Across the Great Divide

Breaking Camp.

The concrete form at left was support for a trestle that once crossed Plymouth Avenue near the Mississippi. It lifts the ground well above the street grade where a wedge of isolated greenery grew in the semi-abandoned industrial landscape. A perfect place for a camp, close to town and the scrap yards, and out of sight.

Now, though, a new building is rising on the long-empty lot to the west. The unseen oasis is now a too-visible neighbor. So sleeping bags, blankets, shelter and clothing have been swept down to the sidewalk.

Across the city, a new light rail line is being planned to run through a faded neighborhood. New development, better services and more employment are promised (or at least dangled before the current residents).

In the long run, it may be so. But the blankets on the sidewalk and the underwear on the road sign are a reminder that, even with the best intentions, better is never better for everyone.

Carless in America.

This is apparently a big national walk-or-bike-to-work-church-school-bars-and-ballgames week. Tomorrow is the bike day.

Here in Minneapolis, I can ride the bike I'm already riding to my volunteer gig on Thursday, then park it in a "bike corral" a block away and receive $5 off on a ticket to the Twins game I'm already planning to attend. I don't think scalpers are in on the deal, though, and I hate it when you ride your bike places and then can't find a parking place...

I'm all for events that are fun and encourage people to experience life on the other side of a car window [all photos here are from the Fruita Fat Tire Festival "Clunker Crit"]. Getting back on bike, even for a few summer days, will raise their awareness when they get back behind the wheel. But like bring-a-can-of-pork-and-beans-for-admission rock concerts and this-time-you-be-the-designated-driver Saturday nights, they won't undo habits designed into our culture and our cities.

The New York Times asks some urbanists whether going car-free is a realistic goal. Their answers embrace urban density, design, transit, household economics, energy, appropriate car use, connectivity and putting some there there for walkers and bikers.

The Uptown Urbanist writes about how difficult it is to change car-centrism, breaking down the contradictions in the Calhoun Area's Master Plan, which envisions a "great urban neighborhood" where "people could live without a car." It also proposes residential development that provides for twice the parking required by the city of Minneapolis.

[W]ho are these car-dependent people expected to move into these new lifestyle units? Presumably the biggest draw about living in the heart of Uptown, especially in a higher density development, would be the ability to live life without a car. These people, even more so than most CARAG residents, would be the least likely to need space to park multiple cars.

This year, I'm seeing many more of those upright city bikes out for a spin. (I even tried one last year, momentarily seduced by a design that looked cool but produced a soft and sluggish ride.)

Maybe some of these riders will keep at it, but I suspect many more of these entry-level bikes are destined for garage sales after the riders discover a) They don't lose weight peddling two miles at 6 miles an hour; b) aggressive drivers don't like them any more than people in spandex; and c) it hurts bad when you fall and don't wear a helmet.

The cities are getting better for bikes, and I wish the newbies (not nOObs) well. But I'm not parking in the bike corral.

Beyond the Dinkydome.

Despite all my years in Minneapolis, curiosity about public spaces and trips past the Dinkydome by foot, bike and car, I've never set foot inside.

Twin City Sidewalks explains why I shouldn't let that bother me.

[Photo via Dinkytown, Minneapolis]

Greenway Safety is About More Than Enforcement.

The Star Tribune editorial, "Don't let thugs derail bike trail use," is right in spirit. But in response to a rash of muggings along the popular central bikeway, it makes an array of suggestions — better lighting, increased police presence, night-vision security cameras, citizen bike patrols and avoiding riding alone — that miss a larger point about safe infrastructure and its use by the public.

Safety strategies that rely on counter-measures and modified user behavior represent a design failure. And a purely engineering- or cost-driven approach to infrastructure almost guarantees we will end up with issues later.

The editorial notes that "portions of the greenway and Hiawatha trails are more dangerous because of the surrounding geography and inadequate lighting."

Another way of putting it would be: The danger comes from treating commuting purely as a problem of moving most efficiently from point-to-point. The trail fails to recognize its true connections to the surrounding city.

The trails are more dangerous because they were built like roadways and rail lines — for specialized vehicle use through a featureless trench or concrete wasteland — rather than as human-scaled outdoor passageways that naturally connect people and destinations. This problem "geography" along Hiawatha was created decades ago by scrubbing the landscape of trees, residences and commercial buildings so it could be remade as a transportation corridor. Then the entire area was neglected until recently.

