Update on Coastal Engineering

This post is an update to my post on Coastal Engineering and the impacts of sea level rise on the Atlantic Coast.

A recent article from ASCE's Smartbrief service says that Florida has allowed development along the coast to increase despite risks of sea level rise. The authors also introduce the concept of abandoned versus protected coastal properties, assuming that much of the developed land in places such as Miami will be shielded by Coastal Engineering projects.

There is a known risk (known since 1980, as pointed out in the article) that sea levels are likely to change. Current policies assume that they can be fixed, but this is only true if huge sums of money are involved.

One of the issues it raises is who will be paying for these engineered structures. The people who benefit most from preserving existing property rights will obviously be the property owners themselves. But the costs are so high that taxpayers from all over the country will probably be asked to chip in. This makes the coastal development activities of Florida and similar states irresponsible.

As sea levels rise during the next few decades, get ready for the biggest bailout in history.

A Place of Sense Update

As an engineer, I have many designs and activities always calling for my attention. It's kind of like children, except I am allowed to love some more than others.

I am facing a project due at the end of the week (and probably extend for another week) so I won't be posting much. In the meantime, please enjoy the beautiful autumn weather and know there will be some fun and interesting posts at the beginning of November.

Also, go check out my new archive of posts.

US Climate Change Science Program

I recently read the US Climate Change Science Program's report "Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region." Released in January, 2009, this is part of the US Govt's documents that address the public policy issues surrounding climate change and its effects. Find more information at GlobalChange.gov.


This report has some interesting bits of information for engineers to consider:

Consensus in the climate science community is that the global climate is changing, mostly due to mankind’s increased emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, from burning of fossil fuels and land-use change (measurements show a 25 percent increase in the last century). Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. [my emphasis added]

...there is currently no consensus on the upper bound of global sea-level rise...

Recent studies suggest the potential for a meter or more of global sea level rise by the year 2100, and possibly several meters within the next several centuries.

...the rate of rise appears to have accelerated over twentieth century rates, possibly due to atmospheric warming causing expansion of ocean water and ice-sheet melting...

With a substantial acceleration of sea-level rise, traditional coastal engineering may not be economically or environmentally sustainable in some areas.

...it is likely that most wetlands will not survive acceleration in sea-level rise by 7 millimeters per year. Wetlands may expand inland where low-lying land is available but, if existing wetlands cannot keep pace with sealevel rise, the result will be an overall loss of wetland area in the Mid-Atlantic. The loss of associated wetland ecosystem functions (e.g., providing flood control, acting as a storm surge buffer, protecting water quality, and serving as a nursery area) can have important societal consequences, such as was seen with the storm surge impacts associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in southern Louisiana, including New Orleans, in 2005.

Loss of tidal marshes would seriously threaten coastal ecosystems, causing fish and birds to move or produce fewer offspring. Many estuarine beaches may also be lost, threatening numerous species.

Nearly one-half of the 6.7 billion people around the world live near the coast and are highly vulnerable to storms and sea-level rise.

Nationally, most current coastal policies do not accommodate accelerations in sea-level rise.

Most coastal regions are currently managed under the premise that sea-level rise is not significant and that shorelines are static or can be fixed in place by engineering structures. The new reality of sea-level rise due to climate change requires new considerations in managing areas to protect resources and reduce risk to humans.

This is scary stuff. If we underestimate the potential for climate change even a small amount, then it is unlikely that engineers can help. Typically engineers err on the side of caution. We are a conservative bunch, and uncertainty is explicitly and implicitly managed through the standard use of Load and Resistance Factors. However, the vast majority of civil engineers in the US are still not convinced of climate change at this point.

And while most people feel that governments are working towards a solution, the truth is that almost all governments have decided to sacrifice coastal areas to avoid the political reality of reducing emissions to really safe levels. Most governments have decided to "limit" global warming by redefining "safe levels" to whatever level is politically convenient.

I guess we are all counting on "geoengineering" to save the day, but that is probably the most expensive and least satisfactory solution of all (see Real Climate entry for more information). For those wondering just what Coastal Engineering can do for us, see my earlier post about San Francisco or just look at the multi-billion dollar MOSE Project being built to protect Venice.


