Publishing

If you are wondering why this, one of my many blogs has been without content for sometime it is not out of a lack of interest. I am planning to publish my views. A more complete and comprehensive view on planning and design will be put together in a book. A unique view of economics with historic perspective will be the foundation for developing many views shared in previous posts into a substantive thesis. Morals, ethics and the role of nature, God’s creation, in man’s lives will make this a complete work on planning.

Without an understanding of the designer of this world and His design one’s work is lacking no matter how useful it may be perceived. It is only when we understand God’s design, like his laws of physics, geology and the nature of materials can a building stand. When we go beyond the physical truths and touch the reality of God’s nature can one create lasting beauty and relevance. This suggests the most advanced thought and views on God and his purposes will capture men’s imaginations. We’ll see.

In the meantime, including the fore mentioned work I have three other works of fiction in process. The most notable and expansive includes my design of a Lunar colony. I have a collection of poems I look to expand into a volume to be published.

Of my two published works, “Struggles, A Pair of Short Stories” will be available free, the Kindle version, this Saturday, Sunday and Monday; December 14-16, 2013. Look for other free promotions in the future. You can click on the cover to download the book.

Form Follows Function

When I lived in Korea I noticed something that as a westerner I found annoying. As a church worker living in a small shack behind the Minister’s home, the chapel comprising the entire second floor of the two story structure, I could hear the phone ring. At that time there were no cell phones, only landlines. It was a traditional phone with a traditional loud ring for those of us who are old enough to quickly recollect what a traditional ring sounds like. Did I mention it was loud?

Often the phone rang and rang and rang without ceasing. Why the person would not simply hang up when no one answered is part of the eastern character I am attempting to convey here. The complimentary side of that annoying attribute is explained as follows.

Hearing the phone ringing continuously, bothering me to no end, I often jumped up from what I was doing and ran into the church residence and answered the phone. Of course the person on the other end would be seeking the minister. Instinctively, though I could only imagine no one was home, I would call out for the minister. And this ritual held over and over would end in most all cases the same way. The minister’s head would pop out around the corner from his office and he would calmly respond, “Yea” yes.

Western civilization may attribute its technical dominance of the world to its ability to observe absolutely everything, seeking to understand how it all works. This attribute might have served an undeveloped civilization well. But in this era of information overload does the eastern attribute of simply ignoring what one is not focused on in the moment a superior approach in this modern age?

We are overly consumed with not only information but material, and data devices rule the day. I find it liberating to get out into the forest, leaving the Internet, TV and even my phone behind. I long for the day when you needed to be home to receive a phone call and what was going on in the moment in your own life held prominence without the urge, the temptation to instantly share what one is up to at any specific instance. Always concerned with how we are perceived by others than simply on how we are is not healthy.

But the data craze cannot be ignored. The personal computer empowered small businesses and then radically transformed the home as prices came down and software was designed to meet near every demand of business and fancy. The family room has become a colder more industrial space dominated by the TV, computer desk and gaming systems. The formal space has little to no time to be appreciated. Aesthetics and decorum are ignored.

The tablet is the latest craze. And why will they fail? Because no one really needs a device equivalent in power and function to their laptop, or desktop, to carry around with them. And there is a cheaper alternative that meets the functions people are seeking in a tablet; the e-reader.

Kindle has just come out with their Kindle Fire for $199. It is in color, uses a version of Google’s android and has hundreds of apps to chose from. In short, with access to sites such as Facebook, the ability to game and listen to music along with not only one’s library but to receive subscriptions to newspapers and magazines, what more does one need in a tablet. And the Barnes and Noble Nook Color does much the same thing.

The tablet is folly. Producing a product whose form far exceeds its desired function when a superior product, a product whose form does follow function, already exists. In fact the e-reader was design from bottom up to match the most desired functions of what a tablet should be. The tablet’s starting point was to replace the laptop. You can’t replace a full scale operable keyboard with a touch screen. But many are willing to throw their money away on the latest craze.

The e-reader will not be the end of print. The bookshelf may become the instrument for the return of the formal, the disciplined, the refined in life and home. The quality and topics of ones books displayed to convey a message of, who the person who lives here is; a showcase. Much more traditional, aesthetically attractive than the cold clutter of a compute terminal in ones home. An instrument that will inspire the resident to simply sit down and take some time to read. To read in that quiet isolated realm of one’s own mind; imagination.