Don't get me wrong. I love the Midtown Greenway and use it at all times and seasons. The designers and community advocates who championed the trail were well aware of its challenges, and they incorporated features to mitigate problems with the location. It will only get better as more community connections are made and more people discover it.

But here's what real safety looks like along a bike trail or city street.

We can design our infrastructure like parking ramps and equip them with cameras, emergency phones and occasional patrols. Or we can emulate our parks and most beloved commercial streets — places that encourage a mix of activities and promote gathering, visibility and access year-round.

Reaching our destination safely and efficiently is indeed important, but we ignore the quality of the journey at our peril.

– Crossposted at Growth and Justice Blog

When Will Clean Energy Start Feeding Families?

This commentary of mine appeared on Friday in the St. Paul Legal Ledger's Capitol Report.
*****

I’ve just returned from western Colorado, where one manifestation of the quest for domestic energy independence is inescapable.

Oil and gas rigs line the interstate. Acres of new housing have sprung up over the summer. Retail businesses and construction sites sport permanent help wanted signs because they can’t compete with oil-industry wages. The foregrounds of scenic vistas are marred by industrial yards of trucks, stored drill pipe and other equipment. Streets are clogged and county roads are taking a beating from heavy loads. Towns and rural landowners are concerned about spills that imperil their water supply.

And white company pickups are all over town, some of them sporting the bumper sticker: “Oil and gas feeds my family — and yours!”

Although the economic impact in Colorado seems sudden, a mature, well-financed industry had its eye on those resources for decades. But it was only when market forces and government policy finally aligned that the boom began.

Here in Minnesota, we’re counting on riding a different energy-development wave – one that produces energy and good jobs, but is also clean and sustainable. Getting this boom started will require similar alignment, but our economy is not yet organized around conservation and renewables. And there’s no green Exxon Mobil just waiting to swoop in.

This may take a while.

Last week, Gov. Tim Pawlenty introduced a proposed package to encourage expansion of green jobs in Minnesota. His “Green Jobs Investment Initiative” extends tax credits to businesses and investors with an eye toward making more financing available to emerging companies. These features of his plan are similar to measures introduced in the last legislative session, but go the extra step of specifying that half the tax credits will be focused on green jobs.

Incentives such as what the governor proposes will attract investor attention to Minnesota, and they may eventually help seal a deal or two. But tax breaks alone don’t have a great record of bringing in new industry. A successful green-jobs strategy must also heed the forthcoming work of the legislature-commissioned Green Jobs Task Force, which addresses three important aspects of the jobs challenge:

Attracting green jobs. Besides an investment-friendly tax policy, companies thinking about building a Minnesota operation will demand a skilled work force, well-developed infrastructure and good quality of life. Minnesota’s unsuccessful experience trying to lure the U.S. research and development center for Danish company Vestas Wind Systems highlighted another imperative. The state must have a focused marketing strategy that identifies what new green businesses need to get established in Minnesota, and it must aggressively promote our virtues. In February of 2007, I counted at least 18 states that had declared themselves leaders in some aspect of renewable energy. The list of competitors certainly isn’t going to get shorter.

Retaining and expanding green jobs. Minnesota already has a base of existing green jobs in wind, ethanol, biodiesel, mining, forestry and the window manufacturing industry. These companies will be looking for expansion opportunities, and other states will be courting them. A smart strategy will focus on Minnesota’s current strengths and also encourage development of markets within the state for conservation, energy efficiency, sustainable practices and use of renewable energy. To help this transformation, developers and building owners must incorporate green strategies in construction and renovation projects. And consumers, builders, manufacturers and other employers must commit to using green products, materials and processes.

Preparing a green work force. The good news is that many green-collar jobs use blue- and white-collar skills, and there will be both urban and rural job opportunities. As “Greener Pathways: Jobs and Workforce Development in the Clean Energy Economy” says, “The new energy economy will create some brand new industries and many brand new jobs. But even more of it will involve transforming the industries and jobs we already have.”

But new green jobs won’t grow on trees. Green skills have to be embedded in existing education and training programs. And even more should be done to expand access to quality jobs that renew the middle class, according to the “Greener Pathways” report:

To help workers advance from unemployment, disconnection, or dead-end poverty-wage work into family-sustaining green jobs, states need to build and support career pathways. These pathways are not new ones, necessarily, but greener ones in collaboration with employers, workforce agencies, community organizations, labor unions, and community and technical colleges.

