Back to Archive Index   Back to Today's Entries

Wednesday, June 30th

Living Right, Living Well
I emailed my friend Harv a few days ago suggesting we get together for a bike tour of Pasadena's Arroyo Seco, put on by a coalition of river and bicycle groups, and part of his answer was pretty heartening to me:

Yes! Actually it's warm enough for me now. I have been riding pretty much every day. I have expanded my horizons by pedaling down to the Metro Rail (Heritage Square Station) and taking the train into Pasadena for various errands then pedaling back home. I can buy a ticket for less than I would pay for parking, and not deplete any fossil fuel.

Harv has been a bicyclist (and motorcyclist) most of his life, but he is also 67 years old and lives at the top of a very long climb. And he has a car. Yet he finds the efforts he makes to live right to be a pleasure, not a burden.

Save money, save America, save the world, all while having fun. Pretty good concept, eh?

Richard Risemberg (rrisemberg@newcolonist.com), on 06.30.04 @ 18:18PST

Monday, June 28th

What Developers Do
Developers develop. That’s what they do. They don’t just build things, they plant money. Money is easier to plant in fertile soil than in untested soil. As long as there is fertile soil available, the untested soil will remain untested.

We’re really not talking about crops here, we’re talking about urban and suburban development. Sometimes an entrepreneur comes along and tests untested soil. A builder might develop in the city because of the low cost and great potential for rewards. Most will still develop the tried and true way, in the suburbs.

Demographics, public investment and an increasing number of entrepreneurs are making development in center cities more attractive. Still, the urban form is vastly different from the suburban one. Many buildings already exist. Other vacant spaces cannot adequately accommodate the suburban form developers are accustomed to using. Developers, especially small ones unfamiliar with urban design and potential, are missing the know-how to develop effectively in urban areas.

Developers develop. If you show them how to make a profit, they will develop. It might take public investment to spur the process. It might take a considerable amount of hand-holding. And it certainly takes having the knowledge and resources available to point out the opportunities that exist in our cities.

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.28.04 @ 15:39PST

Sunday, June 27th

Two Recent Brushes With My Boyhood Past: Keeping Close to What Brings Joy
The older I get, the more I enjoy watching talented people ply their trade. I'm sure this is not uncommon.

Just yesterday while waiting for my wife to finish her shopping, I went into a woodworking store next door. I arrived in time for a demonstration on how to construct a crosscut sled for a table saw; nothing fancy or artistic, simply a utilitarian tool for making precision cuts.

But watching the woodworker describe and demonstrate the process was fascinating. The squaring, drilling the hole for the pivot dowel, inserting the dowel, then making test cuts. It all impressed me.

Only in junior high school did I take beginning and intermediate woodworking classes. I enjoyed them, but back then I was being "groomed" for college (not realizing I had other options, or having the courage to pursue them), so after that experience, I left shop behind for "more important" learning.

Perhaps soon I can return to that boyhood interest.

There was another memory of a boyhood interest this past week.

My 11 year old son Kory just completed his first backpacking trip in his new scout troop. With boots on he weighs around 88 pounds. His pack fully loaded weighs 30 pounds. So he carried over a third of his weight. The report we got back from the adult who drove him was Kory was a real trooper. He hiked some 12 miles with the fully loaded pack, rarely complaining.

We bought a camp stove, trail food, new boots, a tent, a backpack, eating utensils, water bottles, a whistle, and more. I don't begrudge any of the expense because for me, backpacking was one of the greatest experiences of my childhood--living very simply, traveling light so as to see views, and experience nature in a way I never otherwise would.

So on Friday as he went off with his fellow scouts and leaders, something inside clicked, and I realized I should be going along.

I will just as soon as I can rearrange my schedule.

Many backpacking experiences as a young teen were likely what gave me the "wild idea" I could live, even thrive in a small home, without a lot of things, and perhaps even without owning a car. And these sacrifices (by mainstream society's standards) wouldn't really be sacrifices at all because like on my backpacking trips, traveling lightly throughout life could open grand vistas of opportunity, and unique experiences. And, of course, it could be the key to ample free time through a minimally stressful, non-time demanding job to support modest financial needs.

I suppose the point of these recent brushes with my boyhood past is the reminder to stay in touch with what brings me joy.

Thankfully, there are so many options in life. Yet I'm constantly faced with the opportunity cost of choosing one activity over another. Years and many responsibilities took me away from some of the things I loved as a child. Sure, there have been new things, and many rewarding activities. However, there is a still a feeling of missed opportunities.

I suppose many middle-aged adults share similar regrets. The trick is figuring out how to cut through the complexity of our adult lives, and somehow return in spirit, and frequent actual presence to the joys of our youth.

And what does all of this have to do with urban living issues?

Urban living at its finest is not unlike simple childhood interests. It involves walking, talking, simple pleasures, good food, good friends, hobbies, and always a new discovery to award your curiosity.

Sure, you could do all of that in the suburbs, but I would argue diverse urban environments are far richer in such treasures and pleasures.

And urban living can be like backpacking in the sense that you only take what you need. No lawn mower, tools, pools, yard work, leaf gutters, or even a car.

The theory is clear out all of that clutter and watch how much time is created to rediscover the interests of youth.

At least that's the direction I'm trying to go.

John Andersen (editor@unconventionalideas.com), on 06.27.04 @ 16:26PST

Saturday, June 26th

Reading Railroad
A couple of days ago I was on the subway, heading to the office as usual, slouching lazily in my seat, when something caught my eye in the train on the oppsite platform: a constellation of bright white rectangles repeated in window afer window. In Los Angeles, of course, the first thing you think about in such a situation is, Must be another damn conceptual art piece.... But it was just the inner pages of open books.