In fact with the laptop, the e-reader or tablet for the fool hardy, along with entertainment and gaming systems being confined to rooms designed for their specific function, the home, free of the desktop in all areas including the bedroom, will revert to much more traditional design. The formal spaces returning to importance and focus can only promote civilized relations in a world where relationships are suffering at the hands of materialism.

And of course I cannot ignore the technology that is the greatest transformation of the family space since the development of the television; The flat panel TV. The old boob tube TV no longer dominates the space, protruding into the center of any space it is placed in. And due to the laptop the desktop has come full circle, returning to the domain of business where it is best suited.

Scale

Geography is an interesting study.

Dictionary.com describes it as such.
1. the science dealing with the areal differentiation of the earth's surface, as shown in the character, arrangement, and interrelations over the world of such elements as climate, elevation, soil, vegetation, population, land use, industries, or states, and of the unit areas formed by the complex of these individual elements.

It is a science applied to the urban/human environment just as much, if not more, as it is to what is described as the natural environment. An understanding of the science essential to the urban planner. A study of relationships that can be experienced, come natural to some (everyone is gifted with their own form of genius) or can be learned. Urban geography being the focus of one of my honor classes when I was in school.

SARUP has had an outstanding and diverse array of lecturers  for their Friday Afternoon Live, FAL, lecture series. Included in the past was an urban geographer/planner. After the lecture I asked a question concerning high speed rail. I questioned whether the traditional downtown or the airport, Chicago being the city in question, was more appropriate for a high speed rail hub. I suggested a slower system was appropriate to bring people into the Loop. The response to my query was, 'but it's not high speed rail' as if all rail must now be high speed.

Being the last question of the night, received with a bit of uncertainty and trepidation as all my questions are, I didn't push the issue. But in my view the issue is two fold; one is economics, the other scale.

I find this knee jerk reaction that all rail must be high speed rail even when it isn't, like what was planned for here in Wisconsin, not unsettling but uninspiring. Birds of a feather the common phrase that comes to mind describes it best. Those of a certain belief flock together and then need to invest far less to justify or sell their ideas. My ideas expressed here in this blog concerning high speed rail are not unique either. There are groups that promote using high speed rail to connect airports and those that believe in a much more personal scale of fixed public transportation; personal rapid transit systems.


First of all the cost of high speed rail is very ...high. Yes, minimal government producing a vibrant economy would create plenty of funds for such amenities that most often don't turn a profit, but may be considered beneficial overall in high density or traffic conditions. I do not believe most parts of the world will achieve such population densities to justify the wide spread use of traditional high speed rail. I advocated a much smaller scale system for the Milwaukee-Madison corridor. We will always have New York and Tokyo, among others, as part of the human experience, but man is far better off living closer to nature, in greener environments. I am better for my experiences living in such high density areas, and some could easily show their benefits to the world economy, global interaction and development. But how many mega metropolitan areas do we need?

So I do not believe we need to plan such density for new or growing cities. We do not need such a large scale high speed rail system. The cost would not be justified and no one will ride it where the car is available, making the cost all that more reprehensible. Also, bringing such rail through a dense urban environment to connect downtowns is fiscally irresponsible when the airport is clearly the new transportation hub for any large city.

And the scale. ...When I travel I truly enjoy observing the natural environment. When I drive out to the north woods the landscapes are beautiful. I can look upon it, ...and some minutes later look upon it again as I drive and it hasn't changed as far as I can perceive. I have taken the bullet trains in Japan and can  take in the essence of all the changing natural environment, agricultural or otherwise, at very high speed.

Coming into an urban environment is very different. The density of flavor, color, the heart and soul of a city needs to be experienced at a much slower pace. Rushing through an urban environment at high speed is to deny oneself the kind of rich experiences that open our eyes to the essences of our fellow man. Yes, the high speed rail can slow, may have to slow, as it enters the city (the 'high speed' aspect becoming irrelevant), but one can transfer to a more appropriately scaled, in size and speed, system at the airport. All at lower cost to the public as rail systems generally don't turn a profit.

Hills are Evil

I first heard of this site on the BBC World Service while driving one night. Hills are Evil is trying to create a database of conditions that are either complimentary, or adverse to handicap accessibility, as well as other alternative travel. Any conveyance outside of pedestrian or automobile traffic, like bicycling or simply pulling a hand cart to and from a desired location.

As bicycling is an interest of mine, and promoted as alternative travel by the few but fervent, I believe hills are an immensely important consideration in planning bike paths. And, if one considers bike travel a serious alternative to the automobile, where development should be located.

