Author Archives: rdmyers75@hotmail.com

“new vision” for suburbia

This article from The Smithsonian presents some ideas on the future of suburbia.

With truly autonomous vehicles still years away, no one can say with much certainty if they will result in people spending less time in cars. But Berger does foresee one big potential benefit—much less pavement. Based on the notion that there likely will be more car-sharing and less need for multiple lanes since vehicles could continuously loop on a single track, Berger believes the amount of pavement in a suburb of the future could be cut in half. You would no longer need huge shopping center parking lots, or even driveways and garages.

Not only would fewer paved surfaces increase the amount of space that could be used for carbon-storing trees and plants, but it also would allow more water to be absorbed and reduce the risk of flooding in cities downstream.

That kind of interdependence between suburbs and downtowns is at the heart of how Berger and others at the CAU see the future. Instead of bedroom communities of cul-de-sacs and shopping malls, the suburbs they’ve imagined would focus on using more of their space to sustain themselves and nearby urban centers—whether it’s by providing energy through solar panel micro-grids or using more of the land to grow food and store water.

I almost liked the article until I got to the Joel Kotkin quote:

“The reality is that the large majority of people want to live in suburbs,” says Joel Kotkin, a fellow of urban studies at Chapman University in California and the author of The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us. “People make these choices for all kinds of reasons that urban theorists don’t pay attention to. They’d rather live in a detached house than in an apartment building. Or they can’t afford to live in the middle of a city. Or they’re worried about where their kids will go to school.”

It’s a scare tactic. Yes, dictators of the past may have forced people into high rise housing blocks at gunpoint in a few cases. That is not happening in the United States right now. In fact, most of us are not able to make a choice between car-dependent and walkable communities because walkable communities are in short supply. Things that are in short supply and high demand tend to be expensive. They are expensive because they are desirable and limited, not because they are undesirable and people are being forced to live there against their will. The nascent trend toward city living would have to continue for a long, long time before there is any lack of suburbs to choose from.

I can’t deny that the state of many urban school districts is problematic. Schools in the United States tend to be locally funded, so that areas with higher concentrations of poverty have worse schools. And areas with higher concentrations of minorities have worse schools because racist and ideologically anti-city politicians from rural areas are able to starve them of funding in many states. All this leads to a downward spiral of poor outcomes and low expectations that is hard to break out of.

no coffee grounds in compost?

This article is a bit disturbing, because I have been composting coffee grounds for years with seemingly good results. Then again, I wasn’t doing an actual controlled experiment.

Applying spent coffee grounds directly to urban agriculture soils greatly reduces plant growth

There are frequent anecdotal recommendations for the use of locally produced spent coffee grounds in urban agriculture and gardens, either through direct soil application or after composting with other urban organic wastes. This study investigates the scientific basis for direct application of spent coffee grounds (SCG) and the influence of different: i) plant pH and nitrogen preferences, ii) soil types, and iii) application rates. We specifically consider impacts upon plant growth, soil hydrology and nitrogen transformation processes.

We grew five horticultural plants (broccoli, leek, radish, viola and sunflower) in sandy, sandy clay loam and loam soils, with and without SCG and fertilizer amendments. The same horticultural plants were grown in the field with 0, 2.5, 5, 10 and 25% SCG amendment rates. Plant biomass growth was related to soil pH, soil moisture, nitrogen concentration and net mineralization, as was weed growth after harvesting.

All horticultural plants grew poorly in response to SCG, regardless of soil type and fertiliser addition. Increasing SCG amendment significantly increased soil water holding capacity, but also decreased horticultural plant growth and subsequent weed growth. There was evidence of nitrate immobilization with SCG amendment. Growth suppression was not explained by soil pH change, or nitrogen availability, so is more likely due to phytotoxic effects.

Fresh SCG should not be used as a soil amendment in ‘closed loop’ urban food production systems without consideration of potential growth suppression. Further research is required to determine the optimal composting conditions for SCG and blends with other organic wastes.

I’m not a very scientific composter. I just throw stuff together in an old recycling bin, then when it fills up I move it to another bin, and then a third (despite a few raised eyebrows from neighbors, I rescued all these bins on my old street after they were abandoned for at least a week, and filled with litter and dog crap). At that point it’s usually a nice crumbly organic mix that I can use. I don’t follow any of the rules. I don’t mix green and brown items in the right proportions, I let it get wet and dry according to the rain, I compost perennial weeds, and my pile almost certainly doesn’t get hot enough. I probably wouldn’t give the stuff away because there are weeds in there, but I don’t worry about putting it back on my garden, which is where the weeds came from. If they want to keep pulling carbon dioxide out of the air and turning it into organic matter for me, I am fine with that. I would rather be outside pulling weeds than doing almost anything inside.

Pennsylvania governor on anti-city policies

Here is the Pennsylvania governor talking about how state policy disadvantages cities and what could be done about it.

