Recipe for Tall Buildings in Your City

The skyline of downtown Indianapolis

Tall buildings are a source of civic pride. They represent technical ability and economic power. Modern cities are defined by their skyline. Young engineers dream of adding their own touch to the cityscape. Tall building construction occurs in phases, and the most recent phase has probably died with the deepening recession. It may be 5 years or 5 decades before the next tall building trend. Tall building designers are a specialized group and are typically well positioned ahead of the start of the next trend. Unfortunately, this means that most engineers will have more experience with a skyline matrix than any actual famous tall buildings.

Construction of the newest Indianapolis hotel tower

For some reason people blame architects and engineers for the lack of tall buildings in their city. Certainly, architects and engineers have become more comfortable with taller buildings as time has passed, and taller heights are easier to achieve. New structural systems, new materials, and new ways to prevent swaying action has led to consistently taller buildings over time.


Throughout the twentieth century US engineers and architects led the way, but now the world is outperforming the US in terms of tall building construction. In fact, the number of foreign tall buildings built in the past decade is staggering. US construction continues along a slow trend but the rest of the world significantly outpaced the US in speed and total numbers of skyscrapers.

I can honestly say it is not our fault that the US is not building skyscrapers as fast. The design expertise for most of these tall buildings has come from US designers, so there is no doubt that the US is still leading the way in technical design. But there is still a feeling that the US is losing some sort of race to assert itself in the international economy.

In reality architects and engineers in the US have no influence over developers and their decisions to build new skyscrapers. No, the demise of US domination over tall buildings has been due to continued suburbanization. The American Dream has killed our cities.

Local market forces determine the height and size of buildings much more than any conscious design decisions. Iconic towers are even more rare than simple tall buildings, because there is a premium on design and construction for a truly unique building no matter what size it is. Developers are not willing to risk such a huge investment unless there is a clear chance for profit. For an in-depth study on this issue, consult The Economics of Super-Tall Towers (full text PDF available) published by CTBUH.

Basically, there are two considerations for developers:

• How much additional square footage is profitable in the current market?
• How big is my plot of land?
  

To get the height of their new building, they take the total square footage they want to end up with and divide it by the size of their plot.

Smaller plots are difficult for two reasons. The building must be taller for the same square footage, and the slenderness ratio makes the structural system more expensive. Developers are very happy with smaller buildings. They are less expensive, the elevators take up a much smaller percentage of the floor plate area, and they are not terrorist targets (easy to insure).

Companies are reluctant to sponsor construction of a new building these days. Especially with an on-going recession and plenty of leasable space available at inexpensive rates, very few are willing to risk the wrath of shareholders for the headaches of owning an iconic building.

All of this means that there must be a great, compelling reason to build tall. Here in Indianapolis, people desperately want the skyline to fill out. However, there are so many empty parking lots that developers will require a lot more demand before they are willing to take a risk on the premium costs of tall buildings.

Taking Indianapolis as an example, building more tall buildings may not be in our best interest. First, let us assume there is sufficient demand for more leasable floor space. For a tall building in a downtown so centered around car commuting, each tower must have a large parking garage next to it (or under it). In addition to the space lost to the garage (and any existing buildings that are cleared to build it), the road system must be expanded to accommodate the new commuters. Instead of densifying the downtown area it is now spreading out, losing nearby businesses in order to accommodate transportation of workers.

Basically, tall buildings are most appropriate in a dense, urban environment. If the downtown relies on car commuters, it cannot achieve the density necessary for successful tall buildings. Ignoring this caveat, certain communities have achieved tall building construction in a suburban area, but the buildings are out of context and at their base are nothing more than an attempt to draw attention and proclaim relevance as something they are not.

Anadarko Tower in The Woodlands, Texas

This type of environment is an entirely new invention. Drivers leave from their garage at home and drive directly to their garage at work. The need for roads and garages spaces the buildings apart so far that no infill development occurs. It is not an urban environment, it is a suburban environment with a sense of inadequacy. And I suppose if that is what people want, they can have it. But it is just as authentic as the EIFS clad southwest style grocery store sitting behind the hundred acre parking lot.