With a East West corridor from Milwaukee to Madison and beyond, developing centered on the expressway, how should responsible planning be promoted? Also in the corridor is a substantial bike path core. If we look far into the future, with growing populations, there is even talk of the need for a fixed independent transit system. A controversial issue. Something I've shared my two cents about.

I would put forward that if we want responsible development that includes bicycles, promoting what are called multipurpose paths as they are called these days, hills are truly evil. The bicycle enthusiasts are few and far between. Yet work hard to support multipurpose paths and bicycling as a commuting option. Perhaps claiming a disproportionate amount of funds for the cause. The reality is few people, if presented the opportunity, will commute by bicycle. And if a larger population would, they would not want to travel more than two miles, or work up a sweat doing it. In other words, hills are evil. Even if solid percentages of people take up bicycling, like on many campuses, they will not use their bicycles at every phase of their life, or even in season of the year. Conditions and demands change with time. The money invested should be spent on what is most attractive to the largest number of people. Can I say again, hills are evil?

Even in a mountainous nation like Japan, the ancient densely populated cities are surprisingly level. In Korea the development goes up a mountain only after every available space in the valleys and open areas is consumed. Most developed before the advent of the automobile. But even with the automobile, fuel efficiency would be better served by avoiding hills.

JJR, a civil engineering firm recently gave a presentation at SARUP titled, "Sustainable Waterfront Redevelopment that Serve as an Economic Catalyst for Underutilized Harbor Areas." They have been successful in harbor area developments. They work under the premise that they create the bones, many already in place as harbors already contain substantial infrastructure, and allow time and market forces to fill in the meat.

So if we look at the Milwaukee-Madison corridor we can presume that development, to both the north and south, will want to tie into the nodes currently existing around the expressway. Either as a destination, or to connect to an alternative form of travel such as a bus. Or connecting to a potential node that may develop around a fixed mass transit alternative. Or even, if business and housing develop centered on the existing bike path, to promote green commuting, nodes developed around the bike corridor. In all cases planning, creating infrastructure, to avoid any major elevation change would be advantageous to promoting travel that is not automobile driven.

In the interview I heard on the BBC, the site promoter suggested that many chose longer routes to their destination based on the information they provided. They choose ease over distance. So do we develop elevation based zoning? Only allowing development, say, between five feet and fifteen feet above the applicable floodplain? All in our effort to promote any form of travel other than the automobile? I don't believe that is the roll of government, outside of insuring reasonable safety. It is the job of Architects and Planners. And in regards to developers or other interested parties, it is the job of society in general, possibly religion and media carrying much of the burden here, to promote a common standard of morality.

We can keep streets smaller and friendlier by creating several alternatives. Planning ahead of time, for how people can get from point A to B. Maybe we need to plan for one hundred years in the future now. Or maybe, as has happened many times in history, massive migrations may expand the population much more quickly than we can imagine. If we can draw business to Wisconsin. We have a beautiful corridor with great amenities from east to west, that needs to be protected through responsible development. That needs to be accessible from the north and south.

Most important is the perspective from the ground. Roads, and railroads, have always taken elevation changes into consideration when being planned. But what may appear to be a gentle climb for your car, will stop the vast majority of the population from even considering using a bicycle.

I'm Published

Self published that is. A small work of fiction that I hope everyone will enjoy. Available now on my Create Space e-store, and it should be available on Amazon within five business days. My wife and I would appreciate your support.

Click here to buy now.

Click here to buy for Kindle.

810 Million Dollars

Can we give it back?

That is the amount Wisconsin has received for the proposed Milwaukee to Madison high speed rail. just a small part of the 3,000 mile Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, according to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. I suggested to one local pundit that the maximum ridership would be 4,000 in the first month and downhill from there, making reference to the now extinct Janesville to Chicago line that had one daily rider and averaged less than 20 riders a day. I think I could be a bit high with any of those figures.

Living in Korea for four years, I depended on mass transit to get into Seoul. On several occasions we visited our central church. The trip using the train took us just under two hours. If we grabbed a taxi to the train station we could make it in an hour and a half, if we didn't have to wait long for the train. Someone suggested that the bus was quicker. But I was more familiar with the train and during off peak hours there were always plenty of open seats. Unlike the bus, the buses often lined up at the stops eight deep like a train, which were always crowded.

