[p2p-research] Walkability (on building new stuff on sea and land)

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> Here's one thing. If we've reached the point where all the young of 
> Europe can do is live in their parent's overcrowded apartments until 
> they turn forty, there is no future generation to worry about. :-( We 
> need to dream again, even if some of the dreams will, admittedly, be 
> nightmares like "Waterworld".

Some links as I get more curious about this. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_%28cruise_ship%29
http://www.aboardtheworld.com/
http://www.residentialcruiseline.com/index.htm

"Residential Cruise Ships - how to change the scenery outside your home"
http://www.gizmag.com/go/6369/
"We’ve looked at luxury homes on wheels (A, B, C, D, E), relocatable homes
that get delivered to the location of your choice (A, B, C, D), mobile homes
that float (A, B) and even relocatable homes that hang in the trees (A, B).
As the world becomes geographically untethered, we expect the market for
taking it with you will just grow and grow. If you love the serendipitous
discovery of travel but long for the creature comforts and space of home,
the Residential Cruise Ship option might be for you. One of the first such
concepts we covered in our first print issue four years ago was the Freedom
Ship (A, B) and the first fully-operational residential cruise ship was the
Residensea. Now there’s a US$650 million dollar private residential cruise
ship project underway named the Magellan."

"It's called the Freedom Ship"
http://www.gizmag.com/go/1111/
"It's named the Freedom Ship, and should this most ambitious of projects
ever come to fruition, it will no doubt become one of the most famous and
intriguing places on earth. It is more than a massive ship, though at close
to a mile long, with a full scale airstrip on the roof and 50,000 people
aboard, the sheer magnitude of the exercise is difficult to comprehend. The
Freedom Ship is so large, that it will contain over 200 acres of open area
set aside for recreation and relaxation. ... The Freedom Ship will be the
world's first mobile modern city featuring luxury living, a major world
trade centre and extensive duty-free international shopping. Viewed from
another angle, it will be an incredibly vigorous commercial community with a
broad range of privately owned and operated on-board enterprises which will
sell their products and services world-wide and operate totally free of
local taxes and duties. With its constant movement around the world, and
access to the patrons of the wealthiest resorts, it will almost certainly
become an incredibly powerful financial force. It will be the world's first
portable tourist destination with a steady and substantial stream of
resident and visiting customers, not to mention the world's largest
duty-free retail shopping mall."

In practice, all those ships seem like a rich/poor divide issue. I'm not
sure how one would reconceptualize them otherwise without better (cheaper)
technology or without the draw of moving them around to new places all the time.

Also, for comparison:
http://www.houseboathotel.nl/amsterdam/amsterdam_houseboats_general_information/
"There are over 10.000 houseboats in Holland. Around 2500 lies flat in the
canals or outskirts of Amsterdam. There are real barges, turned into real
homes and  modern houseboats, made on floating material like concrete. The
policy of the Amsterdam city council is to stimulate the boat owners to keep
  historical ships (barges) in the canals of the city centre and not replace
them for new houseboats built on concrete. That leads sometimes to
discussions, because the boats are privately owned and it is very expensive
to keep the boats in capital condition. ... Today, living on the water
becomes a yuppie culture; young people can't afford themselves anymore to
buy a houseboat. There are no more moorings then there already were 15 years
ago and it's difficult to find a mooring with a nice barge (for a reasonable
price)."

http://www.houseboatingworld.com/
"Houseboats come in various shapes and sizes.  One of the allures of
trailerable houseboats is that owners can tow their houseboat to many
destinations, rather than being docked at one lake. Many of the modern
designs of trailerable houseboats allow a lot of functionality you find in
many of the bigger houseboats."

http://www.floathomepacific.com/sitemap.htm
http://www.floathomepacific.com/classified.htm#homes
"The Blue Heron. 2 bedroom floathome with positive floatation, 19 years old
offered at $295,000. ... Moorage fee of $645 includes parking, hyro, cable
TV, etc. "

So, all very expensive. One probably needs a huge scale to bring the price
down per unit and to be able to deal with storms and other problems.

Serrching:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=creating+new+towns

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/28/communities1
"Britain's latest attempt at creating a new town is bold, magical - and
raises two fingers to sneering middle-class utopianists. ... Standing in the
backyard of Bluewater, adjacent to Ebbsfleet international station -
Eurostar's suburban link to Europe - the acreage of Ebbsfleet Valley is
three times that of Hyde Park. As the realisation of this whole vision will
take 25 years, the developers behind the scheme, Land Securities, will be
selling dreams of the future for some time yet, even though show homes for
the first stage, at Springhead Park, have recently been completed. Any
doubts harboured by prospective residents - 10,000 new homes in total -
about how the completed town will look are reassured by computer imagery
that conjures up a 21st-century environment similar to beautifully clinical
neighbourhoods in The Sims computer games."

