A New Time, a New Way of Looking at Cities: Paris Pointing the Direction Once Again

President Obama has shown attentive interest in supporting the new urbanism with sustainable and livable cities as a result. He signed an order on February 19 establishing the White House Office of Urban Affairs. However, the fraction ($47 million) of the entire ($787 million) of the stimulus plan that is to be assigned to infrastructure is a very modest number to achieve the desired results. This money will go toward transit, rail, roads, bridges, with the larger portion to the highway allotment. With what is left the question remains: how can we design better cities around the states, and how can Los Angeles be affected by this new visionary idea of urbanism. Perhaps a city like Paris and their master plan may serve as an example of a forward thinking approach to a future city planning in Los Angeles..

With the Office of Urban Affairs and the stimulus package, the new administration is sending a mixed message: Yes, we are committed to re-envisioning cities, and yes, transportation and infrastructure remain status quo. This leads to questions: What model will the next urbanism take and who will design it?

Zellner coordinates the Southern California Institute for Future Initiatives (SCIFI) program at the Southern California Institute of Architecture.
The research based graduate program sponsors (with The Architect‘s Newspaper) a competition titled “A New Infrastructure: Innovative Transit Solutions for Los Angeles.” The idea has become more than before to train graduate students in disciplines like policy and planning and not merely restrict the education to design. This is a thought that will remain crucial for current and future planners as developers when assessing the direction of city planning. This idea is evident as the urban planning has become more complicated and tied in with more concern across the social, economical and environmental needs that a city is expected to deliver.. Zellner states that a closer look at the infrastructure in Los Angeles clearly derives to an understanding that the highway driven sprawl is no longer feasible. With the current rate of congestion and pollution and the effect it has on the residents of Los Angeles, the need of rebuilding and reframing the metropolis is recognized. Further, the subprime mortgages and the current economy points out the problematic situations even further by demonstrating a net outflow of people out of Los Angeles. Many just can’t afford living in Los Angeles anymore and transportation is most often an important factor. Sitting in traffic the many hours of the day is just not effective and becomes an economic issue for many families. New Urbanism model recognizes the need to redevelop urban cores, replacing them with walkable streets and transit hubs (see left), making it more efficient for people across all economical fields to be more productive.

Paris has unveiled their master plan for the city, the most ambitious vision in rebuilding the city since Napoleon III. The current economic collapse makes the plan very audacious and non-realistic, yet demonstrates a vision and forward thinking that is necessary for a change to occur. The architect Richard Rogers proposes burying the main train tracks underground, with a vast system of public parks draped over them, connecting to poor and middle-class neighborhoods. A system of subway above highways have been proposed (see below).Yet the 10 proposals for a new master plan for metropolitan Paris, which were unveiled last week, may just be the kind of bold idealism the world needs right now. The results of a nine-month study commissioned by President Nicolas Sarkozy, the proposals aim to transform Paris and its surrounding suburbs into the first sustainable “post-Kyoto city,” a reference to the treaty on climate change, with an expanded Métro system and sprawling new parks. The government has yet to say how it would raise the money to build this new city. And Mr. Sarkozy’s opponents, who have sometimes dismissed him as “President Bling-Bling,” have questioned whether this is anything more than an elaborate publicity stunt.

Yet all of the projects recognize the strong link between urban policy and social equality. In tying environmental concerns to issues of identity, they suggest ways to begin reversing the growing social divisions that mark the contemporary city. If they inspire a broader global debate on these tensions, they will already have accomplished something of significant value. It is time for Los Angeles to act before the trend driven by the negative impact of the economy where people see no other alternative to leave Los Angeles to reside in places where they find cheaper living. The policies regarding planning and development has to carry on a more sustainable approach to alleviate the hardship and burden many people are facing.

With its sprawling public space, Velib shared-bike system, a myriad of different trains and metros, this new Master Plan could be perfect for Los Angeles. The central idea of the new Parisian Master Plan was to preserve the current historic economic core, while breaking down social barriers by connecting less wealthy parts of the town to the historic core by burying the current metro tracks that separate the city into different demographics. Paris would then place even more parks over these train tracks to connect the city socially, while creating a new over-ground train line that would connect the city through sustainable means. This may perhaps be a perfect solution for Los Angeles’ urban sprawl problems. Imagine if Los Angeles city planners exchanged all freeways with parks, and established an efficient and effective train line that unites all suburbs of Los Angeles. Los Angeles would quickly become more sustainable. While this plan is not feasible, and perhaps will never happen, Los Angeles is in need of more public space, new recreational areas such as parks and community centers and more effort to create sustainable means of transportation.

