Recent Posts


by Lydia Heard, VIA’s Urban Designer and Planner, and author of citywalker

What does a city’s skyline say about the aspirations, ambitions and desires of its founders and continuum of citizenry over time? How are these ambitions embodied in the planning that shapes a city until it achieves that significant, identifiable form? Do the forces that shape the skyline, that big picture the world sees from afar, also affect the inner life of the city, it’s heart and soul, the public realm of the street, of civic space, and the success or failure of access for those from all walks of life?

city skylines
Let’s look at some well known city skylines. Often they are ranked by the number of very tall buildings, the “High” city. Prime examples are Hong Kong and New York. These are centers of world trade and commerce, bustling with competition and the desire to be noticed; to be bigger, taller, more striking than the neighbor. These cities also have geographic constraints: Manhattan fills its island footprint, and Hong Kong is squeezed upward between mountain and water. Toronto is another High city, and a classic example of the form such a city takes when it has room to spread out. The CBD takes on a mountain form which gives way to a surrounding spread of low-rise development. Off to the side of the CBD is a tall, iconic identifying landmark. Looks like one of our cities closer to home, doesn’t it?

Paris and London
Then there are “Low” cities, often world capitals, such as Paris or London. These were built out to their mature form, one of densely filled blocks at a uniform height, before the age of the high-rise. Post-skyscraper they make decisions to stay low and preserve views of some central civic or iconic monument – the Eiffel Tower; St. Paul’s Cathedral. A civic pride of place is put first, before the individualist corporate competitive impulse, which is pushed to the edges, to La Defense or Canary Wharf – although London has been permitting more very tall buildings in the central city.

What form do our two cities take?
Seattle looks remarkably like Toronto, except with a backdrop of mountains. There are geographic constraints, but there was enough land for a spread of low-density development, which in Seattle consists of well-established bungalow neighborhoods with their own urban village centers. The mountain form of the CBD is a clue to what was most important in development of the city. Now battles are being fought around our very visible and beloved civic icon, as South Lake Union primes for development. Should new development stay low to preserve views of the Space Needle? Can some towers be allowed, and if so what shape, how many, and where? Seattle is a combination city, wrestling with some of the decisions the Low cities have made.

Vancouver has a rather unique skyline among major cities, a forest of glittering residential towers, similar in height and form, spaced for light and views, aided in its upward rise by the constraints of the central peninsula. Their icons are natural; the dramatic and immediate mountain backdrop, forested park, water and beaches. Aside from visions of a mystic island, Avalon, the Fortunate Isle, the Isle of Glass – it most nearly resembles a high-class resort city. This is also a clue to what was important in developing the city.

Seattle and Vancouver had similar beginnings: Location, climate, industrial potential with timber, a railroad and a port as aids to commercial development. Other than geographic constraints, what led them to such differences in urban form? A hint can be found in their early beginnings.

In Seattle, the first large land claim holders, in the interest of developing the city, sold land cheaply to anyone who wanted to build the right sort of business on it. One even donated a huge tract for a university. The Seattle founders’ desire (beyond a failed attempt to become the state capitol) was for the city to become a Manhattan of the west coast, a major center of commerce.

Vancouver founders had a different vision. Almost the first act of the city after incorporation was to preserve the 100 hectare military reserve at the West End which would later become known as Stanley Park. Forward thinking? In a way, perhaps. They were envisioning land speculation for wealthy residential development in that area. This residential speculation took a front seat before business development from the start, and established the desire value of the local natural environment.

What did these early choices mean for their respective cities?
Seattle took a more traditional Central City form, with a Central Business District connected by streetcars to surrounding neighborhoods. This pattern followed the march of progress to become one of commercial towers competing with their neighbors for attention through height or iconic design. While visually interesting, especially from a distance, this tends towards an oppressive street environment of dark canyons and lifeless evenings not conducive to livability because, well, no one was meant to live there. It also required vehicular access for the mass ingress and exodus of workers twice a day – an adjacent freeway or two, never mind the waterfront, and every other street a traffic arterial.

In Seattle these things were accepted for the sake of the commercial ambitions of the city. Because the surrounding village neighborhoods were so desirable, it is only in recent years that ideas of a more urban sort of livability have gained increasing acceptance and urgency. Shifting the direction and intent of planning policy is like turning a cargo ship: It takes a lot of effort to change the momentum.