Neither Coastal Engineering nor Geoengineering will be our savior. The cure of Geoengineering is almost as bad as the disease. Coastal Engineering is an expensive solution that requires us to choose certain areas for preservation. What is likely is that some areas are selected as too important to cede. The remainder will probably be lost because of rapid changes in sea level. The consequences of this change will be severe. Wetlands that shelter endangered bird species and protect coastal areas from hurricane storm surge will be lost.

The receding shoreline begins shifting so rapidly that whole towns must be abandoned or moved once per decade. The beautiful fishing villages and beaches of the Northeast will be decimated. The debate over Galveston and New Orleans becomes a moot point, as we slowly watch the Strand and Bourbon Street become modern versions of Atlantis.

So the next time you see a cost-benefit argument against the Waxman-Markey bill (such as "Time for Inaction on Global Warming" published in the WSJ), or a video from the American Petroleum Institute warning about job losses, try to remember that the cost of inaction is probably higher than represented. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The Indianapolis Prize

The Indianapolis Prize is awarded biennially by Indianapolis Zoo. It is generously sponsored by donations from Eli Lilly and Company. The Prize committee has the following information on their website:

The biennial $100,000 Indianapolis Prize represents the largest individual monetary award for animal conservation in the world and is given as an unrestricted gift to the chosen honoree. The Indianapolis Prize was initiated by the Indianapolis Zoo as a significant component of its mission to inspire local and global communities and to celebrate, protect and preserve our natural world through conservation, education and research. This award brings the world’s attention to the cause of animal conservation and the brave, talented and dedicated men and women who spend their lives saving the Earth’s endangered animal species.

The 29 finalists for 2010 award were announced in September. This award highlights the positive role that individuals can play in preserving wildlife bio-diversity. This is a great opportunity for the Indianapolis community to encourage conservation efforts around the world by rewarding hard work that is often unacknowledged.

Of course, there are many animal conservation projects that Indianapolis can sponsor locally. From habitat restoration to wildlife corridors to urban parkland management (see my earlier post here), Indianapolis is well-positioned to be a leader in this important field.

Indianapolis Cultural Trail

I love the cultural trail. It provides a guiding path through downtown and reassures visitors and residents that they are headed in the right direction. It attracts a lot of press and is a showcase for the great things happening in downtown Indianapolis. The people who made this project happen, either through donations or hard work, deserve to lauded for their efforts.


However, in the end I worry that the reason this urban trail is so successful is because downtown Indianapolis is entirely unlivable without it. Because the Cultural Trail, while great and necessary, is a very expensive piece of infrastructure that does what many cities can do for free.

2009 SustainIndy Report and Greening of the CCB

The city of Indianapolis dropped two big reports this week, the state of sustainability report for 2009 and a special report from the Rocky Mountain Institute on the Greening of the CCB.



The 2009 SustainIndy Report details the efforts made to move the City of Indianapolis further towards its goal of becoming "the most sustainable city in the Midwest." The report includes details on bike lanes, stormwater/CSO issues, and some general feel-good stuff. I think the most important part of this report is that it was produced at all. Sustainability is not an easy thing to argue for in the conservative climate of Indianapolis, so I think the city should feel proud to get this thing off the ground.

The Greening of the CCB report is also great step forward for city. This report lays the foundation for next few decades of operation and maintenance of one the city's most expensive properties. While I don't know what exact steps will be taken to make this a "national forerunner in sustainability," I strongly approve of the report's goal to make the CCB a "sustainable lab for the Indianapolis" that is "radically resource efficient."



Looking into the future, I think that the city needs to accomplish some short-term and long-term goals to gain credibility as a green city. The current emphasis on pedestrian accessibility and mixed-mode transportation is a good start. The city needs to continue building on its success with the sidewalk policy, the bike lanes, the cultural trail, greenways, and the ICE commuter buses. Transportation accounts for 30% of emissions, so reducing the need for driving has a big effect on sustainability. Lowering VMT per capita is essential, and the city should make this priority #1 in their quest for sustainability.

Obviously, sustainability should not be an end unto itself. But sustainability efforts can produce enormous life quality improvements. One way to lower per capita VMT and make the city more pleasant and community oriented is to focus on land use reform. I wrote an entry about downtown Indy already, but since urban living is more sustainable than suburban/rural living, I think it fits this topic as well. One important update since that time is a great article "The Legend of the Skyscraper Fairy" that directly addresses the failure of city governments to proactively address urban land use (h/t to Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space).

