A Place of Sense

We were updating our social media and produced some of our favorite images in wide format.  Find the whole collection on this Flickr set or see some favorites in the gallery below.  I wanted to share these photos because I thought they showed many sides of the city, its people and its places.

It will be fun to see how the city continues to change over the next few years.  Indianapolis did not always have a canal district, a cultural trail, or even Monument Circle.  What big thing will Indianapolis take on next?

These images are free for any personal or non-commercial, unmodified use (some rights reserved, so please contact us if you need permission to use them for something else).

 

What is a Complete Bridge?  Well, if you are familiar with transportation issues, you have probably heard of the phrase “Complete Street.”  A Complete Bridge takes this concept of a Complete Street and applies the same standards of safe accessibility for non-motorized transportation.

Complete Streets policies are an excellent way to ensure that our streetscapes reflect our social values, by giving designers a mandate for roadway user inclusion but not tying their hands with any mandated geometries.  It is also a satisfying vindication of basic rights for anyone who gets honked at or has snow plowed into their path just because they use the public right-of-way without an accelerator pedal.

People should be able to use a street safely whether they decide to walk, ride a bike, or drive a car. After all, we call it a “public right-of-way” instead of “private automobile right-of-way” for good reason.  This concept is the essence of public owned space in a democracy.  Our streets are “city property” as a legal convenience, but in reality they are public space – everyone has a right to safely access it using whatever travel modes we can accommodate.

When a Complete Streets bill came to a vote in the Indianapolis City Council, it was a slam dunk.  A policy can’t get more popular than unanimous. Our representatives agreed with public opinion that designing a road for automotive users should never be done at the expense of vulnerable road users like bicyclists and pedestrians.

But that policy has a loophole – if the costs are considered excessive then the policy could be ignored.  This is often an issue when it comes to bridges, because they are such expensive pieces of infrastructure.  While a complete street can usually be designed for a similar price, a Complete Bridge will always be much more expensive than one carrying a single type of traffic.

But bridges are where safe access is needed more than anywhere else, because there aren’t side streets or scenic alternatives.

I find it interesting that even though we recognize our need for Complete Streets in spite of higher costs, we fail to apply the same principles for new bridges.  It seems like current practice for bridge planning is plan a bridge with forecasted traffic conditions of 25 years into the future but plan for ped/bike access with data from 25 years ago.  This is a false economy, because we already know that active transportation is growing by huge amounts every year, and bad bridge plans could restrict this growth and its beneficial consequences.

But we can choose to build better bridges.  If we did, what would a Complete Bridge look like?

1. Follows Complete Street principles
2. Meets current and anticipated long-range uses by alternative transportation modes
3. Uses low-impact design and accounts for mitigation of harmful effects on local residents
4. Provides for public engagement whenever appropriate with scenic viewpoint stations, history centers, or public parks

Our awareness of these issues will force us to redefine what makes a revolutionary bridge, just as the Brooklyn Bridge or Golden Gate did for their eras.  But what about the smaller bridges – the ones that don’t demand special treatment or receive special funding?  These are bridges that people cross over every day without much notice, but it is the ones that carry people to local jobs and kids to local schools that might deserve our closest attention.

Portland is currently building a bridge that might be a good model for planning a bridge of this type, with their Sellwood Bridge project. They are addressing each of the issues listed above in appropriate ways for their community.

The public engagement process is critical, but often overlooked for small bridges.  The new bridge features a pretty good public website too.  Bridges are important in ways that streets aren’t, as they represent the physical location of a mental transition.  Communities rally around bridges and they can become powerful symbols.  Engaging the public early and often means that people begin to care about the bridge and understand the importance of tax money spent on its construction and maintenance.

Portland’s strategy was to create a festival celebrating the bridge closing and the start of new bridge construction.  This 1-time expense helps the local community learn to accept and take  ownership of the bridge building process.

The Sellwood Bridge project is notable because it used the principles of Complete Streets during the planning stage, and also because it planned ahead for the growth of alternative modes.  At the same time, it did not expand the number of automotive lanes because increasing traffic would have negative effects on the local communities that this bridge was meant to serve.  Finally, the planning agency worked hard to engage stakeholders and communicate the reasons for these decisions.