Vancouver v Seattle2
Vancouver, starting with its initial residential aspirations, took a different tack. High-rise residential towers first started sprouting in the West End even before the Space Needle rose for Expo ’62 and generated momentum for the ensuing rise of Seattle’s CBD. In the ‘60s a planned highway into downtown Vancouver was fought and defeated by residents of the neighborhood it would have destroyed. This somewhat stunted their CBD growth, and commercial development has since spread into smaller tower developments around the metro area, spurred and aided by an excellent and growing higher-order transit system.

Vancouver’s own Expo in ’86 pushed another surge for building out the central city in the Vancouver residential tower and streetwall form, with even more emphasis on livability. This was aided in the ‘90s by an influx of new residents who were accustomed to tower living – because they came from a world-class “high” city: Hong Kong. Now the Olympics driven development south of the peninsula is taking a new form, but livability and sustainability are even more at the forefront, because the momentum has been there all along and is gaining steam.

Vancouver v Seattle3
It seems that in terms of livability, Seattle is struggling to change direction, and Vancouver has a distant lead.
But what about accessibility? That forest of towers, all somewhat similar, not really competing for attention, looks pretty egalitarian – or is it more like the resort city it resembles? In reality it is very expensive to live in the city, putting it out of reach for many. New developments are required to pay into a social housing fund, but the housing can be built elsewhere. In Seattle, citizens tax themselves to build housing for homeless or very low-income people, and a good portion of that is in the central city. Market housing is usually too costly for workforce housing, however, and voluntary bonusing incentives for developers have yet to achieve the desired result.

In both cities, affordable rents for residents and the small businesses that add so much to the life of a street are mostly found in older buildings. When these are redeveloped, new wealthier tenants move in, and the new businesses are likely to be chain stores that can afford higher rents. The street environment may be newly landscaped and attractive, walkable and bikeable, with people sitting at sidewalk patios drinking lattes. This livable but somewhat sterile environment comes at the expense of a sometimes gritty but intrinsic vitality, an edgy, volatile crucible for creativity. Both cities rely on market forces to govern these things to a large extent, especially regarding small business. But like skylines, city policies reflect what is most important to their citizens (including commercial interests), and what they are willing to accept.

Vancouver vs Seattle
Vancouver citizens stopped highways and gained transit. Seattle citizens started a public market from a price revolt, and later fought commercial interests to save that market and its eclectic mix of small business and residents. In either city, what will be the trigger for the next big change?

image credits: Hong Kong, NYC, Seattle, Toronto, Paris, London

by Roger Valdez, Sightline Institute

The best urban plan is no plan at all. The statement is kind of like a Zen koan, those pithy, dissonant little statements, stories or questions like “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” The koan is intended to jolt our cognitive mind into a more enlightened state.

Here’s another koan from the zen master himself, Yogi Berra, an improvement on my poor attempt: “If the world was perfect it wouldn’t be.” Planning should create perfection. On the other hand (the one not clapping), perhaps trying to achieve perfection in our cities is likely going to lead us to imperfection. Think Cheesecake Factory or Buca di Beppo, places that seem to be one of a kind but are truly perfect duplicates of a model, stamped out in city after city.

So what does a city without a plan look like? Take a look at my favorite Seattle microcosm, 14th Ave East on Capitol Hill from the edge of Volunteer Park to Mercer Street.


A walk down 14th leads you from mansions (left) to low income high rise (right) in less than a mile with everything (fourplexes, single family, multifamily) in between.

We know what happened after World War II. People began to sprawl and aided by subsidized highways and cheap gasoline started to divide their worlds. Home, work, park and entertainment were all different worlds, miles apart joined by ribbons of highway. The plan then was to keep things separate. Indeed zoning itself was a plan to keep the pig out of the parlor. Now, oddly, we’re trying to bring the pig back inside (see Farmadelphia). And the idea of zones seems counterintuitive to the idea that people want and can have everything—home, work, park, entertainment, farmer, market—all within a walk or bus ride of each other.

From Farmadelphia

So here is the plan. Let’s begin the process of letting our single family neighborhoods do what they did before zoning took off after World War II. Let’s bring back the corner store, small lots, back yard cottages and a mix of housing types and materials. A sustainable city plan would be molded around human needs and interactions with nature rather than lines on a map. Essentially we need to look back rather than forward for our plan.

Easier said than done, it is true. Seattle is trying with efforts to diversify single family (Northwest EcoBuilding Guild Livable Walkable Project) and to save the town home (Congress of Residential Architects Townhouse Proposals). These efforts need more support from neighborhoods and planning professionals in the months ahead as Seattle tries to match its rhetoric with its land use policies.

