[1] We actually should be building more streets to realize coherent grids and diversifying travel options. [2] But of course we should be reaching for the opposite effect than Moses. Instead of vehicular infrastructure, we should radically carve out space for the pedestrian. All the great pedestrian spaces in Europe, such as Piazza della Signoria, were taken by headstrong people with vision. [3] May Janette Sadik-Khan surpass Moses.

Benjamin writes:

While I think it’s theoretically possible to use stimulus monies for urban friendly infrastructure, I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that this will happen in the near future. A major reason for this, in my opinion, is because the “intellectual infrastructure” (to add yet another meaning to the word “infrastructure,” an already an overstretched word!) is not in place yet. It seems to me that most people, even most well-meaning urbanists, are still stuck in a largely pre-Jane Jacobs, orthodox urban planning mindset.

For instance, to use NYC (which I’m most familiar with) as an example, in the last 48 years (since 1961) when has anybody ever suggested that we generate urban vitality in a district by breaking up overly long blocks to create additional STREETS? The only example I can think of is the World Trade Center site — perhaps one of the few locations in the world where this wasn’t at all needed for vitality or connectivity, and where vehicular streets are actually harmful rather than helpful!

On the other hand, in the last few years there have been at least three Robert Moses urban renewal sites that have been scheduled to be redeveloped (i.e., The Coliseum site, Silver Towers site and the Fordham University Manhattan campus) which are in fact terrible impediments to vitality and cross use, etc., and hardly a word has been said about once again putting streets through these sites — even from the “urbanist” community. (“Urbanists” seem to be mostly concerned about the supposedly too high densities and in preserving the mostly unattractive and economically sterile tower-in-the-park open spaces, etc.)

[2] It seems to me that Manhattan has much too much “pedestrian” open space (“tower-in-the-park” open spaces) — for a good many years most new high rises have gotten bonuses for pedestrian open spaces or have been otherwise required to create them — and not nearly enough THOROUGHFARE (either pedestrian or vehicular or both) open spaces (e.g., like Rockefeller Center’s added private street — orginally pedestrian/vehicular, now strictly pedestrian).

[3] Not to criticize Janette Sadik-Khan who, from the little I know of her, seems thoughtful, energetic and capable, but the intellectual atmosphere (the intellectual “infrastructure”) within which she is working is not really set up for, and really not interested in, creating BRAND NEW thoroughfares (for increased mobility and economic vibrancy). Instead, it mostly seems to be set up for, and interested in, reassigning the uses of existing thoroughfares — and thereby rewarding “good” people (e.g., pedestrians and bicyclists) and punishing “bad” people (drivers of private automobiles).

One illustration of this mindset at work: as pointed out in a previous “Market Urbanism” thread, at one public meeting a prominant NYC anti-car group was more interested in closing off existing Greenwich Village streets to cars than it was to opening up Greenwich Village streets to pedestrians (through the NYU superblocks, which blocked off two significant one-time streets.

[1] We actually should be building more streets to realize coherent grids and diversifying travel options. [2] But of course we should be reaching for the opposite effect than Moses. Instead of vehicular infrastructure, we should radically carve out space for the pedestrian. All the great pedestrian spaces in Europe, such as Piazza della Signoria, were taken by headstrong people with vision. [3] May Janette Sadik-Khan surpass Moses.

Benjamin writes:

While I think it’s theoretically possible to use stimulus monies for urban friendly infrastructure, I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that this will happen in the near future. A major reason for this, in my opinion, is because the “intellectual infrastructure” (to add yet another meaning to the word “infrastructure,” an already an overstretched word!) is not in place yet. It seems to me that most people, even most well-meaning urbanists, are still stuck in a largely pre-Jane Jacobs, orthodox urban planning mindset.

For instance, to use NYC (which I’m most familiar with) as an example, in the last 48 years (since 1961) when has anybody ever suggested that we generate urban vitality in a district by breaking up overly long blocks to create additional STREETS? The only example I can think of is the World Trade Center site — perhaps one of the few locations in the world where this wasn’t at all needed for vitality or connectivity, and where vehicular streets are actually harmful rather than helpful!