Here in Indianapolis, the citizens are making progress in their quest for Complete Streets.  But we shouldn’t forget that Complete Streets need Complete Bridges.

Have you ever been to an old downtown and marveled at the historic buildings? Have you ever wondered how they could create such beautiful buildings on such small budgets, compared to the placeless architecture we are told is barely affordable today?

The truth is that those multi-story, mixed-use buildings lining the street were built by a different culture.  We are a different people now, and we demand different things from our built environment.

But that old American culture was a very clever one, and we can profit from studying what they did right, and how they did it.  So here is their basic recipe:

1.  Leverage small investments

The typical traditional urban building is between 20 to 40 feet wide, and between 60 to 200 feet deep.  This small width was a product of structural engineering limitations.  A traditional building with masonry walls and wooden floors could not span further without significant cost increases, and tax policies often charged by street frontage instead of square footage.  The result was small frontages and deep buildings.

The overall effect of a traditional streetscape is like walking through a well-curated art exhibit, where people can admire the buildings or the products in the glass storefronts.  The density of different buildings and stores satisfies the pedestrian’s need for visual interest.  It is a key part of what we call “walkability”.

Perhaps even more importantly, the small sizes encouraged ordinary citizens to become developers.  Many buildings were financed directly by business owners or residents, who would offset building costs with lease income from unused spaces.  These self-developing streetscapes ensured that no single developer or architect controlled the evolution of the city.  It would reflect a social, shared history instead.

This is what made historic downtowns beautiful in a way that no government or philanthropist could recreate today, and why historic preservationists nurse a broken heart with every lost structure.

2.  Share with your neighbors

The party wall style of building, where adjacent buildings used the same structural wall to support their floors, was a very important money saving technique in traditional buildings.  From the dawn of human civilization we have been building cities by slowly adding onto the existing structures.  However, new construction codes that strictly regulate fire safety have eliminated this technique, and for all intents and purposes party walls are no longer in common use.  Every building is now an independent structure.

The change has been beneficial in terms of life safety, but the effect on older buildings has been onerous as owners were left with a complicated legal situation just when downtowns were under fierce competition from the suburbs.  The results are plain to see in downtown Indy, where adjacent buildings were torn down for new parking lots and the old walls still bear the marks of beam pockets.

When we lost party walls, we didn’t just lose an inexpensive way to build.  We lost an inexpensive way to live.  A traditional building with party walls on either side will only have exposed facades on the back alley and the front elevation.  There are two benefits:  reduced heating costs and reduced facade costs.

The heating and cooling issues are simple enough to explain, because there are fewer pathways for heat transfer (assuming your neighbor is also climate controlled).  This results in a significant savings compared to independent buildings with 4 exposed walls.

The construction costs are also lower, because only 2 facades must be weather-proof.  The owners typically used the savings to invest in attractive architecture with architectural flourishes, since it made business sense.  The corner buildings, with a higher burden of exposed facade costs, would naturally attract more profitable tenants.  The loss of a corner building is the ultimate way to devastate historic districts, because there will never be a profitable way to replace what has been lost.  The economic conditions that created those buildings is gone.

3.  Build up, not out

Traditional buildings, and traditional streetscapes by extension, never happened overnight. They evolved over time, as each small plot was filled in and then raised upwards.  The neat thing about masonry walls is that they can support an incredible amount of weight if they are braced at each floor level, so adding a new floor on top was usually a simple process.  This gave owners the ability to start small and incrementally expand their property as needed.

Here in Indianapolis you can see this evolutionary process frozen in time.  The old streetcar stops were the commercial areas for each neighborhood, and as you travel towards downtown you will be traveling in time.  On the outskirts of the old city limits, you will find buildings that look like 1-story general stores, but maybe just a solitary one or one that was converted from a residence.  A bit closer in and you will find a healthier pocket of commercial buildings, some with 2 stories.  Look closer, you can usually find where the first buildings were upgraded from 1 to 2 stories.  A change of masonry, architectural style, or apparent age will show.  Sometimes it’s easiest to spot in the rain when the masonry takes in water at different rates.

The closest neighborhoods will have fully formed commercial streets with 4 or 5 story buildings, which were the final stage of traditional building evolution until the invention of the safety elevator.  This incremental development paradigm was a very cost-effective way to establish a business district, and also very different from our current style of development.  The “build at once” streetscape phenomenon is a recent invention, and only necessary because of the presence of parking requirements.