Sheep on white house lawn c.1917

Here is the fifth clip from The Great Urban Debate between Peter Steinbrueck (Seattle) and Gordon Price (Vancouver).

Who’s got it right? Vancouver with their “pencil towers” that have civic spaces at the base? or Seattle with their planned neighborhoods.


Aug 28, 2009

by Richard Borbridge, VIA’s Vancouver Urban Planner

While the debate continues about future of public civic space in Vancouver, we have a perfect opportunity to think about one important role and reason for public space – fostering conviviality. Lisa Peattie, Urban Studies professor at MIT, defines conviviality as the quality of lively socialness, expanding on the social learning theories of Ivan Illich that see conviviality as “autonomous and creative intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of persons with their environment.” In a planning context, convivial cities are those that provide opportunities for casual social connection between people in the city — communication and collocation — whether though complementary urban design or market-driven development of third places.

Conviviality is tightly connected to Ray Oldenburg’s concept of “third places”, those besides home and work, which lend space to convivial interaction through cafés, pubs, diners, and hangouts – places that are active in promoting a sense of community and shared experiences between friends and familiar strangers. Vancouver at a glance is not short on third places, but the recent struggles to find art and performance space in our “creative city” highlights the narrow definition downtown Vancouver has fostered.

Public open spaces have a critical role to play in our civic and social infrastructure, which has been predicated on the existence of free spaces and an unencumbered right to free association and expression. Think of convivial spaces as our Olympic free speech zones – only less ironic. Conviviality may even inspire anti-establishment movements or new demands on governments. Planners are especially susceptible to critique in these situations, by recommending and defending their existence and convivial spaces, but they are also responsible to the governments that these movements may defy.

Since conviviality as a concept carries the advantage of existing outside economic frameworks – being exclusively non-material – it cannot be “coerced or bought, but the resources used in the production of conviviality—space, seats, food and drink… may be sold or rented or ceded by owners and governments.” This has tended to typify Vancouver’s response to public spaces, concentrating on development projects and streetscapes while never quite achieving that one landmark civic site.

Robson and Granville streets often sited as the great aggregators of people downtown, but as the domain of businesses and disruptively, of traffic, they are only embraced when the collective energy can’t be contained after a hockey game or Presidential election. They are inadequate for a gathering function and too often manic conduits that people are more apt to shut out with a phone call or ibuds. These should serve as great streets for watching the ebb and flow of humanity but we’ll have to see how the new street furniture pans out before sealing their fates. Inclusively we have the Art Gallery – both sides of it – one for “alternative” crowds, though no larger than a couple hundred, the other for issues, stalking you from Sears to Café Row.

Vancouver is in the middle of the debate and obviously hungry for a fresh and functional civic space, a place separate from – or at least not focussed on – cars and commerce is key. So whether at the centre or the edge, it is most vital that we soon find a place to find our voice since, as Peattie believes, “in human happiness, creative activity and a sense of community count for at least as much and maybe more than material standard of living.”

So find a third place and try on a little conviviality this weekend…you wouldn’t want Vancouver to be the next target for a Coors Light ad would you?

For photo credits, see above links

by Matt Roewe, VIA’s Director of Mixed-use and Major Projects

In the heart of Seattle, two vibrant neighborhoods will soon be re-joined after 60 years of separation by the “Great Wall of Aurora.” The stars have aligned on three major projects to produce an outcome that will re-knit the street grids across aurora and rekindle the livable and walkable association between these old friends.

The Mercer Street project will start this off by reorganizing the “Mercer mess” through South Lake Union (SLU). Making this corridor a simple, two way and straight “Champs Elyse” tree lined boulevard connecting Interstate 5 to the Seattle Center and on to Elliott Avenue near Puget Sound. This enables better urban design, pedestrian safety and a straightforward travel pattern for the frequent unfamiliar visitors to the area. It also yields a calmer Valley Street next to SLU Park and a new two-way Roy Street in Uptown. Property owners are giving up 50’ to allow the wider boulevard, which is timely for the plethora of new development proposals for this under utilized area. The highway like diagonal Broad Street goes away, allowing the orthogonal street grid to return.

I participated in a 40 person/organization stakeholder charrette over the last two years where consensus was reached by all participants including freight, bicycle, business, institutions and neighborhood groups. Construction is scheduled to start in the next year, although the SR99 North portal project described below may impact the timing. See more project info at: Mercer Corridor

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation new headquarters is well underway at 5th and Mercer. With 2000 jobs and a 1,300,000 SF masterplan on 12 acres, this project is a huge community asset, as well as, a real game changer for neighborhood planning. Some would like to rename Mercer Street as “The Road to Global Health” with this institution as the anchor destination.

