tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-61470848537836479002024-03-04T23:18:19.998-05:00Peak VTMusings on Peak Oil and other issues from the Green Mountain StatePeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.comBlogger308125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-58052656042172261522023-11-05T14:47:00.002-05:002023-11-10T17:00:16.338-05:00Cross-Chunnel Comparisons<p>The <a href="https://peakvt.blogspot.com/2023/10/high-speed-halt.html">High Speed 2 fiasco</a> in the UK has prompted me to update my <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1ta0e98d_PqBnpYstpg_kuvEaRPA&ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&z=6">map of high-speed rail in France.</a> Obviously the two countries are frequently compared, and here's more in that vein in relation to HSR.<br /></p><p>1) Population density is much lower in France than in the UK. This can be seen by simply inspecting the existing and proposed lines in either country in satellite view, and it is backed by data. The island of Great Britain is 80,823 sq mi (209,331 sq km) in area and had a population of approximately 64,500,000 in 2021, for an average population density of 798 residents/sq mi (308 residents/sq km). Continental France is 206,665 sq mi (535,261 sq km) in area and had a population of approximately 65,500,00 in 2022, for a population density of 317 residents/sq mi (122 residents/sq km). Great Britain is approximately 2.51 times as dense as continental France, and continental France is 39.8% as dense as Great Britain.<br /></p><p>2) France is somewhat better at containing urban sprawl than the UK. This is a qualitative observation on my part, and it isn't uniform across either country.(*) Areas of France such as the wider region around Lille or the Mediterranean coast from Marseilles to the Italian border are very sprawled out, with little countryside between developed areas except where the geography makes building impossible. And the UK has compact, relatively contained cities and towns, such as Norwich and Yeovil. But, overall, I think sprawl is less of a problem in France.<br /></p><p>3) The combination of the previous two points means that the French routing strategy of connecting HSR lines with existing urban stations via "off-ramps" to legacy lines works quite well. The existing approaches to the central stations are fairly direct, and the off-ramps can be built fairly close to the cities. France generally has avoided building new approaches or stations within existing urban areas. Lille is the only exception so far. In contrast, the UK has decided to heavily rebuild existing stations and build new approaches in Birmingham, London (completion uncertain), Manchester (recently canceled), and Leeds (canceled a few years ago). The prices of those stations has become outrageous and are part of the reason HS2 has been so severely curtailed.<br /></p><p>4) France has built a number of stations directly on new LGVs. Some have been built because there is no classic line near the new HSR line, some because there is only a classic line on one side of a city, and some because the nearest city is too small to serve with off-ramps. Some stations are connected to the nearest city with legacy rail or a tram system, but others are fundamentally car-oriented, with only limited bus service. Overall, I think the success of these stations is mixed. A few stations serve an attraction directly, such as the CDG station and the Disneyland station, and these are more successful in terms of passenger counts. However, the very rural "beetroot" stations are relatively cheap to build, so they may be successful financially. In the UK, the inline stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange are fairly complex and expensive, though they should have high utilization.<br /></p><p>5) Paris is semi-central to the country, whereas London is closer to being at one end of the country. France needs to build a lot more track-miles to fully connect the country, but as explained above, most of those miles were or will be much cheaper to build. But the main advantage to being central is that the rest of the country does not connect to the capital through just one link that risks being saturated before demand is completely met. Each link to Paris can absorb a large number of passengers coming from a smaller number cities. In the UK, the rest of the country will be funneled through one link. <br /></p><p>6) On the purely practical side, France has completed 1,699 miles (2,735 km) of HSR track starting in 1981. The UK has completed only 70 miles (113 km) starting in 2003. France simply has vastly more experience at everything related to HSR, including track design and construction, rolling stock design and construction, and operations.<br /><br />7) Both of my maps are fantasy maps. However, the French one is much more realistic
because my suggestions use the same routing principles as the French
have been using for decades, and the resulting alignments have been much
cheaper to build than HS2 in the UK. <br /></p><p>All of the above raises the question: is there any way for the UK to "catch up" with France? No, not directly. The UK will never need to build as many HSR track-miles as France. Nor will it ever be able to build as cheaply as France given the substantially different human geography of the two countries. The UK could and should learn a fair amount from France, but the former country should also look to places like Japan, South Korea, and Germany for lessons. Those countries have population densities of 840, 1,340, and 600 residents/sq mi (326, 516 and 233 residents/sq km) and so have more experience in building around existing populations. The UK also needs to look inward and try to understand why HS2 turned out to be so expensive. If the UK adapts, it might be able to catch up with France qualitatively, connecting a large portion of its population via HSR, but the UK will need to change a lot to do so.<br /><br />(*) The relative sprawl of each country probably has been analyzed quantitatively, but since I am an amateur, I don't feel the need to track the studies down.<br /></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-36553124035478439672023-10-20T02:02:00.005-04:002023-10-30T04:14:13.646-04:00Fantasy Isle<p>As a complement to the previous post, I have developed a map of <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1bp5NsrGtxxRbMWBuNbyrahaUxG0">high speed rail in the United Kingdom.</a> It is a combination of existing lines, lines under construction, projects canceled by the Johnson and Sunak governments, and my suggestions for lines the UK should build in the future. Those categories are available as separate layers in the map. A few notes on my suggestions:<br /><br />1) It is a fantasy map. A previous version of the map was somewhat more realistic, but I see no point attempting to be serious when the actual UK government has demonstrated it has no interest in a national system. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/05/sunaks-spiteful-sale-of-land-intended-for-hs2-dashes-hopes-of-revival">The Sunak government has even taken a scorched earth approach to the canceled segments of HS2 by authorizing the sale of previously purchased properties.</a> It has no interest in any future HSR projects, and any Labour government will find restarting the previous program difficult for practical and financial reasons.<br /></p><p>2) My system nonetheless could probably built, though not economically. A few of the lines might be close to economic viability if construction costs are reasonable. "Reasonable" in this case would be £100M/mile and £1,000M per station. HS2 has blown way past those numbers to £396M/mile and £4-6B for stations in London and Manchester (now canceled).</p><p>3) I have chosen to tunnel the lines into city centers in order to maximize train speed. Long approaches to existing stations on existing lines would reduce the average speed along those lines. Building new approaches would be very expensive in dense urban areas, and very disruptive to the existing urban fabric. I have chosen tunnels for those reasons and because, as stated above, I don't have to be serious here.</p><p>4) A lot of England is basically suburban or exurban, similar to New Jersey, especially in the Midlands. Cities and towns all connect, with very little actual countryside between them. That is part of the reason the per-mile cost of HS2 exploded.</p><p>5) Stoke-on-Trent is a polycentric mess. The existing station isn't near the center of the biggest constituent city, Hanley. I have chosen to put a tunneled station under the center of Hanley because more bus routes run through there, but either location might work.</p><p>6) I've spaced out most of the stations, but Sunderland is an odd case. It is very close to Newcastle, and the two are connected by existing rail and a joint metro system that partially runs in the rail right-of-way. However, as it is near the end of branch, adding one stop wouldn't impact as many passengers as adding a stop between, say Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester at Stockport. And I feel the benefits of having a station in economically depressed area would be significant.<br /><br />7) I have not included a station at Heathrow or any other airport (apart from the under-construction station near Birmingham Airport). The French TGV system does include stops at some airports, but they are generally ones that are outside of built-up areas, such as CDG, making routing to them easy. Heathrow was well away from built-up areas when it was first constructed, but it has been swallowed by London's sprawl, and constructing a HSR link to it today would be very expensive. Nor is there a need to build one. HSR systems are replacements for short-haul flights, not glorified airport shuttles. With a fully-built UK HSR system, nearly all major English cities would be within two hours of London. Even the Scottish cities would be well under four hours away, making city center-to-city center times competitive with airlines.<br /></p><p>8) I have included some projects such as a second Severn tunnel and a second Chunnel that aren't technically high-speed lines, but which I think will be needed as part of the overall rail system in the future. The existing Severn Tunnel is already 137 years old, and a replacement will be necessary at some point.</p><p>9) The HS1-HS2 link - which was initially proposed as part of HS2 but rejected early on - won't be needed until there is more capacity across the Channel. Then the limiting factor would be HS1. The link might be technically impossible depending on how HS2 is constructed.</p><p>10) The 2100+ routes are pretty speculative. Who knows what the state of the world will be by then, and there's a good chance that anything planned now will need radical changes.<br /><br />That's enough scattered thoughts. <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1bp5NsrGtxxRbMWBuNbyrahaUxG0">Enjoy the map.</a><br /></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-57565256103706627822023-10-13T20:47:00.001-04:002023-10-15T00:37:50.339-04:00High Speed Halt<p>In a move that is both eminently reasonable and entirely shortsighted, the UK PM Rishi Sunak <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-67005544">canceled</a> the northern section of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2">High Speed 2,</a> a high-speed rail project extending from London to several northern cities. Specifically, he canceled the section from just north of Birmingham to central Manchester. The reason stated was the rapidly increasing cost of the project, which had grown from estimates in 2010 of £17B for a ~335 mile-long network to £98B in 2023 for a ~230 mile network. The network is now planned to be only around 130 miles in length, with a currently estimated cost of about £62B. The responsibility for completing the final section in the south, from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Oak_Common_railway_station">Old Oak Common</a> in the London suburbs to the terminus at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euston_railway_station">Euston Station</a> in central London, has been removed from the purview of <a href="https://www.hs2.org.uk/">HS2 Ltd,</a> the entity that had been supervising the construction. Work on the section had already been <a href="https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/civils/hs2-admits-euston-tunnel-construction-is-paused-17-04-2023/">paused </a>earlier in 2023, and will supposedly resume, but the timeline has not yet been <a href="https://www.mylondon.news/news/transport/sadiq-khan-warns-rehashed-euston-27882089">clarified.</a><br /></p><p>This move is reasonable at one level, as the explosion in cost from the earliest estimates to the latest figures published this past summer means that the utility to the country in a standard cost-benefit analysis has declined significantly. There is, of course, little point in building public infrastructure that is so expensive that the cost of servicing the debt undertaken to build the project outweighs the economic gains from whatever service the infrastructure provides. That applies to water, sewer, road, and airport projects as well as rail projects. The UK government, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)#2010%E2%80%93present:_Return_to_government">which has been run either in part or completely by the Tories since 2010,</a> has been unable to control the costs of the HS2 project, and has decided to limit the project to the section where substantial construction has already been done.</p><p>However, the statements by the Sunak government on the changes to HS2 don't explain how it plans to get the costs for the parts of HS2 that (currently) survive under control. There is no reason anyone should believe that current estimates for the project will turn out to be any more accurate than previous ones. The Sunak government claims that <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-pm-sunak-confirms-cancellation-hs2-northern-leg-2023-10-04/">up to £36B</a> that was going to spent on HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester will be invested in other projects. I expect that number to be both reduced by further cost increases in HS2 and by future budget issues that will "require" diverting the previously diverted funds to existing programs.</p><p>It should be no surprise to anyone that the Conservatives have failed to control their own project. Fundamentally, the UK Conservative Party - along with many conservative parties elsewhere - does not believe that government can do anything well, and that the private sector is inherently more efficient at everything. This has been proven wrong over and over again. The private sector is not reliably competent at delivering complex public works in many countries, including the UK. But the Tories outsourced not only the actual implementation of HS2, but also a lot of the design and high-level management of the project, to entities that are not working for the public good, but for private profits. Some of the cost increases have been exogenous (inflation, COVID), but I suspect a lot have been due to complications that come from not having the incentive to make accurate estimates or figure out the least costly way of doing a particular task.