  • Regional land use planning
  • Zoning ordinances and planning codes that allow mixed use, high density communities
  • Urban growth boundaries like Portland, Oregon
  • Inclusive zoning like Montgomery County, Maryland
  • Change public infrastructure investment strategy to promote redevelopment of old settlements
  • Strike a better balance between highway and mass transit funding
  • Consolidate and restore old industrial sites for redevelopment
  • Reform local tax policies starting with the state taking a bigger share of funding for public education

In the end, the struggle for our cities will depend on the outcome of the competition between suburbs and cities. The outcome will largely be determined by the extent to which that competition is a fair one.

I like most of this, but I’m not so sure about the city vs. suburb talk. Part of regional coordination and planning would be to think of the success of a metro area as a whole, from its most intensely urbanized core out to the less dense areas. But I like the urban growth boundary concept, because it puts a lower limit on how far out that development can go and how much infrastructure it can gobble up to get services to people who are spread out, at every else’s expense. Education funding could be done well at this metro area scale, rather than pitting many tiny municipalities and school districts against each other as it does now (a problem across the U.S., but Pennsylvania is particularly bad). I am skeptical of the state, which draws much of its political power from the empty spaces between metro areas, being the solution. Its existence depends on sucking resources out of the population centers where economic activity happens and taxes get paid, and redistributing them to the empty spaces. Even more insidious, in our state at least racism plays a role in the urban vs. rural divide, as well as the city center vs. suburban divide.

“the new war on cancer”

I remember that one of the (few) things that caught my attention in the last State of the Union address was talk of a new research plan to cure cancer. This article in The Week talks about what that is.

recently, researchers have had very encouraging results with a new approach called immunotherapy. Some patients in advanced stages of the disease, who previously would have been deemed terminal, have undergone rapid and complete recoveries. Hoping to build on that progress, President Obama in January announced a $1 billion “moonshot” to cure cancer, putting Vice President Joe Biden — whose son Beau died of brain cancer last year — in charge of “mission control.” …

Another promising new frontier is genetic analysis, which splits each type of cancer into dozens of subtypes, so that specific chemotherapy drugs can be tailored to each cancer. Experts also now hope they can use the breakthrough gene-editing technique called CRISPR to correct mutations in cancer cells, or perhaps “edit” out mutation-prone genes that people inherit…

In August 2015, former President Jimmy Carter announced he had been diagnosed with advanced melanoma, a type of skin cancer that had spread to his liver and brain. “I’m perfectly at ease with whatever comes,” said Carter, then 90. Four months later, Carter announced he was cancer-free. Along with radiation, Carter had been put on pembrolizumab (brand name Keytruda), a checkpoint inhibitor that stops cancer cells from blocking the immune system’s response. Soon after, Carter’s scans showed no evidence of the original cancer lesions on his brain, or any new lesions. Given that cancer can often reappear years down the line, oncologists prefer to talk in terms of “years of remission” rather than “cure” — but like Carter, some cancer patients on Keytruda have seen their disease disappear completely. Not surprisingly, says melanoma specialist Dr. Patrick Ott, Carter’s miraculous recovery has prompted patients across the country to demand, “I want what Jimmy Carter had.” Doctors caution that in clinical trials, Keytruda shrank the tumors in only 24 percent of patients, and that it only works on certain types of cancer.

Donald Shoup

I can never get enough Donald Shoup. Here are some policies he suggested at a recent talk in Philadelphia:

  • parking benefit districts, where parking revenues go to street and pedestrian improvements, so people can see what they are paying for
  • parking permit blacklists – essentially, people who move into new buildings without parking are not allowed to apply for city parking permits. This might seem unfair, but in my neighborhood in Philadelphia one way existing residents are able to hold up new development is by raising parking concerns with their elected politician. So this could be politically practical in that it might remove one of the sticking points between long-established residents and newcomers. At least, alleviating this one concern might allow people to move on and tackle others. It would force the new developments to either provide onsite parking, or just develop in places and ways where people are not going to demand as much parking. You could drop any minimum parking requirements and let the market decide.
  • Parking cash-out – employees who choose not to use company-paid parking can opt for a cash payment instead. California has done this apparently and it makes sense to me. It removes a perverse incentive for some people to choose driving to work over other options.
  • build transit passes into University fees

Are you safer on the crumbling D.C. Metro or on the highway?

Well, this is kind of embarrassing. On the surface, the D.C. Metro is one of the country’s more modern and efficient transit systems, at least compared to the trains and subways I am used to riding in Philadelphia. And most major U.S. cities don’t have a comprehensive and reliable system like Philadelphia’s, dirty, old, slow, and laden with bad attitude as it is. So it’s embarrassing that not only can we not build the new infrastructure we need to help the economy operate efficiently and grow, we are letting the infrastructure we have fall apart apparently.

Embarrassing though it is, this little ironic piece (which never admits to being irony, and there are actually people online arguing over whether it is real) points out that if safety is really the main concern, to the point that some are suggesting shutting down the D.C. Metro, car and truck travel should also be banned. In fact, shutting down the nation’s most dangerous transit system and forcing people to drive would be statistically certain to kill people.

