A Place of Sense

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.

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.

One of the key concepts in engineering theory is metastable equilibrium. Systems are designed to resist forces, but a large shock can cause catastrophe.

The classic example of this is a marble resting on the dish. The marble can move in any direction but will come back to rest in the middle of the dish – unless it is pushed hard. Then it is given enough energy to seek a new equilibrium position. Maybe the new equilibrium position is inside a larger dish. Maybe it’s on the floor, rolling straight towards a heating vent.

The principle at work here is minimization of potential energy. Every object at every scale seeks to minimize its energy level. It explains the throwing off of photons from excited electrons in a neon light, it explains the shape of water condensate, it governs the flow of hot gas up a chimney, and, unfortunately, it means that our buildings fall down in high winds.

You can never prevent minimization of potential energy because you can’t stop entropy. However, you can slow it down. You can trick systems into finding a local minima, just like the marble was tricked into the middle of the saucer. This is called metastability. The system is not at its preferred state, but a further investment of energy is needed to push it over the edge. Until that energy is provided the system will remain in its metastable state.

This concept is not only useful in structural engineering, it is broadly applicable. For instance, we can use the principles to discuss why sustainability is important. If we look at the ecological system here in the Midwest, we see that everywhere people are constantly altering small aspects of our environment. None of these actions by itself cause much damage. But if we consider the sum total of all of the actions, we realize that a destabilizing force is being applied.

An ecological system is merely metastable. Most people believe that humans can act as responsible stewards of the environment (e.g. recent tuna conservation debate). The current theories of resource management assume that we can study natural systems and determine where the tipping points are. As long as we don’t push nature over the edge then we can optimize our utility of it.

The problem is that balancing nature on the edge means only a small shock will lead to disaster. History is full of civilizations who have learned too late that nature should not be pushed too far. A recent study pointed out that the Nazca civilization may have been decimated by a combination of over-harvesting Huarango trees before a severe El-Nino event. The old forests are now deserts, having suffered a complete ecological collapse in CE500. The people kept pushing that marble towards the edge, never expecting the strong shock that forced it over.

We are now playing the same game on a global scale. We don’t have to think too hard to find the next shock to the system. Climate change is expected to be capped at a 2degC change, but could go higher if politicians don’t find a way forward in Copenhagen (current rate is 6degC – BBC). This rapid climate change could force our ecological systems over the edge and hurtling out of control.

Not only will these changes devastate our natural resources, especially for those areas fenced in by human development, it will cause our carefully cultivated croplands major problems. Imagine trying to curb world hunger and disease when global crop capacity decreases by 30%.

As an engineer, I am familiar with the effects of upsetting metastability. Our industry is always studying disasters and trying to learn from them. Of course, the disasters leave human tragedy in their wake. Society buries its dead. Survivors return to the scene of the tragedy and face a pile of debris that was once the source of their community. Amid all the calls to rebuild, everyone begins to doubt if what was lost could ever be replaced. We must remember that certain things can never be replaced.

A recent Supreme Court decision has important implications for civic management. In the case regarding the promotion of fire fighters in New Haven CT (Ricci v. DeStefano) the city’s council refused to promote fire fighters to management positions after testing results revealed that certain minority groups tested poorly and were not eligible for advancement.

This case is strongly associated with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII in particular), which has always been a contentious issue. Much of what I am discussing here is the court’s opinion, not necessarily my own, so please don’t bash this post if you don’t agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. This post is only concerned with the beneficial aspects of the Supreme Court clarifying an incredibly complex issue, one that will allow it to come to decisions quicker and with more authority.

In the case of the New Haven firefighters, the Supreme Court found in favor of the firefighters, ruling that the city had imposed disparate-treatment based on prohibited actions. Basically, even though the city extensively studied the test and the test-takers it could find no reason to throw out the results. Because it still threw out the results, its decision was based solely on racial considerations.