LA commuters love to read. I looked around my own subway car and saw a few more. And in fact I often sneak a look at the book of riders next to me on buses and trains, when I know the language. Because you see them all: English, Spanish, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, and more; novels high and low, textbooks, tech books, everything....

I thought about all those solo drivers up on the asphalt, with nothing to read but the license plate in front of them.

The readers on the Metro are pulling ahead of them every day.

Richard Risemberg (rrisemberg@newcolonist.com), on 06.26.04 @ 09:39PST

Thursday, June 24th

Los Angeles Grows Fastest
Eight of the nation’s top 10 fastest growing large cities (100,000 or more population) since Census 2000 lie in the Western states of Arizona, Nevada and California, according to new U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for July 1, 2003.

Gilbert, Ariz., a suburban community, south of Phoenix, of 145,250 people, led the list with a growth rate of 32 percent in the 39-month period between April 1, 2000, and July 1, 2003. It was followed by North Las Vegas (25 percent) and Henderson (23 percent), both in Nevada’s Clark County. Henderson, with a population gain of 39,446, ranked eighth in the nation in numerical increase.

Rounding out the 10 fastest-growing large cities were Chandler, Ariz.; Irvine, Calif.; Port St. Lucie, Fla.; Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.; Fontana, Calif.; Peoria, Ariz.; and Cape Coral, Fla.

New York City continued to be the nation’s most populous city, with 8.1 million residents. The estimates show that among the 10 largest cities, only one change has occurred in the rankings since Census 2000: Dallas and San Antonio switched places, with San Antonio now ranking eighth and Dallas ninth. (See Table 2. PDF | Excel)

Los Angeles, the second most populous city at 3.8 million, had the largest population increase, adding 125,209 people since Census 2000.

At the other end of the spectrum, with people leaving at a slightly faster rate than Cincinatti, Detroit experienced the fastest loss. From 2000 to 2003, the city's population dropped by nearly 40,000 people to about 911,000. Pittsburgh also continued to lose population.

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.24.04 @ 05:46PST

Tuesday, June 22nd

The American Sacrament
Last Saturday, my fiancée wanted to go to the Farmers Market (a sort of Western souk not far from us), but she was tired and frustrated, and when she's in that state she feels that all-pervading American sense of hurry more strongly than usual, so, even though it's a relaxing 20-minute walk, we drove.

Once we'd finished fighting traffic and crawling up the spirals of the parking structure, then down the escalators, it took us--surprise--twenty minutes to get there. And instead of being relaxed and refreshed after having walked by the fountain and the park on the way, we were restive and irritated.

Why are people in the US like this? Is it all the training they receive through their televisions? Europeans usually own cars and drive them now and then; they don't, however, make a dailiy sacrament of it. And in Japan, even high-status professional men ride their bikes down to the subway station every day, briefcase in hand.

...I remember reading a story written by a US couple who were administrators for some charitable organization in Africa--this was maybe five years ago. In one paragraph they briefly mentioned that the road was so crowded with people, carts, and bicycles, that their one-mile drive to the office took them 45 minutes!

I am over 50 years old, and I can walk a mile in less than twenty minutes.

What's wrong with Americans?

Richard Risemberg (rrisemberg@newcolonist.com), on 06.22.04 @ 09:23PST

Saturday, June 19th

Shining On Hopeless Decay
If you’re relatively young you probably haven’t experienced the level of urban decay that the rust belt states (and even to some degree New York and Philadelphia) experienced in the 1970s and 1980s. There are places where you can still get a pretty good sense of the hopelessness. One of them is Youngstown, Ohio. I revisited yesterday after many years away. Little had changed.

It’s not only urban decay. Miles of suburbs seem mostly abandoned, large apartment buildings boarded up. Some of these suburban homes of relatively good quality had collapsed roofs, overgrown lawns and spaces where windows and doors used to be.

The main street downtown is made up almost entirely of boarded up storefronts--storefronts that sit below sizable buildings. The skyline has not changed since the 1920s.

Pictures of Youngstown in its heyday are pasted on the boarded up storefronts. The streets are filled with people and streetcars.

There has been some progress. One of the theaters was restored, the main street is being opened up to auto traffic again after being blocked off for a failed pedestrian mall.

Several new government buildings are being built, but the only sign of private investment we could find was a restaurant in the B&O train station that had been reopened.

I am one of those people who can see potential even in a seemingly hopeless scene like this. I must say I could imagine what a bargain these buildings might be and did notice how nice the scene, architecture and layout of the town was. Everything is here, all Youngstown needs is people to fill the buildings. There’s plenty of them in California, so get the word out.

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.19.04 @ 06:12PST

Thursday, June 17th

Keep On Truckin'?
A recent article in the Los Angeles Times bemoans the fate of a US long-haul trucking couple fearful that competition from Mexican truckers, who live where "the cost of living is so low that you can afford to earn pennies per mile and still feel like you are making money," will destroy their lifestyle. (This follows a Supreme Court decision to let Mexican truckers work US highways). I think the concern, while understandable, is a bit off the mark.

It's US energy security that really has to worry--because of the US and Mexican truckers both. The real disparity lies not between US and Mexican truckers' incomes, but between the relative efficiencies of truck vs rail freight.

