The Politics of Planning

Let me first say that for most of my sentient life, I've been relatively conservative. I've never been into guns or against a woman's right to choose, but I've definitely been a free-market, meritocracy type of guy. Recently, this political attitude (which though somewhat softened, remains relatively in tact) has created some internal tension given my sense that careful, master planning is a good--even necessary--thing. In a sense, this might be a continuation of the whole prisoners' dilemma post. I think I can connect this: if the role of government is to help disparate members of society reach the optimal, cooperative choice, then planning makes sense. Take architectural guidelines, for instance. A classic conservative (don't even think about political parties here, please) would say that architectural guidelines infringe on personal liberty. A person should be able to build or renovate a house to his liking, regardless of what others think. The wisdom of his choices will be reflected in the resale value of his house and that, in turn, will help ensure that he doesn't make any wildly inappropriate design decisions. But if every resident of the street designs and builds the house of his choosing, we may end up with a Spanish villa, a Frank Lloyd Wright house, and a Shingle Style beach house one after another. Each house may be a beautiful example of its own architectural style, but the street, as an experience, won't work. It won't have the "feel" that makes townhomes on New York's Upper East Side or Boston's Back Bay so attractive and sought after. Of course, not every house should be identical. That's precisely the problem with much exurban development these days. But the houses (like the prisoners...) must cooperate for their collective well being. Surely a townhome on 64th Street between Park and Lexington Avenues is worth more than that same townhome would be on 54th Street at the same longitude, precisely because it's a part of a residential whole in the more uptown location. Only the government (or the quasi-governmental entity, in the case of an Homeowners Association) has the power and legitimacy to corral the various homeowners into the cooperative, optimal design choices. This can be done through Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Ordinances in the case of a government entity, or Rules and Regulations and Architectural Guidelines in the case of private property owners associations.

The Long Island Question

I'm having a lot of trouble with Long Island. I grew up on the island, and it was a great place to grow up. But it's also very easy to criticize the place: (1) too many people, not enough land, (2) too car dependent for its own good, (3) too disjointed and therefore no physical sense of community. Yet it remains a very popular place to live, with soaring land values and a lot of construction. Some of this construction is beyond my understanding. Who would want to purchase one of these million dollar plus homes being built smack on top of the LIE service road or Shelter Rock Road or some other heavily traveled highway? Someone apparently, because they are selling. I think my disdain comes from a historical knowledge of what Long Island used to be, and no longer is. Let me be clear. That's not to say that Long Island should have been reserved as a playground only for the Vanderbilts, Whitneys, and Morgans. A walk (or more likely, a drive) through any one of Long Island's old villages reveals the historical presence of a middle class that coexisted with the captains of industry. I'm particularly inspired by a drive through the Village of Roslyn. Roslyn Road, with a Duck Pond to the east and "normal" (i.e., not estate) houses from the 17th through 20th centuries is a reminder of what Long Island used to be. It's sad to realize that now, and for the last forty years at least, this small village is just an enclave among the cookie-cutter subdevelopments that now cover much of East Hills and the Anytown, USA landscape of Northern Boulevard east of Queens and west of Glen Cove Road. East of Glen Cove Road, Northern Boulevard is decidedly more pastoral and less a series of traffic lights, gas stations, and car dealerships. But any observer can see that over the last five years, it too has become an access road to treeless subdevelopments of seemingly pre-fabricated multi-million dollar homes. My strong opinion against cookie-cutter homes and the removal of trees is sometimes dismissed as "elitist." But I should stress that I have particular disdain for those homes that pretend to have architectural merit, or at least the price tag to suggest a modicum of architectural creativity, but have absolutely none. I certainly do think that there is a place--in a more urban setting--for attached housing or similarly designed housing. Commonwealth Avenue in Boston is a prime example, but so too are the Post World War I (but Pre 1920s Red Scare) housing projects of Bridgeport, Connecticut. So too, I think, is the townhome community in which I live. But these three examples were designed as a whole--with principles of good architecture in mind. The designers were designing a community, not just a building to sell. Buildings sell at all kinds of prices. Communities, and a home in a community, also come at all types of prices. And everyone's entitled to their piece of a community. Unfortunately, it seems not everyone has the taste to prefer (and demand) a community.