<br /><br />Despite the questionable of utility of HS2 at the current cost, cancelling the northern sections is nonetheless short-sighted. HS2, at least on the western side of the Pennines, had two purposes. First, it would reduce the travel time between Manchester, Birmingham, and London. Reduced travel time would increase economic activity in areas affect by the project. Second, it would free capacity on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Main_Line">West Coast Main Line</a> for local and freight services. In train operations, mixing high- and low-speed trains reduces the number of trains that can run per hour significantly. With the high(er)-speed intercity passenger trains removed from the WCML, the number of other trains that could run would increase by more than the number of high(er)-speed trains removed. But the need for increased capacity on the WCML north of Birmingham will not disappear because HS2 P2b was canceled, nor will Manchester get any closer to the south, where most economic growth in the country has occurred in the past few decades.<br /></p><p>The response of the Sunak government should have been to slow the construction down while it examined the root causes of the cost increases and developed in-house government expertise to manage the future portions of HS2. <a href="https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-deferral-of-euston-station-leads-to-lost-efficiencies-in-london-tunnelling-12-10-2023/"> Stopping and starting construction disrupts supply chains and employment pipelines,</a> as does long gaps between major projects. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_1">High Speed 1,</a> aka the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, was completed in 2007; HS2 construction did not begin until 2020. Both institutions and individuals will naturally lose competency over periods far shorter than 12 years. And when there are future projects in the pipeline, companies are less likely to try to milk current projects, as they have incentive to do a good job in order to get the next one. Now there is no clear future after 2033, when HS2 is (currently) projected to be completed. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/09/list-of-projects-to-be-funded-by-hs2-money-only-illustrative-sunak-says">Though project names are being thrown about by the Sunak government,</a> they are largely just old plans that haven't gone anywhere, or minor if necessary upgrades. The UK needs to commit to a national HSR system that it will build out over the next 75-100 years in order to signal to companies and individuals that it is worthwhile to make long-term invests in education and equipment. So far the Sunak government hasn't done that, and probably won't given that it has decided that pro-car and anti-environment rhetoric is a useful electoral tactic. What a Starmer government might do is unclear at this point, and unimportant unless Labour actually wins the next election.<br /><br />Slowing construction of HS2 would have a downside, of course, which is that financing would have to be carried for an even longer time before farebox revenue and economic benefits start to cover debt repayment. Nor is there any guarantee that much could be done by the government at this point. A lot of the increases could be exogenous, or they could be political, meaning that the specific details of construction have been (and continue to be) altered to buy off specific opponents. It may be that too many bad decisions are locked in, and nothing can be done. But the Sunak government should try, and then should apply those lessons to future projects.<br /><br />As a distant observer I don't know exactly how the UK returns to a point where it can build rail projects at a reasonable and predictable cost. But I believe it should. Otherwise, the country have difficulty increasing productivity as congestion will continue to increase as the population rises. The UK's recent experience is in contrast to countries like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_France">France,</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Spain">Spain,</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Italy">Italy,</a> where national HSR systems are moving forward at close to estimated costs. But those countries have been building more regularly, and have been more judicious in their outsourcing. Whatever the problem in the UK ultimately is, I hope they identify and resolve it soon.<br /></p><p>(1) A side benefit of completing the line between Manchester and London
would have been the reduction of flights between Manchester and London
area airports, some of which are runway slot-limited. However, I don't believe it was part of the project's cost-benefit analysis.<br /></p><p><br /></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-39046381605827860642023-08-02T05:30:00.003-04:002023-08-13T09:33:20.073-04:00Red-Hot Mapping<p>In something of a coincidence with the event described in the previous post, I have created a new map which covers <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=11woXDoXje5NERsQazhn-d557-i2KLaw&usp=sharing">nuclear power reactors in North America.</a> Most of these are in the US, of course, as America is the global leader in nuclear power generation. But Canada has its own independent nuclear industry centered in Ontario, which lacks Quebec's massive hydropower potential, and I've included those plants. Mexico also has one lone plant, which it imported from America.<br /><br />In the period after the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami">2011 Tohoku earthquake</a> and the subsequent <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster">Fukushima Daiichi incident,</a> I published an number of posts on nuclear power. I've largely lost interest since then because the industry seemed destined to become moridbund, which largely happened. But in the past few years there has been an increasing amount of hype around "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor">small modular reactors,</a>" which promise to solve the problem of the massive up-front costs required to build large reactors such as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000">AP1000</a> units in Georgia or the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)">EPR</a> units at Flamanville and Olkiluoto. On the map I have noted 8 different SMR projects from 7 different vendors as being reasonably firm, given the amount of subsidies flowing to them at this point. The currently authorized subsidies won't be enough to get the projects to completion, but for now I am assuming the subsidies will continue to flow. But past history indicates that costs will escalate rapidly, and politicians will balk at some point, most likely after considerable concrete has been poured.<br /><br />Time will tell, of course, but until then enjoy <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=11woXDoXje5NERsQazhn-d557-i2KLaw&usp=sharing">the new map.</a><br /></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-85676528755128113122023-08-02T04:32:00.002-04:002023-08-13T09:35:48.076-04:00First of a Kind or Dying Gasp?<p>On July 31, 2023, Unit 3 of the<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant"> Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant</a> entered <a href="https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Vogtle-3-begins-commercial-operation">commercial service.</a> It is the first new reactor to be brought online in the United States <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Plant#Unit_2">since 2016,</a> and only the second <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Plant#Unit_1">since 1996.</a> It is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Company">Westinghouse</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000">AP1000</a>, which is a two-loop (of primary coolant) design derived from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion_Engineering">Combustion Engineering</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_80">System 80.</a> It is classified as a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Lists_of_Generation_III+_reactors">Generation III+ reactor,</a> which is a somewhat arbitrary marketing designation used by the nuclear industry to indicate the design has some passive elements in its safety systems. An additional reactor of the same design is under construction at the Vogtle plant, and should become operational within a year.<br /><br />The probability of Vogtle 3 and 4 being safe reactors is quite high. The fundamental design is not new, and<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#China"> China has operated four AP1000 reactors since 2019</a> without incident.* The Georgia plant is located inland, so there is no risk of tsunamis flooding the site. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Power#Nuclear_power_plants">Georgia Power</a> and the American nuclear industry as a whole have a lot of operational experience at this point - far more than when <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_Nuclear_Generating_Station">Three Mile Island</a> Unit 2 was operated incorrectly, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident">causing a major accident in 1979.</a> The<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant"> first large power reactor in America</a> went online in 1968; the industry has an additional 44 years of experience since the TMI meltdown.</p><p>What the nuclear industry has not improved since 1979 is the cost of constructing reactors. I am not going go down the rabbit hole of attempting to compare costs between different sources of electricity in this post, but it is very safe to say that Vogtle 3 was not cheap to build, and neither Unit 3 or 4 were as cheap as was promised by Westinghouse back in 2013 when construction started. Why costs escalated so much is hotly debated, but Westinghouse and its subcontractors are responsible for a good portion of the blame. The nuclear industry also has to compete with other power generation technologies, and <a href="https://www.iea.org/news/the-us-shale-revolution-has-reshaped-the-energy-landscape-at-home-and-abroad-according-to-latest-iea-policy-review">the shale gas "revolution"</a> made the economic case for nuclear power difficult even before the cost overruns at Vogtle and Summer were known.<br /></p><p>The cost of large plants is why the nuclear industry has shifted to promoting "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor">small modular reactors</a>" - some of which aren't all that small, and none of which will be any cheaper than large reactors if the companies developing them don't get enough orders to justify building the factories that would enable serial construction using transportable modules. However, the SMR vendors have yet to prove themselves to be failures, so the hype surrounding them continues. This contrasts sharply with the prospects for new large reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission website <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/col-holder.html">indicates</a> there are active combined licenses for six more large reactors, but none of those are under construction, and six previous licenses have been withdrawn by the license holders. Two of those licenses were for AP1000 reactors at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station">V.C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station</a> in South Carolina, which were <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal">so far over budget</a> that the power company building them canceled them in 2017. So Vogtle Unit 4 is likely to be the last large reactor to go critical in American in the next 15 years, at the very least.</p><p>Below is a chart showing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#United_States">all of the commercial power reactors built in America</a> sorted by date of commercial operation. It does not include the 43 reactors that were canceled after construction was started, nor a number of small reactors that were not intended for commercial operations despite being connected to the local grid. Despite a number of announcements, there are no SMRs under construction as of today (2023-08-02).<br /><br /></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzEOu7XVwwCc-a7pMoj-6JkUtsV9HP_NMXkNZmFM9H4_g1tU2c4tSPaSNJR8Gy9ASUiiFKFVoP0Zw8GTa94zB6CgXxXjdpaCMK0hHdBjylYYs6gb4k1T_j0lp-Y4GNaEFN9UkqxMy9aOrni5P98ZoC_ndJu0eQn59owayzgmSVq_S5jWl5z5Fl711lhb7g/s6358/reactors.png"><img alt="US Power Reactors 1954-2023" border="0" data-original-height="6358" data-original-width="2438" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzEOu7XVwwCc-a7pMoj-6JkUtsV9HP_NMXkNZmFM9H4_g1tU2c4tSPaSNJR8Gy9ASUiiFKFVoP0Zw8GTa94zB6CgXxXjdpaCMK0hHdBjylYYs6gb4k1T_j0lp-Y4GNaEFN9UkqxMy9aOrni5P98ZoC_ndJu0eQn59owayzgmSVq_S5jWl5z5Fl711lhb7g/w246-h640/reactors.png" width="246" /></a></div><br /><p>* That we know of, of course. But there has certainly been no major accidents, as those are subject to detection by remote monitoring.<br /></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-30954360153836946352023-01-08T13:42:00.002-05:002023-08-02T05:31:33.858-04:00Say No to Mars on Drugs, Bitches<p>I've long been a skeptic of the idea of sending humans to Mars before we can determine whether or not there is a functioning biosphere on the planet. <a href="https://idlewords.com/2023/1/why_not_mars.htm">This recent post articulates my thoughts better than I ever could.</a> Some choice quotes:</p><p></p><blockquote>At NASA, the faith takes the form of a cargo cult. The agency has
persuaded itself that re-enacting the Moon landings with enough fidelity
will reward them with a trip to Mars, bringing back the limitless
budgets, uncomplicated patriotism, and rapt public attention of the
early sixties. They send up their rockets with the same touching faith
that keeps Amtrak hauling empty dining cars across the prairie, dreaming
of the golden age of rail. </blockquote><p></p><blockquote>I would compare keeping primates alive in spacecraft to trying to build a
jet engine out of raisins. Both are colossal engineering problems,
possibly the hardest ever attempted, but it does not follow that they
are problems worth solving. In both cases, the difficulty flows from a
very specific design constraint, and it’s worth revisiting that
constraint one or ten times before starting to perform miracles of
engineering.</blockquote><blockquote> Even the astronaut corps recognizes that exploring Mars and keeping it
pristine are irreconcilable activities, like trying to drill for oil in a
cleanroom. The problem goes beyond practical questions like how to
store 17 months of astronaut shit and gets to the crux of the matter:
why is bringing a leaky, bacteria-filled terrarium to Mars step one in our search for Martian life? What incredible ability do astronauts have that justifies taking this risk?</blockquote><p></p><blockquote>And it is hard to overlook that the $93 billion NASA has already spent through 2025 to not land anyone on the Moon would be enough to send probes to every world in the solar system, including moons we know have oceans of liquid water and two entire planetary systems that haven’t been visited since <i>Voyager 2</i> gave them a quick once-over in the 1980’s.</blockquote><p></p><blockquote>The difficult and unglamorous problems of a Mars mission—how do you wash
your socks? What is there to eat?— get no love from Elon. Once you get
beyond “rocket factory go brrrrr,” there is no plan, just a familiar fog
of Musky woo. The Mars rockets will refuel from autonomous robot
factories powered by sunlight. Their crews will be shielded from
radiation by some form of electromagnetic handwaving. Life support, the
hardest practical problem in space travel, “is actually quite easy”.