According to the Transportation Research Board (quoted here in a Victoria Transport Policy Institute article), trucks use three and a half times as much fuel per ton-mile as trains, while putting up to five times the pollution into our air and lungs. Yet railroads, unlike the trucking industry, get no free ride: they build and maintain their own "roads" on land they own and on which they pay taxes--and they pay the fuel tax too. Meanwhile, every mile a trucker rolls is heavily government subsidized.

In an era of diminishing reserves, unholy alliances, international turmoil, shattered budgets, highway-fueled sprawl, and the prospect of endless oil wars, one must ask: does long-haul trucking--regardless of the drivers' nationalities--even make sense anymore? Did it ever?

Richard Risemberg (rrisemberg@newcolonist.com), on 06.17.04 @ 07:27PST

Wednesday, June 16th

With Planners On Sidelines, Opportunities For Progress Open
After years of aiming at redeveloping the Fifth-Forbes corridor in downtown Pittsburgh, with the city government in financial distress and out of the way, new efforts may be able to bear fruit.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has been purchasing properties in the increasingly troubled area; with trouble seeming to increase along with the number of properties owned by the URA. Since plans at redeveloping the area were announced, increasing numbers of businesses have closed their doors. Rather than being a prescription, the threat of redevelopment acts as an agent accelerating the disease government-types like to call blight.

Typical of the all-or-nothing recent redevelopment planning known too well in modern times, Fifth-Forbes would have seen an entire area redeveloped at once. With those big plans on hold while the city straightens out its fiscal mess and private developers reasonably safe from government action, it appears progress may at last be made, on a smaller scale anyway.

The Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership, Heinz and Buhl foundations are working with Philadelphia developers officials previously shrugged off as too small to make a go of Fifth-Forbes.

Recent days have also seen the announcement that Manhattan-based J.J. Operating Corp. would buy and attempt to secure a tenant for the closed Lazarus Department Store (a subsidized project that would have been the keystone for earlier Fifth-Forbes plans) and New Jersey-based Rugby Realty will attempt to acquire the Lord & Taylor building, also part of earlier plans and slated to close.

These private developers may recognize the real need for downtown retail lies not in traditional department stores (not a high-growth area of the retail market in city or suburb), but in discount stores that would sell the things new residents downtown need. (Ok, why not say it, I told you so)

Developers also seem to be eying a “one building at a time” approach that will attract new outlets, along with residential units to the corridor.

With the monster-planners out of the way, we have a new sense that market-oriented downtown retail can work. As Pittsburgh retail broker Herky Pollock told the Post-Gazette, "Target and Wal-Mart could perhaps do $60 million each in Downtown Pittsburgh. It is obviously not the sexiest use but perhaps the market should dictate what goes there rather than the desires of a select few people."

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.16.04 @ 18:26PST

PCCs Back In Philadelphia
I was excited to see Philadelphia has rebuilt a streetcar line, the 15-Girard, using PCC cars. The cars are historic and have been rebuilt, now referred to as PCC-IIs. The line is not one for tourists either. There is a sense I have from talking to locals that SEPTA made this improvement reluctantly and is not intent on making it work. The date for start had been pushed back from October, 2003 to September 2004. If the Philadelphia experience is anything like San Francisco, the line will be so popular there won’t be enough PCCs to fill the need. That popularity may or may not persuade government officials who commonly insist unpopular buses are better at serving the public.

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.16.04 @ 04:45PST

Tuesday, June 15th

The False Divide
In his column of 15 June, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks posits a divide among US intellectuals between liberal professionals ("teachers, lawyers, architects, academics, journalists, therapists, decorators and so on ") and conservative managers ("who tend to work for corporations, brokerage houses, real estate firms and banks"); he goes on to elaborate that professionals (who, he says, tend to vote Democratic) value "university skills: the ability to read and digest large amounts of information and discuss their way through to a nuanced solution" and "self-expression over self-discipline," while managers (who tend to vote Republican) favor "simple, straight-talking men and women of faith" and "prize leaders who are good at managing people, not just ideas." Leaving aside the fact that the current bunch in the White House comprises folks who are neither simple nor straight-talking, I have to interject that the division is both less clear-cut and more profound than Brooks believes.

What you have, fundamentally, is a divide between those who share and those who hold. The professionals--be they liberal or conservative--tend to be "other-centered"; they analyze society and devise structures that may benefit as many people as possible. There is contentious debate among those-who-share over the methods for bringing this about, and there are conservative as well as liberal viewpoints, but the end goal is the long term health of society. Managers--"equally well-educated but more business-oriented"--are, proudly but regrettably, bottom-line oriented, what's-in-it-for-me types--more self-centered. They famously do not take the long view, and, far from adhering to conservative ideals, have historically supported government subsidies of business, below-market-rate leases of the commons, and collusion and restraint of trade--and in fact they have been responsible, thanks to their excesses, for the plethora of regulations that they decry even as they make them as utterly necessary as laws against the more violent expropriations and exploitations of street thieves, pimps, etc. Anyone remember Enron and the manufactured electricity crisis that California is still reeling from?

In other words, the divide is not between "liberal" and "conservative" so much as between "villagers" and "pirates," if you will. After all, many conservatives feel dismay at sprawl subsidies these days, while many liberals champion states' rights--which Republicans currently suppress if, say, states want to pass environmental or labor laws that cut into their constituents' profits.

It's a question of compassion, of stewardship, of fairness, of openness. Corporatism has hijacked conservatism these days, but community and commerce are matters the value of which both true liberals and true conservatives agree on. It's the means we rightly argue over, much more than the ends.