Minimum Parking Requirements, whether for permitting compliance or loan approval, have been the single greatest enemy of the traditional building technique.  The need for parking spaces based on square footage means that adding an additional level to a building requires more parking.  And in an urban area, land is a limited resource.  Building a parking garage is far too costly and complex a process when considering the needs of so many varied businesses on a single street, and so the only solution is to close the business and relocate where land is plentiful.

Lessons to Learn

As you can see, traditional building developers used their limitations as advantages, making the most out of known technology and social behavior. It is up to us to figure out how to apply these concepts to our modern urban areas.  But the key lessons here are to create a development environment where buildings can start small, expand gradually, and create mutually beneficial relationships with their neighbors.

Good urban design recognizes that the street has two sides.  It doesn’t separate people on one side from shops on the other.  Because in a world designed for automotive superiority, streets become barriers much too often.

In short, a good street encourages jaywalking.

The Balcony is one of my favorite architectural inventions.  They are important both in terms of aesthetic character and function, as they can give buildings a special look or a special purpose.  For example, the balconies on the Marina City or Aqua Tower in Chicago become their identity, either by being repetitive or being different, whereas the balconies of the French Quarter buildings in New Orleans become platforms for a street party almost independent of the buildings themselves.

 

Balconies are a blend of public and private space, giving people spatial separation but maintaining visibility in both directions. They are places where the synergy of shared public space begins to make sense, and a district with good balconies is usually a district worth celebrating. They are a great opportunity for architectural expression.  They can frame a special view of the city skyline.  They are flexible spaces that could be used for a political stage or for hanging laundry.

 

 

We know that balconies and similar architectural elements are very important in creating a feeling of community, but they began disappearing from American neighborhoods in the 1940s.  Not only were TV and Air Conditioning becoming widespread, but the suburbanization of our cities and streets had begun.  People were not prioritizing outdoor public space after the roads became highways and the sidewalks became barren.  Developers began including fake balconies as a nod to historic character and leaving out the real thing.

 

 

The frequent omission of balconies from modern buildings means that I’m always excited to see them in new developments.  The demand for balcony space is clearly evident for anyone who pays attention.  I find it interesting when people use other parts of the building as makeshift balconies.   It’s amazing to see people responding naturally to large crowds in the streets (even though as an engineer who frequently designs guardrails, it frightens the hell out of me to see people exposed to risk like that).  It’s my hope that as the city begins to create its own special places we will find ways to restore old balconies and build new ones.  But most importantly, I hope that our city continues to give people a reason to use them.

 

 

On October 12, 1492, the first modern Europeans set foot in the land now known as the Americas.  We tend to think of urbanism arriving with them.  But the truth is that cities rose well before “Columbus sailed the ocean blue”.  I wanted to share a few that exemplified the type of urban design happening in Pre-Columbian North America.

We don’t always know very much about these places or the people who built them.  But we know enough to give us some important clues about how they lived and what they thought was important.  Many of these sites are now protected from threat and open to visitors.  These are a great opportunity to go study the evolution of urban form in the Americas.

 

FROM NOMADS TO CITIZENS

Native American Indians were originally nomadic, but American agriculture began about 5,000 BCE.  Agriculture was a big deal, because it allowed dense human settlements.  These settlements used similar features because the different cultures shared the same set of technologies and concepts of urbanism.  The builders were familiar with other sites and would borrow ideas from the earlier proto-cities.

The main architectural style used in these cities involves earthworks or mound-building.  You can see in the photos that the earliest mounds were quite small and limited in function.  But over time, the mounds became an opportunity for innovation.  And so the simple earthen mounds became stone platforms for important structures.  In later cities, they became pyramids with stone temples at their top.

The urban form of these cities also changed over time.  The earliest settlements used the mound or pyramid structures for sacred rites, but not necessarily as a place to live.  But as more energy was invested in the structures, they began to play a larger role in society. And as these sites gained more importance, the builders began formally planning their city centers.

 

ADENA

Close to the home of Urban Indy is Mounds State Park in Anderson, IN.  The Great Mound is a very well preserved ceremonial site built around 200 BCE by the Adena people living here. It is not a city, but I wanted to share it because it offers a glimpse into the cultural technologies that the people in this area would later use to build their cities and create special places within them.