This case is important because no good option existed for the city. Any decision they made would have been greeted with anger, lawsuits, and unhappiness. It is not unlike most decisions facing civic governance throughout the US. Cities must make decisions to operate, and this court ruling helps cities decide how to decide.

Based on the arguments made in court by the city, it became clear that the city’s main motivation was to avoid liability under Title VII. There was no other basis for their decision. The court found this argument unacceptable. Decisions must be based on evidence, not fear of litigation.

Complicated issues must be decided by cities all the time. If no actions are taken, then the city becomes paralyzed. This has occurred in many cities already. The city officials and employees are so afraid of running afoul of legislation that they cease making decisions at all. This ruling has clarified the issue at hand – how to come to a decision when either path presents a prima facie liability. It is an easy solution: gather evidence and base the decison on that evidence.

Cities still have to make hard decisions. They still have to deal with the consequences of their decisions. But they can no longer hide behind their fear of litigation, because that in itself is a horrible option.

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.

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.

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?

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

I support health care reform. Not only because I have seen the criminal, demoralizing behavior of the health care insurance industry when I almost cut my arm off (surgery was classified as “elective” so they could deny my claim), but I have also noticed how it forces some employees to remain in their jobs as underpaid and ineffective zombies. Health care in the US is modern day indentured service. If only the health care were worth it, I might understand.

There are many who bristle at the concept of government intervention, but policies regarding building safety have been very effective. Without government intervention, engineers would not have a job and the public safety would be constantly at risk. Paul Krugman (not at fringe of debate, he won the Nobel Prize and writes for NYT) says markets can’t work this problem out by themselves. Just as with building safety, policy that has the interests of the public safety as priority will be the best solution. Krugman’s conclusion when comparing the existing system in place in the US vs other countries is

There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn’t work. And people who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence.

Civil engineers are appropriately lauded for their efforts that have made modern society the healthy, enjoyable world that it is. However, our ethical obligations to preserve life safety don’t stop at the built environment. We have a duty, just as with medical doctors, to continue fighting for the public welfare throughout the world.

A recent Structure magazine editorial focused on what structural engineers do. Barry Arnold answers the ultimate engineering question in his article What Do You Do for a Living?

It is time that we quit seeing ourselves as merely designing beams and columns, and start recognizing and proclaiming that we save lives for a living.

I agree. I also think his argument extends beyond the engineering field into society in general. We, as engineers, do have an ethical obligation to support progressive issues that can affect the public welfare. I think all engineers should support health care reform. Not only for the reforms under consideration but for universal coverage. People in the US should be given the opportunity to access our health care system regardless of who they are or how much they earn.

I have never read in the building codes that we can lower our safety factor when designing an apartment that houses lower income populations. Or that immigrants should live in buildings without a lateral load resisting system. Life safety, public welfare. These are not optional in the construction industry. Why is health care different?

In several trade magazines I have seen stories written to a business manager audience arguing that green/sustainable initiatives are worthwhile because they help attract and retain young engineers. Apparently young engineers have this concept in their unstable heads that they would like to help create a world that is more enjoyable and just.

I certainly agree with that, but I think young engineers are looking for something more important than the opportunity to specify pervious concrete on a future job.

What attracts and ultimately retains the best employees is the strong leadership and proven adaptability that firms need in order to make cultural transitions. Changing policies within an organization requires an effective leadership structure. Adaptability is very attractive to young employees. Nobody wants to work in a bureaucratic nightmare of a job where their efforts to make a difference are absolutely wasted.

When companies refuse to change or refuse to adapt to the realities of the industry, then it won’t be able to attract nor retain quality employees. Hard decisions must be made, and in companies where nobody is able to make these decisions it is clear that the company is paralyzed by fear of action.

The important point here is that going green is just a tactic, but not a strategy, to compete for the best engineers. The marketing of green designs is only a fad; in 10 years from now it will be merely boring policy and yet another item on the code checklist. But innovative, bold companies will already be revising their image to adapt to the next big thing on the horizon.