efforts in this realm pale in comparison to some of my neighbors and family. In reality we all need to go green at home, but it is not the most productive place to start changing. 

The problem is that as a democratic society we are all connected. The choices that people make affect all of us, sometimes in weird ways. When some people stop driving then others are likely to take their place. If people buy a car with a better gas mileage rating then they usually end up driving more miles. On average, its not easy to change social trends in the US through voluntary action.

So without major structural reforms of the built environment I fear that the sacrifices that people make net zero benefits. I applaud all of the efforts that people make, but I believe that going green doesn't begin at home, it begins with good policies. Now, more than ever before, we need to let science guide our policy making decisions rather than whatever it is that people talk about in media. Get active politically if you want to get active in the environment. Do your research, find and support groups and politicians that build their platform on the issues that matter to the environment. It doesn't even cost anything.