And of course Musk dismisses the problem of microbial contamination
(which I can’t emphasize enough is governed by international treaty) as
both inevitable and no big deal.</blockquote> <p></p><p>The arguments against any country or company sending a mission to Mars are overwhelming. But the subject has become an entirely emotional discussion, like the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID, though with less immediate harm. Budgetary realities will probably push the problem out well into the 2040s at least, by which time a bit more reality will hopefully intrude and the whole project will be scrapped in favor of more robotics.<br /></p> <p></p><p></p><p></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-63697019686313399912023-01-08T13:13:00.004-05:002023-01-08T13:13:48.778-05:002022: At Least It Wasn't 2021, Which Wasn't 2020<p>2022 was an improvement for most of the world over a bad 2021, which was better than the horrid year of 2020. But it still wasn't great.</p><p>On the positive side:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The COVID pandemic subsided to an elevated (relative to flu) endemic level in most of the world, though deaths remain higher than would be the case if vaccination hadn't been politicized in certain countries and nationalized in others.<br /></li><li>Democrats maintained control of the Senate, meaning Biden will be able to continue making quality judicial appointments.<br /></li><li>The fascist-sounding COVID promoter Bolsonaro was defeated in Brazil, and he did not attempt to overturn the results by force.</li><li>The Inflation Reduction Act is not a perfect climate bill, but it was an important step forward.<br /></li><li>JWST came online and produced spectacular images.<br /></li></ul><p>On the negative side: <br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Putin ordered the Russian military to invaded Ukraine for no reason other than he is a bitter old man who remains traumatized by the fall of the Soviet Union 31 years ago. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians have been killed and millions more displaced as a result.<br /></li><li>Republicans took control of the House, which will lead to a dysfunctional US government for the next two years.</li><li>The Supreme Court effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, ending legal abortion and degrading women's health in many states.<br /></li><li>A petty man-child took over Twitter, a highly influential social media site, and proceed to fire thousands and undermine the communities that depend on the site.<br /></li></ul><p>On the worrisome but unresolved side:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Central bank interest rate hikes in response to elevated inflation, led by the US Federal Reserve, may help trigger a recession in 2023.</li><li>Republicans are still threatening to use the debt limit to hold the country hostage. <br /></li><li>China's overly restrictive COVID policies were dramatically and
impetuously near the end of the year by dictator-for-life Xi, which will probably lead to a
large surge in deaths and continued disruptions in the world's
second-largest economy.</li></ul><p></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-19710066452668019392022-12-07T07:28:00.000-05:002023-10-05T22:59:17.281-04:00RIP, Queen of the SkiesThe last Boeing 747 left the Everett, Washington factory yesterday, 2022-12-06. The pioneering and now-venerable design will continue to fly for at least a couple of decades for cargo operators and in government fleets, but as of this writing there are no American passenger aircraft of the type. This makes me a little sad, as the 747 is so impressive and iconic, symbolizing in every image the promise of the jet age. Its most direct replacement, the 777, is incredibly impressive in its own right, but it just isn't as distinctive as the 747. I would have liked for the 747 to be built forever, but commercial quad jets are doomed by the relentless logic of accounting. I hope that Boeing can at some point recover from the disastrous reverse takeover by McDonnell-Douglas so that it can engineer and produce the next great icon of the skies. But until then, blue skies and tailwinds to all the remaining 747s.PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-12181456634323340512022-11-08T19:08:00.007-05:002022-12-07T06:54:15.814-05:00Predictions Are Hard - 2022 Edition<p>Predictions are actually easy; it's accurate predictions that are hard. I'm only going to make inaccurate predictions today, since I haven't paid any attention to polling this year.</p><p>Senate - 47 D+I, 53 R</p><p>House - 208 D, 227 R </p><p>Update 2022-12-07:</p><p>Senate - 51 D+I, 49 R</p><p>House - 213 D, 222 R </p><p>Better than I expected! That will teach me to not be lazy, if I ever get around to learning the lesson.</p><p>The loss of the House is a big blow, but the Dems over-performed relative to the baseline. And a gain of one Senator will not only prevent a flood of shitty bills emanating from Congress, it will diminish the power of any narcissistic Dems who would annoint themselves co-President.<br /></p>
PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-32143892885336054522022-05-11T20:28:00.003-04:002022-05-11T20:28:26.762-04:00Random Book Review - A Song of Ice and Fire (so far)<p>Author: George R. R. Martin<br />Released: 1996-2011<br />Format reviewed: Mass-market paperback<br />Pages of content: 5,285 (per internet sources)<br />Rating: incomplete<br /><br />I started re-reading the <i>ASOIAF</i> books and stopped because I realized I would be disappointed... again. While Martin is under no legal obligation to his readers to complete the series, he is at risk of betraying a promise implicit in the beginning of every story: that there will be an end. Sure, the <i>GoT</i> television series provided an end, but to a different story, one that was heavily re-written to meet the needs of the format. I (and a great many other readers, I suspect) want to be given the end to the original work, in the original format. (It was obvious by books 4-5 Martin was writing with an eye to creating an episodic television series, and it was part of the reason those books weren't as good as the first three.)<br /><br />It is hard to recommend that a reader of speculative fiction not read what is one of the best high fantasy novels ever written (book 1, <i>A Game of Thrones</i>), so I can only ask that readers who haven't encountered the series not start it until Martin shows he is serious about completing the work. Instead, they should invest in completed series or other ongoing series where the author is likely to finish the story. Martin has for years stated on his blog that he is continuing to write the next book and has completed many hundreds of manuscript pages. Those claims, to me, indicate that the author isn't really in control of his material, and that his editor(s) have no leverage over him that will force him to focus. The latter is unsurprising, as Martin is probably the second most successful living speculative fiction author, trailing only J. K. Rowling, who has become a billionaire on the back of her very popular (but much less inventive) <i>Harry Potter</i> series.<br /><br />Martin's continued involvement in many other projects, ranging from an <i>ASOIAF</i> prequel series to a dinner train in New Mexico, is an indicator he is bored with his creation. That is his prerogative - it is his life to live and, as I said, he is under no legal obligation to complete the series. But I think it is bad for speculative fiction in general that such a famous series can be so neglected that it risks being left unfinished. Readers will be more hesitant to plunge into a new mega-series if they don't believe it will be finished. While mega-series are not the end-all and be-all of the speculative fiction genres, they have drawn in a lot of new readers, and are an important part of the industry, much as Hollywood blockbusters are important to the movie industry. I hope for the sake of his readers and speculative fiction in general that Martin finishes <i>ASOIAF.</i> I just don't really expect him to do so at this point, and that disappoints me.</p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-18451356629560278262022-05-06T00:19:00.000-04:002022-05-11T20:22:56.510-04:00 Random Book Review - The Year Without Summer: 1816 and the Volcano That Darkened the World and Changed History<p>Author: William K. Klingaman and Nicholas P. Klingaman<br />Released: 2013 <br />Format reviewed: Hardcover<br />Pages of content: 283<br />Rating: 2/5<br /><br /><i>The Year Without Summer: 1816 and the Volcano That Darkened the World and Changed History</i> is an interesting but poorly edited book that doesn't prove its overly long title. It covers the effects of the 1815 eruption of the Mount Tambora stratovolcano on the island of Sumbawa, Indonesia, which is by current consensus the largest eruption of at least the past 1000 years. It focuses in on the details of the weather in 1816 in eastern North America and Northwestern Europe, and on the subsequent effects on food availability <br /><br />Unfortunately, the descriptions of weather often run on far longer than they really need to, and only the authors' engaging writing style save large portions of the book from extreme tedium. In some cases the details of a single day can run to several pages. The book is also completely lacking in graphics, even basic maps, which can be frustrating to someone who hasn't memorized the location of minor European cities such as Glarus. Yes, the internet exists, but a book is still a low tech device that can be used anywhere there is light, and a non-fiction book should not shun visual information so completely as this one.<br /><br />Overall, I found The Year Without Summer readable but disappointing. Its description of the details of the eruption is cursory, and it doesn't attempt to link climate to the weather that fills so many of its pages. The book is almost exclusively focused on Northeast America and Northwest Europe, which may interest readers of an English-language book printed in America more than other places around the world, but the limited geography betrays the title. And it does very little to prove that the eruption changed history. I can't recommend this book to anyone other than specialists who might find use for the detailed description of the weather in the time period.</p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-44234601377674140002022-04-22T05:17:00.001-04:002022-04-22T05:17:57.816-04:00Random Book Review - The Dirk Gently Novels<p>Author: Douglas Adams<br />Released: 1987 / 1988<br />Format reviewed: Mass-market paperback<br />Pages of content: 306 / 320<br />Rating: 3/5 / 3/5<br /><br /><i>Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency</i> and <i>The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul</i> are two* nominally science-fiction novels by the late and very much missed British author, Douglas Adams. More accurately, they are comedies with a smidge of science fiction and/or fantasy to help the absurdist humor along. In that aspect, they are similar to Douglas's more famous Hitchhiker's series. However, the setting is primarily on Earth in this series, and there is considerably less action.<br /><br />Both of the books are called detective novels, but as such the clues are a little obscure, at least to this reader, who may not have approached the books in a sufficiently adversarial manner. The pacing of <i>LDTTS</i> is the better of the two, as there are more jokes sprinkled throughout and the setup portion of the book moves a little better. <i>DGHDA</i> doesn't really come alive until the last 80 pages, but it's fairly fun once it does. Both have interesting endings, though neither are entirely satisfactory.<br /><br />Overall, these are fun, readable books that anyone who enjoys either speculative fiction or British humor should consume. They don't rise to the level of the early HHGG books, but unlike a lot of recent speculative fiction, they are easy to finish without getting frustrated. I recommend them for anyone who doesn't have a hangup about reading only 'serious' literature.<br /><br />* An partial draft of the third novel in the series was published posthumously, but I felt it inappropriate to include it here.</p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-84989637336003260972022-04-18T13:29:00.006-04:002022-04-19T01:22:25.891-04:00Random Book Review: The Wheel of Time series<p>Author: Robert Jordan (0-11) / Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson (12-14)<br />Released: 1990-2013<br />Format reviewed: Mass-market paperback<br />Pages of content: 11,898 (per internet sources)<br />Rating: 3/5<br /><br />Avid and even moderate readers of the fantasy genre are probably familiar with <i>The Wheel of Time,</i> a 15 books series that is one of the top 10 best-selling of all time. It is also one of more frustrating, with the middle books being interminable slogs of padding and poor editing. The energy of the early books leached out by book 5 or 6, and Jordan's infamously similar descriptive passages make some of the chapters feel like they were written with word processor macros. Bringing Brandon Sanderson in to finish the series would have been a good idea even if Jordan had not passed away in 2007, as the new author managed to fill out pages without employing Jordan's literary tics. He also recaptured some of the energy of the early books, though he didn't always sustain it through all of the plot threads that needed to be resolved in plausible fashion. And the ~200 page chapter of the final battle is ridiculous, though perhaps inevitable given the multi-book build-up.