It seems as if the first objective of every mayor is to create an enormous structure in the Indy skyline and ensure a permanent legacy. I don't have a problem with this except when it conflicts with the principles of good urban design. A walkable downtown will have no more than 30 feet between storefronts. If the city wants a Market Square tower building, then it needs to have a ground level floor full of small storefronts. The city should concentrate on the experience of pedestrians walking on Alabama Street, not on what a driver sees from I-70.

Managing green assets should be priority #2. Coincidentally, Urbanophile posted a similar entry on this yesterday. This is a long-term priority, but Indianapolis needs to understand that Indy Parks has a much greater role to play in sustainability. The city currently has a goal of putting green roofs on park buildings. This will not provide a systemic benefit, as there is already plenty of green space in those areas. Indianapolis needs to think bigger.


Our city owned parklands can provide regional benefits. For example, the properties can provide stormwater relief and bio-diversity within the city. For this to happen, the parklands need to be proactively managed and carefully preserved. People are not the only animals in this city. Just as pedestrians and bicyclists need continuous paths to maintain a healthy population, the flora and fauna filling our city need corridors to communicate and travel.

In my own neighborhood I see foxes, deer, rabbits, hawks, and all sorts of varied trees. Each of these species has a part in our ecosystem. And don't worry about wild animals, the most dangerous things in our city will always be the four-wheeled monsters we keep in our garages.


Unfortunately, the Indy Parks budget has been decimated over the past few years. We need the city to commit resources to help manage these lands. One way to save money for the city is to let some areas remain unmowed and untrafficked for the sake of bio-diversity. If the city is uncomfortable with the money required, then maybe a few starter grants should be applied for. To help manage these issues, I think that Indy Parks be given their own director of sustainability, because the goals for urban (human) sustainability are quite different from ecological sustainability.

The city should also use the parks as an opportunity for education and public awareness. The website of Indy Parks can feature stories about how the green parklands affects the sustainability of the city. Currently, there is just no realization that our Parks are major contributors to our welfare. There is also no long-term plan that integrates parkland management into the concept of sustainability. This is an ideal opportunity for Indianapolis to differentiate itself from other Midwest cities and lead sustainability efforts into the next decade.

Indianapolis Office of Code Enforcement

I am in favor of stricter building code enforcement. Especially in Indianapolis, where typically only a sample of projects are reviewed. This new department will bring stability and standardization to the review process. Hopefully any problems related to sidewalks and accessibility (which are often brought up on the Indianapolis blogosphere) will be identified early in the design process and addressed.

The department will be staffed by "building code analysts" who will thoroughly review each project. Any problems will be flagged wherein the building designers must answer the questions raised. This falls under the police powers of government and public safety should improve from the efforts.

It is important for engineers to realize that our goal is life safety, and that working with building code enforcement is a necessary step in the process. It is not criticism, it is an independent review. My neighbor in the city government says designers "have no idea how much this will change things." I don't know whether to be frightened or excited, but I'm leaning towards excitement.

Council Approves Office of Code Enforcement
Office of Code Enforcement

On June 29, the City-County Council approved the city’s first Department of Code Enforcement.
The current acting Office of Code Enforcement, created by Executive Order in February 2009 to streamline the city’s licensing, permitting, inspection and abatement functions, will become a permanent city department effective January 1, 2010.

“This new agency has answered the call to step up enforcement actions and tackle issues that threaten public safety and the overall health of our neighborhoods,” said Mayor Greg Ballard.

“Overgrown weeds, abandoned cars, abandoned properties, unsafe buildings and other property maintenance conditions attract crime, reduce property values and make communities less desirable. Focusing new resources on these issues will better equip us to keep our city clean, safe and vibrant and will do so using a self-funding model that will not burden taxpayers.”
The Council’s approval transfers the following code enforcement functions to the new department:

• Licenses and permits
• Building, infrastructure
• and zoning inspections
• Property maintenance
• Unsafe buildings
• High weeds and grass
• Illegal dumping
• Forestry
• Towing
• Weights & Measures

“We have worked diligently over the past few months to streamline code enforcement processes that have been unnecessarily complicated and often outdated,” said Rick Powers, Director of the Office of Code Enforcement. “By consolidating code enforcement functions into one department and providing a one-stop shop, we are more accessible and able to provide better service to the public.”