Richard Risemberg (rrisemberg@newcolonist.com), on 06.15.04 @ 15:48PST

Sunday, June 13th

Pedestrians harassed by hurried driver: Thoughts about choosing a slower pace
Last night on the way home from the movies, my wife and 11 year old son were crossing a busy street at an intersection. They had a green walk light, yet an impatient driver made gestures for them to speed up and get out of his way.

What happened to the awareness that others without cars share the road? Sure, the driver may have been in a hurry, but that doesn't excuse his rude behavior.

My wife and son arrived home a little flustered.

This past week while watching the Reagan funeral, our children wondered why the motorcade traveled so slowly. We explained it was a matter of respect and dignity. There is a time for high speeds, but in solemn moments like that, we show respect by traveling slower.

Later this month, our son will go on his first backpacking trip. I loved backpacking as a boy, and miss it as an adult. Perhaps I'll return to it with him.

Backpacking is slow travel as a means to seeing sites and experiencing nature otherwise hidden away. I recall, for instance, a trip to Mt. Whitney in California's Sierra Nevada Range when I was an early teen. Instead of following the well-worn trail to the summit, the adults led our group of boys up the face of the mountain. Our reward? Pristine alpine meadows and lakes, crystal clear air, and starry nights unlike any I'd ever before witnessed. In retrospect, it was one of the most profound spiritual experiences of my life. And it came at a very slow speed.

These days I don't slow down enough. Certainly, it's clear that nothing connects me more to my inner self than when I lower the tempo, and simply make time and space for thinking outside of the daily routine. In a car, it's a challenge. On foot, it's a breeze.

A walk to the pizza parlour and back to bring our dinner home can be a chance to talk to my daughter about her latest short story she's writing. Just barely missing one bus and then waiting another 20 minutes for the next one, can be a small gift of time for a easygoing chat, or perhaps reading a magazine article I stuffed into my daypack. A bike ride to the light rail station enroute to doing errands downtown, could be a 10 minute interlude to clear the mind and breathe fresh air.

Sure, a car could make those trips quicker, but I have to ask myself just how much of the slower-paced life am I willing to sacrifice before I lose touch with life's basics, things like chats, laughs, sighs, and even tears?

Life at walking speed is good. It brings me what my soul craves.

Perhaps it's the best speed of all for living the abundant life.

John Andersen (editor@unconventionalideas.com), on 06.13.04 @ 07:02PST

Friday, June 11th

Stranger on a Streetcorner
It happened again, as it has so often before....

I was on my bicycle, riding through Beverly Hills on my way home from my Japanese class, when I was suddenly accosted by a dark stranger on a streetcorner.

"Excuse me," said the willowy East Indian immigrant beauty. "Can you tell me where 9304 is? The movie theater?"

Happens all the time...people on the sidewalk, people in cars: they ask me the way. Not because I look particularly competent, but because I am accessible as a human being. I am not in a car.

It never happened when I drove cars; it never happens now when I'm with my fiancée in our car. But when I'm walking, or especially when I'm on the bicycle, straddling the worlds of the sidewalk and the street, it's a regular occurrence. Because people can see me as a human being, rather than a dim shadow immured in a machine.

That's just a hint of what a carfree world holds for us: a return of human contact to our public lives. And a chance to get to the movie house on time.

Richard Risemberg (rrisemberg@newcolonist.com), on 06.11.04 @ 10:08PST

Thursday, June 10th

Managing Decline Part Two
The last couple decades has shown us that Pittsburgh (along with Western Pennsylvania and a Region stretching from Northern New York to Toledo and West Virginia) is losing population. Valiant efforts have bee launched in hopes of reversing this trend. So far, they have not succeeded. Nationally, people are moving South and West.

Can we change this trend? Should we try? Or should we base our decisions on real evidence that reveal the way things are?

Instead of trying to reverse what may be immovable trends, it would be worthwhile to at least consider a process that would allow places like Pittsburgh and Cleveland to become better while becoming smaller. (A trend isn't a trend of course unless it sooner or later changes--we don't know when that will be until it does).

While the population has gone down and aged, it has also spread over a larger area. This requires a much larger system of infrastructure to support less residents. A system of many small governments may have worked while these regions were growing, but as they have shrunk in population, strains have been put on many of these small governments, most notably the center city.

Pittsburgh and Cleveland are both well on their way to making the center city a better place to live. New housing will attract new residents, not from out of town, but from suburbs. New housing in the city has not outpaced suburban development, however.

The lack of regional governments, or at least a regional approach to sprawl reduction places development of housing in the city in a position to compete with the suburbs over the interests of a smaller pool of residents.

With a regional government there is a different danger. That danger lurks in an interest to equally benefit small, sprawling municipalities in terms of economic development. This could facilitate sprawl rather than reign it in. Without the efforts to encourage brownfield, transit-oriented development, a regional approach could do more harm than good at both minimizing the impacts of sprawl and the idea of becoming better and smaller.

Often looked at with a furrowed brow, “monster housing” being built to replace smaller units in older suburbs could also help along these lines. Many residents of the older suburbs could be enticed to choose newly constructed housing in the cities. The end result could be a smaller suburban and larger urban population.

All around Pittsburgh, hillsides are being chomped away for new retail developments (witness the Camp Horne Road interchange on I-279 North). These developments have no ability to help attract residents and have a minimal impact on the economy of a region. These kind of developments should be happening in the city, or if not that, mixed with high density residential development and served by new transit systems. There are many recent opportunities lost in this arena, let’s be ready to work with developers and encourage more innovative development.