I guess I don't understand why these thing can't happen faster as far as
construction, considering how fast suburbs went up. Why can't we have a more
dense town go up as fast as the Levitown suburbs? There are plenty of
increasingly mainstream companies that might be more than happy to supply stuff:
   http://www.allamericanhomes.com/solarVillage.php
"Solar Village is a collection of intelligent green homes that allow you to
take control of ever increasing costs. A Solar Village home can generate low
to zero energy bills, and uses eco-friendly construction methods and
materials to protect the environment."

US example of a new town attempt:
"Johnston Residents Consider Creating New Town"
http://johnston.mync.com/site/Johnston/news/story/43543/johnston-residents-consider-creating-new-town/
"Johnston County commissioners recently approved a rezoning request for a
300-acre development near the intersection. ... The biggest challenge can be
convincing people that they should pay new taxes, said attorney David Mills,
who helped the Archer Lodge community go through the incorporation process
recently."

Also, why should taxes go up if productive people move in to the new town?

Seems to me that with the right funding, and in an area without zoning, one
should be able to put up a new town for 50,000 people that is walkable and
sustainable in a year, using modular construction, and selling the homes for
typical prices. Should cost about US$5 billion up front to build 20,000
units of building or so at high density with roads and internet, with 20%
profit over two years on the sales of all the homes? :-) There's probably
easily that much money sloshing around looking for a financial "home".

And one maybe could do the same, at more expense, for the oceans, if one
modified one hundred container ships to be a floating village where each
ship housed two hundred families and the ships were interlinked somehow. It
sounds like the dryland town would be an easier sell, though. :-)

You can buy 1000 acres in Texas for US$2.5 million, so the land cost part of
this is trivial.
   http://www.landsoftexas.com/texas/index.cfm?detail=&inv_id=543759
What the oceans would get you might be lower taxes and greater flexibility
of laws, but higher maintenance costs of the marine environment.

Of course, it is not like this has not been tried before:
   http://www.arcosanti.org/

But, I'm just talking something that looks like a chunk of Philadelphia. :-)
  http://www.2747.com/2747/world/city/philadelphia.htm
"Philadelphia is one of the few large cities in the United States to have an
old and well-preserved city centre."
Although maybe with nothing more than three floors.

 From Jane Jacobs's ideas:
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/reviews/books/0-679-74195-X.html
"The core assertion underlying this book is that cities are fundamentally
different than suburbs, and large cities (the topic matter here) are
fundamentally different than small cities. Furthermore, some of our popular
conceptions of ideal urban planning (such as division of use and sorting of
housing by income) are not only wrong but actively distructive in large
cities. Some of those approaches can work in suburbs and small cities, where
cars are ubiquitous, density is low, and everyone travels for everything
that they need. As the density rises, structures (planning, government,
development, and even social attitudes) that work in low-density areas start
to break down. Much of the common US negative attitude towards cities is
towards that breakdown and the failure of higher-density districts that are
still run like suburbs. But Jacobs also shows how at a higher density level
than the "grey zone" that she warns against, and with the right combination
of other key factors, a true city can form and thrive. Such a city is a
different kind of social organization than a suburb, one which plays by
different rules and succeeds on different principles.
   The most valuable part of this book for me was part two, which lays out
and discusses in depth the four factors that Jacobs believes are critical to
the healthy development of a city: primary mixed uses, small blocks, a mix
of building ages, and concentration. This provides the analytical foundation
for the rest of the book. If one buys Jacobs's analysis, and it was quite
persuasive for me, the problems with traditional urban planning and many
possible remedies follow naturally. The rest of the book is in a sense an
elaboration of part two, taking those principles and applying them in
practice or studying the reasons why they're not applied.
   What makes this book so powerful and so brilliant is the way Jacobs can
cut to the heart of problems and wrap an explanation around it that looks
obvious in retrospect. For example, consider one of her keys for a
successful city: a mix of building ages. It's common, outside of particular
historical contexts, to like new buildings. They have the best modern
technology, they tend to be more comfortable and convenient, and unless the
alternative is old enough to be historic, they tend to be more aesthetically
pleasing. However, urban renewal in the form of levelling a section of city
and rebuilding with new, "modern" buildings is death for a city for an
obvious reason I never thought about: new buildings have to pay off their
construction costs via rent. Old buildings have already done so. Rent in new
buildings is therefore necessarily higher than that in old buildings. But
nearly all new businesses need low rents, because new businesses have small
or no initial income and can't afford to help pay construction costs on a
brand new building. This form of urban renewal therefore leaves that section
of the city without a place for new business to grow, thus starving out an
engine of growth and development and choking the local economy.
   Another analysis example: at the time Jacobs was writing, housing
projects were very much in style, and those projects tended to be
income-sorted. In other words, housing would be built specifically for
lower-income people, usually partly subsidized. This housing frequently had
an income cap (since it was meant to serve low-income residents), so those
who became successful had to move out.
   Jacobs's simple and cogent point is that successful neighborhoods are
ones that win the loyalty of their residents, leading the residents to want
to stay and improve the neighborhood rather than move out at the first
opportunity to somewhere better. This system works directly against that, by
forcing residents who become successful to move away. It also increases
turnover while reducing the sense of ownership and attachment that residents
have to the neighborhood, which undermines the sense of community policing
and responsibility and leads to people considering actions like vandalism to
be someone else's problem. The income sorting also tends to lead
neighborhoods to become insular, creating an us versus them perception of
surrounding parts of the city that reduces cross-traffic and hence sources
of diversity. That, in turn, reduces the traffic on the streets, making it
hard for retail businesses to thrive and leading to more dangerous streets
(since the best way to make streets safe is to fill them with average people
who feel some sense of responsibility for public order). "