Rep. Jeremy Kalin, co-chair of the Green Jobs Task Force, has said: “Right now we all need to work together to identify how we can overcome some challenges in making Minnesota a leader across the board in the green economy. We have to do this together, and we have to be all on the same page.”

And maybe then we’ll start seeing the green bumper stickers.

When Time for the Future is a Frill.

We tend to elect people based on narrow factors. A position on a key issue, political affiliation, "heroism," charisma. But even when we step back and look more expansively, we may get stuck at ideology.

What the world needs now from its leaders is systems thinkers, people capable of seeing the interrelationships in the world as they exist — and not as they fit in their predetermined categories.

By this measure, the Staggering Mavericks — whose thought processes seem untethered and whose interest in the future seems based on the past — are spectacularly unsuitable. The Hopeful President is better in terms of how he approaches problems, but as yet has not yet talked about the developing future that more and more of us can see.

In Sunday's New York Times, Michael Pollan offers an example of the creative thinking we really need from our leaders in his open letter to the next president.

[W]ith a suddenness that has taken us all by surprise, the era of cheap and abundant food appears to be drawing to a close.

[...]

[M]ake the reform of the entire food system one of the highest priorities of your administration: unless you do, you will not be able to make significant progress on the health care crisis, energy independence or climate . Unlike food, these are issues you did campaign on — but as you try to address them you will quickly discover that the way we currently grow, process and eat food in America goes to the heart of all three problems and will have to change if we hope to solve them. Let me explain.

After cars, the food system uses more fossil fuel than any other sector of the economy — 19 percent. And while the experts disagree about the exact amount, the way we feed ourselves contributes more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than anything else we do — as much as 37 percent, according to one study.

Food, oil, health, transportation, housing, water, environment, trade, world peace — it's all there, all connected.

The typical major party politician would not touch this. (Maybe you can find me one who has — and has actually been elected to do something about it.) The framing makes the problem too large, too frightening and too antithetical to a comfortable way of life to bring this kind of discussion forward.

I have met people in various government jobs who are starting to think in these terms, but they are overwhelmed with the day to day. In this patch-the-boat era of governing, the future is a frill.

But eventually, it becomes the present.

Environmentalism as Guilt Management.

The “be less bad” environmental approaches to industry have been crucial in sending important messages of environmental concern— messages that continue to capture the public’s attention and spur important research. At the same time, they forward conclusions that are less useful. Instead of presenting an inspiring and exciting vision of change, conventional environmental approaches focus on what not to do. Such proscriptions can be seen as a kind of guilt management for our collective sins, a familiar placebo in Western culture.

In very early societies, repentance, atonement, and sacrifice were typical reactions to complex systems, like nature, over which people felt they had little control. Societies around the world developed belief systems based on myth in which bad weather, famine, or disease meant one had displeased the gods, and sacrifices were a way to appease them. In some cultures, evens today, one must sacrifice something of value in order to regain the blessing of the gods (or god) and reestablish stability and harmony.

Environmental destruction is a complex system in its own right — widespread, with deeper causes that are difficult to see and understand. Like our ancestors, we may react automatically, with terror and guilt, and we may look for ways to purge ourselves — which the “econ-efficiency” movement provides in abundance, with exhortations to consume and produce less by minimizing, avoiding, reducing, and sacrificing. Humans are condemned as the one species on the planet guilty of burdening it beyond what it can withstand; as such, we must shrink our presence, our systems, our activities, and even our population so as to become almost invisible. (Those who believe population is the root of our ills think people should mostly stop having children.)

The goal is zero: zero waste, zero emissions, zero “ecological footprint.” As long as human beings are regarded as “bad,” zero is a good goal. But to be less bad is to accept things as they are, to believe that poorly designed, dishonorable, destructive systems are the best humans can do. This is the ultimate failure of the “be less bad” approach: a failure of the imagination. From our perspective, this is a depressing vision of our species’ role in the world.
— Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, William McDonough & William Braungart

I’ll confess: there’s just a bit of the eco-purgative in my cycling, recycling, composting and ratcheting down consumption. And I agree with McDonough that it all falls short as an effective strategy for redirecting entire global systems — just as prayer, smaller government or “drill more” are inadequate responses to impending collapse. Such acts soothe individual souls and perhaps stave off doom for a moment, but do not separate us from its grim trajectory.