With this new charge, the Office of Code Enforcement has been overhauling city enforcement initiatives through new, refocused measures, including:

• Cracking down on unlicensed and non-compliant businesses
• Combating high weeds and grass by cutting the abatement process time in half
• Intensifying the focus on nuisance abatement and property maintenance
• Addressing habitual violators through a new case management system and a partnership with city prosecutors to expedite priority cases
• Joining the Mayors’ vacant and abandoned properties initiatives
• Preparing the launch of mobile inspector offices to increase productivity
• Utilizing Six Sigma expertise to refine and improve processes to optimize efficiency and service

All citizen reports should be directed to the Mayor’s Action Center at 327-4MAC (327-4622). To learn more about the Office of Code Enforcement, visit www.indy.gov/oce.

All Infrastructure Users Are Created Equal

Investments in infrastructure are a big topic right now. Infrastructure investments create local jobs, they can lower the cost of doing business for the private sector, and they can provide quality of life improvements like clean water and sewage treatment plants. Currently, there is loud debate on all sides of the issue. For the sake of this entry, let us assume that all debaters have honest intentions.

The tools of the debate are well-known by now. Proponents argue on the side of benefits, detractors argue the costs of the work. Both sides have merit, so we compromise and ask for a "cost-benefit analysis" (CBA) to break down the project into facts and figures rather than emotions and promises.

The CBA is a great tool. It is widely used in business and government agencies to compare different alternatives. Key assumptions made in the CBA are:

• Anything can be represented in present day cost, even human life and welfare
  
• Doing nothing means that present trends will continue
• Potential costs and benefits can be given a real value
  

A cost-benefit analysis is the kind of thing that engineers love, because it can provide an answer to a difficult question. Engineers sometimes go further and claim that the CBA can prove which option is the right course of action. I don't trust the CBA analysis that much. There are plenty of ways to skew the results intentionally or introduce bias unintentionally.

A recent example of the CBA being used in debate is the national High-Speed Rail (HSR) network proposals. The analysis was taken up by Edward Glaeser of Harvard/NYT in his set of articles "Is High-Speed Rail a Good Public Investment?" but his conclusions were called into question in the Infrastructurist article "Why Edward Glaeser Got it Wrong: Re-Running the Numbers on High-Speed Rail." Both articles show the process is very sensitive to initial assumptions and uncertainties.

But the reason I write this is not to point out the difficulties in using this type of analysis, it is to say that it should not be used at all. Government should not be run as a for-profit businesses. Basing decisions solely on cost-benefit analyses, opportunity costs, and return on investment projections means that the cities are rewarding companies and wealthy property owners exclusively.

The amount of wealth generated after infrastructure improvements in a nice part of town will be much higher than the same infrastructure improvements in a below average part of town. The strict use of CBA ensures that poor neighborhoods get bulldozed for suburban highway access, workers ride inexpensive buses rather than rail systems, and pedestrians are only allowed in shopping districts. Should this type of thinking dictate our infrastructure investments?

If the only measure of a project's worth is how much investment will be generated, then civic governments will fail to provide infrastructure to their citizens equitably. Cities need to remember that they have a duty, enshrined in our founding principles, that all are created equal and all deserve equal treatment.

There have been many transit projects, brownsfield and pollution cleanup projects, and neighborhood development plans derailed by short-sighted opposition. Some people refer to projects that don't pay for themselves as unacceptable welfare programs, but engineers have always had an ethical responsibility to "hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public." Why are we allowed to abdicate this responsibility when the ROI doesn't look good?

Majority of Civil Engineers Don't Understand Climate Change

I was faced with an interesting truth this week. As an unofficial, non-scientific poll in ASCE Smartbrief showed, the majority of civil engineers don't understand climate change. The poll was included in their daily email (which I find very informational and strongly recommend it). The reason for the poll was because of a reader's comments to ASCE:

I was hoping that engineers would take a progressive view on the issue of global warming and climate change, but I wasn't holding my breath on the issue. For those who can't read the options, they are:

• Our use of fossil fuels has created a crisis. We need emission reduction regulations to halt climate change
  
• We should look into alternative energy sources, but climate change isn't as dire as some predict.
• The climate-change models are so flawed, we have no idea what's really going on.
• Climate change is natural. Regulations will only benefit some companiees and will hurt most of the rest of us.
  