A site this old (over 2000 years) keeps many of its secrets, but the consensus is that the people were farmers and fishermen and used canoes to travel on the river systems.  The Great Mound is the central place among a larger complex of mounds, one that forms a solar observatory with solar alignments used to track the course of the year. In effect this was their calendar, but maybe it would be more appropriate to think of it like a clock tower in terms of significance to the people.

There are some key things to be learned from this site.  Even 2,000 years ago in the Midwest region, native American Indians are living in stable communities, they are cooperating and investing energy into their infrastructure, and they know how to plan a site so that it becomes more than the sum of its parts.

 

MISSISSIPPIAN

Just a quick drive from St. Louis is Cahokia Mounds.  It is one of the most significant archaeological sites in the US, but it sometimes feels as though few people even know of its existence.  It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, one of only 8 cultural sites in our nation designated as being of supreme importance to the story of human civilization.  Estimates suggest that at its peak it was a city of 20,000 residents, and was occupied from the 10th century until the 14th.

What we know from excavations is that the residents built houses or ceremonial structures on top of each mound.  Thus the mounds reflected an elevated position in society.  But that wasn’t the only purpose, because the mounds and wooden buildings were also used to organize the city into streets, public places, and defensive structures.

The scale of the main mound is massive.  It is large enough to pass for a geologic formation, and probably would have been except for its regular shaped sides.  But this mound was indeed built by people moving dirt by hand.  As such, it’s definitely notable as one of the earliest and largest single public works projects in American History.

A recreated “woodhenge” lies just to the west of the main mound.  Not surprisingly, the Cahokia residents needed a solar observatory to track the passing of the seasons.  A prehistoric farmer would still need to know when to plant and harvest with certainty, as well as timing the important religious ceremonies held here.

Cahokia is across the river from St. Louis which makes it easily accessible for just about anyone to visit.  I recommend visiting often and treading lightly.

There are many mounds in the area, up to 120 special places built for a specific reason that we may never know.  Undoubtedly, some have been lost forever to the plow and bulldozer. The parts that remain are an amazing testament to the dedication of these early American urbanists.

 

PUEBLOAN

The Pueblo group of American Indians have a unique place in American History.  Living in cliff dwellings in the canyons or on top of Mesas in the American Southwest, they maintain the communities they founded over 1,000 years ago. No easy feat considering they live in a very dry ecosystem.  They responded to their environment in different ways than the farmers of the Mississippi River system, and so you don’t see mounds but structures built into the ground for thermal regulation.

At the height of their ancient civilization, they created a sacred urban center at Chaco Canyon (another UNESCO World Heritage Site) with roads radiating from this central place throughout their territory.  What makes their city planning interesting is the amount of thought they put into their buildings.  They could track solar movements as well as lunar movements with precision, a good example of their patience and skill.

They developed their own system of civil engineering technology to find ways to store and control the scarce water supplies.  Other Pueblo sites include the sky city of Acoma and the World Heritage Site of Taos Pueblo.  While some sites are open for visitation, a lot of them feature active communities living in the houses their ancestors built hundreds of years ago.  I would have to vote these places as the most sustainable of American communities, by far.

The residents appreciate their privacy, so there are not many photos of modern life in a Pueblo.  But you can visit many sites that are no longer inhabited, even some that have been Americanized with the missing handrails and parking lots added.  You’re welcome, ancient Puebloans.

 

MAYAN

In the areas that are now Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala the people of the Mayan civilization produced many cities, including some that would rival the size of any in Europe at that time.  Mayans had a sophisticated society and their cities reflected it.  They also had some advanced technology not available “north of the border” including a written language, a numeral system, a corbel arch, and the famous long calendar that could track celestial events across thousands of years.

At places like El Castillo, the Maya built stone temples on top of pyramids.  This gave their sacred sites a greater sense of permanence.  The stone buildings also have a greater psychological impact, one which is easy to appreciate even a thousand years after original construction.