Despite the recent failures of retail developments in the city, that isn’t proof urban development can’t work. If it’s built in conjunction with housing, it’s built with an assured base of consumers. The city needs more housing, but it also needs more housing built with retail grocery and discount stores. If you look at the suburban developments around us, it’s not middle-high end department stores that are being built. It’s Target, Home Depot, Wal-mart and Costco. These stores also need to exist to serve city residents or the city will be at a disadvantage for residents.

The answer for a declining region is to reduce sprawl and concentrate in the center. On its current path of sprawling and exodus, Pittsburgh and the region could be destined to have its population cut in half yet again. By focusing development in regional population hubs, creating a denser environment, preparing for a more mobile community, it will allow the city and region to become very enjoyable for those who do call it home. It could also create enough buzz based in reality to cause others to seek it out and make a new home here.

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.10.04 @ 13:03PST

Wednesday, June 9th

Managing Decline
The other night I was leaving what may be Pittsburgh’s most “big city” feeling bar. It’s located on a transitional street but sports windows that open onto the sidewalk, sleek tiles and wallpaper and a small outdoor court yard. In a way being inside removes you from the reality of what’s outside.

Across the street a man was standing outside of an old-school bar listening to a woman across the street explain her perspective on life in the steel city. “Pittsburgh’s a great place to be from,” she said “and its a great place to be old, but you don’t want to be here in the middle.”

Perhaps she was only here for a short time or planning to move.

If she had picked up the latest edition of Money magazine it might have helped her make her decision. The only graphic in a series on Hot Cities, a photo of Minneapolis with the words HOT in red perched beside one of Pittsburgh with the words NOT in cold blue.

We’ve come a long way from “most livable city” status without the physical city getting any worse.

Forward to this hot June evening. I left my real estate class and decided to take a long walk home. I encountered the Three Rivers Arts Festival without intention and enjoyed wandering through sizable crowds looking through prints and craft items. I walked into Point State Park and took in a song or two from John Wesley Harding who was performing to a small gathering on the lawn in front of the remnants of old Fort Duquesne.

If you happen to be within access to Pittsburgh, the Three Rivers Arts Festival is a worthwhile event. This year some of the activities stretch onto Penn Avenue, through the Cultural District. The Cultural District is one of Pittsburgh’s recent success stories. What seems like a quite organic development process has taken over one building at a time, creating a lively and creative area that is showing signs of life more often after five when the rest of the center city has gone to sleep. It’s also succeeding in mixing those who produce new non-conforming art with the more cultured, highbrow theater and symphony set.

Walking over the Fort Duquesne Bridge, I had not been disappointed with what I found downtown this evening. Still, I couldn’t shake my recent pessimism about Pittsburgh. There were new development projects all around me, but when I look at the faces I can see the numbers dwindling and aging. All this development seems like a costume that hides what’s really happening. My pessimism, I now realize, is not from Pittsburgh itself. I am sure that Pittsburgh is a great city (from much first-hand experience), but the question for me is no longer “when or how fast will it be discovered?” but instead “is there anything that we can do to change the course of what is happening?”

So far I think it's been assumed our problem is one of image. The Money article hints that its because people here are not welcoming to immigrants or different ideas. That may be true, but a lack of immigrants and different ideas make Pittsburgh unwelcoming to them. If we had more immigrants and new ideas, we’d be more familiar with them and welcoming to them. Buffalo and Cleveland (basically all of Ohio and Western New York) are in the same boat. Perhaps its not Pittsburgh, it’s the region, or the center of population shift. Is it by chance all of these cities have the same problems? What if whatever we do won’t change that destiny? It’s a troubling question to ask. Of course even if it is the case, there are still things to do, but they will be different. I know it's more productive to ask “what can we do?” But its equally important to ask “why are we doing it?” I will write about that next time.

It is possible that by the time we decided instead to manage decline we would be perpetuating it. I have my doubts however that we would have any greater power to speed that course than to reverse it. The key may be to see it in terms of consolidation rather than decline. It doesn’t seem prudent under the circumstances to plan for too much growth. It’s hard to swallow managing decline, but we should take a look. In some ways it could be beneficial, and if not that, then at least realistic.

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.09.04 @ 03:29PST

Tuesday, June 8th

Religion & Politics...and New Urbanism
Often, religions and governments end up hijacked by fascist-trooper personalities--ie, those who want an infallible leader (spiritual or corporeal) to define their lives for them, give them a rigid structure that relieves them of the responsibility to make difficult decisions, and give them a little power over somebody else. Anything that threatens this structure makes them frantic and defensive; if there isn't a limiting mechanism in the system, they go to the extremes of fascist governments (of left or right) and fundamentalist religions everywhere and throughout all time. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Crusades, the 800-year Irish conflict, and now Jihad...each learning from the other. The biggest terrorist act in the US prior to 9/11 was the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, perpetrated by politically right-wing Christian zealots.

The US is in danger of losing the limiting mechanisms I spoke of above--by which I mean the system of checks and balances propounded in the Constitution--because of the actions of Christian extremists who now run the government--the result of a faudulent election. (The 12,000 Democrats falsely excluded from the Florida vote because, "Oh, we thought they were convicted felons but made a terrible mistake,--we're so sorry...," would have turned the tide without need for a recall.) The largely Jewish neocon theorists, and Israel itself, are, I think, just levers in the machinery of Armageddon to the zealots. If the Republicans win again, Bush will be our Hindenburg--and I not referring to the blimp.

The call to do anything we must to preserve our oil-based consumerist lifestyle is an effort to draw the people into support of a fascist agenda.