In order for a skyscraper to contribute to a dense urban environment and really make a difference in the local economy, a few items have to happen:

1. all existing buildings must be leased at profitable rates (Indianapolis is not there yet)
2. all existing surface lots must be converted to income producing leasable spaces, typically of a low rise density (Indy is at least one decade from this step)
   
3. a public transportation system must be in place that can collect and distribute people from around the city to a single point (Indy is probably three decades from this)
   

If these requirements are not met, then asking for more tall buildings is just asking for a failed development. You can't even give away a tall building downtown right now. There is just no demand to fill it.

So, if you are a fan of urban spaces and want to see more investment in your skyline, here is a simple recipe:

Live downtown
Don't just take up space, take up space in the central core. Without a strong demand for leasable space, no additional supply will be built.

Work downtown
Look for work options downtown. Petition your office decision makers to locate in the central core. Once again, this increases demand and makes it an easy decision for the city and developers to move forward on their plans.

Use public transit options
Without public transit, cars will need to be parked and moved around. This dramatically reduces density, and makes tall buildings less viable. Pedestrian options are reduced as well.

Support local business
The businesses most likely to lease space in that shiny new building are local ones.

Support infrastructure initiatives
Expect to pay higher taxes. The extra costs associated with the urban core are manifold, including security for tourists and commuters, reconfiguring water & electric services, and caring for indigents. Don't be upset about it, because this is the cost of society. For when someone isn't paying their share, the rest of us must pay it for them.

Exposed Streetcar Lines on E. Washington St

New civilizations are built on the ashes of old, and so cities ever grow higher by adding layers. Peel back some of the growth rings and experience a slice of life as it once was.

The old rail lines in front of Audubon Court in Irvington, East of downtown Indianapolis

Downtown Indianapolis during the days of the streetcars

Earlier last week, Indianapolis used the asphalt eaters to strip down East Washington Street in preparation for finish work on the new interchange with I-69/I-70. By good luck, I happened to be driving through and took some photos of the old street car lines that were exposed.

The bad part is that I had to take the photos at night, so please excuse my poor photographs. It was covered up by the next day, so there was no opportunity to come back in daylight.

DIG-B also covered this in an earlier post, but I wanted to share the experience once again. See Urbanophile's post for a full description and aerial image of the interchange.

This shot has several exposed rails and the original brick infill

A close-up view of the rail and brick

Here's a modern take on the streetcar scene by Circles and Squares, downtown business interests want the old streetcars back in some fashion or another. I know in some sense it is sad that these old bits of history have been covered up, but the bright side is that they are well protected for the time being.

Role of Structural Engineers in Sustainable Construction

As more and more structural engineers have been considering their role in sustainability, there have been more resources available. The best sources of useful information concerning structural engineering and sustainable development are the May and June editions of Structure Magazine. This printed publication is made available freely to all NCSEA and SEI members, but anyone can access the online articles.

Sustainability articles typically address either the entire design process or specific strategies. This provides a convenient way to separate them into categories. First up, we have the articles that address design in general:

Overall Design Strategies
Once again, Structure Magazine leads the way with an article "Sustainable Buildings and the Structural Engineer." This article delineates all of the issues that sustainable develop should address and then shows how the structural engineer can impact the design. This is a great way to see all of the ideas laid out in one easy to grasp format.

Another article that I found useful is hosted at GoStructural.com (publisher of the trade magazine Structural Engineer). This is actually a collection of articles all on the same topic of sustainability.

Reuse of existing structures
One of the great things about sustainable development is that it recognizes the importance of historic preservation, or retaining existing buildings of any type. You may have heard the expression "The greenest building is one that's already built." This is the title of an article published by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, written by Carl Elefante. It's a great introduction into how these two topics work together, and a great rallying cry for those who feel that LEED credits don't properly address the issue.

Building on this call to reuse rather than tear-down and rebuild, another Structure Magazine article "Missed Opportunities in Structural Sustainablility" quantifies exactly how effective it would be to reuse a building. The bottom line: very effective. Essentially, this article shows that tearing down a building in just about any condition is the least green thing that can be done.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has issued a whitepaper laying out exactly why reusing buildings is sustainable, extending the definition to include economics, social benefits, and environmental benefits. Another great read for people looking for ways to change policy and public opinion.