The Gates foundation is currently a lynch pin in the negotiations with two way Mercer and the SR 99 North Portal as the reconnection of 6th Avenue through or around this campus is critical to the success of the circulation and street grid system. An Illustration below reveals a potential mutually beneficial outcome for both the foundation and the neighborhood. For more info go to: New Campus FAQ

Alaskan Way Viaduct (SR99) Bored Tunnel: North Portal is currently designed to pull together the two neighborhoods by “lidding” SR99 from Republican Street to Denny way, effectively creating new streets and blocks at grade at Thomas, John, & Harrison. This will effectively make SR 99 go away and allow this burgeoning area to be reconnected allowing an entire network of choices available to bikes peds, trucks and automobiles.

The urban design consequences of the North Portal are phenomenal. The city is currently working closely with stakeholders in the area to develop a framework urban design plan that capitalizes on this new potential. An entirely new set of street typologies is possible to create new development potential and greatly enhance the existing fine grain fabric.

The “lost triangle” district, also know as the Denny/Broad/Aurora Triangle, is wedged between Aurora and Seattle Center. The new connections to this area via the north portal project will give this neglected and underutilized area a reason to be a vibrant and complete community offering residential and commercial development potential, all within walking distance of Downtown and all things Uptown/SLU.

There is also a movement to develop an east/west streetcar system extension from the upcoming first avenue green line terminus at Key arena to the Cascade Neighborhood. Thomas and Harrison are likely to be couplet streets and August Wilson Way in Seattle Center is the likely route for this streetcar. Look forward to future posts on this fun topic.

Also in the works is the City proposed EIS alternatives for SLU increasing the height and density of the area significantly with potential trade offs for public benefits. This is an aggressive move to best utilize this area to meet the targeted growth of 20,000 jobs and 10,000 housing units (includes the DBA triangle and SLU area). I can’t think of any neighborhood in the entire northwest taking this kind of responsibility for sustainable, less car dependent growth. Hence, the investment of these projects is rewarding the place taking on the burden of growth in a manner that no other area regionally can achieve.

Politics and regime change: With the imminent appointment of a new mayor and two city council members, these issues will likely get further attention. The two-way Mercer project first phase is already approved and the current Mayor, the Governor and the state legislature have approved the SR99 Bored Tunnel Project. However, the design of the tunnel is still very young and funding is not 100% certain, so these may get revisited. The bottom line for Uptown/SLU is connectivity. Even without the north portal lid, the street grids could still be reconnected via stop lights on Aurora. Not the most desirable condition, but we can still proceed with planning on a better network of connections and relationships.

These are exiting times with many challenges, hurdles, political debate and further exploration. Let us dig in and continue the journey.

Here is the fourth clip from The Great Urban Debate, in which Gordon Price and Peter Steinbrueck debate Seattle and Vancouver’s civic spaces.

Watch this short 2 min clip and let us know your thoughts. Does Vancouver need to work on their civic spaces? Seattle has Westlake and Seattle Center, but do they maximize their potential?

Click here to read a recent article from the Vancouver Sun, which featured the new Oceanfront Resort, as a “dramatic medley of rock, water, glass, steel and wood.”

For the resort website, click here.
Photo credits: Black Rock Resort and Chris Pouget from Coast Image

by Gordon Price, Director of City Program at Simon Fraser University [Pricetags blog]

My first impression? Crowds.

CL - crowds 2

I gave up trying to start at Waterfront Station, and took a trolley to Yaletown. Crowded too, but pleasant:

CL - Yaletown crowd

Yaletown Station is a bit better than City Centre, but still has that affable blandness.

CL Yaletown station 1

I confess, I likeCurtis Sq in fall 2d the little folly that used to occupy this space in Curtis Plaza. Its only function was to house the elevator for the parking garage below, but it fit. Nonetheless, Yaletown Station may add a little life to this space if properly programmed.

It’s a three-minute ride to City Hall. Finally, Vancouver’s civic centre will be more practically connected to its central business district. [Side note: the Hall is where it is because of the civic politics of the 1930s, just after three municipalities amalgamated to create the Vancouver we know today. It wouldn’t do to have the new City Hall located downtown (they even rejected an offer to buy the bankrupt Marine Building), and so it was built in what was then a Mt. Pleasant park.]