Many of the students I tutored in English, as they started their professional careers, consistently expressed their desire to someday buy a car. Though parking was an issue and the main streets in Korea, sometimes eight lanes wide as they worked there way through narrow valleys between the mountains, were always packed with traffic.

But it just wasn't the horror of traveling during rush hour, the passengers pressed hard one against the other that they abhorred, it was their time that they cherished. On one of those trips to our central church, usually a two hour trip, one of our local church elders offered us a ride in his minivan. We slogged through the Seoul metropolitan traffic and after 15 minutes were well settled into our seats, content with watching the mass of humanity that surrounded us when our driver said;

"We're just about there!" Maybe twenty-five minutes point to point.

There is no need for the Milwaukee to Madison train line. It does not matter how fast it travels, driving will always be quicker and cheaper. That is as long as we are allowed to have our own cars. Looking at the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative you have to wonder if that is not the whole idea; denying us our cars. Electric cars are a great idea, but what if you are only allowed to charge them at your personal residence? With the time it takes to get to a station, then wait for the train and then transfer to another form of transportation to get to your destination, no one will take this train.

I suggested in the past that high speed rail only has value if it could compete with, or perhaps 'complement' is a better word, the airplane. A System traveling at +300 mph that connects only major airports. Airports already containing plenty of long term parking as well as car rental facilities. And all major airports have well established connections to their respective city centers.

The expense of high speed rail is far greater per rider than our existing system. Even in high density areas such as Chicago some have suggested that rail is too expensive and that the existing roads could handle the extra traffic. I think I can safely say that wouldn't be true in Manhattan. And few rail lines of any kind in the United States turn a profit. The only high speed rail line that turns a profit is between Tokyo and Osaka. One of the richest most densely populated areas of the world. And the supposed environmental benefits of rail are disappearing as passengers per miles traveled is dropping as rail invades low density areas. That high speed line to Duluth, population 85,000, could send it over the edge.

In fact existing rail transit as a commuter system can only claim viability because it came before the availability of the automobile. New rail systems will not spur development. They are an economic disaster for the communities where they have been built. With the unsustainable tax burden (not to mention the existing tax burden) that the Milwaukee to Madison rail line will create there will be no new development in Wisconsin and there will be no need or desire to relocate or expand existing businesses along the rail line.

We do have an attractive corridor between Milwaukee and Madison that can become one of the most attractive areas in the country, if we can revive our local economy. We already have many natural areas preserved from development, Lapham peak and several other State Parks. A transit system as a planning tool, a tool to control development in what some call a responsible fashion, is far superior than the heavy handed restrictions and land grabs our federal and local governments seem to favor more and more. The expressway whose own nodes, access points, have created pockets of density is another example.

But a fixed transit system has few advantages over buses. And those only exist if they operate free of interaction with other systems such as cars or freight trains. So they can move fast and free and not obstruct traffic. But they are extremely expensive and cannot be supported without hurting our local economy.

These should be important considerations to planners and architects as they propound they uphold standards of ethics. Some recognizing the economic infeasibility of old technology rail transit systems (the bullet train is some 40 years old and travels faster than what we have planned for Wisconsin) and are investigating personal rapid transit systems.

If we had a truly ethical government, the waste, corruption and folly removed, there would be plenty of money to develop systems judged money losers, but holding other benefits the public values. If we can cut taxes and spur development, a transit system can be 'planned' right down to its paths and stations, influencing development without actually building it until it could be deemed economically responsible.

Still we would hardly be a Manhattan or Tokyo. But rather than shopping the market for the latest fad, old technologies and systems that have already been shown not to work, at least to those with basic standards of intellectual honesty, why not demand something new to meet the specific needs of this community? And not putting out money for studies, but guided with common sense going to companies and saying this is what we want. Show us what you can do to meet our needs.

And some person rapid transit systems go a bit larger. Perhaps a ten passenger system between Milwaukee - Madison is sufficient, and  if it works well maybe run it all the way to Minneapolis/St. Paul. Yes a personal rapid transit system is much lighter than traditional rail. If designed well it can require a lighter support system, a smaller infrastructure, which means it could be brought through tighter areas. It would not be difficult to make it much quieter than traditional rail or elevate it above the roadways.