Lastly, the NTHP has put up a fun slideshow of pictures of structures submitted by readers that show promise for renovation or adaptive reuse. So here is Reuse it! (a Flickr group). Feel free to add your own.

Minimizing use of materials
An interesting editorial in Structure Magazine on the topic of "Voided Two-Way Flat Plate Slabs". This is a particular strategy of sustainable design called dematerialization. Basically, if you consume fewer resources for a building of similar strength then you are doing good for the environment. Of course, you can't put that sort of strategy into a ratings system (e.g. LEED) because then every engineer will claim they are using less material. The USGBC handled this problem in other trades by creating a baseline case, so the strategy may still work for structural engineering. But few people want to encourage engineers to use less material, so it probably won't be included for that reason.

Maximizing material effectiveness
Another interesting Structure Magazine article addresses materials that act as structure, insulation, and soundproofing. "The Road to Code Acceptance for Autoclaved Aerated Concrete" details how AAC is being (slowly) approved by code provisions, as well as how to use it in your buildings even today by getting a per-project approval from your local jurisdiction.

And finally, news from the Pakistan Straw Bale and Appropriate Building (PAKSBAB). This group has more of a "damn the torpedoes" mentality because there really are no trade groups that would profit from such a low cost building material. So the only way this type of material will ever get used is from prototypes and bona fide living experiments. I wish them the best of luck!

Egocentrism in the Infrastructure Debate

Egocentrism is "tendency to perceive, understand and interpret the world in terms of the self". This issue exists in every human, but it is important that we realize that we see the world with a limited knowledge filtered through our past experiences. To be effective designers we must continually strive to break through the limitations of our own experiences and see the world from other viewpoints.

To be clear, I am not talking about selfishness. I am talking about realizing that one's own experiences are not necessarily representative of an aggregate population. Offering experiences as an argument falls under "anecdotal evidence" and usually is not important when discussing policy. Public policy must be based on scientifically verifiable evidence that has undergone statistical reduction.

However, in a lot of arguments regarding infrastructure development, either local plans or national policy, anecdotal evidence is given so much credibility that it overwhelms the topic under debate. One common argument against investment in urban landforms and public transit options is that the current system works as it already exists. The argument goes something like this: "I can ride my bicycle down the arterial street / run on the street where there is no sidewalk / take a cab anywhere in the city, so everyone else can as well." These arguments are obviously egocentric, they assume that the abilities of a single person (the egocentrist) are shared by the population at large. This is not the case. There are many people, throughout the US, who are prevented from access either by ability or income level.

A healthy urban population includes people of all abilities. Universal design and Design for All recommend that we consider the entire population when designing a building, spatial environment, or anything that people interact with (like doorhandles, furniture, etc.). This is part of our ethical duty as engineers and designers, we have been tasked by society to design our systems for even the least able citizens. Let us commit to establishing inclusive policies of infrastructure development.

There are many reasons beyond moral and ethical responsibilities to incorporate Universal Design practices. Economic studies suggest that when more of the population has access to the cityscape, there are more customers, workers, and economic activity. You are raising the de facto density of the city without teardowns and rebuilds. Quality of life also improves when egocentrism is abandoned. People are happier, they feel empowered and included, and it is another small step towards sharing Earth's resources equitably with the other 7 billion people on the planet.

Engineering and Systemic Risks

On a basic level, an engineer's primary job is to manage risk. The problem is that all current methods of engineering risk management deal exclusively with individual projects. Unfortunately, there is no forum for a discussion of systemic risk.

Systemic risk was exposed recently in the financial system. The Great Recession, as I've heard it called. In this case, financiers were engaging in business dealings and signing a separate contract with an insurance provider to pay costs in case of a default – a default credit swap. Taken as individual transactions, each one was well-managed and almost risk-free for the holder of the assets. All of the credit rating agencies were in agreement, these companies had managed their risk very well. But when you look at the whole system, where was the risk going? Was it just disappearing into thin air?

The answer, as we found out, was that the risk was just being hidden by complicated instruments. Maybe it is an appropriate time to discuss whether this same process is at work in the field of structural engineering. By minimizing risk to individual projects are we amplifying the risks to the system?