Also:
   http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bcealr/28_4/04_TXT.htm
"For Jacobs, population density is a positive factor in urban residential
neighborhoods, as well as in commercial downtowns. At the time that she
wrote, urbanists such as Lewis Mumford were arguing for optimum densities
comparable to those in the English garden cities, of ten to twenty units per
acre. Jacobs, by contrast, supports densities of 100 units per acre and up,
like those that characterize such vibrant urban districts as New York’s
Greenwich Village, Boston’s North End, Philadelphia’s Rittenhouse Square,
and San Francisco’s North Beach and Telegraph Hill.
   But density must be coupled with variety. Jacobs rejects standardized
high-density housing, like New York’s Stuyvesant Town, a much-heralded
project of high-rise towers in a park-like setting that was developed in the
late 1940s by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, in favor of the rich
mix of housing types found in Greenwich Village: walk-up and elevatored
apartment buildings, rowhouses, and even a few one- and two-family houses.
And she accepts that encouraging higher densities with lower building
heights means construction that covers a higher percentage of the lot, with
less open space within development sites."

So, the walkability idea is interlinked with density and mixed use.

Maybe a three story city with living roof gardens? Plus occasional parks and
then mass transit (or a long walking/biking trail) to a "wild" wilderness
section? Best to build it on an existing rail line if possible. But, that's
why bulldozing low density suburbs might make sense. You could find a suburb
on a rail line, bulldoze it, rebuild at ten time the density, and there
would be minimal extra construction cost, just an extra 10% for buying the
old buildings, most of which are probably obsolete anyway in terms of
excessive energy use and not being insulated well and passive solar. This
place might be a good candidate for bulldozing (avoiding the trees):
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaqua,_New_York
It is on a train line and currently has a density of 1,009.8/sq mi.
Greenwich Village, NYC has a density of about 60,077/ mi:
  http://www.demographia.com/db-nyc-wardrank.htm

So, I suggest we buy Chappaqua, NY, bulldoze it (we can leave the Clinton's
house as a monument to them), and the rebuild it at 60X the density. Things
would only be 20% or so more expensive overall than working from bare ground
in Texas, and we'd get the benefit of being on a train line close to NYC.

Oops, I guess people in Chappaqua might object to the "improvements", even
if they got first choice of the new properties. :-) Well, back to Texas or
the ocean, I guess. :-) Are trains really that important if we will have
self-driving cars?  Anyway, the important issue is, that according to my
rough figures, bulldozing and rebuilding Chappaqua as an "EcoVillage" that
was 60X denser would be tremendously *profitable* even give the pricey real
estate there. :-)

Still, isn't that what "eminent domain" is for? Maybe New York State
Governor Patterson can be asked to help out with that? :-)
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