<br /><br />For readers who have limited time and/or budget (the complete series will set a reader back by at least $150), I recommend steering clear of this series in favor of smaller series and stand-alone works. During my recent re-read, I was able to skip several dozen chapters in books 8 through 11 because I knew basically nothing happened. What's the point in paying for all those words if they are basically useless? For readers who feel they've read all the other major series, or who want to read one that has been completed, <i>The Wheel of Time</i> is a decent if somewhat mindless way to fill up time. Readers should keep internet access internet handy, as they are likely to want to look up characters vaguely remembered from previous chapters without having to pick through the earlier books.</p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-35461251453515649412022-02-19T05:16:00.001-05:002022-05-11T20:22:29.156-04:00Top 3 Superpowers<p>I am interested in stopping <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44354/putin-has-made-the-decision-to-attack-ukraine-says-biden">an apparently imminent war.</a> Would a supernatural deity/technologically advanced race please grant me one of the following abilities:</p><p>1) Omnipotence</p><p>2) Mind control</p><p>3) Teleportation</p><p>Thank you in advance.<br /></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-40500621515954300262022-01-28T13:40:00.001-05:002022-05-11T20:22:08.295-04:00The Third Constitution of the United States of AmericaIt's been over five years since I last published a version of this document. In that time, I've learned a lot of hard truths about America. My thinking about the details of my constitution has as a consequence become a bit more prescriptive, given the numerous failures of the currently active one. But I feel I've stretched the basic vision of the current one as far as can be done, so I've decided to stop editing and publish what I have. I don't yet have a precise plan for what I am going to do next, so it will probably take another five years of occasional tinkering before I issue another update. Until then, here is version 2.0 of:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ulnZgmy9f5zuVfDViIsJYqLd_Azms-v/view?usp=sharing">The Third Constitution of the United States of America</a><br /></div><p>Enjoy!</p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-15112495876867014752021-12-31T23:55:00.001-05:002021-12-31T23:55:00.161-05:002021: At Least It Wasn't 2020<p>The calendar says it was an entirely different year, but the end is feeling an awful like 2020 with the ongoing COVID surge. Still, some perspective is warranted.</p><p>On the positive side:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Biden became POTUS and Democrats took control of Congress.</li><li>Two important bills (CARES and IIJA) were passed, and a good number of federal judges were confirmed.</li><li>Several different effective COVID vaccines became available, vastly reducing the death toll from what it might have been without them.</li><li>Biden ended the Afghanistan War after 20 years, reduce America's involvement elsewhere in the Middle East, and severely restricted the use of drones to kill people.</li><li>The American economy improved for many people.</li><li>JWST was launched successfully.<br /></li></ul><p>On the negative side: </p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>A loosely organized attempt to prevent Biden from becoming president came far closer than it should have to succeeding, and the insurrectionists managed to occupy part of the Capitol for a few hours. <br /></li><li>The two most conservative Democrats in the Senate decided to make themselves co-Presidents, and effectively blocked the most consequential portions of Biden's agenda, including the bills that would most help Democrats hold on to power in 2022 and 2024.</li><li>A very conservative SCOTUS and some equally conservative lower courts made a number of horrible decisions, including the effective gutting of <i>Roe v. Wade</i> in Texas.</li><li>The COVID pandemic continued in America because Republicans cynically chose to promote anti-mask and anti-vax propaganda in order to discredit Biden and promote themselves, which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of over 160,000 Americans.</li><li>The COVID pandemic continued globally due to a combination of poverty, anti-vax propaganda, and several forms of vaccine nationalism.</li><li>Severe consequences of global warming continued to impact people across the planet. <br /></li><li>The economic growth caused the trade deficit to approached record highs.</li></ul><p>On the worrisome but unresolved side:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Putin massed troops on Russia's border with Ukraine, but NATO members seem to be fairly unified in stating that an invasion would have serious consequences.</li><li>Xi made himself leader for life, and China continued to make belligerent noises about Taiwan. Biden has responded with fairly strong words, and some East Asia countries seem to be taking the issue more seriously.<br /></li></ul>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-53414710243798169022021-12-26T07:00:00.003-05:002021-12-31T23:04:51.359-05:00A Model Republican Constitution for Great Britain and Northern IrelandIt's time to face the truth: the UK has no constitution and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/boris-johnsons-suspension-of-parliament-unlawful-supreme-court-rules-prorogue" target="_blank">desperately needs one.</a> A passel of norms, practices, and precedents under-girded by some laws and treaties is simply insufficient to cope with someone who only values power. This is not to say a written and codified constitution is always sufficient for the same task, as the state of affairs in the US from 2017 to 2020 demonstrates. However, the current US constitution is both rather outdated and overly dependent on norms, so it is not surprising that it failed to enable accountability for a rogue president. The same person operating in the UK's legal mire would be able to do far more damage.<br />
<br />
So, old chaps, here is the second version of:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qnqhzD-hsUFzxUgOXWhog9AFe3BxuvJW/view?usp=sharing">A Model Republican Constitution for Great Britain and Northern Ireland</a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Enjoy!</div>
PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-36586422332858787812021-10-27T17:26:00.005-04:002021-11-14T12:01:37.967-05:00NYC Transit Mapping Revisited<p>It's been a while since I've done any mapmaking, but the bug has bitten me again. I've updated my<a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1Ntq_yxfKHQL1F5XZOTWUuBpyKZ0&usp=sharing"> NYC Airport Transit Access</a> map, my <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1pSUwxwqUXT0VZCDXjAzRvDZy8vk&usp=sharing">NYC Transit Projects</a> map, and my <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1kPbzBmII6dE7sqU_CzJicJ3x2FA&usp=sharing">NYC Commuter and Intercity Rail</a> map. The changes I made consisted mostly of sorting the existing features into layers, and updating the colors and line weights. Gurgle has made number of changes to their map interface since I started using it, and mostly not for the better. But you get what you pay for. Beyond that, however, those maps are somewhat outdated.<br /></p><p>Because I want to preserve the old maps, I have created <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1MORTVSkfPMOiVpu2cIskvI2m0wBtDIbx&usp=sharing">a new map</a> which includes more details about the existing system, along with some expansion proposals. One proposal is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_expansion_of_the_New_York_City_Subway#IND_Second_System">IND Second System</a> from 1929, which was a fairly ambitious plan that has only been partially realized over the years. There have been many proposals, both simple and comprehensive, made since then, but trying to gather them all into one online map is not something I will get to anytime soon. However, the map also includes my own proposal, which reflect the many changes to NYC from 92 years ago.</p><p>Of course, my proposal is a fantasy, as there is no chance of it being funded. Due to the the SARS-COV-2 pandemic, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Second_Avenue_Subway#Phase_2">Phase 2 of the Second Avenue Subway</a> is on hold, as transit ridership in general has not recovered from the severe plunge caused by pandemic. Subway ridership reached about 3.1M/day as of October 2021, but that is still far from the 5.5M/day average in 2019. Given that transit receives intermittent federal funding in this country, I would not be surprised to see SAS P2 completion pushed out by at least 5 years.</p><p>In the meantime, enjoy my <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1MORTVSkfPMOiVpu2cIskvI2m0wBtDIbx&usp=sharing">NYC Subway Lines and Proposals</a> map. Please note that it is a map of physical infrastructure, not services, so it does not convey the same information as the traditional NYC subway map despite some similarity.<br /></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-34302399040744930842021-09-30T00:58:00.001-04:002021-11-23T20:59:08.021-05:00War Is a Media Racket<p>The non-stop huffing and puffing we've seen in the past several weeks over the withdrawal of American troops and the return of the Taliban has laid bare a deep problem in larger media institutions. <span>Smedley D. Butler used the phrase "War is a Racket" in a series of speeches given in the early 1930s, which he turned into <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket">a book published in 1935.</a> In it, he explained how the U.S. military was used to support corporate interest in various countries it was deployed to in the 1910s and 1920s. These days the U.S. military does not so much prop up overseas corporate operations directly as aim a giant fire hose of defense dollars to defense contractors large and small. These companies and their owners in turn use some of the money as campaign contributions to the most hawkish or pro-outsourcing politicians, who then seek to extend wars or have the military turn over as many functions as possible to private industry. The money also flows to various "think tanks" who generate position papers, op-eds, and conveniently available talking heads for any news show that makes a last-minute request. <br /></span></p><p><span>The media, too, has an interest in conflict and war. At the institutional level, war is good for ratings, subscriptions, "engagements", and - ideally - revenue. That's not surprising. The uncertainty and potential threat from war makes people pay attention because there is a long history of war causing massive amounts of death, well above the everyday level of death that people have always experienced. So it is completely rational for media organizations to cover war in detail, and bring in lots of guests who are pro-war, or at least deeply, deeply concerned with developments. Little time is given to anti-war voices, who are viewed and portrayed as naive and idealistic. We saw this in 2002-2003, and we're seeing it again, though the pro-war voices present now are mostly there to re-enforce the idea that Afghanistan was a "loss" and thus Biden is a loser who should be replaced with a more war-friendly president, or at least replaced.</span></p><p><span>What is more complicated is individual motivation among members of the media. I think a lot of them have a pro-war bias because covering a conflict could be better for their career than covering anything domestic. Those who are assigned to the war get to stand in exotic locations and talk intensely about dramatic developments for reports that are aired at the top of the hour, or have their reports published on the front page. Those covering ongoing domestic issues tend not to be the center of their reports, which are relegated to the second half of the show, or farther into the newspaper, next to the ads for the discount liquor stores. It is also probably more rewarding personally to cover war. The locations are distant and different. The conflict-zone reporters have opportunities to "embed" with the military and be flown around in helicopters while officers explain complex programs. Domestic reporters on assignment get a rental car in which they have to drive themselves around to assemble their story. And so on.</span></p><p><span>Ultimately, an overwhelming majority of journalists and media institutions cannot be trusted on matters of war. They may create and run tragic stories from the front lines, or about the victims, or even the aftermath, if the leadership thinks viewers still remember the war. But in the lead-up to any war of choice, they will be biased in favor of war. That will come though in the choice of stories, interviewees, and overall tone. American citizens will have to learn to fight this bias by choosing different media outlets for their information. Otherwise, the country will eventually repeat the mistakes of the Iraq War and the overly-long occupation of Afghanistan.</span></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-12432919029838548232021-09-09T15:56:00.001-04:002023-08-04T17:55:12.282-04:00Planning: Curb Cuts and Alleys<p>NB: I believe this topic has been discussed much better many times
elsewhere on the net and in print. I am writing simply to clarify my