Los Angeles at the Crossroad: Prolong Individual Car Ownership or Sustainable Transport Systems?

The answer to whether people should choose between individual car owner ship or mass transit would come as a no-brainer to many. Cheaper, more environment friendly, faster and more efficient are all conditions to create a more sustainable society. However, the current land use policies add up to make this quandary a much more complex matter. There are different suggestions on how to go forth dealing with future transportation issues. I have considered two proposals attempting to attack the issue from different perspectives. In doing so, I have shared with these authors my point of view, which can be read on the respective site. The first article is written by Nate Berg on Planetizen.com, entitled “better transportation need better cities.” He employs an appealing approach. He explains that in order to improve the mass transit we need first to adapt our cities to become friendlier to any idea of transportation system. Furthermore, I consider a post by David Albert on greaterwashington.com. The post is entitled, “let’s stimulate with a major bike sharing program.” David Albert is a strong supporter of environment friendlier alternatives and suggests the benefits of the bike sharing programs in his article. He offers a more specific solution to how we can mitigate traffic and at once develop a sustainable environment.

"better transportation need better cities.”

Comment

I am glad that somebody else recognized that the grand idea is not only to start mass transit projects with expectations that congestion from cars will be reduced and transit will increase. I agree with you that the first task is to build a city where there is no need for cars. You touch on this point by stating that the city needs a better mix that’s better distributed. Further more you state that we would start walking if it were possible to walk 20 minutes and pass a grocery store, a childcare facility, a restaurant, a pub a park and so forth. This is a great initiative and a closer look at other cities such the ones in Europe is a proof of a functioning model (see left). The real issue to me seems to be the complexity with land use policies and the zoning laws that cause a setback in changing the structure of the old. Having lived in Sweden for many years, I have had the benefits of both great mass transit system and also a community that caters to all my consumer needs within a close range in proximity to where I live. The problem the people of Los Angeles face is that they make a great distinction between where they live and where they fulfill their daily needs such as shopping, running errands as such. Thus I am curious to ask you whether you suggest this model solely for the city or the “suburbia” as well. It seems to me that many people are rather comfortable with housing in the residential area being separated to the shopping and business in the commercial area. Do you think that the people of Los Angeles are susceptible to the idea of integrating all these various businesses into their communities? In addition, I am interested to see if you think that it is possible to take it a step further and actually associate the commercial side to a closer range of proximity to where we live. Such example being to incorporate these businesses like a modern grocery store or other appropriate entities as close as beneath or between housing structures. Yet as the idea may appear unattractive and unpleasant to many urban and suburban dwellers, it can actually be very practical and by architectural means approved in terms of design and functionality as it conforms to the rest of the structure. Knowing that Californians are not accustomed to this type of model, it would be great to see what you think about a similar idea in the future being implanted in the urban planning of Los Angeles.

“let’s stimulate with a major bike sharing program.”

Comment

Though I have never experienced a part of the bike sharing program personally, it appears to me that it brings about a positive attitude to a new wave of dealing with transportation systems, as it reduces the dependency of cars and at once eases congestion in metropolitan areas. The Parisians were first to try this, and they have as a result of the experiment experienced less congestion in their city, but only to the expense of the vandalism and the thefts that have occurred in relation to the program. You mention in your post that Washington being the first state to try this project has not experienced the negative spillovers such as the ones mentioned above. Thus, I am curious whether you think that a similar project could be employed in Los Angeles, being that the urban planning is somewhat different and the distances are greater than what a regular bike route is considered by normal standard. Furthermore, as you are optimistic about the bike sharing programs bringing about an improvement of the infrastructure (friendlier bike transit) like a chain reaction, assuming that the more bikes we have, the better infrastructure. I am a little skeptical whether that is sufficient reason to invest in such a project, being that a bike is relatively just a small cost and very accessible to the average consumer. On the other hand, the infrastructure is the main concern and I would like to know is you don’t think that just having enough stalls and friendlier bicycle lanes is itself more important and sufficient than a bike sharing program, as it will boost the economy as people buy their own bikes (I know it’s a far stretch, but just an example).

Obama’s Approach to Mass Transit: Stimulus for Mass Transit, Un-Stimulus for the Auto-Industry?