Five pairs of two seats, with business class leg room, would translate into a car about twenty feet long and eight feet wide. Perhaps five tons total operating weight. How difficult would that be to support and move at twice the speed of traffic (140mph) or faster? (I'm asking, I'm not an engineer)

Computerized, as it would be an isolated system, to save on labor costs and create a nearly on demand access. With computerized ticketing systems, common, one would purchase a ticket from a vending machine priced specifically to distance traveled. You would need one attendant at each station, maybe one or two more at the busiest, to deal with problems or collect extra fees if the wrong ticket was purchased. If everyone on a car is going all the way to the end of the line and the car is full it would automatically go express.

When someone buys a ticket the system can determine how long before a car will arrive that they can board, and a new car can be pulled up if no other car is coming. A device in the armrest would take the ticket and spit it back out when you reach your destination. The system could guarantee boarding within five minutes. If there is no one seeking a ride, no cars will be moving. A semi on demand system would require a surplus of cars. A cost analysis would have to be made.

The greatest advantage is the system is capacity flexible. If populations dramatically increase more cars can be added. Like that scene in Korea, with the buses lined up like a train. Why build an unsustainable system that will carry hundreds and expect the demand to appear? Why not a system that meets the demand and can be expanded?

Providing spacious seating a bicycle ticket could be bought, where a bike rack drops in one set of seats allowing for up to three bikes to be held. A car with five pairs of seats could carry six bikes and six bicyclists. And we have many attractive bicycling options in the Milwaukee - Madison corridor. A pair of seats could lift up to provide for handicapped access. Yes, every pair of seats would need its own access.

With the expressway and bicycle corridor that already exists, adding a fixed mass transit 'plan' could control development, create nodes of density through planning rather than government dictate. Currently I personally believe when purchasing a house people are more interested in bicycling options than mass transit options. And that would be recreational bicycling.

A system that truly responds to the future needs of Wisconsin. That is, if we are to grow along with the rest of the country.

Unfortunately common sense, public ethics, and vision are not currently in vogue.

Modern Residential Construction

My older brother moved into a new suburb some years ago. Standing at a certain point, one could bounce the floor in his house and watch the walls moving as well. Amazingly there was no corresponding cracking in the drywall and no squeaking. The wonders of modern materials and engineering. I didn't find it attractive. Soundness creates a sense of security. Could there be some yet to be documented negative influence on the social and ethical norms of the greater society? One's environment influencing the way one feels, and thinks about, and judges his surroundings? I enjoy investigating the metaphysical but have a more tangible point to make.

This summer there was a story of a home where the outdoor gas grill caught fire and soon the entire home was consumed by the flames, a complete loss. Living in the city, when an older home catches fire, I know that a structure seldom burns to the ground. That when the fire department arrives they have a lot of work to do, climbing onto the roof to vent the smoke, searching for victims, and other general fire fighting duties. Yet when they get to a single family home of modern construction how often do they have the chance to do much more than pour water on the blaze? Unfortunately too often, as a rise in fire fighter deaths is attributed to modern engineered construction materials and/or systems.

Modern multifamily structures, like we see in our own downtown here in Milwaukee, have high standards for fire separation between units built into the codes, preventing similar conflagrations. (OK maybe it's just the sprinklers) But this boom in downtown construction, much of it standing empty, also points out the money ties between our construction industry, with its contractors and unions, and the political establishment. A lot of money has been made and contributed.

In the multi-unit construction Architects are involved. Could that be one of the reasons the safety standards are higher? Or maybe it is just privacy issues in multi-unit construction that would require a more substantial construction. I am sure many in the Architectural profession promote this kind of development for ideological reasons. Is there an intentional lack of focus on single family housing for these same ideological reasons? If these multi-unit buildings are not a response to market forces and waste tax payers money, two criteria, I would consider it an unethical endeavor.

And though some Architects are involved in residential design, what is their focus? Functionality? Interior designs that meet the ever changing demands of modern families? Cost savings? And are Architects involved at all? They are not required in construction under 50,000 cf.

Systems that are engineered, using less material and cutting costs, are often (but not always) substandard when fire is added to the mix. But we have smoke detectors that get everyone out of the house safely. A product of a disposable society? If something goes wrong we throw it away and get a new one? So let us not raise the standards, cutting into the contractors profits, but let's require sprinkler systems. More work for the construction industry.

Wood is the definition of a renewable resource. Is it best to use as little as possible when constructing a home? Or would it be better to go heavier and create a home that will on average last much longer? I would say go heavier. And beyond the traditional timber framing, there are some modern engineered materials that would work just as well if not better.

There are serious issues with modern single family home construction that have not come to the forefront and in the interest of public safety they should be. Lives are on the line.