Category: Urban Planning Page 4 of 5

New York vs. L.A.

On April 16, 2012

Wiltshire Blvd., LA. Source: Wikimedia Commons

About 10 days ago the New York Times ran a fascinating Room for Debate topic asking: Should Los Angeles New Yorkify? I think this is a fascinating debate and it is very prescient considering that the American Planning Association is hosting their annual conference in LA this week.

Unfortunately for me, I am unable to attend this year’s APA conference. This won’t stop me from weighing in on the matter even though I have only visited these two cities exactly once.

As an urban planner, I have had a lot of preconceived notions about what exactly LA is and is not. I thought I knew it to be a sprawling, low density, suburban template with no real sense of place and no urbanity. The reality is much more nuanced than this. Yes, LA has sprawl, but did you know it is actually the most population dense metropolitan area in the country? Now, of course, this is in terms of metro areas and not a direct comparison of Manhattan vs. the San Fernando Valley. LA has urban, really urban pockets. Hollywood is really urban. So too are many of the suburbs like Pasadena and Santa Monica.

Third St., Santa Monica, CA. Source: Wikimedia Commons

So it’s established that LA is its own kind of city, albeit in an urban form that is nothing like New York. New York is built the way it is exactly because of its dense mass transit system, among the largest in the world, and the constraints of geography. LA is building a mass transit network worthy of its size only because it has finally reached the limits of its geography (hemmed in by mountains on all sides). And I think LA has realized the limitations to the car and the auto-centric urban form that is ingrained in its fabric and has realized that the LA of the future can be many things to many people. It won’t be New York, but who cares? New York is New York.

The Olympic Games and Urban Development

By Ryan Richter

On April 11, 2012

In Infrastructure, Olympics, Urban Planning

London Olympic Park under construction in Oct. 2009 Source: supermoving @ Flickr

In this part of the Olympic Games series, we’ll examine the role that the Olympic Games has played as a catalyst for urban development, particularly in the form of transport infrastructure.

The evolution of the modern Olympic Games can be related in terms of size and cost. As each Olympiad passes, the cost borne by the host city and country has grown. In the 1896 Athens Games, there were 245 athletes from 14 countries that participated. The next time Athens hosted an Olympic Games, in 2004, there were 10,625 athletes from 201 countries. The cost of the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens was approximately €9 billion euro.

The growth of the Olympics has had a profound effect on the Olympic host city. Due to the escalating costs of hosting an Olympic Games, the IOC established an Olympic Games Study Commission to “analyze the current scale and scope of the Olympic Games…to propose solutions to help manage the inherent size, complexity, and cost of staging the Olympic Games in the future”. In the last few decades, however, this complexity has grown beyond the organization and implementation of the Olympic Games. Rather, organizing an Olympic Games has increasingly been used as an opportunity for urban renewal and economic development. This includes the increased economic activity as a result of tourism, the construction of sport facilities in previously under-provided areas, and the justification for new investment in transportation infrastructure and urban design.

The popularity of the Olympic Games among the countries of the world has much to do with the television broadcast of the Games. Since the 1960 Olympics in Rome, television has had an increasingly important role in displaying the Olympics and its ideals to the world. The 2000 Sydney Games attracted over 20,000 journalists and was watched by over 3.7 billion television viewers. This coverage has led to increasing popularity and participation among the countries of the world. In 1988, 159 countries participated in Seoul’s Summer Olympics. By the time of Sydney’s Olympics in 2000, there was 200 countries participating.

Olympic Village and Vancouver. Source: City of Vancouver

As the popularity of the Olympics has grown in terms of participation and spectators, a place to house Olympic athletes and officials was needed close to the Olympic venues. This need was recognized long ago, back in 1932. The first Olympic Village was constructed for the 1932 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The Village was built on 250 acres and contained several hundred dwellings, a post office, amphitheater, hospital, fire station, and bank. In contrast, the Olympic Village planned for London’s 2012 Olympic Games will provide lodging for 17,000 people with shops, restaurants, a hospital, media facilities, and direct transportation to central London via train. In both cases, the Olympic Villages were constructed adjacent to much of the sporting venues, thus creating the term “Olympic City.”