Engineers owe responsibilities to different parties in a complicated web of liability. I think the best clarification of what we are trying to accomplish is stated in the ASCE's Code of Ethics (1997) Fundamental Canon #1:

CANON 1.
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.

We act in the best interests of our clients and the public welfare, but it is not always clear what actions we should take to meet these requirements. Our developments do not exist in a vacuum, our designs affect the environment to a great degree. Looking at a quick example in civil engineering, there is plenty of evidence that installing levees down the Mississippi River valley has had some negative consequences:

1. Lack of regular flooding has reduced alluvial floodplain buildup, reducing natural barriers to storm surges
2. Development alongside the river has been encouraged, as the risk is perceived to be much lower than it actually is

As one can see, this is a good example of increasing systemic risk solely because of reducing risk to a bunch of individual projects. When the system breaks down, a huge amount of development is affected.

Likewise, we can see a similar process occurring in structural engineering projects. Engineers are partly responsible for some of the most intense greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. Buildings today use almost 1/2 of all energy consumed in the world. Construction activities contribute to C02 emissions directly and indirectly. Concrete production alone (because of cement) accounts for 5% of annual worldwide carbon emissions.

Engineers are culpable because we do little to reduce the concrete consumption on a project. Concrete is used for shallow foundations, retaining walls, shearwalls, and sometimes just as dead weight. Concrete isn't the only material that will work, but it is the easiest best solution. Some building codes won't even allow an engineer to specify anything else for foundations. We are so intolerant of risk that we require reinforced concrete in a part of the project that typically won't cause a problem even if it failed.

This matters because we are continually raising the quantity of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. At some point, sea levels will rise, storms will gain strength, wildfires will be more severe, and global conflict will erupt over limited resources. This is the systemic risk that structural engineers face right now. If we are serious about meeting our ethical obligations to protect the public welfare then we need to change our habits, and quickly.

Engineers and the building code industry needs to find out why we are specifying so much concrete and provide guidance on other options. Specifying high levels of fly ash or slag cement is a good start, but since we'll need to be carbon neutral soon then we need to go further. Expensive technologies might help the US, but we must figure out solutions that are scalable and useful in the developing world.

I don't think there is a silver bullet solution for this problem, but I do think it is important for engineers to remember that they have obligations that extend beyond the boundary line of their latest development.

The Roundabout Bandwagon

Traffic Roundabouts are becoming a hot topic of infrastructure in the US (see Infrastructurist post, PPS post). Naturally, you would expect Indianapolis, a.k.a. Circle City, a.k.a. Crossroads of America, to be a leader in the circular traffic systems. The symbolic and actual city center is a shared space traffic circle - even the flag (see above) is based on Indy's transportation system.

The monument at the city's center is a shared space (mostly) traffic circle

Traffic can enter from all directions and there are no lane markings but everyone manages well

Indianapolis used a grid layout for the street system (which worked well early in its history), but ended ceding too much ROW to cars and parking for the downtown to remain viable for pedestrians. Later on, Indy unfortunately embraced the raised superhighway with cloverleaf ramp layout. These tactics elevated the rights of drivers (many of whom don't even live or work in the city) over every other citizen and local land-owner. Much of the effort of modern urban planning is attempting to roll back these developments and try to incorporate strategies which allow traffic to flow freely but also protects pedestrians.

Luckily, clever minds in the suburb to the north (Carmel) of the city have decided to take advantage of the modern traffic circle (now known as a roundabout). There are now so many circles in the planning/construction phases that some residents think the traffic planning department is crazy. They have simple roundabouts, regulated circles, dogbone double roundabout highway overpasses, etc. It makes driving a motorcycle a lot more fun, or more exciting if the sweepers haven't been through recently (I lived in Carmel for two years and enjoyed the developments).

This is a dogbone overpass

Wacky, but effective

Traffic now flows through this area much more quickly

Unfortunately, too much signage and lane markings lends a cluttered feeling and causes visual overload for drivers

Carmel also hosts some interesting information on their home page. A link to Kansas State Center for Transportation Research and Training Roundabout page, a link to a flash demonstration showing how to negotiate a roundabout (this should be required viewing for anyone living in Carmel who can't figure out the difference between the yield sign and the stop sign (I know they are the same color, but honestly!)). Finally, a brochure produced in Carmel discussing the reasons for building them and tips for safe driving. Carmel's Roundabouts seem to be good policy. They are still a bit too auto-oriented for my tastes. But they are a great experiment and I hope the Carmel-ites are well served by them.