own thoughts. I apologize for the primitive graphics.</p><p>One of the issues that arises with higher-density housing is parking. As I discussed in a previous post, people want cars and thus parking for a variety of reasons. On-street parking in residential areas has a number of issues, and off-street parking does as well. Nonetheless, people desire parking, and there are ways to accommodate it in the context of fee-simple houses - up to a certain point.</p><p>The standard way to accommodate parking is to build access from the street to the private property where an owner wants to park vehicles. In low-density suburbs and rural areas, that means a simple paved or unpaved driveway leading into the property from the roadway. As housing becomes denser, in most cases the access crosses the pedestrian portion of the right-of-way, which is usually a paved sidewalk, but may in some cases be bicycle lanes. These intersecting paths of movement are point of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. They are also known as curb cuts in America, because the standard high curb is cut down so
the vehicle can drive smoothly from the street into a private
property. </p><p>On lots with large, open yards, it can be easy for a driver to spot a pedestrian. (In this post, I will use the word 'pedestrian' as a shorthand for any using the sidewalk. Apart from people walking, other users may include joggers, younger cyclists, micromobility users, assisted mobility users, and older cyclists, depending on the local regulations and specific configuration of the right-of-way.) On lots where vision is obstructed by plants, fences, or other buildings, pedestrians can be injured if a driver is not careful. Pedestrians learn to be wary in low-visibility situations, but too many dangerous crossings can make walking down certain streets unpleasant, and those streets are avoided.</p><p>Another issue is that curbside portion of a street where the access to private property ends becomes an area that can't be used for parking if there is on-street parking on the same side of the street. In that situation, it can't be used for normal vehicular movement, either. In some neighborhoods, an informal rule develops that a property owner can block the access to their own property, but doing so still risks a ticket. It can also encourage less conscientious drivers to block other people's driveways.</p><p>A third issue with curb cuts is that sometimes people simply park their vehicles across the sidewalk, forcing pedestrians to detour and potentially enter the roadway to continue their journey. This happens most often when the driveway is relatively short and a larger vehicle such as a pickup does not fit completely onto the private lot. It also happens when the driveway is obviously too short, but the vehicle fits between the end of the driveway (usually a garage door) and the street. Either way, in most jurisdictions this discourtesy is illegal, but rarely enforced unless someone complains.</p><p>One solution to the issue of curb cuts is to create a second, usually parallel, right-of-way that allows rear access to properties for the purpose of parking. This right-of-way is usually called an alley, but is sometimes called a service lane, or just a lane. Alleys predate the automobile by hundreds or thousands of years, depending on how they are defined. Some American cities that have them were laid out when the horse was the main means of long-distance travel. But alleys have been adapted to support motor vehicles, and offer some advantages over front access for parking.</p><p>The first is that alleys cut down on the opportunities for pedestrian-vehicle conflict. Alleys reduce the number of curb cuts from many to as few as one per block, though two is most common. While pedestrians can use the alley as a walkway, most people prefer a sidewalk, as an alley is an obvious zone of conflict. Some urbanists are interested in upgrading the alley to a sort of second, pedestrian friendly street, but outside of warm tourist towns, that seems to me to be a duplicative and futile effort.<br /></p><p>The second advantage is that with rear parking and reduction of curb cuts, the street in front of homes has more space either for parking or the various forms of traffic, depending on how it is striped. Or the roadway can be narrowed and restricted to vehicle movement only, reducing the amount of paved area the jurisdiction needs to maintain. The space freed in this way could then be used to create or expand curb lawns.<br /></p><p>Alleys have some smaller benefits. They are good places for trash pickup, as a garbage or recycling truck can access cans or bins in an alley without having to pull them across a line of parked cars from the sidewalk or curb lawn. They also reduce the chances of the truck driver coming into conflict with moving vehicles, as alleys are usually so narrow that most passenger vehicles cannot pass a stopped truck. They can also be used for overhead utilities in areas where they cannot be placed underground due to costs or technical reasons. Overhead wires in an alley don't mar the appearance of the adjacent street, and they don't come into conflict with any trees planted in front of the homes.</p><p>Alleys have downsides, of course. The primary one is that they have to be built and maintained. While they don't have many of the features of streets, such as sidewalks, curbs, crosswalks, lane markings, and traffic lights, they still need to be built to support the vehicles that travel down it. Garbage trucks are the heaviest vehicles to travel through residential areas on a regular basis, and cause the most damage to residential streets from vehicles. The second is that the hard surface of an alley will increase runoff over that of unimproved yards. The tradeoff between having an alley and rear parking verses having driveways and front-parking needs to be calculated when it comes to managing storm water.</p><p>Another negative negative factor is that alleys tend to be unsightly. Because they may not be fully visible from the surrounding buildings, trash can be dumped and improvements vandalized without anyone even being able to notice. And the fences and structures along alleys are often neglected since they aren't the public face of the property. Alleys are problematic in areas with heavy snowfall. Because there is nowhere to put the snow, they are left unplowed, making access difficult or dangerous. Snow can be moved with a bucket-loader and trucked out, but that is an expensive option.</p><p>Alleys also have a reputational issue. The dark alley is a widespread fictional device that probably has its roots in the actual alleys of medieval cities in England. There is no doubt that the originals were poorly lit and often the location of crimes that might not take place in wider streets or the daylight. Modern alleys are not narrow walkways with sections passing beneath buildings, and often have streetlights. Nonetheless, the negative perception continues, probably because alleys tend to be trash-strewn and poorly maintained, indicating that few people notice or care what happens in them. Research indicates that gating alleys in the UK reduces crime by a small amount, but the number of studies is limited. The overall level of crime in an area with alleys is probably more important than the absence or presence of alleys themselves.<br /></p><p>Because of their complications, I think alleys need to be analyzed with caution in mind before they are included in a design. I think they provide a way to mitigate the issues of parking in residential areas of moderate density, but they are not a solution in themselves. Only by addressing car-dependent mobility can the problem of parking be truly solved.<br /></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-42734694014767751542021-09-02T08:07:00.000-04:002021-09-02T08:07:44.881-04:00Planning: Block Sizes for Mixed Uses<p>NB: I believe this topic has been discussed much better many times elsewhere on the net and in print. I am writing simply to clarify my own thoughts. I apologize for the primitive graphics.</p><p>In a previous post I examined block sizes for perimeter apartments, a common form of housing in Europe. They allow fairly high density, but generally don't allow for very large businesses to be established on their ground floors. Many businesses don't necessarily need or even want street-level access, and could occupy higher floors. Others want much larger floor plates, or need to be in a separate structure for reasons of noise, vibration, or other measures. Replacing the portion of the perimeter apartments with a building dedicated to businesses is one way to integrate the two functions.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_r0xamqgleU/YTC3jycBXkI/AAAAAAAAFic/Pr70SECuSEoxC_DY8qEjVMv77lCUHzOkwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1170/mixed%2B260%2Bby%2B260%2B1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="611" data-original-width="1170" height="209" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_r0xamqgleU/YTC3jycBXkI/AAAAAAAAFic/Pr70SECuSEoxC_DY8qEjVMv77lCUHzOkwCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h209/mixed%2B260%2Bby%2B260%2B1.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p>Here I have depicted some fairly simple divisions of a block into thinner perimeter apartments and commercial buildings that use up their entire lots. The main issue is the amount of open space from any window to a wall or window on a facing building. This is culturally dependent, and ranges from a few feet to as high as 80 feet, even in urban areas. New York City has codified a minimum of 30 feet from a window to a wall, and 40 feet from a window to a window, but only up to 25' in building height. Offset distances increase with building height. For a building 55' high, as I have been using, the values would be 50' and 60', meaning the commercial building in the upper left corner could not be inserted into the block without carving it back to the T-shaped area outlined on the roof. However, if it was built first to the limits of the lot, then subsequent apartments might have to be impractically thin. The zoning code may have rules for resolving, preventing, or mitigating conflicts of this kind, or it may depend on negotiation and trading of rights. No matter what the method, the conflicts would need to be resolved clearly. Otherwise, the first landowner to build in any block could seriously impact the use of every other owner on the block without the others' consent or foreknowledge. There would be less conflicts on blocks larger than the 260' by 260' (buildable) examples I have shown above.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NEEoiR7QDH0/YTC3qUwNfpI/AAAAAAAAFig/D3S23aAM5Uwxxgvy5LLz7TanzXOPcqeLQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1190/mixed%2B260%2Bby%2B260%2B2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="601" data-original-width="1190" height="203" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NEEoiR7QDH0/YTC3qUwNfpI/AAAAAAAAFig/D3S23aAM5Uwxxgvy5LLz7TanzXOPcqeLQCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h203/mixed%2B260%2Bby%2B260%2B2.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p>For larger businesses, it may be necessary to develop entire block at one time, and replace the entire interior of the block with the commercial structure. This is often done with parking garages in suburban developments, and results in what has been dubbed the Texas doughnut. This configuration has the advantage of hiding pedestrian-unfriendly or generally unappealing buildings away from sight. Structures hidden in this manner can cut some costs since aesthetics are not a concern. However, the arrangement could reduce the exterior ring of apartments to outward-facing units only, meaning that common elements are shared between fewer units, increasing per unit costs. The density of the block would be less than with double-sided blocks, but the tradeoff may be worthwhile in some circumstances. With bigger blocks, it would be easier to develop a large commercial structure with little impact on adjacent buildings.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OgQo3N03r_g/YTC3yO4eGeI/AAAAAAAAFik/uBf8NACkuVIK-Y8ClY_hWvLZ6mOFRzRygCLcBGAsYHQ/s1181/mixed%2B260%2Bby%2B260%2B3.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="776" data-original-width="1181" height="263" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OgQo3N03r_g/YTC3yO4eGeI/AAAAAAAAFik/uBf8NACkuVIK-Y8ClY_hWvLZ6mOFRzRygCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h263/mixed%2B260%2Bby%2B260%2B3.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p>Another approach available only to large development projects is to stack the functions. By putting the business functions on the outside and constructing a residential tower above that on the inside, businesses could have fairly large floors. However, the apartments could possibly look out on an unattractive roofscape full of machinery, solar panels (hopefully), or highly reflective roofing material, though "green roofs" could be an option. They would also lose any connection to the street below, giving them a suburban feel at best. Inverting those functions would work better in some ways, with the apartments looking directly onto the street, and the businesses looking onto a relatively small roof area, along with the street, at least from higher floors. However, the major disadvantage here would be a large area of interior space below the tower that would have limited uses, such as storage or parking. Parking located here would be fairly expensive, as it would all be custom-designed and cast-in-place in order to fit inside the envelope and have a column grid compatible with the businesses above. More complicated architectural forms could potentially make the large interior area less useful, though they would benefit non-occupants if they had lasting aesthetic appeal. Overall, I think smaller blocks would work better for whole-block developments, but it would depend a lot on local expectations and regulations related to heights and setbacks. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oLwIXVg27Wc/YTC33hdq-cI/AAAAAAAAFis/GpNuLzrTfwQAdTNS5xpfrTZZk2raTmfegCLcBGAsYHQ/s1187/mixed%2B260%2Bby%2B260%2B4.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="603" data-original-width="1187" height="204" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oLwIXVg27Wc/YTC33hdq-cI/AAAAAAAAFis/GpNuLzrTfwQAdTNS5xpfrTZZk2raTmfegCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h204/mixed%2B260%2Bby%2B260%2B4.png" width="400" /></a></div><p>In addition to businesses of various sorts, there are a number of other institutions that are part of any urban fabric, including religious organizations, schools, universities, hospitals, government facilities, and museums. All of those will have a physical presence. Often they are large enough to require an entire block, or are given one in order to highlight their prestige. But smaller institutional buildings can be easily integrated into a block of apartments.</p><p>Investigating the mixture of apartments with larger commercial or civic functions leaves less clear answers about block sizes, because the non-residential functions have widely varying needs. In most dense areas, I feel the established grid should force the commercial or civic function to adapt. There may be a few situations where institutions need to combine blocks to function effectively, such as sports arenas or conference centers. But those should be rare exceptions, and should be sited so the superblocks don't interrupt important traffic corridors or divide neighborhoods. In a future post, I will look at block sizes for larger businesses.<br /></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-33700013033968405252021-09-01T17:38:00.000-04:002021-09-09T15:57:39.543-04:00Planning: Block Sizes for High-Density Housing<p>NB: I believe this topic has been discussed much better many times