Anyway … I didn’t get off. Decided to take the train to Bridgeport, where the action will be when TransLink funnels most of the southern buses into this station. That meant 20 minutes in a tunnel.

As the train emerged into the light, there was an audible gasp of relief. Vancouverites have gotten used to a SkyTrain perspective, and don’t take well to riding underground. Still, it’s now possible to traverse the width of the city in the time it takes to flip through a newspaper, and to do it standing up. The ride is smooth, quiet and stable.

Beyond Marine Drive, a chance to fill in some of the holes in my mental map, to get a sense of the industrial lands that are already being eyed for transformation.

CL - Marine station cars

As near as I could see, a lot of this land is filled with cars – not my definition of ‘industrial’. And not likely to stay that way.

Same on the Richmond side:

CL - Bridgeport station area

Richmond has been aggressive in planning for more urbanity around its stations. Bridgeport, in addition to being the only park-and-ride in the system, is anticipated to be a playground for the kind of adult activities already provided by the River Rock Casino. The hotel-casino complex is nice enough (they even have their own wetland!), but they clearly skimped on the connection between the hotel and the station:

CL - tunnel

The landscape around Bridgeport is a suburban wasteland:

CL - Bridgeport elevated

But all that’s going to change. Bridgeport is one of those places where, after a few years, you forget what used to be there, not that any of it was memorable in the first place.

No time to check out No. 3 Road (a place already evidence of the previous statement), so back on the train (after an hour wait) to City Hall Station.

This one is the best of the lot in Vancouver:

CL - City Hall station

The wood, the curve, the tilt and the grade all work together to create a dynamic experience, visually and on foot, since the elevation of the platform is close to the grade of Broadway. When new buildings to the east frame the station, it will all look even better. And when the northeast corner of Cambie and Broadway has development equal to what has already occurred to the north, this will be an intersection worthy of the view.

CL - Cambie intersection

Back on the train, no wait, to finish the trip at Waterfront – our great nexus of transportation modes (can anyone name a place that has a better mix?) – at the place, in 1887, where Vancouver literally got its start.

CL Waterfront Entry Hall

Not this place, of course (it’s the second CPR station) – but what a statement! As they said of Pennslyvania Station in New York (before they tore it down), one enters the city as a king. It may be that the Canada Line doesn’t connect seamlessly with the Expo Line – but if it means transferring by way of this great room, it’s more than worth the trouble.

The Canada Line is truly something to celebrate: only rarely does a city get to open such an elemental piece of infrastructure. We will be shaping our region around it for the next century. No, it’s not everything it should be (more art, please) and, yes, the station platforms should have been built for the next century too. But it’s a fine addition to a city that has a very high bar when it comes to public transportation.

Oh, one more thing – the arty shot. The tunnel is lit, and in some places is surprisingly steep and curvy. When you’re up in the front, looking through the big picture window – well, it’s the kind of experience that kids never forget.

CL tunnel

by Catherine Calvert, VIA’s Director of Practice + Director of Community Architecture

I recently had the opportunity to visit upstate New York and to learn about cycles of urban decline not only associated with our current economic downturn, but that are the result of decades of post-industrialization. The conference I attended, organized by the Association for Community Design, included presentations by representatives from Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Troy, Flint, Rochester and others – all cities that are trying to figure out what to do with a surplus of vacant urban land at a time when hope is scarce.

Here in Cascadia, our cities look very different. Not only are we relatively younger, but even in the most economically challenged areas, land values remain high and neighborhoods are for the most part occupied. Not so in these eastern and midwestern cities, where a downward spiral of job loss, population decline, property abandonment, repossession and eventual demolition of individual buildings erodes at the integrity of once-intact neighborhood fabric. Cities find themselves as owners of a sizeable land bank of empty lots, owners adjacent to vacant land watch as their own property values decline, and inner cities become less and less viable places to live.

Associated with the decay of neighborhoods comes a lack of choices about food supply. Many public markets once prominent in most major urban centers have been lost to private enterprise over time. When neighborhoods are no longer considered to provide adequate catchment area for a grocery store, they are left with only corner stores and convenience markets as their primary food source. This results in “food deserts” that have serious public health and social justice implications.

Urban agriculture is a hot topic at the moment. Farmers markets and the demand for local food are exploding across America. Many cities actively support the creation of P-patches so that residents without access to land are able to grow their own vegetables. Gardening matchmaker websites offer to pair land-challenged urban gardeners with underutilized-yard-owners. But personal food production is not the only reason to utilize vacant land for non-traditional uses. To paraphrase Matt Potteiger from SUNY, conventional landscape architectural practice remains focused on food supply for species other than our own. We are clearly at the tip of the iceberg in terms of utilizing the full potential of the urban spaces between buildings. What if “highest and best use” referred not to development potential, but to social and ecological potential?