Because of the requirements of hosting the Olympics and because of the increasing popularity of the Olympics from the number of athletes and events to tourism, host cities are recognizing the urban impacts that the Olympic Games can have on their environments. Cities recognize that the potential long-term benefit of hosting the Olympic Games is the opportunity it provides to influence the pattern of urban development through investment in infrastructure and environmental improvements. As a result of winning the bid to host the Olympic Games, urban development in host cities are required to perform three major functions:

Primary Structure: Sport and Leisure

Stadium
Indoor Arena
Special facilities: swimming pool, shooting range, rowing course, equestrian facilities

Secondary Structure: Housing and Recreation

Athlete and media village (Olympic Village)
Media and press center
Training facilities
Parks

Tertiary Structure: Infrastructure

Transportation

Airport
Public transport
Roads and Highways

Tourism

Hotels
Attractions

Utility

Sewers: drainage and sanitary
Telecommunications

These urban development structures may or may not conflict with the host city’s own plans for urban development, but the Olympic Games provides the vehicle for expedient development. Since the 1960’s, many of the Olympic host cities have followed this structure that guides urban development.

The primary structure involves the physical development of sport and leisure facilities that are needed to successfully host the Olympic Games. These structures can already exist in a city or be newly constructed. Venues of this type can be subdivided into stadiums, halls, multi-purpose and training facilities. The construction (or reconstruction) of stadiums has been a feature of urban development since the first Olympics in 1896.

Many large cities usually have a large stadium which is normally used for the opening and closing ceremonies, track and field, and soccer. These facilities should have a capacity of at least 80,000. The Olympic hall would is a smaller venue that hosts volleyball, basketball and gymnastics. These facilities can have a capacity of up to 25,000. Multi-purpose facilities are even smaller and are often found in convention centers. Similarly, training centers can often use multi-purpose and smaller halls for their needs.

The secondary structure of housing and recreation are necessary in the hosting of the Olympic Games. The Sydney Olympics in 2000 had 15,000 athletes and 6,000 media and press. Requirements for housing have been provided by “Olympic Villages,” with post-Olympic use generally turned over to the private sector for affordable housing. Olympic host cities generally try to use Olympic Villages as a way to regenerate an area of the city. Due to the large spaces required for Olympic venues and housing of athletes, many host cities have usually chosen sites that are underutilized and near the center of the city. Cities such as Munich, Seoul, Barcelona, Sydney, and Athens have all chosen underutilized sites near the center of the city for Olympic facilities.

The tertiary structure, however, is probably the most important as a requirement for hosting the Olympic Games. Airports and rail stations are necessary as gateways to the outside world. Roads and public transport are necessary for movement and mobility around the city. Infrastructure investment is probably the single most important cost of the Olympic Games and is vital. It is correct in stating that without a strong tertiary structure, any city bidding for the Olympic Games will fail in its bid.

In the next post, we’ll examine how Olympic host cities leverage the Olympic Games in developing the tertiary structure of transport infrastructure.

Transportation Nexus and the Olympic Games

By Ryan Richter

On April 10, 2012

In Infrastructure, Olympics, Urban Planning

The 2012 Summer Olympic Games will begin this summer in London and I thought I would share a bit of my knowledge in this arena. Not about the Olympic Games themselves, but rather, on the massive planning efforts that are involved for the host city (and country) that the Games will be played in. This post will begin a series of examining infrastructure investments in Olympic host cities.

I conducted my masters thesis on transport investments in Olympic host cities after spending the summer of 2007 in London as part of the University of Illinois at Chicago Great Cities Institute program. For those of you who are interested, you can read my thesis in its entirety here. For the rest of you, a synopsis will do.

A little background first.