With the allocation of about $16.4 billion for the transportation system, the stimulus plan is embarking on a new era. New leadership under president Obama has taken a completely opposite approach to the distribution of funds, with $8.4 billion for mass transit and about $8 billion for high-speed rail (see left). This is obviously an improved attempt by the new President to distribute more resources than former President Bush’s final budget of a mere $11 million for the same project. President Obama’s extensive attempt at creating a cabinet for urban policy (see below) is an attempt to rebuild for future prospects. Why did the new leadership take on a completely opposite approach to mass transit then the previous administration had done? Perhaps, we have come to the realization that the need for a correlation between urban city planning and transportation function is the way of the future. A fact the Bush administration chose to neglect by allocating more funds towards the auto industry, and less towards the future welfare of the Nation. In a previous post I made reference to the endless benefits to the rural community once an accurate and reliable transit system in downtown Los Angeles is put into place; and the unpleasant results and monetary lose it will bring about for the auto industry. Clearly the time for change has come, as we consider the recent increase into public demands for a reliable transportation system. Although, the prospect of a wide-ranging transit system might inadvertently contribute to the already dying auto industry, the question remains as to how this will affect the current economy in the United States? Nonetheless, serious investments in constructing a better transit system will aid in building a sustainable society in terms of environment, social and economical prospects for our Nation.

The auto industry has for long been a power-house, strongly and successfully lobbying to delay the implementation of any future modernized transportation systems. Unfortunately, by implementing such a system many innocent people might lose their jobs in the process. Nonetheless, we should not waste anymore resources to bailout GM when obviously they lack to present the public with any credible proposition for the future. I propose that we set up a training program for the many qualified employees of the auto industry who might show interest in having a sustainable career in the mass transit industry. A point Massachusetts Professor Robert Pollin, who is also a consultant at the Department of Energy further develops by stating that; “Obama should instead invest the bailout billions into transportation that moves billions of people, and creates several times more jobs than what GM and Chrysler say they will lose.” Professor Pollin goes on to state that every dollar in mass transit results in creating more jobs then it would if it is spent in the auto industry; $22 billion for every $1 billion. When we put all these facts together it should persuade us to invest massively in a transit system at the present time for the purpose of building a better future. We should prioritize and work on the various ongoing but yet unfinished projects in the transit sector rather then aid and assist auto makers who lack to present a long term resolution to an ever growing problem.

Los Angeles should refer to the European countries and Japan as a good source of reference for building a reliable transit system. These countries are in the forefront and have benefited from their endeavors greatly. Perhaps, we could even use smaller cities like Chicago and New York as good references for having excelled in utilizing a massive transportation system. It makes me wonder why Los Angeles has fallen behind in this race and has yet to become sufficient in the matter? I am left to conclude that industrialization played a major role in this development. In cities such as New York and Chicago the population and its citizens were not as spread out as they are in Los Angeles, making the construction of a reliable transportation system much more practical in these smaller cities. Moreover, another fact that should not be overlooked is the age of the city in question. Both New York and Chicago grew and matured quite rapidly in comparison to Los Angeles which gave rise to a compelling need to a fast growing transit system. Therefore, Los Angeles being a relatively young city I believe it too is destined to undergo similar progress. It could be argued that the realization has come later then the necessity for building such system in Los Angels. Nonetheless, what is certain is that the 30 million people who found their way to Los Angeles during the past five years is a definite indicator that the policymakers will have to take a serious and long-term approach when deciding upon the shape and structure of mass transit system – an eminent fact. However, there are numerous factors as to why it is important for us to change our policies towards such a system one of which is to diminish the dependency of foreign oil. Furthermore, this will reduce the emission rate in our city and save the states energy crisis. Debates have been raised to address the question of making the urban center environmentally friendlier than the suburbs. However, all such debates rely on whether we are going to have well working and functioning transit system?

With raising population rate the issue of transportation can no longer be ignored. Some people in Los Angeles may seem satisfied to some extent with their mass transit system, but this number represents the minority of the population. Moreover, I recognize that we have an established transit system – an unavoidable fact – but I do assert that it is neither whole nor is it sufficient. Multiple projects have been undertaken that are still incomplete due to a lack of funds on the one hand, and attention and care on the other; project that can better serve the masses if completed. I am not alone in this conviction and wish to direct your attention to data assembled by the National Associated of Realtors (N.A.R) on this subject. A poll conducted by this institution reveals strong support for public transportation. When people were asked what they believe to be the greatest and best way to solving traffic problems almost 50 percent favored improving public transportation, 25 percent expressed that they rather desire to build communities where driving is not required, and only 20 percent answered that building roads was best. Fifty six percent of the people who participated in this survey stated that, the federal government has neither committed nor has it taken enough initiative to prioritize and distribute sufficient resources for such a project. Lastly, 75 percent – the majority – expressed that they wished this country to improve “intercity rail and transit.” In short, it is time for a more sustainable future in all shapes and forms. It is time that we finish what we should have started a long time ago.