Satellite image of Clay Terrace north circle

The outdoor shopping area of Clay Terrace has two roundabouts and one pedestrian plaza

The distinctive pavement makes excessive signage unnecessary

The angle of entry and yielding requirements keeps traffic flowing at a slower pace

Pedestrian crossings and median breaks are provided

Here in Irvington, we have three circles of our own (traffic circles - not roundabouts; but I could be mistaken as I have not a great mind for traffic engineering semantics). The two main ones are located on Audubon Road, they were built to link the two sides of the town that grew up across the old National Road. All circles function as traffic control devices, but are not so oppressively auto-oriented.

Satellite image with locations of three traffic circles in Irvington

The North Audubon Circle now is the site for a Methodist church (built 1928). It is the largest of the three circles. Several streets branch off, and it acts as a collector for the arterial of E. Washington Street / US 40 / Historic National Road.

North Audubon Circle

The South Irving Circle is a pocket park with a bust of Washington Irving. The south circle has been recently renovated and hosts outdoor concerts, local gatherings, and plenty of teenagers looking for a place to hang out.

South Irving Circle

Restoring the old brick pavers would really make this area special

The final circle in Irvington is on North Campbell Street, and looks like more of a private development early in the neighborhood history. The central house sitting on it is pretty outstanding, sitting high and proud in the middle of the street. The house is magnificent, but I'm sure it is somewhat similar to living in a goldfish bowl. It's a fun location, and one of the more interesting bits of character that I have found roaming the streets near my house.

Side yard/front yard/back yard... or radial yard?

So there are the three traffic circles in Irvington. Each is different, one hosting a church, one hosting a park, and the other is privately owned. It is easy to contrast the varieties seen in Irvington vs. the modern ones in Carmel or downtown Indy. The experiment with traffic circles has been going on for quite some time in Indianapolis, and I hope the form continues to evolve. One thing for sure is that traffic circles have a great opportunity to act as a transitional element or landmark feature, and modern roundabouts save time, money, and gasoline all day long. I hope that we start taking advantage of it, too.

Rising Tides Design Competition

With our current debate over climate change policy likely to be derailed by climate change skepticism, maybe it's time we start looking at ways to accommodate climate change rather than preventing it. Civil engineers will be called upon to perform some of the largest public works projects since the Panama Canal all along the US Coastal areas, just to keep the status quo (i.e. not "waterworld").


So, if you think "Cap & Trade" policy is expensive, just imagine how much money it will cost to do this in every port city of the US. Honorable Mention awards also listed here. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.

How to Link to Me

I don't pretend to know why Blogger is configured the way it is, but here are some tips I have discovered.

* To link to one of my articles, click the time-stamp on the bottom to get the actual post URL.

* I reserve all rights to the original materials posted on this website. However, I have no problems giving special permission to use select material, so just let me know if you are interested. Fair use doctrine is applicable in the US if you wish to sample my work.

* Comments will be removed under the following conditions (as judged by the blog author):

1. Ad Hominem attack against another person
2. Comments about people who are not Public Figures
   
3. Any comments on appearance of a person, their background or politics, or anything unrelated to professional activity
   
4. Selling products; this blog is not intended to be a commercial venture

* Comments are posted before the entire world, but sometimes a private communication may be desired. Email me if you have questions/comments/suggestions. Address is listed on personal information.

*Feel free to sign up for RSS for automatic notification of blog entries: Subscribe via Atom

Engineering Humor: Jack vs Architect

Or as PDF: JackvArchitect.pdf

Engineers are conservative by nature, and while this makes everyone safer it sometimes causes conflict with our architect brethren. I have absolutely no idea who did this so I can't attribute credit.

Updates from Irvington: round-up

Just wanted to formally announce a few items of note. First off, the Pennsy Trail has been paved and is now only awaiting a trailhead (I think) before it would be ready for opening. When I stopped by to take some photos there were already a few travelers using it, so the populace is ready for sure.



Next up, the Audubon Court renovations are complete and the majority of units have already been rented. The finished results are excellent based on what I've seen so far. IDO has written up an article on the renovation.





