A Place of Sense

The automobile has been an interesting development in the history of man. Replacing the horse with a machine that can propel itself has certainly given us some great opportunities.

While horses present an inconvenient form of transportation, the modern automobile doesn’t exactly propel itself without needs. Whatever resources a horse may require, a car has a much more extensive list. Gasoline, parts, maintenance, and most importantly lots of roads. Sure its got an engine, but you won’t get far without those trillions of dollars invested in our highway network. In the end, I find both horses and cars a great nuisance.

The freedom of transportation that a car offers is great, but the sad fact is that I am carrying 3,000 lb of useless metal with me everywhere I go. And then I have to find somewhere to park when I arrive. The parking issue becomes very important in large cities. This interesting post by frumination shows what NYC/Manhattan would be like if it was trying to accommodate vehicular traffic every day (via Infrastructurist). Basically mass transit is essential to a city like NYC. Just as elevators are essential to the development of tall buildings.

The US Bureau of Labor releases information how average US consumers spend their income. A recent graphic from Visual Economics summed it up quite nicely, we are spending over 1/6 of our income on car transportation each year.

A lot of people complain about the high cost of public transit system proposals, but it’s obviously not more expensive than cars. If we assume that the entire population of Indianapolis, roughly 800,000 people, were to trade in their vehicles for public transit then we would free up ($8758/2.5)*800,000 = $3B per year to invest in other strategies. I bet we could find a solution with that level of funding. It won’t ever happen, but it’s not impossible to imagine.

On August 10, 2009, the finalists for Dwell/Inhabitat‘s Re-Burbia contest were revealed. All of the finalists had invested a substantial amount of time in preparing their submissions. All looked impressive, most were interesting, and some were eminently practical.

However, I can’t even begin to explain how upset I was when I came to the Vehiforce entry. This is nothing more than a perpetual motion machine. All of the energy needs of a suburban home can now be met by installing a machine in each garage that not only keeps a vehicle’s weight bouncing up and down perpetually but actually extracts useful energy from the process.

Are you kidding me? A finalist?

Honestly, I don’t fault the “inventor”. Many people believe they can invent such machines, even famously brilliant people like Leonardo da Vinci. Unfortunately, the second law of thermodynamics prevents such a device. From the smallest atomic particles to the slow rotation of the Milky Way galaxy, no existing matter is capable of circumventing this law. Stephen Hawking even proved that Black Holes (singular gravity entities) follow similar rules. There truly is no such thing as a free lunch.

What made me upset and caused me such anguish is that the contest jury obviously had no scientific oversight, and probably lacked any technical experts. The contest hosts should be absolutely ashamed to allow this project to have progressed this far. The fact it was not killed immediately upon arrival proves that the contest was not judged according to its stated criteria of:

1. innovation and creativity
2. clarity of design
3. usability and practicality of implementation
4. originality
5. aesthetics
6. quality of solution

I can instantly see that the proposal should have been given a score of zero for criteria 3, 4, & 6. If I were on the panel and it was selected as a finalist I would have withdrawn my name from the jury, I would never allow myself to be associated with such a embarrassment. However, in the parlance of our times this can also be a good opportunity for a “teachable moment”. Allow me to explain what made me so upset, and how everyone can avoid these issues in the future.

Make no mistake that the energy crisis is serious. It will define our future as a species on this planet. We have exhausted much of the easily retrieved energy that our planet had been storing in the form of petroleum. The energy in petroleum came from the same source that all usable energy on earth does – sunlight. Photovoltaic cells, wind turbines, wave power, hydroelectric dams, and photosynthesis all come directly from solar energy. Only nuclear power, geothermal, and certain chemical decompositions at the bottom of the ocean do not involve energy input from the Sun. Any future energy source must come from sunlight (or nuclear fission if you lean that way).

To summarize the relevant laws of thermodynamics:

• Energy can not be created nor destroyed, only shifted from one form to another
• Transferred energy must pay a tax to entropy

Basically, the usefulness of energy degrades as it is used. New, useful energy must come from an outside source (e.g. the sun). Useful energy can not be found in a garage unless someone is storing plutonium.

Once an energy source is found it must be converted to useful work. The most efficient process ever created would almost achieve 100% conversion from one form of work to another. Cars with internal combustion engines achieve about 20%-30% efficiency. They are not now, nor will they ever be a viable solution for our energy needs.

This is important because the source of the energy from a device such as a Vehiforce, if built, would be the car’s engine. The design as drawn would never work. But, as suggested in the comments, it could be reconfigured as a linear system slowly lowering the car from a higher garage level to a lower one. This would be a ridiculously bad idea, however, as you would be wasting a lot of energy.

The car would drive itself up a ramp, stop on the Vehiforce platform, slowly travel downwards recapturing at most 1/3 of the energy used to get it up the ramp to begin with. The rest of the energy would be lost as useless heat out of the tailpipe and the engine. Thus, the Vehiforce would represent one of the most expensive, polluting, and inefficient ways to produce electricity.

As I stated above, our energy crisis is the most serious issue confronting our society right now. To award an important prize to such an idea as this is irresponsible.

What is needed is to break down the barriers of the design world. The innovators must combine forces with the technical experts. Design juries must involve some form of technical oversight to ensure feasibility criteria are met. This will encourage submissions from design teams that are broad based and experienced in design talent as well as technical talent.

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.

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.

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.

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.