elsewhere on the net and in print. I am writing simply to clarify my
own thoughts. I apologize for the primitive graphics.</p><p>In a previous post I examined block sizes for perimeter apartments, an arrangement found in Europe that can create high-density neighborhoods. In this post, I will look at other high-density apartment building types, mostly from New York City.</p><p>NYC has been America's most populous city since the first census in 1790, and contains one of the largest extents of hyperdensity on the planet. Due to the restrictions imposed by the surrounding waterways, land has long been valuable in the city, leading to intensive development. When the majority of the Manhattan was laid out in 1811, the population was only about 100,000. In contrast, London had a population of about 1,200,000, and Paris about 600,000. The blocks in the undeveloped parts of NYC were divided mostly into lots measuring 25' by 100'. This was deemed appropriate for a single-family house at the time, whether attached or detached. However, as the city grew rapidly to 810,000 by 1860, the lot width became a liability, because the single family houses were replaced with tenements, or apartments, for low-income residents, which were the majority of the population. The earliest of these ("pre-law") were often built to the limits of the lot, with only a 10' deep rear yard. This meant that interior rooms received no light or fresh air, as light shafts or courtyards would cut into profits of the landlords<br /></p><p>This led to the "First" Tenement House Act of 1867, which required fire escapes for each apartment and windows for each room, among several requirements. Landlords met the letter of the law by installing windows in interior walls, which may have provided a slight improvement for some rooms, but was not what the legislators had intended. In 1879 the "Second" Tenement House Act was passed, which required windows to face the street, a yard, or a minimal airshaft open to the sky. This airshaft was very small by design, to please developers, and did little to light rooms. Unfortunately, the narrow air shaft led to two problems. One was that it was used as a dumping area for trash and waste by residents on upper floors, leading to unpleasant odors for all because the space was not designed to be easily accessed for cleaning. The second was that it enabled fires to spread floor-to-floor and building-to-building more easily, as the air shaft acted as a flue.</p><p></p><p>The problems with the "Old Law" led to the "New Law" formally known as the New York State Tenement House Act, passed in 1901. This new legislation required "inner courts" entirely enclosed by the property to be at least 24' by 24' for a 60' tall building. For courts on lot lines, the minimum was 12' by 24', which could be paired with the adjacent building for a more open space. The law also allowed "outer courts" to extend from deep inside the building to a street or back yard. These had an minimum dimension of 6' when on a lot line, and 12' when between parts of the same building. The measurements again were for a 60' tall building. The regulations for both inner and outer courts had adjustments for both taller and shorter buildings, as well as absolute minimums.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FW2hYUbeII0/YSyKR0gzwuI/AAAAAAAAFhc/G_VfVCIFir41TvhH7IKg8bhobcVaFa9TgCLcBGAsYHQ/s977/200%2Bby%2B800%2B1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="570" data-original-width="977" height="234" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FW2hYUbeII0/YSyKR0gzwuI/AAAAAAAAFhc/G_VfVCIFir41TvhH7IKg8bhobcVaFa9TgCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h234/200%2Bby%2B800%2B1.png" width="400" /></a></div><p>Above I have depicted the basic shapes allowed in each era. First, at the bottom, are the "pre law" tenements that were allowed up to 1879, with no air shafts at all. Next are the "old law" "dumbbell" tenements, with the problematic narrow air shafts. On the upper block are examples of inner court and outer court "new law" buildings. Multi-family dwellings on lots under 40' or so became much more difficult to build economically after passage of the law, thus the wider buildings. Pre law and old law tenements were mostly 4 or 5 stories in height, but some new law tenements were as much as 6 or 7 stories, even without elevators, in order to make up for the lot space reserved by the new requirements. Similarly-sized buildings conforming to the 1901 statute were also constructed for more upscale customers, with larger suites and at least one elevator.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jcPuypvLt0I/YSyKaVuFl8I/AAAAAAAAFhs/Cj5lC1Y5mXIaaR_-H_cqAb4w_XJ1aaSKACLcBGAsYHQ/s966/200%2Bby%2B800%2B2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="556" data-original-width="966" height="230" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jcPuypvLt0I/YSyKaVuFl8I/AAAAAAAAFhs/Cj5lC1Y5mXIaaR_-H_cqAb4w_XJ1aaSKACLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h230/200%2Bby%2B800%2B2.png" width="400" /></a></div><p>Another major city experiencing explosive growth about the same time was Berlin. Previously the capital of Prussia, it was made the capital of a united Germany in 1871. The population then grew from 826,000 to 1.88 million by 1900, roughly the same as Manhattan at the time. It also had tenements, known as <i>mietskaserne,</i> or "rental barracks." These buildings may have started as perimeter blocks, with additional structures added first at the rear of each, and then along the sides, to create large interior courts. But by the late 1800s, they were regularly built to the lot line from the start. Unlike in NY, there were not separate buildings for the wealthy and the poor. Instead, the wealthy lived in the front section on the second floor, while others crowded into the rest of the building. Blocks in Berlin are much less regular than in Manhattan, and the image above shows an abstraction of the basic form. The mietskaserne were often extended to create a second or even third courtyard on deeper blocks. This did not happen to tenements in New York, because the more rigid street layout created few deep blocks. The meitskaserne could also be reoriented to pair with units on the opposite side of a very shallow block Also included in the image for comparison is a block with identical dimensions and perimeter apartments. <br /></p><p>
</p><style type="text/css">table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;}
.tableizer-table th {background-color: #aadd99; color: #fff; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top; text-align: center;}</style><table align="center" class="tableizer-table"><tbody>
<tr class="tableizer-firstrow">
</tr><tr>
<th align="LEFT" height="18" width="106"><br /></th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">Perimeter, 60' thick</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">25' Pre-law</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">25' Dumbell</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">50' New Law I-plan</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">50' Mietskaserne</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Gross length</td>
<td align="RIGHT">900</td>
<td align="RIGHT">900</td>
<td align="RIGHT">900</td>
<td align="RIGHT">900</td>
<td align="RIGHT">900</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Gross depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">ROW width</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60/100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60/100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60/100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60/100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60/100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Net length</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Net depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lot width</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">25</td>
<td align="RIGHT">25</td>
<td align="RIGHT">50</td>
<td align="RIGHT">50</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lot depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">130</td>
<td align="RIGHT">100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lots per block</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2</td>
<td align="RIGHT">64</td>
<td align="RIGHT">64</td>
<td align="RIGHT">32</td>
<td align="RIGHT">32</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Units per floor</td>
<td align="RIGHT">100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">4</td>
<td align="RIGHT">4</td>
<td align="RIGHT">6</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Floors</td>
<td align="RIGHT">5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lot coverage</td>
<td align="RIGHT">66.00%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">90.00%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">78.00%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">68.00%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">72.16%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">ROW per unit (ft.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2.32</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1.81</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1.81</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2.42</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2.07</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Density per block (pers./sq. mi.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">119,138</td>
<td align="RIGHT">152,497</td>
<td align="RIGHT">152,497</td>
<td align="RIGHT">114,373</td>
<td align="RIGHT">133,435</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Because of their very high lot coverage ratios, the pre-law and dumbell tenements generate the highest density. New law buildings cover less of their lot, which accounts for the lower density. However, they are by all accounts much more pleasant to live in. An argument can be made that the mietskaserne are better still, because they have one large courtyard instead of a smaller courtyard and a rear yard that isn't very usable. They are the only type still built as well, as the NYC zoning code has continued to be updated and nothing in the shape of the new law tenements is built. Block sizes for the mietskaserne should probably be driven by a balance of walkability and efficiency, similar to perimeter apartments. The NYC blocks are too long, so something around the size I have previously been using (580' by 240' buildable) would preferable. However, some blocks with mietskaserne in Berlin are as large as 700' by 800', with over 35 interior courts. That level of interaction between different structures might be a difficult to sustain in societies where businesses relationships tend to be more adversarial.<br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAVBwIv4q22gI1Gj1BXkU3qE-EK_JgRViMTAu4IYlBsDaLJB2qOx0Oh-5Y-x8P65pBbv4o-mJRMUITsll64yqtxvH7ICXCZ2O8KvJKPtn00tfJWHZNvOoUFie1ieXkptrRWV3txIr9mcI/s1007/200+by+800+3.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="649" data-original-width="1007" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAVBwIv4q22gI1Gj1BXkU3qE-EK_JgRViMTAu4IYlBsDaLJB2qOx0Oh-5Y-x8P65pBbv4o-mJRMUITsll64yqtxvH7ICXCZ2O8KvJKPtn00tfJWHZNvOoUFie1ieXkptrRWV3txIr9mcI/w400-h258/200+by+800+3.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p>Much larger buildings were also constructed within the regulations of the 1901 law. Show below are three whole block buildings. From smaller to larger they are The Apthorp (1908), The Belnord (1909), and London Terrace (1931), which is actually 14 adjacent buildings. The first two are luxury buildings with large units and separate servants' elevators and entrances. The last was designed as a middle-class housing for workers in Midtown Manhattan. Its units ranged from studios to two bedroom units, with some larger penthouse units. Originally housing over 4000 residents in 1665 units, it remains one of the largest apartment buildings in the world.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z58j2MbrVxM/YSyKnEa13TI/AAAAAAAAFiA/OcINY3vACis04tqDwY80mR_M0yAv8EzAQCLcBGAsYHQ/s963/200%2Bby%2B800%2B4.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="716" data-original-width="963" height="297" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z58j2MbrVxM/YSyKnEa13TI/AAAAAAAAFiA/OcINY3vACis04tqDwY80mR_M0yAv8EzAQCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h297/200%2Bby%2B800%2B4.png" width="400" /></a></div><p>Filling a lot right up to the edge of the surrounding right of way is not the only way to create density. Isolated towers can be constructed with enough floors to substitute for high lot coverage. In fact, that was the point of one of the earliest proponents of the "tower in the park" arrangement, Charles-Edouard Jeanneret. However, in reality most residential towers aren't surrounded by parkland, but parking garages, indoor malls, or other pedestrian-unfriendly features. In some cities, most notably Vancouver, the towers are located in or on a podium of human-scaled shops and housing, but that arrangement is not the rule. Isolated towers in NYC, whether privately or publicly-owned, are usually not surrounded by other buildings. But neither do they float in a sea of undisturbed nature; land there is too valuable to allow that. In most cases the spaces surrounding NYC towers are simply small sections of fenced-off grass, with a few trees and not a lot of other landscaping.</p><p>