A new transit option is available for the Eastside. The Near Eastside Orbiter (NEO) travels an hourly route between the 10th street corridor, downtown, E.Washington Street, and Irvington. I hope it works out, but I honestly have no idea how it will be received. At the very least it is a good experiment. From the website link:

The Near Eastside Orbiter (NEO) is a circular shuttle which provides transportation for residents of the near eastside community. The shuttle fills the gaps of current Indygo service as a way for individuals to have access to not only the downtown loop, but to also connect them to jobs, shopping and recreational in the neighborhood.

In Praise of the Bridge to Nowhere

The "bridge to nowhere" is a classic concept in transportation structures. Even taking a minor role in the 2008 presidential election debate, the bridge to nowhere always faces opposition from those not expecting to benefit. For some reason, people view these bridges as an excuse for the government to reward construction firms that have acquired political favor.

The Atlanta Downtown Connector gives residents a chance to catch up with each other on a daily basis

What people should realize, however, is that everyone benefits when these bridges are built way out in the Middle of Nowhere, USA. For the past half century, citizens have been held ransom to the whims of people like Robert Moses ("cities are for traffic"), whereby neighborhood have been demolished for the purpose of moving machines. Even historically significant neighborhoods, such as Martin Luther King Jr's neighborhood, have been cut in two by highway plotters.

the city planner at work

Here in Indianapolis, the "Crossroads of America", we have sacrificed much of our downtown area to ease access to our tall building and parking garages. Imagine all of the historic neighborhoods that could have been saved if only we had convinced the heavy-handed and delusional city leaders to focus their attentions on building a bridge worthy of the Circle City somewhere else, maybe just outside the city limits for example.

an aptly named local establishment

This is the great benefit of bridges to nowhere: they are built away from cities. The discredited theory of Urban Renewal sponsored by megalomaniacal politicians is no longer necessary! Elected officials have finally discovered how to subsidize their friends without ruining our neighborhoods. In fact, Brasilia may be the most progressive historic preservation project ever undertaken.

Now the NYT has an article complaining about rural development receiving all the ARRA attention. Don't complain, celebrate! At least nobody is threatening eminent domain for a new shopping mall in your neighborhood.

Complete Streets for Indianapolis

The Urban Planning Scholar Series hosted a Complete Streets (also wikipedia entry) training session on June 29-30th in Indianapolis. The event was split into two parts: 1) the traditional 2 hour lecture, and 2) a full 1.5 day workshop on winning complete street policies in your local jurisdictions. Because AARP sponsored the event, admission was free. I only attended the first session, because work was slow in the office, but not that slow.

The lecture was given by Randy Neufeld, a complete streets strategic management consultant, who focused on the basics of complete streets and why it benefits so many people. He also discussed what the complete streets program is not attempting to do:

• put a prescriptive design manual in place
• put bike lanes on every street
• reduce traffic capacity

One concept of complete streets is that an optimized traffic system that considers only automobiles is actually not optimized at all. It forces everyone to drive, even for small trips. This results in more cars on the roadway thus increasing travel times. By designing the roadways for all users (especially those who don't drive cars) the traffic load is reduced and other users of the road including pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit users have full access.

Introduction to Complete Streets

View more documents from Complete Streets.

Perhaps the best argument I heard during the lecture was that Complete Streets policies encourage economic activity. Pedestrians and bicyclists can now access stores and shops that they would not have felt safe traveling to without the new policies. Also, because fewer parking spaces are necessary, the policies encourage denser development with less wasted space.

Complete street policies are based around the idea that there is no prescriptive solution that works in all situations. The street designers are tasked with a new policy that "ensures that transportation agencies routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users". For more examples go the the Complete Streets Flickr page.

One important item addressed by the complete streets policy is that of access to public transit options. I have often seen cities invest in buses with the capacity to handle disabled transit users. However, if the bus stops are not set up correctly, the system has failed. Just outside my office where I work there is a pitiful bus stop without a curb cut and with no sidewalks nearby. In combination with the narrow road and steep slopes on each side of the road the safety for pedestrians is reduced significantly. It is virtually impossible to use this road with a wheelchair.