Voting has ended and the results were posted in the following day's Smartbrief. Here are the final results:


Results show that the majority of engineers are uncomfortable with the topic of climate change, believing either that it is not caused by humans, not a real problem, or not enough is known to justify intervention. In fact, only 25% of engineers thought emission reduction regulations were required.

Once again, I am concerned that ASCE is trying to portray themselves as "leaders of sustainability" but not spending any time educating their own members. (see my previous posts on ASCE) The consequences of global warming are severe, but many engineers have chosen to ignore the risks completely. A great comment by Daniel Kurkjian on ASCE's blog summarizes what ASCE itself should be communicating to the profession:

Scientists are in agreement that carbon dioxide increases global temperatures and that can have significant negative effects on our way of life. Civil engineers have a role to plan in lobbying regulators to make sure that new rules are phased in and do not cripple construction and infrastructure development.

It’s unbelievable to hear comments on the ASCE website claiming global warming is not real and the carbon dioxide is somehow not a pollutant. At elevated concentrations in the atmosphere CO2 raises temperatures, which can have devasting impacts on climate and the way we live. That defines a pollutant; something that can damage the enviroment at elevated concentrations.

It’s understandable to fear an over-reach by the goverment that hurts business. However, the way to deal with that isn’t to deny reality and claim global warming isn’t associated with carbon dioxide pollution. The role of the civil engineer is to make the government aware of the imapcts of their regulations and to seize the business opportunities that will come with being current on regulations.

This is an excellent statement, I hope that ASCE will continue to hear these comments and realize that being a leader in sustainability means educating ASCE members. As this comment so rightly points out, it is unbelievable that ASCE would entertain the idea that climate change has not been associated with CO2 increases and human activity.

The problem with global warming "skeptics" is that they are not skeptics at all. A true skeptic is one who approaches an issue with an open mind, refusing to be swayed by arguments until the evidence is presented. Instead, those who deny global warming are the opposite of skeptics, having decided their opinion before evidence was presented. For a quick look at the evidence that is accepted by the global scientific community, which Daniel Kurkjian referred to in his comment, see my earlier post on Global Warming Potential.

Engineering Humor: Having Fun with Architects

A great website "Notes on Becoming A Famous Architect" has brought us a fun, historic entry from the Princeton School of Architecture.

Notes on Becoming a Famous Architect

How Large is Downtown Indy?

Monument Circle is the heart of Indianapolis. It marks the center of downtown, the central business district. I love this part of town. However, as I have been exploring downtown over the course of my escapades, I have come to realize that Indianapolis does not have a big "downtown" region. My sister best explained it during a visit when she asked "isn't downtown supposed to have buildings?" She lives in NYC so I excused her comment, but she did have a point.

This prompted me to start thinking about downtown as it truly exists, not as we wish it. As far as I can tell, downtown Indy only extends within two blocks of the Circle in any direction. This is the true downtown. If you walk two blocks away you are presented with parking lots, buildings that are only open for special events, and monumental parks lined with unfriendly streetscapes.

This small plot of land is only a remant of the city that was (area of interest in blue)

Looking at the area within two blocks of the circle, I think it is clear why this meets the definition of downtown. Great sidewalks, calm traffic, storefronts, tall buildings (at least 3 stories), and lots of pedestrian options. It is somewhat unfortunate that the urban towers have been set into this downtown region, because they have typically eschewed storefront space and brought parking garages with them. That is truly my only complaint, because otherwise this central core is all right.

Monument Circle is extraordinary

Traffic is managed within the circle by civic goodwill instead of traffic signals

Traveling westwards, the pedestrian environment breaks down at Capitol Ave. The state government buildings are obviously necessary, but many of them have abandoned good urban design principles. Looking at the aerial view, it is clear that few properties exist between Capitol Ave. and Haughville that would attract a pedestrian.

The east side of downtown has too much green and too many mega-projects

A pedestrian would have to walk for several blocks along uninviting, uninteresting streetscapes. Even the museum campus is set far back from the sidewalk. This helps the buildings take advantage of the canal, but the frontage along Washington St is a wasteland.

This streetscape is fronted by buildings set back from (or on top of) the sidewalk

Can this even be classified as a sidewalk? Or did the street grow?