Since 2009, 14 Metro riders and employees have died in collisions, derailings, and other incidents. On an annual basis, that translates to about 0.48 fatalities per 100,000 weekday riders.*

However, Secretary Foxx noted that this is exceeded by the fatality rate of car crashes in every single American metropolitan area for which data was compiled in a recent report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In San Francisco, 3.75 people died in automobile crashes per 100,000 residents in 2014, a rate 7.8 times higher than the fatality rate on Metro. In Raleigh, NC, the automobile crash fatality rate was 7.50 per 100,000, or about 15.6 times higher than the fatality rate on Metro. And in Dallas, the automobile crash fatality rate was 12.02 per 100,000, or about 25.0 times higher than the fatality rate on Metro.

It’s not acceptable to have people dying due to negligence and preventable accidents, but this does illustrate the double standard where we accept the commonplace violence on our roads and streets as a necessary evil, assuming it is not preventable. We are also just desensitized to it, whereas the occasional transit accident or plane crash is a shock and gets a lot more media coverage paradoxically because it is not that common.

resilience.org roundup

This “resilience roundup” links to so many interesting articles I just couldn’t pick one or two to link to. Among them:

  • an argument that the “clean energy miracle” is here, and the press and the public just haven’t picked up on it yet
  • a map of the global coal trade – an awesome map/Sankey diagram combo almost as cool as that famous one of Napolean’s death march into Russia
  • the predicted return of oil shortages and high prices
  • an argument that the big multinational oil companies need to “adapt or die”
  • a cool animated gif of global warming

 

1 billion dogs

I never thought to even wonder how many dogs there are in the world. But according to this article, about a billion. I don’t know if that is morally right or wrong. I like dogs. They are generally benign, kind-hearted creatures, and you could certainly make an argument that the world would not be as good a place without them. But they certainly have an ecological footprint. The article contrasts dogs and wolves, which have been systematically eradicated in many cases. So while dogs are neat creatures in many ways there are probably many wild creatures that might exist out there if they did not. Now we could examine this same moral conundrum with respect to a certain species of intelligent hairless ape…

“hybrid” infrastructure

I like a couple things in this abstract from the journal Cities.

One is a definition of hybrid infrastructure as “infrastructure systems that are integrated within buildings and landscapes that also provide non-infrastructure uses”. In other words, you are trying to kill two birds with one stone. This should be efficient and cost-effective compared to killing two birds with two stones, but the reason it often doesn’t happen (at least in the U.S. cities I am familiar with) is that there are typically two entities responsible for killing one bird each, and if their stone happens to kill the other bird they will ignore that and not count it as a benefit. Each agency calculates the cost as one stone, while the actual cost to society was two stones. (The only problem with this analogy, obviously, is that we are talking about ecological benefits and killing birds would actually be bad.)

The second thing I like is that the question asked is about the “maximum ecological performance potential of buildings and landscapes”. This is a nice question to ask – not just how can one type of infrastructure perform one function cost-effectively, but how can it fit into the landscape and perform many functions at the same time. If those two agencies (or in real life, 10 or 20 agencies) were all asking this question together, maybe you could achieve much better outcomes in cities.

Trumpism, fascism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, etc.

This article, from Salon write Robert Sharp, makes some interesting points about the Trump phenomenon. Even if he falls flat in the general election, what the experts say is inevitable (and I want to agree, but we have all been wrong about everything so far…), his success raises some disturbing questions about the mindset of the population and where the country could be headed in future decades. To summarize, the article says that by offering a return to past glory, but offering no specifics, Trump allows each person to hear what they want to hear, visualize their own personal utopia, and imagine that everyone around them agrees.

While Totalitarian regimes present themselves as harbingers of a better future, they do so by appealing to the perception of a glorious past that has since been lost due to the mismanagement of the existing politicians. Thus Hitler referenced a Wagnerian vision of Germany as the source of two of the world’s great Reichs in order to present his Third Reich as a continuation of German greatness. Similarly, Mussolini invoked the orderliness and domination of Ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy in order to restore an ancient pride that would lead to a new prominence on the world stage. Such leaders follow a common pattern, in which they blame any failures of their society on the incursion of Others, who lack the purity of the true members of the nation-state.

While the details differ, the call to action carries a consistent refrain: the totalitarian leader promises to make the country great again, to return it to past glories that have long since been lost.

In many ways, calling Trump supporters an analog to the rise of Nazi Germany is too easy, and far too dismissive. However, there is this one obvious similarity. Hitler and the Nazi party appealed to a people who believed that their Golden Age was past them, and that the world was moving on without them. The appeal of the nationalism that was offered was that it would allow a return to greatness, a necessary repeal of all of the policies, both externally imposed and internally permitted, that had led to their fall. Trump offers a very similar message, and he couches it in a way that allows his followers to fill in the blank. Whatever version of the good life they believe existed in their parents’ or grandparents’ day, that is the world that Trump plans to recreate. It is a compelling narrative, because it is their own narrative, and each individual gets to tell his or her own story while simultaneously believing that everyone else around them is thinking the same thing.