A world class bus stop for our world class city

Not an inviting streetscape for pedestrians

This area provides a huge amount of jobs, but the message it sends is that only cars are welcome. Even when I attempt to cross the narrow street for lunch it is a risky procedure. There are absolutely no provisions for people in this commercial park. This is exactly the kind of thing that complete street policies are trying to avoid. It will be quite expensive to retrofit this area, but it could have been provided at little cost in the beginning. I imagine the city and the property owners will resist upgrades in this area for as long as possible, contributing to pedestrian risk and economic segregation.

What the LCA Infrastructure Study Can Tell Us

I referenced a study of a Life Cycle Assessment of Infrastructure in one of my previous posts. Now that I have reviewed some of the data and results, I wanted to address how this study can help our public policy planning. In my opinion, the most valuable information of this study can be found in the section on "sensitivity to passenger occupancy". Shown graphically in Figure 3, the ranges of energy input and pollution per Passenger Kilometers Traveled (PKT) are associated with ranges rather than a single number.

Partial Figure 3 used for review - see original article for full chart

What this shows is that certain vehicles are more sensitive to occupancy than others. Sensitivity in order as follows:

1. On-road vehicles
2. Aircraft
3. Rail Systems

The on-road vehicles are quite variable, whereas the airplanes and rail systems vary only a small amount. This is because the tailpipe emissions of airplanes and rail systems only account for a small amount of overall emissions (infrastucture and fuel source play a large role).

One bright spot for bus enthusiasts is that a fully occupied rail system is about as efficient per passenger as a fully occupied bus. SUV vehicles are rarely efficient, even when fully occupied.

The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) issue is also important, especially since GHG emissions must be cut and reduced within the next few years. This study shows that a rail transit system is the best option to reduce GHG emissions. It also shows us that a coal powered transit system (e.g. Boston Green Line) is not effective at reducing emissions.

Probably the most important issue, and one this study cannot address directly, is the overall energy inputs and GHG emissions for each transportation mode. While this study offers great data on PKT rates, the other side of the equation is actual distance travelled by each passenger. Urban sprawl generates a system whereby people must travel long distances using the most inefficient form of transit available. We are building potential high costs (energy and GHG) into our transit systems. This can be just as serious an issue as the mortgage crisis which crippled the US economy.

With public transit, people travel smaller distances and do so on more efficient systems. Transit-oriented development (TOD) offers an opportunity to connect neighborhoods to the urban core without relying on automobiles. People travel shorter distances and use the most efficient form of transit available today.

Air travel for long-haul flights can still play an important part of the US system, but the airports should be served by public transit systems and not just rental car facilities. Connectivity is a very important feature, and removing automobiles from transit systems requires intermodal options at every point.

A Quick Trip to New York City

On a weekend in the middle of June, I was scheduled to attend a friend's wedding on Long Island. I decided this would be an excellent opportunity for a short trip to NYC. My sister works at an architectural firm in Manhattan, so I had a place to stay and a good guide to the city.

My initial reaction upon arrival was one of joy, as our plane was delayed until late in the night and my sister greeted me and my wife at the door with New York style pizza and a place to sleep. Thus began a great journey to the cosmopolitan mecca of the US.

The ubiquitous brownstone front entry is a fixture of New York residential areas

Manhattan is made of wide avenues and narrow streets, historic masonry and steel skycrapers

My observations focused on the built environment, whereas my wife was much more interested in social studies. This is where New York excels, I was able to photograph and study buildings, infrastructure, transportation options, etc. while we walked to and from different neighborhoods shopping for trendy clothes and exploring exotic dining options.

The avenues facilitate transportation

I can say this about the transportation system of NYC: it works. On our trip, it worked beautifully. We did not need to rent a car, we were able to find public transportation to all of our destinations (even on our excursion to the middle of nowhere in Long Island). Walking within Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens was easy and accommodated by the street layouts. Just don't expect to go anywhere slowly, you'll get pushed into the gutter by the kind but delightfully no-nonsense commuters.