Northwest from the circle we find parking lots. Not much else for a downtown experience. And the one-way streets with timed lights sure make driving fast seem easy.

Walking East from the Circle rewards visitors with this charming site, but then...

...nothing but parking lots and suburban apartments to thrill our visitors

Directly north is our mall of city parks. Also some non-urban buildings. And more parking lots. Still nothing attractive to pedestrians. The library has a great location but we are missing a continuous pedestrian streetscape from the circle to the library door.


The problem with this area is that none of the buildings that front the park spaces are useful to pedestrians. They are just big plots of green that beautify the view for the nearby towers. I am not trying to minimize the importance of the parks, they are wonderful. But they need to be surrounded by properties that address it appropriately. The first step towards correcting this is to reduce one-way streets and slow down traffic. The park will never succeed as an island surrounded by an urban highway.

The Star might find a connection to the city if they physically connect to it

A permit-only parking lot - not a preferred use for this location

Walking northeast from the circle leads to Mass Ave, or at least it does after you walk past some more parking lots. Mass Ave is one of the crown jewels of downtown Indianapolis. And what did the city have to do to achieve this? Two important things: 1) preserve existing buildings & 2) encourage infill development. The old buildings correctly addressed the street with good urban design, but there were so many parking spaces and empty lots that infill development was needed. Urban Indy's post discusses the issue and has a link to lots of photos of the area before and during infill stages.


Mass Ave should be the guide for downtown Indianapolis development. Start with an area that has existing assets. Create small, mixed use plots for independent development where parking lots and asphalt currently exist.

Remove *all* parking requirements from the zoning code in urban areas. In fact, try to actively discourage on-site parking. Provide parking with city sponsored multi-level garages and treat it like part of the road infrastructure. Next, spend a hell of a lot of money on getting the message out, using hired guns for marketing. Connect the area with other downtown amenities. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, just keep it rolling.

The enduring efforts on Mass Ave have led to this latest infill project

Directly east from the circle is the most depressing sight of any downtown I have ever visited. A gravel parking lot. Several, actually. It has been this way for a while. Apparently infill projects that would convert this area into a usable downtown are not good enough. The city is angling for yet another mega-project that would give a nice symmetry with the west side.

Huge, low-profile, block-killing projects that prevent people from walking around. And if they are not walking, they are driving. That's the wrong kind of development. Stop the insanity!

This part of town is shameful

No comment

Is the CCB part of the problem or part of the solution?

Judging from this sign prohibiting walking on the sidewalk, I'm guessing that the CCB needs to rethink its policies on pedestrians

To the southeast is a discouraging blend of special-use structures, parking lots, and parking garages. I do enjoy seeing basketball games and concerts, but there should be some kind of balance between other uses.

The Broadbent building along Washington Street was a wise renovation

Directly south of the circle is the only other part of downtown that was retained. This gives downtown another three blocks extension, and this is widely marketed by the city.In this case, the city only had to avoid bulldozing the original buildings to acquire this unique cultural district.

Past the South Meridian area the downtown region is absolutely destroyed by the parking lots south of the train tracks. In fact, if I was to characterize this part of Indianapolis, I can think of no better descriptor than asphaltic.

Lucas Oil Field is a great stadium, but the Colts only play 10 home games

Indianapolis needs to rethink its urban land-use and construction policies in the downtown area. The zoning code has been reworked within the last decade, but the whole concept of mega-projects ruins natural growth possibilities and clearly kills the pedestrian scale of downtown. Indianapolis needs to follow through on the original plan of an urban square mile. Not just a small CBD area ringed by parking lots and mega-projects. Give the citizens a downtown big enough to justify Indianapolis.

A parking lot visible from Washington Street, how can the owner justify this when tax rates should be astronomical? Good question...

There is no reason to invent a new urban form, all the city needs to do is specify three story (or higher) buildings with limited setbacks and waive all parking requirements. Then subdivide the city-owned blocks into manageable plots and make it easy to develop them. Instant walkable downtown! There, I fixed it. No subsidies required.

Good urban design

And now for some of my favorite annoyances:

Please Indy, demolish more historic buildings - I prefer spectacular concrete UFOs

This is why people like Urbanophile want better looking lightposts, because these don't even look good at 70MPH

This pathetic sign wouldn't be necessary if the original building design had included storefronts