Likewise, the jihadist's call to battle the infidel--never mind that Islam is the religion of "Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate"--serves to garner support for the power of religious fascists.

The cruel irony, for US citizens, at least, is that our "leaders" use the call to defend "Freedom" as an excuse to suppress freedoms. But Orwell told you all about it in "1984," anyway.

Ultimately, New Urbanism is a step towards political as well as personal freedom--because it moves us towards a society of atomized (localized) power--both literal and political--which starves the fascist beast in ways that both true liberals and true conservatives should approve of. Alexander's "Pattern Language"--the foundation of much New Urbanist development theory--is a profoundly revolutionary work, because in it people create their own communities, physically, socially, and ultimately politically...but as long as oil dominates our economy, the power of armies will prevail.

If we succeed, it may be by taking a clue from Gandhi and the '60s hippies, and building parallel societies (Gandhi in effect organized a highly-structured ignoring of the British Raj as his mechanism of revolt, and none of his followers ever fired a shot)...societies that participate productively in the world economy without enslaving themselves to it, or to the "elites" that seek to control it.

Richard Risemberg (rrisemberg@newcolonist.com), on 06.08.04 @ 16:27PST

Sunday, June 6th

Five Common Parenting Myths: Thoughts About the Suburban Lifestyle

1. You must buy a home in the suburbs so your kids have a yard

A city park can fill the same role. Also, when kids get over 8 years old or so, they like to go places other than their backyard. They like riding their bikes, or playing at a friend's house. The home turf no longer suffices.

Thing is, even under those circumstances, the lawn still needs to be mowed, the trees trimmed, and the weeds pulled. Do the city park, riverside bike path, or public botanical garden require that sort of time commitment from you? I didn't think so.

2. The best schools are in suburbs

Believe it or not, there are excellent public schools in inner cities. But if you're not convinced, then put your child in private school.

Too expensive, you protest?

My cousin pointed out that for the same price as a new SUV, you could put a child through a four year private high school.

And there's yet another option:

Homeschooling!

Don't laugh, it's becoming mainstream, and there are many gifted children in its ranks. They're proving that academic rigor, and life-transforming education are in fact possible outside institutional walls. They're also discovering, through mentorships and apprenticeships, a new practical vitality to their learning.

3. You must send your kids away to the university when they turn 18

Nope, wrong again: community colleges!

Now there's a great way to get college level credit while living at home and remaining an integral part of daily family life.

Or how about encouraging a child to work (learn valuable skills) in a small local business with the possibility of one day buying that business from a retiring owner? You know, like a bakery, plumbing service, mom & pop packaging store, or a Japanese restaurant.

And what about trade school?

We're not talking "consolation prizes" for the less cerebrally equipped. We're talking cool options even for the class Valedictorian.

The higher education industry offers just one of many viable paths. Explore a variety of postsecondary options before you embark on one that will cost you tens of thousands of dollars, and may not result in what you really wanted in the first place, i.e.: autonomy, contentment, and an interesting, soul-satisfying livelihood.

4. You must enroll your child in organized sports

Not true.

There are other ways to learn sports, teamwork, coordination, and develop lifelong habits of physical fitness.

For instance, you could enroll your family in a local athletic club and regularly spend time there together. As one friend suggested, rather than stand on the sidelines on Saturday mornings watching your child play soccer, you could actually play alongside him, both of you sweating, laughing, and bonding.

5. You must shuttle your kids around to their appointments, lessons, and playdates

Wrong again.

You could choose to live a walkable neighborhood with bike lanes, speed bumps, sidewalks, parks, ball fields, an elementary school, and a public library.

In such a place, your ten year old could get to her friend's house on her bike. And she could pedal to school and back.

He could skip down the street to his Wednesday afternoon piano lesson. Or he could learn to play musical instruments the way the Beatles essentially did--teaching himself.

Get in the right neighborhood, and frame of mind, then watch your daily shuttle service vanish into thin air. Heck, with such an increase in freedom, you may even find enough time for a hobby for yourself!

John Andersen (editor@unconventionalideas.com), on 06.06.04 @ 07:41PST

Saturday, June 5th

The City, A Legacy and Ronald Reagan
Growing up in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan is remembered, if not revered, to me an my generation much in the way John Kennedy was to my parent's generation. Like Kennedy, Reagan will be remembered for his inspiration and influence and ability to define a period in history.

I had a young fascination with Ronald Reagan, one that has not carried on into admiration for modern-day Republicans. A Democrat early in his life, Reagan liked to say the party left him, he didn’t leave it. This echoes in recent statements by Theresa Heinz-Kerry that modern "Republicans" are not Republicans at all. It is no secret that even many European “Thatcher Conservatives” recognize that the Republican party in the United States has been taken over by right-wing extremists.

Perhaps June 5, 2004 marks the day that the last of the old Republicans died. Yet, I think history will record rather that Reagan was a transitional Republican marking a time of change both in the country and in the Republican party. I have read quite a bit on Reagan, and my sense is he was a John Heinz III, Barry Goldwater Republican trying to appeal to the emerging power of the Christian Right who unfortunately enabled the new breed of Pat Buchanan-Republican we see in George W. Bush. I also suspect he would have gotten along better with the likes of Paul O'Neil.

Whatever the case, that is not to diminish the inspiration and impact of the 40th president. Few would contend the world at large did not change significantly--in many ways for the better--under his watch; that he was anything but straight forward, or that he was an effective leader regardless of what you thought of his political views.