Apparently, all New York has to do is label Chappaqua as "blighted". :-) See:
  http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/07/making-eminent-domain-point.html
"""
Yesterday, the Willets Point United folks stepped up at city hall to express
concern over the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court-and urge
that the judge moderate her views on the use and abuse of eminent domain: "
Willets Point community group is denouncing Supreme Court justice nominee
Sonia Sotomayor’s record on eminent domain. About 20 representatives from
Willets Point United gathered in front of City Hall Monday to voice the
detriments of misusing eminent domain.“The city’s trying to take our land
and give it to a rich developer,” said Alfredo Franza, 39, who owns a small
business that manufactures security gates in Willets Point. Franza said he
came to “fight for our land.” ...
   Secondly, WPU is fighting the eminent domain abuse that the city is
planning in order to remove the 250 businesses from the Willets Point site.
In order to do so, the city has to demonstrate that the area is "blighted."
Given the fact that the so-called blight is directly related to the city's
conscious neglect for the better part of seven decades, well, you can see
where this is going. ...
   As we told Epoch Times: "Currently, when a property is condemned, only
the value of the property is compensated at rates designated by the
developer while costs of unemployment, loss of business revenue, and
inconvenience for long-time customers are not accounted for, said Richard
Lipsky, Willets Point United spokesperson. “[Sotomayor’s] decision (about
eminent domain) made us very nervous,” said Lipsky. The group hopes that
Sotomayor realizes that the small property owners that are here today are
exactly the kind of people—the underprivileged—she has fought to protect in
her early career."
"""

A square city block (NYC) is about 4 acres.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_block

Even with a lot of homes that are US$1.5 million on 0.10 acre:
   http://www.homes.com/listing/95900559/CHAPPAQUA_NY_10514
if we bulldoze something like that, I'm thinking we could build about ten or
so three story buildings on that land (plus sidewalks, road, and parking),
and sell each for $500K, or 5 million. Each building could have three nice
apartments, which in turn would cost US$170K each. So, it only raises the
price maybe 30% to buy even some of the priciest suburban real estate around
and bulldoze it.

Bulldozing other suburbs might not be as expensive.

So, if walkable housing is desirable, economically, it may make a lot of
sense to get out the bulldozers, and the "eminent domain" rulings, at least
in the USA. :-)
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl
"The term urban sprawl generally has negative connotations due to the health
and environmental issues that sprawl creates. Residents of sprawling
neighborhoods tend to emit more pollution per person and suffer more traffic
fatalities. Sprawl is controversial, with supporters claiming that consumers
prefer lower density neighborhoods and that sprawl does not necessarily
increase traffic. Sprawl is also linked with increased obesity since walking
and bicycling are not viable commuting options. Sprawl negatively impacts
land and water quantity and quality, and may be linked to a decline in
social capital."

So, really, we should be able to declare all US suburbs as "blighted" by
that standard. :-)

Basically, most of the USA's physical plant is worth more bulldozed than
operating. :-)

The same was true, according to Bucky Fuller, as a source of problems in the
1930s depression. People had secured speculative loans with farm properties
that no one wanted anymore (there was no indoor plumbing in many old 1930s
farm houses, for example). At some point, people will realize that homes in
US suburbs that are not walkable to anything of interest, and which can not
produce their own electricity and water, and which require furnaces or
sewers, and which have nearby schools that are really prisons, are just not
worth having. Example of a better home:
   "No Furnaces but Heat Aplenty in ‘Passive Houses’ "
   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html?_r=1

(Well, maybe rural areas are different if you can walk to nature. :-)

The logic of bulldozing suburbs rather than build on unbuilt land or ocean
is somewhat similar to this logic:
   "Green shoots rise from brownfields "
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2009/10/green-shoots-from-brownfields
"""
Using already disturbed lands would help avoid conflicts between renewable
energy developers and environmental groups concerned about impacts to
wildlife habitat. These conflicts have stalled some high-profile projects
despite the fact that renewable energy sources do not produce heat-trapping
emissions of carbon dioxides, the primary greenhouse gas driving global warming.
   Known as "brownfields," old industrial sites and landfills that have been
cleaned to a certain standard often languish for years waiting
redevelopment. Most are already connected to the electric power grid,
eliminating the need to build miles of costly transmission lines across
pristine lands to bring the power to market.
"""

So, we can help save the planet by building renewable energy plants on the
industrial brownfields, and by building sustainable towns and cities on the
blighted suburbs. :-)

Still, using bulldozers can lead to unexpected problems... :-)
   http://bms.westport.k12.ct.us/mccormick/rt/rtscripts/rtshitch.htm
"VOGON: People of Earth, your attention please. This is Prostetnic Vogon
Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council. As you will no doubt be
aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy
require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star
system, and regrettably your planet is one of those scheduled for
demolition. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth
minutes. Thank you."

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/