On the other hand, in the last few years there have been at least three Robert Moses urban renewal sites that have been scheduled to be redeveloped (i.e., The Coliseum site, Silver Towers site and the Fordham University Manhattan campus) which are in fact terrible impediments to vitality and cross use, etc., and hardly a word has been said about once again putting streets through these sites — even from the “urbanist” community. (“Urbanists” seem to be mostly concerned about the supposedly too high densities and in preserving the mostly unattractive and economically sterile tower-in-the-park open spaces, etc.)

[2] It seems to me that Manhattan has much too much “pedestrian” open space (“tower-in-the-park” open spaces) — for a good many years most new high rises have gotten bonuses for pedestrian open spaces or have been otherwise required to create them — and not nearly enough THOROUGHFARE (either pedestrian or vehicular or both) open spaces (e.g., like Rockefeller Center’s added private street — orginally pedestrian/vehicular, now strictly pedestrian).

[3] Not to criticize Janette Sadik-Khan who, from the little I know of her, seems thoughtful, energetic and capable, but the intellectual atmosphere (the intellectual “infrastructure”) within which she is working is not really set up for, and really not interested in, creating BRAND NEW thoroughfares (for increased mobility and economic vibrancy). Instead, it mostly seems to be set up for, and interested in, reassigning the uses of existing thoroughfares — and thereby rewarding “good” people (e.g., pedestrians and bicyclists) and punishing “bad” people (drivers of private automobiles).

One illustration of this mindset at work: as pointed out in a previous “Market Urbanism” thread, at one public meeting a prominant NYC anti-car group was more interested in closing off existing Greenwich Village streets to cars than it was to opening up Greenwich Village streets to pedestrians (through the NYU superblocks, which blocked off two significant one-time streets.

Sure, if omnipotent urbanists could direct the stimulus capital towards “building more streets to realize coherent grids and diversifying travel options” I wouldn’t be so skeptical. However, the incentive systems for politicians are the opposite. They want to direct money towards big, glossy projects that people will remember, which is almost never something pedestrian friendly. They want to put their name on the flashy high-speed rail line, the new highway, or light rail system, all which work against the need for “space for the pedestrian”. Unfortunately, we’re already seeing more “stimulus” spending on pedestrian-unfriendly things than pedestrian friendly things, and I’m not optimistic about that changing.

I would rather turn off the tax-funded spigot that draws people away from the sidewalks, and hope that more feet on the street will create public demand for vibrant spaces – and that politicians can respond to that demand. As opposed to creation of those spaces with the hope they can compete with the overspending on infrastructure.

In the meantime, I will hope with you that the deciders only embrace their inner Moses to create and restore pedestrian friendly cities.

Sure, if omnipotent urbanists could direct the stimulus capital towards “building more streets to realize coherent grids and diversifying travel options” I wouldn’t be so skeptical. However, the incentive systems for politicians are the opposite. They want to direct money towards big, glossy projects that people will remember, which is almost never something pedestrian friendly. They want to put their name on the flashy high-speed rail line, the new highway, or light rail system, all which work against the need for “space for the pedestrian”. Unfortunately, we’re already seeing more “stimulus” spending on pedestrian-unfriendly things than pedestrian friendly things, and I’m not optimistic about that changing.

I would rather turn off the tax-funded spigot that draws people away from the sidewalks, and hope that more feet on the street will create public demand for vibrant spaces – and that politicians can respond to that demand. As opposed to creation of those spaces with the hope they can compete with the overspending on infrastructure.

In the meantime, I will hope with you that the deciders only embrace their inner Moses to create and restore pedestrian friendly cities.

But, we should all be watchful for present-day Moses-wannabes who’d love to boost their clout through abuse of “stimulus”.

But, we should all be watchful for present-day Moses-wannabes who’d love to boost their clout through abuse of “stimulus”.