</p><style type="text/css">table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;}
.tableizer-table th {background-color: #aadd99; color: #fff; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top; text-align: center;}</style><table align="center" class="tableizer-table"><tbody>
<tr class="tableizer-firstrow">
</tr><tr>
<th align="LEFT" height="18" width="106"><br /></th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">Perimeter, 60' thick</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">Belnord</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">London Terrace</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">UdH-style towers</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">HK-style towers</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Gross length</td>
<td align="RIGHT">900</td>
<td align="RIGHT">440</td>
<td align="RIGHT">900</td>
<td align="RIGHT">900</td>
<td align="RIGHT">900</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Gross depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">ROW width</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60/100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60/100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60/100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60/100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60/100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Net length</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
<td align="RIGHT">340</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Net depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lot width</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
<td align="RIGHT">340</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
<td align="RIGHT">800</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lot depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">130</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
<td align="RIGHT">200</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lots per block</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1</td>
<td align="RIGHT">6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Units per floor</td>
<td align="RIGHT">100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">18</td>
<td align="RIGHT">100</td>
<td align="RIGHT">40</td>
<td align="RIGHT">8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Floors</td>
<td align="RIGHT">5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">12</td>
<td align="RIGHT">16</td>
<td align="RIGHT">23</td>
<td align="RIGHT">36</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lot coverage</td>
<td align="RIGHT">66.00%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">68.61%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60.40%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">25.50%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">21.14%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">ROW per unit (ft.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2.32</td>
<td align="RIGHT">6.48</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1.45</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2.52</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1.34</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Density per block (pers./sq. mi.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">119,138</td>
<td align="RIGHT">115,803</td>
<td align="RIGHT">228,746</td>
<td align="RIGHT">109,607</td>
<td align="RIGHT">205,871</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>There are a two things to note in the table above. First, the densities of both The Belnord and the London Terrace complex are based on census data, instead of being calculated. Because they are expensive properties, they may have a higher number of small households and second homes than the rest of the city, so the density shown is probably lower than I would calculate. Unfortunately, I don't have access to current floor plans, so calculation is impossible anyway. Second, the block sizes for the two tower-style buildings are arbitrarily the same size as the others, which affects the density calculations. In reality, because they are intended to have little relation ship with the streets below, block sizes don't matter that much. The vast majority of similar towers have been built in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Korea, where they are part of large planned unit developments (PUD), and have a very suburban feel. That is unlike The Belnord and London Terrace, which arguably may overwhelm their adjacent streets, but don't entirely turn their back on them.<br /></p><p>Ideal block sizes for the isolated tower blocks are essentially impossible to determine, because of their lack of relationship to surrounding streets. Preferably, they would not be built in an urban environment, but in NYC many have, often arranged in geometrical patterns on superblocks that obliterated existing streets. For the whole block-buildings, a shorter block works better because it promotes walkability. London Terrace should have been be split between two different blocks, and have more retail or office space on the ground floor, but NYC does not have a history of splitting large blocks to this day. The depth of the block for the three probably depends on what people feel about the tradeoff between density and light. North-facing exposures on lower floors will never get much natural light, but somewhat deeper blocks would increase the amount. The tradeoff would be lower density and higher land costs per unit.</p><p>At this point I have explored most housing types that are built in high and middle-income countries. In a future post I will look at some commercial structures and whether then can be constructed within the confines of a urban grid.<br /></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-25380655432427062992021-08-24T01:27:00.000-04:002021-09-09T15:57:23.415-04:00Planning: Block Sizes for Small Multi-Unit Buildings<p>NB: I believe this topic has been discussed much better many times
elsewhere on the net and in print. I am writing simply to clarify my
own thoughts. I apologize for the primitive graphics.</p><p>In previous posts on block sizes, I have looked at lots with a single dwelling unit, which is the most common form of home in America. But to build an area to a density higher than that of row houses, multiple units need to be develop on the same property. That means other forms of both buildings and ownership need to be investigated.</p><p>In America, there are functionally four types of home ownership: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple">fee simple,</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association">homeowner association,</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium">condominium,</a> and<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative"> cooperative.</a> These have been explained in great detail elsewhere, so I have provided links since I have nothing further to add. However, I will note that while single-family detached homes can be built under all four types, individual ownership in multi-unit buildings are always of the later two. Of course, a multi-unit building can be constructed by a single owner for the purpose of permanently renting the units, and many are. Public housing is a subset of that arrangement.<br /></p><p>The easiest way to create multiple dwelling units on one lot is to simply subdivide an existing single-family home. This is often done - whether or not it is allowed by local regulations - to older homes that were built when families were larger. New homes with fewer bedrooms are also partitioned if the basement or existing in-law suite can be isolated from the main portion of the house. The additional income from the rental unit can be important to addition to a household's finances, especially for retired homeowners.<br /></p><p>Another way to create multiple dwelling units on a lot is to create a second structure at the rear, usually along an alley, but sometimes accessed from the front along a common driveway. The formal name applied by many American jurisdictions is accessory dwelling unit, or ADU. The units are almost always smaller than the main home, containing 0 (a studio), 1, or 2 bedrooms. They are often located above a garage for the main dwelling, and are usually owned by the same person who owns and occupies the main unit. Some jurisdictions prohibit ADUs from being subdivided into a separate property, requiring them to be rented or used as guest houses in perpetuity.</p><p>While the above actions add diversity to existing neighborhoods, existing smaller units are not a significant portion of any nation's housing stock. The main way multi-unit dwellings are created is to design them as such from the beginning. Purpose-built apartments range from simple up-down duplexes found in cities of the Northeast, through mid-rise one-plus-five buildings being developed in suburban areas across America, to super-tall luxury skyscrapers in major cities like New York and Hong Kong. They can be built to be rented, to be sold as condominiums, or to be incorporated as cooperatives, though the latter is unusual in the 21st century.</p><p>Because subdividing existing homes happens after a neighborhood is laid out, there's no reason to investigate the impact of such actions on the layout of blocks. However, a neighborhood can be designed to allow the next step up in making multiple units, which is allowing for or requiring ADUs, and they should be examined.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NozoV7s4HqY/YSRjsLAa7WI/AAAAAAAAFgY/cp8irtqwJNwNg-OXb3sKxsiHVto6QEpbgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1212/ADU%2B320%2Bby%2B640%2B1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="636" data-original-width="1212" height="210" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NozoV7s4HqY/YSRjsLAa7WI/AAAAAAAAFgY/cp8irtqwJNwNg-OXb3sKxsiHVto6QEpbgCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h210/ADU%2B320%2Bby%2B640%2B1.png" width="400" /></a></div>For side-by-side duplexes or single family homes, there appears to be no reason to change the size of the block. The addition of a second story to the garage primarily changes the depth of the shade in the back yard and in the alley. Depending on the latitude and local climate, that may make the yard a little dark and damp at times, but could also act to cool the space in other areas. Most ADUs allowed by law in America would not change the size of the yard significantly over having a simple garage. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR9moCC7aNG3v2ztPT0I7Y9k7O0EX1zQ3AaGtTbdLa4EN1jivr49Gxu5XY_pIF__OJgdoBQNDt-ZbVRFk_xI0BrVgFdOpfbLpjX5nDDCS0WxMKKY53LT2aIDdBXxxPps5ppO7Cb1oafpg/s1085/ADU+320+by+640+2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="636" data-original-width="1085" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR9moCC7aNG3v2ztPT0I7Y9k7O0EX1zQ3AaGtTbdLa4EN1jivr49Gxu5XY_pIF__OJgdoBQNDt-ZbVRFk_xI0BrVgFdOpfbLpjX5nDDCS0WxMKKY53LT2aIDdBXxxPps5ppO7Cb1oafpg/w400-h235/ADU+320+by+640+2.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />For row houses, an ADU has similar effects on the yard. But on a 24 foot wide lot, the stairs from the second floor to the alley will impinge on the garage area. Because of the large cars prevalent in America, the number of indoor parking spaces would be reduced to one, unless the owners purposely bought much smaller vehicles than is typical. Most owners would probably just use the inadequate spot for storage and continue using a larger vehicle. It is also be possible to build an ADU on 20' and 16' lots with row houses, though again the stairs would restrict the amount of parking and storage space. But nothing necessitates a change to the overall block size.<p>
</p>
<style type="text/css">table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;}