Capital idea

I'm now in the process of moving to Washington, DC. This really is a great city, from a planning perspective at least. Like other planned cities, among which I'll count Philadelphia, downtown New Haven, and New York north of Canal Street, L'Enfant's city follows a sensible grid pattern. It also has the diagonal streets (those named for states), which also makes sense (since the shortest distance between two points is a straight line and, separately, I think the hypotenuse of a right triangle always has to be shorter than the sum of the two legs, which, for the record, I think can be proved using the Pythagorean Theorem.

But what's especially smart about this city's planning is the height restriction in place. The popular belief is that no building in the district may be taller than the Capitol. Supposedly there's legislation to this effect, and I believe that historically there may be. Other sources seem to suggest that a modernized zoning code (one that restricts height based on the width of the street in front of the building) is in place. For a decent and believable review, see this article. If anyone knows for sure, or has a cite to where Congress' legislation on the subject may exist, I'd be interested to see it. But what matters most is that the height restrictions ensures an acceptable ratio of pedestrians to sidewalk space. This is something that most other cities--especially New York--do not enjoy.

Please downsize us

I drive an SUV. I don't like the fact that I drive an SUV, but the truth is, I'm not inclined to downsize if the cost of doing so is a head-on collision with a Ford Excursion. My family and I deserve the same heft in an impact as anyone else. Thus, car choice in America represents a variation on the classic Prisoners' Dilemma. Now, I am not for big government. I think the best way our leaders can spend our money is to solve our various Prisoners' Dilemmas. (I might even argue that such situations are the only justified purpose of government, but this is not a political blog). Specifically, the government has a responsibility to force all of us to reach the best outcome (which we wouldn't otherwise reach).

So, getting back to cars. I'm not inclined to put my family in a Mini Cooper (i.e., cooperate, in the Prisoners' Dilemma setting), when I believe that Joe American isn't willing to do the same and part with his Hummer 2 (it's the mid size one, I think). But if the government could force me and Joe to drive Mini Coopers (and no, I don't hold any BMW stock), then we'd both be better off. And I'm not talking about raising gas taxes; I'm talking about simply making cars above a certain weight illegal. Of course, there will be a time when Joe America or I have to schlep some furniture somewhere. And for those rare occasions, a special government-issued permit (and a rental truck from Ryder) will suffice. This all might be a little unrealistic, unfortunately. If the government can't ban assault weapons, they probably can't ban commuter tanks either. Oh well. I guess we'll all have to learn to live with more traffic, bloodier accidents, increased dependence on foreign oil, worsening air quality, and so on.

Manhattan is an island

Considering the fact that Manhattan is an island, the lack of waterfront access in New York City is a common enough complaint. What I find particularly frustrating though isn't so much the restricted access to the water (who really wants to swim in the East River?), but rather the under-utilization of our waterways for passenger traffic. Apparently there used to be efficient ferry service between Manhattan and Laguardia. It's inexcusable that this was discontinued, and that a similar service doesn't exist for JFK Airport. Imagine how much more useful ferry service would be than the monorail, which requires a separate commuter rail trip out to Jamaica. Some automobile and pedestrian traffic experts ought to also study the impact of a high speed ferry that would ply the East River making stops along the eastern shore of Manhattan. I'm guessing such a service would help ease the burden on the grossly inadequate 4-5-6 line. Everyone agrees that another mass-transit option is needed on the eastern East Side. A ferry to the east of Third, Second, and First Avenues would be a lot cheaper and nearly as effective as the perpetually planned Second Avenue subway line.

When did we become the rats?

New York, despite its shortcomings, is a great city. Not necessarily the best place to live, but still undoubtedly a great city of the world. Yet its citizens are forced to share their main transportation thoroughfares--that is, the sidewalks--with mountains of garbage left out for the sanitation department to pick up. Nearly every other city in the same class as New York has in place a system that allows pedestrians unrestricted use of those routes that are meant to be dedicated walkways, not garbage-holding stations. Even notoriously ill-conceived Boston has its alleys which keep garbage out of sight and out of the way. Why are the citizens of New York, the very people who make the city the great place it is, left to wallow about in their own waste? Surely they deserve better.