An approaching subway train

Interestingly, the transportation system was also my biggest complaint. There were two many cars and not enough pedestrian right-of-ways. Barring Columbus Circle (which was probably my favorite place of the city) and Central Park, there was not many places where cars did not rule the road. Broadway / Times Square was recently pedestrianized (and see NY Post article also) but it's too soon to tell if this will be a sign of things to come or just a one-off event. Of course, this is what got me thinking about cars as a public transportation option. According to the sources I have read, NYC is trying to phase out parking spaces, excess width on roadways, and generally reverting to a pedestrian oriented city. I think they are making some good steps, but a place like NYC really needs to create extraordinary spaces of a similar quality to Columbus Circle (see ASLA 2006 Awards) in order to stand out. I did not have a chance to see the High Line (also see Friends of the High Line), but it's first on my list when I return.

The Columbus Circle as seen from Time Warner building

The splashing water provides white noise to block out sounds of traffic

The circle offers an area of refuge and an urban collector for pedestrian traffic between the park and the city

Central Park has a huge amount of development along each side

And seriously, the loss of Penn Station is acutely felt by the city. I traveled through the station the same day that the Infrastructurist published his post on station demolition (and follow-up). The new structure is entirely unsatisfactory. I'm glad that people are still incensed by the demolition. Some idiotic New Yorker left his legacy of demolition on the city, that's for sure. The best summary is the quote from Vincent Scully comparing the experience of the old station to the new: “One entered the city like a god; one scuttles in now like a rat.”

The original Penn Station and its position in the city

Interior of Penn Station

The new Penn Station is underground, served only by street access

The new station interior is an overcrowded, depressing affair

On the other hand, Grand Central Station was nice. I was impressed by the structure and its continued use. Of course, the streets surrounded the station more than any other made you feel the oppressive impact that the wide streets and fast cars were having on the city. Another great opportunity for pedestrian-only space, IMHO.

Grand Central Station exterior

The nearby traffic structures and second-class pedestrian access to Grand Central Station make the experience unimpressive

We had horrible weather, set a record for rain received on the day we were there. I would not want to be swimming in the Hudson later that weekend (one of my sister's friends was preparing for a charity triathlon, yikes!). Obviously the CSO system is something that NYC must work on. And they are. But it's not as easy as just adding an independent pipe system, the amount of sub-surface utilities in that place is unbelievable. Basically there is no room for more right-of-ways. They have a legacy system of CSO's and they are going to have to be very creative in their solutions.

The structures of New York City are certainly world famous. I spent a lot of time with a craned neck looking up into the clouds at the tops of skyscrapers.

The Empire State Building with its spire finally peaking through the rain clouds

The best structure in NYC, the Chrysler Building

The GM / RCA building of the Rockefeller Center

The skyscrapers didn't impress me too much. Like every tall building I know, you have to be far away to appreciate them. Or at least that was my thoughts until I saw the new Hearst Tower. I really loved this building. If you get a chance, walk inside and check out the lobby. The security guards can actually tell you some interesting facts, don't be afraid to ask.

The unique diagrid structural system catches attention from every angle

The base of the tower, originally built to support a great tower (it took 80 years)

The important thing about the Hearst Tower is that is a great example of how modern architecture can still impress in a way that is so different but equally perfect to the old skyscrapers. The first LEED certified tall building in the city, and it kept the historic facade of the old structure. Perfection - architecturally, structurally, and socially.

random picture #1: when one awning just isn't enough (east side of Central park)

random picture #2: cast iron columns with built-in beam seats on the capital (Brooklyn Industries clothing store)

Our journey to Brooklyn was prompted by a quest for corn. As I'm currently living in a city surrounded by corn on every side (Indianapolis), I was skeptical that the corn would be worth it. I was wrong, it was fabulous. And the restaurant, Havana Outpost, is worth a stop on anyone's journey. Catfish burritos, nothing more to say. This little place has a small enclosed seating area with local beers on tap, but their outdoor areas are a showcase of doing things the right way. Solar electric panels, rain water collection (used for watering an urban garden and water for the bathrooms), and human-powered cocktail mixers make this place an absolute success.

The Havana Outpost lamp and nearby solar panel

The exterior dining area - note the solar panels on the left, water collection system in the center, and the stationary truck where all the food is prepared

you can prepare a frozen cocktail on the human powered blender (too much rain on our visit, bike was put away for safe-keeping)

a bona fide rain water collection system proves that environmental solutions don't have to be expensive or fancy, just effective