McDonough aims for new principles of eco-effectiveness — and more important — putting them into systemic practice. If we were to believe the salvation doctrine of the free market, this new sustainability is where energy company profits, venture capital and government policy should be fast converging.

It may yet. Right now, 12 new cities are being designed to apply McDonough’s ideas. In China.

Too Bad for America: Plymouth is No. 1 Small City.

When Money magazine published its annual list of Best Places to Live and the No.1 Small City in the whole US of A turned up just miles away, I had to take a photo ride!

I waffle between ridiculing, deconstructing and ignoring these rankings. Bob Collins has already covered the preponderance of bland suburban settlements in this list under the category Surveys That Don't Mean Anything. He lives in Woodbury, and he asked only half seriously: What's Plymouth got that Woodbury doesn't?

The answer is available on the site: Higher income, taxes, home values, math test scores and rates of kids in public schools; lower job growth and reading test scores; worse air quality, more libraries and movie theaters, fewer bars...

Wait. Why am I doing Collins' work for him? Let him demand the recount. This is about honoring the winner.

I regularly bike through No.1 Plymouth, Minnesota, and when I saw the magazine's ludicrously sanitized Ralph Lauren version of the good life in Plymouth, I also considered lampooning all of suburbia and the entire Money methodology.

But after 11 years or so in Golden Valley, I've mellowed on the 'burbs.

True, without real cities nearby, none of the top 10, except for Ft. Collins, Colorado, would amount to much. These places are seriously deficient in public spaces and lack any architectural distinction beyond the private home. If you are seeking a foodstuff, article of clothing, houseware or entertainment experience that is only available in your town, good luck.

Speaking of cultural life, Money cited the Hilde Performance Center and the Fire & Ice Festival as amenities, to which, as a next-door neighbor, I can only say, Wha-a-a-a?

I suspect Plymouth's biggest boost comes from simply being in Minnesota, because of our state's higher than average incomes and below the median cost of living. A relatively prosperous suburb like Plymouth scores a $25k+ family purchasing power premium over the average for the Best Places.

Plymouth has been adding affordable housing, yet when I searched for property foreclosures in this third  largest Twin Cities suburb — I found:

Does that even register? The whole rating system seems flukey. Eden Prairie, MN, was ranked in the top 10 in 2006, and though it looks even better on some scores now, it's No. 40 today. 

Plymouth residents seem to like the schools and not mind sitting next to a four-acre parking lot as they enjoy their Starbuck's. There's a mix of large and small employers representing a variety of industries. You can find plentiful open space, though it's challenging to find any sign of Plymouth's origins back to 1858.

For all its similarity to Anywheresville, Plymouth has plenty of good points. But if it's No. 1, that's too bad for America.

[As always, you can run the slide show manually by clicking for the control panel. Click the Picasa logo in the right corner or double-click the screen, and you can run the slide show larger from the Picasa site.]

Glittering Signs of the Times.

The souring condo market isn't the only blow to strike the corner of Hennepin and Washington, where a few years ago, a Whole Foods and condo tower were planned to replace the Downtown Jaguar dealership on the block.

In February, the Minneapolis Planning Commission voted to delay approval of a scaled-down development proposed.

Since Jaguar moved to a location along I-394, its former building stayed vacant, though with three floors of indoor parking, the building might've produced some revenue for its owners. Instead, it produced revenue for someone else.

Copper thieves got inside, according to a dealership employee, and stripped it. The theft went unnoticed until the City of Minneapolis investigated a mysterious drop in water pressure downtown. Inspectors found a flooded basement level that likely will guarantee the building's subfloor boiler can't be put back into service.

From selling Jaguars and Ferraris to blighted block in one year. If you want a symbol of our economy, look no further.

Meanwhile, via The Deets, Johnny Northside continues his innovative campaign to reclaim housing in his neighborhood, which is plagued by the copper bandits.

A Built-in Disadvantage.

It's not just inefficient cars or $4.00 gas or restrictions on offshore drilling. This is why we are so screwed.

Even if people want to look at alternatives, the unfortunate truth for the vast majority of TC residents is that there aren't any alternatives to the long car commute. Most people live in houses ill served by any sort of public infrastructure, far away from sidewalks, corner stores, or transit. And most jobs have moved away from the kinds of places that can be easily served by mass transportation. For example, the "third downtown" along the 494 in the Southwest Metro is composed mostly of a series of isolated office parks and stand-alone buildings. How will people ride transit to jobs at the Best Buy HQ, to give but one example?