The modern Olympic Games have grown in size and scale since the austere beginnings of the Olympic Movement in Athens, 1896. The increased complexity, scope, and size of the Olympic Games has profound financial implications for Olympic Games host cities that extend well beyond the provision of sport facilities, logistics planning, and organization during the Games itself. Major investments in a host city’s infrastructure, such as large-scale urban redevelopment, guest and athlete accommodation, venue construction, public transport, security, and utility infrastructure have been necessary to ensure the effective operation of the Games.

Cities have long used mega events such as the Olympic Games for promoting economic development and urban regeneration. Transport infrastructure is a major component of any city, for it facilitates the movement of people and goods. This makes transport not only a social necessity, but also an economic necessity. The hosting of the Olympic Games and other large-scale events allow a city to implement and/or expedite long-term development plans of which transport is one component.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC), the body that governs the Olympic Games, requires its candidate cities to consider what the legacy and impacts of hosting an Olympic Games might be like on the candidate cities. In the IOC Candidate Questionnaire, candidate cities must describe how the Games fit into its long-term planning strategy. Transportation has historically been a major part of the Olympic legacy and cost. In terms of transportation, the IOC wants guarantees for which infrastructure projects are planned, the size of the airport, and fleet and rolling stock information on the public transport authorities in the candidate city. Essentially, the IOC forces its candidates to understand fully the costs of entering into a contract to host the Games.

When a city is chosen to host the Olympic Games, it is the responsibility of the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) to administer the Olympic Games for the host city. The OCOG is the principal agent responsible for the planning, implementation, and operation of the Olympic Games in its host city. The task of hosting the Games is immense and includes, among other things, choosing and/or creating the competition sites, lodging athletes and officials, organize medical services, and solving transportation issues. The London Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games, which is the local OCOG for the 2012 Summer Olympics, is a private sector company that works in tandem with the public sector Olympic Delivery Authority to fund the London Olympic Games.

In the next post, we’ll examine the Olympic Games as a catalyst for urban development.

Infrastructure #fail

By Ryan Richter

On April 4, 2012

In Infrastructure, The Suburban Experiment

Flooded I-10/I-610 interchange and surrounding area of northwest New Orleans and Metairie, Louisiana (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Building off of my previous post on suburban poverty, I briefly touched on the aspect of infrastructure. I mentioned that municipalities and transit agencies (really all government agencies) will be hard pressed to keep up their existing infrastructure, let alone create new infrastructure in a financially sustainable way. Much has been written on this topic, and I don’t have much new to add. Yet, I’m astonished to learn how much this country can tolerate when it comes to poor infrastructure. In urban planning and transportation circles, it has been common to note that it would take a major accident or catastrophe to get this country to embark on a program for infrastructure renewal. And yet, we’ve had two catastrophic incidents just in less than 10 years: Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans levee breaches in 2005 and the Minneapolis bridge collapse in 2007. Even today, with $5.00 a gallon gas a distinct possibility this year and with record transit ridership, we refuse to invest in infrastructure that will make our cities fundamentally better and more sustainable places.

So how does this sorry state of affairs affect us?

According to the Urban Land Institute’s recent report, Infrastructure 2011: A Strategic Priority, we may see the following:

Tax Increases: User fees are likely as tolls and transit fares increase to meet operating costs. Additional utility fees and traffic fines too.
Deterioration: Local governments will fund essential capital projects but may be forced to abandon others. We already are seeing this with states allowing paved roads to revert to gravel.
Deterioration will result in service interruption and will affect mobility. This is exactly what happened with the Minneapolis bridge collapse.
I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, before and after its collapse. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Put simply: we are unwilling or unable to fund infrastructure investment in this country and are willing to watch infrastructure fail with predictably catastrophic results. In terms of the suburban experiment, the inefficiencies of the transportation and utility infrastructure have become apparent as the life cycles on the infrastructure comes to an end. Communities and transportation agencies are discovering that they cannot afford to replace or even maintain what they have. My own employer recently raised transit fares on average by 30% to end the practice of diverting scarce capital resources to cover operating expenses.