Although it is hard to speculate exactly what Reagan would have thought about the issues facing us today--the war on terrorism, same-sex marriage and even the deficit, his words give us insight. There are also glaring differences between Reagan and Bush.

First, it was apparent religion was not a political driver to Reagan. If he would oppose same-sex marriage, I would suspect his decision would have been based on a thought process much in the way he decided his stance on abortion, not on religious dogma alone. It seems safe to say Reagan knew a personal God and had a great deal of faith without wearing religion on his sleeve.

Unlike Bush, when Reagan spoke he portrayed a big picture, providing an explanation based on his philosophies of personal freedom, explaining why something should be a certain way. I find it hard to imagine he would be friendly to the Patriot Act and other recent attacks on individual liberties.

It is not even clear to me that this “war monger” president wouldn’t have handled the Iraq situation differently. While Reagan spent billions building up the military, his administration saw no attacks on the scale of the current efforts in Iraq. It could be that as “wrong” as he thought the Soviet-Union was, theirs was still an “evil empire” based in thought--and thinking people can be reasoned with even if that reason is in front of a very large gun pointed at you. The sad thing about the situation today is we have people who cannot be reasoned with on both sides, attacking because they believe it is their God-given right to prevail. Perhaps it was not possible for Bush or Clinton to meet Hussein in Reykjavík and negotiate, but I can’t help but think there could be a better method than an all-out invasion of a country the size of California. The question may not to be ask what Reagan would have done today, but instead ask would Bush have attacked a much more dangerous enemy creating a far worse situation in the a different time?

Then there’s the issue of the deficit. No doubt the deficit and debt got bigger under both Reagan and Bush. The difference is that it was apparent that Reagan philosophically thought debt was bad and aimed at reducing it. While you may not agree with the “mutually assured destruction” approach, the deficit creating military build up may have in the end saved many lives that would have been lost in a war. In any case, Reagan knew in the long-run deficits (and avoidable wars) were not good for a nation. The more money the government borrows, the less that is available for private industry to borrow. To this day I wonder what role the deficit reductions of the 1990s may have played in the great period of technological innovation we saw then.

This is of course a web magazine about city life. Now I will get to that. Ronald Reagan was not an urbanite. Though he spoke of a “shining city,” many of his political views were by default at least anti-city. The most urban president I can think of was also a Republican, or as historians have put it, a forgotten progressive-- Herbert Hoover, who lived much of his later life in a New York hotel. Reagan's personal distaste for urban life was perhaps best seen in his refusal to live in the California Governor’s mansion located in Sacramento. I am not sure Reagan saw things in terms of suburban-urban, but more along the lines of choice, economic-empowerment and freedom.

He did recognize the problems with many urban renewal programs, public housing and welfare programs. “The Federal government set out some years ago to build 26 million new housing units,” Reagan said. “They started all their urban development programs and bulldozed faster than they built. The result was we ended up with 250,000 fewer homes than when they started out.”

Highway programs were of course used to help achieve these destructive ends.

The purpose of welfare of course was to eliminate the need for its own existence. Today we are certainly still in need of the programs, both assistance and economic empowerment to lessen that need. As Reagan saw the United States as a promise that shouldn’t be kept from anyone (“And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”), the need for assistance programs may end for an individual, it is unclear how that need could be completely eliminated.

There’s no question in my mind that cities would be better off without many of the government efforts initiated since 1950. There is also no question the bulk of these programs were to the benefit of suburbia, to the promotion of economic segregation and to the lessening as the city as an entity existing “for the culture of men” as Lewis Mumford would say.

History is of course still in the process of recording the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Whatever that final record reveals, it will not diminish the inspiration, warmth and effective leadership of Ronald Reagan, the man.

Here are a few quotes:

"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters.”

"We in government should learn to look at our country with the eyes of the entrepreneur, seeing possibilities where others see only problems."

“We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefitting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free.”

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.”

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.05.04 @ 17:30PST

Gold Line Glory
I was in Pasadena this morning, and came home via Metro's latest train, the Gold Line. It's a smooth, relaxing ride, with the train at ground level or elevated most of the way, and a variety of things to see through the large, clear windows: the clean, brick-walled bustle of downtown Pasadena itself; the Victorian cottages of South Pasadena and the other little towns you pass through on the way to LA; the occasional brief passages through wildland and over parks by the Arroyo; the tired old factories and warehouses by Frogtown; and the crowds and colors of the next-to-last stop in Chinatown. Not to mention a view of the downtown skyline from the grand elevated S-curve into Union Station! But perhaps the most arresting sight was the sites--the construction sites (and reconstruction sites) suddenly appearing near each station.

Former empty lots, blasted, oil-soaked, junk-strewn wastelands where not even weeds grew well, now taking mysterious new shapes as bullldozers sculpt them into new neighborhoods. An old disused railyard becoming (after a battle against the bigbox bandits) a park, school, and old-folks' center. Apartments built right over the stations. Street life perking up on formerly deserted avenues. All good things.

And even better: people on the train, lots of people. Many of them locals just going about their business--without a car!--but many of them people who drove up to Pasadena from out of town, parked their motorized cells, and got on the train to experience our cities. And talked about it among themselves, with the most evident pleasure.

Southern California: finally starting to grow up!