As designers and activists we can have a positive effect on the physical relationships between land uses, access to food supply, and the design of our communities to restore ecological function. Some fascinating initiatives are taking place in other cities. What these all share is a reframing of the problem; turning decline into an opportunity to put back what may be missing, but at the same time busting out of conventional notions of what is viable urban space:

  • In Buffalo, a program called the Massachusetts Avenue Project runs an urban agriculture and aquaponics program for youth that focuses on farming education, business training in food marketing and peer communication on healthful eating habits. The resulting health and educational benefits support the entire community.
  • Joan Iverson Nassauer’s study of Genesee County, MI looks at their urban land bank as an opportunity to restore much of the ecological function that was lost during original urbanization. The resulting community resource actually improves land values and prepares the city for its next stages of evolution and urban vitality.
  • In Pittsburgh, a group of students is using empty lots to grow plant materials for biofuels.
  • In Philadelphia, the Community Design Collaborative is looking at developing smaller urban infill outlets for local produce that are more permanent than farmers markets.

Image Credit: Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3

APTA review

Aug 10, 2009

by Kate Howe, VIA’s Urban Planner

I am just back from attending the APTA sustainability conference in Utah’s Salt Lake City. The sessions focus on tackling climate change – increasing transit accessibility to the pedestrian, land use integration and green design. This is the fifth in the sustainability workshop series, and reflects how transit agencies have moved forward to implementation of sustainability strategies – from Ben Franklin Transit’s ethanol/biodiesel fuel mix in Louisville, to the 25 iphone apps created by creative types for Portland Tri-met that help to blend transit use into the everyday life.

I thought that the star session was the first session, a panel discussion with the new Deputy Administrators appointed by the Obama Administration – three articulate progressives from the EPA – HUD- DOT that travel together to talk about how to create new efficiencies between the three agencies and link transportation funding to land use and environmental policy. Unimaginable only a year ago – these three have their work cut out for them.

Jim Lopez – a former Seattlite who went to Washington with Ron Sims, is now heading up HUD’s Sustainable Communities office. This office is beginning to pay attention and understands that to win the smart growth battle- many communities would benefit from Federal technical assistance to conduct long range planning. Lopez in particular discussed the need for a large scale audit of land use policies in order to make legal the mixed-urban environments that are the hallmark of low VMT, low energy use communities. DOT noted that new funding sources will be shifted towards move competitive grants, to reward transit agencies and municipalities that work together, and will attempt to move away from the dedicated funding streams that may allow inferior quality work – or projects that really don’t benefit the long term.

This discussion segued nicely into a talk by the Brooking’s Institute Christopher Leinberger – who from his perspective as reformist real estate mogul, discussed the market pendulum swinging back from a concentration on single family suburban to mixed-use and urban – simply because this housing type remains significantly under built. He writes that “the most compelling evidence is the price premium people are willing to pay to live in a walkable urban place, that the survey’s show anywhere from a 40% to 200% price premium on a price per square foot basis for a walkable urban place as oppose to a competitive near by drivable suburban place.”

He also highlights the demographics: in twenty years the shrinking household size we are already seeing will only become more pronounced; only 14% of households will have children with 80% being singles and couples. To accommodate a complexity of household types, as well as rising costs in infrastructure he talked about how we need to move the real estate industry from the NASCAR model — quick (and often low quality) green field projects to the Jet Plane – by necessity more complex transactions in urban areas.

The second day included a session on the new FTA sponsored research report “Moving Cooler” that itemizes strategies on how public transport and related transportation systems can be shifted to aggressively respond to climate with GHG emissions reductions. This is an important project for APTA and all public transit advocates – because it helps to get the word out- particularly to fill in the information gap now operating in Congress about transit and its impact on climate mitigation.

Data is lining up in favor of compact development, and increased investment in transit to reduce GHG emissions (and all kinds of other ills). Unfortunately the “business as usual” approach endures, exemplified by the AASHTO lobbyist who stood at the podium making the (misguided) claim to an audience of public transit operators and sustainability advocates that you “can build your way out of congestion” — like we do in UTAH! He also said that they stop at nothing to ensure an uncongested freeway. Wow –they must be really nervous about the new Federal Reauthorization Bill!