In terms of the transport nexus between land use and transportation given the

Blight may sometimes cause communities to cons...

Now arriving in a suburb near you. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

economic and political climate around infrastructure, I believe we need to focus any future growth in built up areas where infrastructure is already in place. Developing on greenfield sites without and transportation and/or utility infrastructure is absolutely idiotic given the realities. We need to see land use densities and mixed use types increase around transit stations to leverage the existing transportation infrastructure already in place. We also need to see infill development on brownfield sites where there is existing transportation and utility infrastructure. And, as difficult to fathom as this may be, we need to reconsider the utility of maintaining the infrastructure of much of the suburban experiment. Much of it, I suspect, is simply not sustainable.

Suburban Poverty

By Ryan Richter

On April 3, 2012

In The Suburban Experiment, Urban Design

Suburban development in Colorado Springs, Colorado (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Veering off a little from previous topics, I’d like to discuss the issue of suburban poverty, which has been in the news lately, and what it means for metropolitan regions and transit service providers.

The impact of the Great Recession will be felt for decades and some of the long-term problems are only now just beginning to be understood. The foreclosure crisis, high unemployment, and a collapse in government revenues have had quite an impact on the built environment. This has serious ramifications, particularly for suburban areas. To wit:

The largest and fastest growing population of poor people are in the suburbs.
The social safety net of the suburbs was weak to begin with and is now in tatters.
Transit service is a function of population density and urban form, of which the former is low in the suburbs and the latter generally does not encourage pedestrian activity of any kind in the suburbs.

Thus, we have the makings of a development pattern similar to continental European cities where the wealthy inhabit the inner core and the poor inhabit the outer areas of the metropolitan region. This is somewhat hyperbolic, but not beyond the realm of possibility. As we are observing, the millennial generation prefer cities, abhor cars and are attracted to the metropolitan regions where transit and rental apartments are in abundance. It may be that low density suburbs are the “loser” in the aftermath of the Great Recession.

: Twilight of the suburban experiment? (Photo credit: maureen_sill @ flickr)

As this trend plays out, we’re already seeing what has been happening to the suburbs and how to grapple with this issue will be a profound one for my generation. Because the suburban environment was built on the assumption of never-ending growth, it cannot cope when that growth stops. Thus we see over-saturated retail commercial vacancies, massive subdivision foreclosures and an overbuilt infrastructure that small taxing bodies can never afford to maintain, not to mention replace.

How transit will survive and adapt to this market is a good question. Because suburban poverty is rising and the social safety net of the suburbs was never firmly in place (including transit), it remains to be seen what can be done. The inherent difficulties of providing frequent transit service in low density areas was obvious when times were good and is compounded now because, sadly, a population that needs transit most lives in an area where transit is most difficult to provide. Even in cities, transit services are cutting back on budgets, adjusting to the economic climate in which they operate. And most transit services have state of good repair issues so great that adding additional service in areas poorly served or not at all is a low priority at best.

We’re at the tip of the iceberg here in regards to the suburban experiment and suburban poverty is only the beginning. We’re looking at a future where this population becomes increasingly cut off from the world as jobs and people relocate and reorient themselves to a living pattern based on existing transit systems where the car and house with a picket fence is an option, not a necessity. Municipal governments, particularly small suburban ones not connected to larger cities by transit will likely fail under their enormous debt obligations and their infrastructure will really begin to crumble. And the tract houses in the subdivisions named “Orchard Hills” and “Lakewood”? Well, according to Brookings:

those house prices are now below replacement value, meaning the land under the house has no value and the sticks and bricks are worth less than they would cost to replace. This means there is no financial incentive to maintain the house; the next dollar invested will not be recouped upon resale. Many of these houses will be converted to rentals, which are rarely as well maintained as owner-occupied housing. Add the fact that the houses were built with cheap materials and methods to begin with, and you see why many fringe suburbs are turning into slums, with abandoned housing and rising crime.