Richard Risemberg (rrisemberg@newcolonist.com), on 06.05.04 @ 16:30PST

Thursday, June 3rd

Jacobs and Mumford
At the break in my real estate class, I was reading a chapter in Lewis Mumford: A Life by Donald Miller (No relation). The book was providing some perspective on the philosophical difference between Jane Jacobs and Mumford. Mumford's book, "The City In History," came out the same year as Jacob's "The Death and Life of Great American Cities." (Miller points out how frustrating it was for a New York urbanite like himself to be out urbanitized by Jacobs, from Scranton of all places.) Eager for influence, the book points out that their differences were probably overblown by each other. Mumford questioned whether the haphazard organic city was really a crime deterrent. On my walk home I pondered the question. I didn't witness any crime (I can only think of one instance in my entire life in a city when I have witnessed a crime other than littering) but that couldn't keep me from wondering where a crime could be efficiently committed.

I walked out of the classroom and rode down the elevator. The classroom is in a building with two floors above a nine-story parking garage. Not the prettiest building in the Pittsburgh skyline. I am not sure if it was part of a large plan. It doesn't look like it was, probably just an inexpensive building stuck where there was space. Perhaps a government parking garage with some needed office space above it. The building is in the city, though it's mostly offices in this area, not exactly the mixed-use we think of when talking about Jane Jacobs. I would guess after office hours a crime would be pretty easy to commit here if there were someone to commit one against.

Crossing Fort Duquesne Boulevard I encountered a new park that runs along the river. It was part of a new design for a boulevard and something that's definitely planned. Again, I imagined that when there were people using it, a crime would be hard to commit there, but when unused, a crime would be easy to commit. It's for recreation, so not a mixed-use. Many crimes in cities are not of the planned kind so other than graffiti or drug use I couldn't imagine what would attract a criminal to this place.

Walking over the Sixth Street Bridge (I know it's the Roberto Clemente Bridge now) I encountered another park that runs along the river. I passed through the North Shore, which I would guess is more planned than not. It's not terribly mixed in its uses yet, office and entertainment is the mix, but the layout is conducive to pedestrians and at most times of the day there are people around. There are a lot of bars and I think that alcohol could lead to some crimes, but that's not because of a planned or organic paradigm.

I walked under an underpass that is dark and dingy. First under a highway and then a railroad. One the result of bad planning, and one there probably without planning. It would be easy to commit a crime under here, I thought. That still didn't provide clues for the answers I was seeking.

I walked along a park and into my neighborhood. Many elderly people were sitting outside on their doorsteps. A few teenagers were out too leaning against cars. Certainly I can see the "eyes on the street" phenomenon at work--and this neighborhood wasn't planned in a Burnham sense anyway. I also passed East Ohio Street, which has a few blue collar bars neighborhood activists are still trying to get rid of--something Jacobs might oppose. I know from crime reports that crimes are committed around them, if not because of them.

Like many urban neighborhoods, mine is made up the people who have lived here for a long time, probably blue collar with moderate incomes, who sit outside on their stoops-- and the professionals who park, run inside and set the alarms. When people drive, the street is not going to bring them together as Jacobs would like. Perhaps something planned like the park or the river trails can do this better.

I have always thought a city can't be completely unplanned. The beauty of architecture is so much more enjoyable in a planned environment. There are components in each that can make one or the other safe. Also changes in society, transportation, technology and lifestyle can influence whether an area, planned or unplanned, is safe or not. As a general rule, crimes have to be committed against someone (except drug use, graffiti), so places devoid of people will also be devoid of crimes. Places with a variety of uses will have a variety of people with different interests. It is reasonable to think these conditions would deter crime. A planned or organic place can meet these conditions.

Rather than debate planned or organic, I think it may be wise to focus on having a variety of people using a given area at any given time. But that focusing is of course "planning."

As a side-note, this is based almost entirely on my experience from today's walk. An organic community does have the advantage my neighborhood does of putting people with not only different purposes, but different income, education, lifestyle and experiences, together. It is not often that a planned area performs this function with any degree of success. It may however take planning, as in the case I explained above, to bring those differences to a point where they will meet and make meaningful exchanges.

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.03.04 @ 18:26PST

A Grace Note in the Sky
Across the street from the office is a row of storefronts that includes two small markets, a fashion shop, a chocolatier, a barber shop, and a few other miscellaneous establishments, including a fortune teller that has been there for years.

There is also a large flock of white doves that I have always noted, with great pleasure, flying around the neighborhood. I recently learned that it belongs to a gentleman who keeps a dovecote on the roof. He lets him out for exercise and then calls them back home by waving a large red flag.

The joke (on me) is that I used to think that he was trying to frighten the birds away, and that his efforts were failing spectacularly!

White doves circling...it adds a note of grace to our very Old Urbanist neighborhood....

Richard Risemberg (rrisemberg@newcolonist.com), on 06.03.04 @ 11:28PST

Tuesday, June 1st

Calm in the Morning
In an article on "Second Generation Traffic Calming" at www.lesstraffic.com, David Engwicht argues that engineering "intrigue and uncertainty" into the streetscape--through both physical and social features--will do far more to calm traffic than adding regulations or obstacles.

I accidentally verified this myself just this morning. I was headed down into the Metro station to go to the office, and the escalator was broken. Naturally, I just walked down it, and as it's quite a long escalator, and I am not immune to hurry, I was skipping down the steps pretty quickly.

When I came to the bottom third of the escalator, I suddenly noticed that, over the weekend, Metro had begun installing new tile murals on the columns. I immediately slowed down, though it was a station I use almost every day. The mere presence of something unfamiliar and intriguing was enough to calm my own personal traffic quite a bit.

Less hurry is always better, even for pedestrians. Thank you, Metro, for giving me a better morning.

Richard Risemberg (rrisemberg@newcolonist.com), on 06.01.04 @ 11:27PST