On the other hand, the Mayans were not as interested in establishing a city plan with grand gestures.  Their cities were never very dense, and they did not create strong axes, regular shaped public spaces, or strong streetwalls, at least based on the limited examples I have seen.  (and yes please correct me in the comments if I misstate anything)

 

TEOTIHUACAN

 Teotihuacan is one of the most important sites in central Mexico.  This city held over 100,000 residents at its peak circa 600 CE, which made it one of the top 10 population centers in the world at that time.  Teotihuacan is famous for the formal planning of its ceremonial center.  The buildings were laid out on a strict axis and were remarkable displays of engineering technology and political vision (it’s not easy or convenient to build with perfectly straight lines).

The main avenue was addressed by several temples, pyramids, and public spaces, which establish a street frontage and setback paradigm.  On a festival day, the wide paved street could hold many thousands of residents (similar to our urban malls) as well as the people visiting from the surrounding “suburban” villages.  The Pyramid of the Sun, halfway along the avenue, is the 3rd largest pyramid in the world.  Looking down the street sightline makes it obvious why they were building this way.  This place is just flat out amazing.

But the real attraction to this city is the plaza and marketplace in front of the Temple of Quetzlcoatl.  It was this marketplace that solidified the city’s significance as the economic and political powerhouse of North America.  Like any good public space, people traveled from all over to trade rare goods and perhaps wonder what life was like in the palaces and mansions surrounding the plaza. Teotihuacan eventually was abandoned for unknown reasons, and like Cahokia we know little about the reasons why.

 

AZTEC

Tenochtitlan was the capital city of the Aztec empire, established on July 18th, 1325 CE.  We know a lot about this place because it was the leading power in Central America when the Spanish arrived, and had a population upwards of 200,000 residents.  The people of Tenochtitlan had developed a way of farming on a lake, or what we might call aquaponics.  This was a very efficient process for growing food, and the dense city became a strong military and economic center.  With aqueducts piping in fresh water, paved streets, and a thriving market economy, the city was a marvel to behold for the first historians who visited.

The city is still there and now known as Ciudad de Mexico (Mexico City). With a population of 21 million people, it still the largest city in the Americas.  Unfortunately, the war of conquest scraped this city to its foundations so what we see now is a Spanish Colonial layout. Later on the lake was drained to prevent flooding. These facts complicate the study of Tenochtitlan because the historic city center has been built over by modern society.

 

These examples only scratch the surface of what was going on in Pre-Columbian cities.  I think it’s a fascinating topic because there are so many sites in good condition that can be visited.  It’s a great way to study how people and crowds relate to public spaces and monumental architecture.  I also enjoy seeing how each society has their own style, because they are all revealing a small bit of truth about what we really want in a city.

We are fortunate in Indianapolis to have the Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art.  It houses a museum of local and regional history as well as contemporary art.  It is downtown next to the White River State Park, conveniently located 50 miles downstream of the Adena Great Mound in Anderson.

The month of August has spoiled those of us who enjoy awesome things.  Case in point: The inaugural Fountain Square Grand Prix bicycle criterium race held on August 18th, 2012.

I loved the race being held on that day. There was a strong symbolism to the FSGP being held on the same weekend as the MotoGP at the Speedway. Indy is a town that loves to host a good competition.  But it also loves to host a good party, and that’s why the Cataracts 2012 music festival being held at the same time and only 1 block away from the bicycle race made this a perfect Indianapolis blending of Sports & Entertainment.

A criterium race is a timed race held on a closed city street.  You can imagine that the street patterns in Fountain Square can provide some interesting course geometries, and indeed the course was set up in an almost-figure eight configuration, which means that you see each rider at least twice on each lap at the main intersection.

It was also fun to see people being able to use the streets and sidewalks for a public celebration.  Currently, the square of Fountain Square is being rehabbed and integrated into the cultural trail and cycle-track, which makes for a bit of construction mess, but you can tell that it is shaping up really well.  This new public space is going to be a great rallying point for future events like FSGP.

Thanks to everyone who planned, raced, sponsored, or worked at the FSGP or Cataracts.  It was an enormous but greatly appreciated effort.

The weekend of August 17-19 was a great one for this Capital City, as documented in the IndyStar.  There were a lot of options available and I hope everyone here took advantage of some.  The Cataracts 2012 music festival was my event of choice, and I’m quite happy I attended.  The music was great, the people were friendly, and the weather was unbelievable.  NUVO wrote an article on the event, or you can get a feel for the experience by watching this:

It was just a lot of fun, as you can see in that video.  I don’t have the equipment to capture such music, but hopefully you get a sense of the dynamic energy that these bands can bring.  Here are some more shots from the music fest Friday and Saturday.

It has been a great summer for cycling action here in Indianapolis.  We are seeing great returns on our infrastructure investments, and our citizens are starting to embrace bicycle culture more enthusiastically.  A good example of this was the Mass Ave Crit 2012 held last weekend.

 

The Mass Ave Crit is one of the most established races in the area, and it was a great turnout from spectators, fans, and cyclists.  The event was blessed with beautiful weather and a lot of support from the community.  I watched as many of the races as I could, and there was great action on every lap.

 

 

 

So now that the MAC and IndyCrit are complete, we have one more event to look forward to.  It’s going to be a big weekend in Fountain Square, and the weather is looking good for the first Fountain Square Grand Prix!  And of course, this neighborhood is ready to usher in the bike race with a great lineup of music, food, and a big race.

 

Concert Schedule at the bottom of this Indy Star article “Psyched in Fountain Square“.  These are gonna be some great tunes.

Race map and race schedule on this flyer by Joe’s Cycles (and also an interview with Joe here).  If you had any doubts about whether Fountain Square has “made it” as a neighborhood yet, just look at the sponsors at the bottom of that flyer.  If you don’t recognize any of them, you need to be spending more time in this part of town because they all kick ass.  It’s a great opportunity to celebrate summer cyling and the urban vibes that drive this neighborhood.

US cities have a long history of bicycling, and Indianapolis is no exception.  However, much of the attention over the past few decades has focused on bicycles as recreation, instead of transportation.  But if we look at the example set by cities where bikes are truly integrated into the transportation scheme, we see they have evolved quite differently from our own rolling stock.  An in-depth look at Copenhagen Cycle Chic will bring you many examples of this bike from Denmark and around the world.

Recently, I had the opportunity to buy an old City Bike and learn more about it.  This bike came with a story: a Dutch man brought it over to the US many years ago and used it to explore American cities outside of a car.  This story was somewhat of a mystery to me when I first heard it.  After all, what would convince a person to ship a huge and heavy bike across the world when local bikes were readily available?

After several months of riding this bike, I can honestly see why someone would grow attached to it in this way.  It is unlike other bikes I have owned, even a recent comfort bike marketed for city cruising does not compare.  It all comes down to having the right design philosophy.  These European City Bikes have developed into their current form because of their adherence to 3 key principles:

1. Reliability
2. Convenience
3. Affordability

 

This, along with 100 years of constant improvement, have created a form that is ubiquitous in cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam.  The features of any given bike depend on the particular climate and needs of the owner, but here is a summary of some common features:

A City Bike is a solid machine intended to get its rider to their destination no matter what the weather or street conditions.  This dependability and durability fosters a relationship between the rider and the bike.  Truth be told, I would gladly pay to ship this bike across the world if I thought that a similar one were not available at my destination.

These bikes are great for the demands of a city-dweller.  Any weather, any time of day, and any trip can be accommodated.  The steel frame provides a very comfortable ride compared to a carbon fiber or aluminum option.  The headlights really get attention.  The carrying capacity is only bested by long frame or cargo bikes, and a city bike is often used for 2-up riding. The shifting is smooth and solid. And you never have to worry about getting chain grease on your clothing.

After a relative scarcity of City Bikes in the US, new models are once more becoming available.  Look for Batavus or Gazelle for an authentic version, or check out some of the others on this list. If interested, I suggest talking to your local bike shops first.  Just remember, these bikes are made to last for generations and only rarely require maintenance.  But when it is time, you will want experienced hands working on these mechanisms.

And finally, a word about affordability.  The use of a steel frame and standardized components really brings the cost down, compared with space-age exotic materials and integrated shifters found on most American bikes.  Even with my purchase price, the new front hub and lighting system, and professional maintenance, I have less than $500 invested in my bike.  I know it’s not an insignificant amount, but a really good value when all is considered.  It is my hope that even if a city bike revolution is not just around the corner, that everyone understands a bit more about them.

 

(acknowledgments:  thanks to Curt Ailes for helping me photograph these.  Also, thanks to those at IndyCog and the Mayor’s office who have worked hard to improve bicycling infrastructure, you have made City Bikes useful in Indianapolis and I am very greatful.)