.tableizer-table th {background-color: #aadd99; color: #fff; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top; text-align: center;}</style><table align="center" class="tableizer-table"><tbody>
<tr class="tableizer-firstrow">
</tr><tr>
<th align="LEFT" height="17" width="106"><br /></th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">32' DFH</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">32' DFH w/ rear ADU</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">24' SDFH</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">24' SDFH w/ rear ADU</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">24' AFH w/ rear ADU</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Gross length</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Gross depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">ROW width</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Net length</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Net depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lot width</td>
<td align="RIGHT">40</td>
<td align="RIGHT">40</td>
<td align="RIGHT">30</td>
<td align="RIGHT">30</td>
<td align="RIGHT">24</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lot depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">120</td>
<td align="RIGHT">120</td>
<td align="RIGHT">120</td>
<td align="RIGHT">120</td>
<td align="RIGHT">120</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lots per block</td>
<td align="RIGHT">30</td>
<td align="RIGHT">30</td>
<td align="RIGHT">38</td>
<td align="RIGHT">38</td>
<td align="RIGHT">48</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Parking – private (spots)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Parking – street (spots)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0.75</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0.75</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Driveway or alley (sq. ft.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">400</td>
<td align="RIGHT">400</td>
<td align="RIGHT">300</td>
<td align="RIGHT">300</td>
<td align="RIGHT">240</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Pct. paved</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.69%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.69%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.69%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.69%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.69%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Back yard (sq. ft.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1680</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1680</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1008</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Pct. back yard</td>
<td align="RIGHT">32.31%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">32.31%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">32.31%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">32.31%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">32.31%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">ROW per unit (ft.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">64.0</td>
<td align="RIGHT">64.0</td>
<td align="RIGHT">50.5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">50.5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">40.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Density per block (per/sq. mi.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">16,335</td>
<td align="RIGHT">20,419</td>
<td align="RIGHT">20,691</td>
<td align="RIGHT">25,864</td>
<td align="RIGHT">32,670</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Unsurprisingly, building an above-garage ADU does not increase density radically. In fact, using my assumptions of 1 person per small bedroom, and 2 per large bedroom, a 0 or 1 bedroom ADU would increase density by about 25%. That is a significant increase, but the absolute is still fairly low compared to many urban jurisdictions.</p><p>Changing the planning paradigm to taller dedicated apartment buildings is the way cities like New York, Paris, and Hong Kong achieve high density. However, not every dedicated multi-unit property is a skyscraper. In fact, there is more diversity of types of multi-unit properties than there are of fee-simple homes, which amount to two - detached, and party wall (duplex or row). Many multi-unit properties are constructed in large developments in very suburban areas, in an arrangements with low overall density. But others can be worked into the fabric of older neighborhoods. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9seOygIV9h4/YSR95HsMqWI/AAAAAAAAFgk/qr50STT5t_QkYw1aydcHrrPzI6rZYWkQACLcBGAsYHQ/s1128/Plex%2B320%2Bby%2B640%2B1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="630" data-original-width="1128" height="224" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9seOygIV9h4/YSR95HsMqWI/AAAAAAAAFgk/qr50STT5t_QkYw1aydcHrrPzI6rZYWkQACLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h224/Plex%2B320%2Bby%2B640%2B1.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />Here I have depicted a mix of single-family homes, duplexes, and what are often called sixplexes, or three-floor, six-unit apartment buildings. The multi-unit buildings are larger, but don't overwhelm the surrounding buildings. The same basic lot layout is preserved, with the dwelling structures close to the street, and parking structures at the rear. Usually a multi-unit building in this context would not have garages, however, and would instead simply have a lot, as an open area can accommodate more cars and costs significantly less.<p></p><p>Other "plexes" exist, such as triplexes (three units stacked) and fourplexes (two units wide by two high). More complicated arrangements are possible while keeping the building size reasonable, but builders frequently stack and mirror units to reduce costs. </p><p>
</p>
<style type="text/css">table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;}
.tableizer-table th {background-color: #aadd99; color: #fff; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top; text-align: center;}</style><table align="center" class="tableizer-table"><tbody>
<tr class="tableizer-firstrow">
</tr><tr>
<th align="LEFT" height="17" width="106"><br /></th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">24' SDFH w/ rear ADU</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">32' Triplex, rear garage</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">40' Four-plex, rear garage</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">40' Six-plex, rear garage</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">30' 3-2BR APT, attached</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Gross length</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Gross depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">ROW width</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Net length</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Net depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lot width</td>
<td align="RIGHT">30</td>
<td align="RIGHT">48</td>
<td align="RIGHT">58</td>
<td align="RIGHT">58</td>
<td align="RIGHT">30</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lot depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">120</td>
<td align="RIGHT">120</td>
<td align="RIGHT">120</td>
<td align="RIGHT">120</td>
<td align="RIGHT">120</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lots per block</td>
<td align="RIGHT">38</td>
<td align="RIGHT">24</td>
<td align="RIGHT">20</td>
<td align="RIGHT">20</td>
<td align="RIGHT">38</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Parking – private (spots)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2</td>
<td align="RIGHT">4</td>
<td align="RIGHT">5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Parking – street (spots)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0.75</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1.25</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1.5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1.5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0.75</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Driveway or alley (sq. ft.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">300</td>
<td align="RIGHT">480</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">300</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Pct. paved</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.69%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.69%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.69%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.69%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.69%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Back yard (sq. ft.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1248</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1508</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1508</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1260</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Pct. back yard</td>
<td align="RIGHT">32.31%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">20.00%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">20.00%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">20.00%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">32.31%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">ROW per unit (ft.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">50.5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">80.0</td>
<td align="RIGHT">96.0</td>
<td align="RIGHT">96.0</td>
<td align="RIGHT">50.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Density per block (per/sq. mi.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">25,864</td>
<td align="RIGHT">39,204</td>
<td align="RIGHT">43,560</td>
<td align="RIGHT">65,340</td>
<td align="RIGHT">46,555</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The three different plexes in the table each reduce the back yard area significantly, but that's not really a major issue, as a common back yard is rarely used. The better way to provide private outdoor space for upper floor apartments is to add a balcony. A similar area can be sectioned off for ground-floor units in most circumstances. The most important thing to note is that a neighborhood of sixplex buildings can result in fairly high density - even higher than narrow attached buildings of three stacked two bedroom units. The difference is mainly due to the increased number of bedrooms per unit.<br /></p><p>Three floors is a critical cutoff point in America, above which accessibility requirements mandate elevators, and fire codes require either sprinklers or a change in construction materials, or both. In a future post I will look at some apartment building forms that are constructed to greater heights.<br /></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-47378859213056707112021-08-21T13:01:00.002-04:002021-08-21T13:01:30.853-04:00Planning: Block Sizes for Perimeter Apartments<p>NB: I believe this topic has been discussed much better many times elsewhere on the net and in print. I am writing simply to clarify my own thoughts. I apologize for the primitive graphics.</p>
<p>Over a number of posts I have discussed block sizes for progressively smaller blocks and denser housing arrangements. In the last one on the topic, I looked at smaller multi-unit buildings, and found that they continue to fit well into the 260' deep by 580' long (buildable area) block I have been using in my images and calculations for several posts. I this post, I will examine perimeter apartments, which is a common arrangement in European countries such as Sweden, Germany, and Czechia.</p><p>Perimeter apartments are arranged into perimeter blocks. These are distinct from courtyard buildings, where a single building is constructed with some street-facing rooms, but also with a number of rooms that face an internal open-air space. Individual homes can be designed to face a courtyard as well, and examples can be found at least as far back time as Pompeii before the eruption of Vesuvius. With perimeter blocks, the courtyard is shared between several different buildings. Blocks of row houses have a superficial similarity, but with that building type the internal space is clearly partitioned into private lots, with no common areas.<br /></p><p>Note that I have not included lots in the following images. That is because ownership seems to vary within and between countries, and language barriers prevent me from easily pursuing the issue. However, what is important is the general form, and the agreement - whether through cultural norms or specific regulations - that the interior is not developed. (At least initially - over time the central courtyard is often filled in.)</p><p>Both the horizontal depth, or thickness, of the surrounding buildings, and their height, results from the regulations and practices followed in each country. In much of Europe, apartments have historically been constructed to 4 or 5 stories with a single staircase, which eliminates the need for interior corridors to separate the vertical circulation paths. That allows buildings to be as thin as 36'-40'. More typical in older areas is a thickness of 44'-48'. When multiple stairways and corridors are required, they are typically placed inside, pushing the dimension to 56'-60'. Higher figures are seen in luxury properties, where the rooms are much larger. If an exterior corridor is used, buildings can be very thin, but that arrangement is generally unpopular, and confined mostly to isolated towers.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gbf6QOaOv2w/YR81-SoWrcI/AAAAAAAAFfo/b6VrDl34h5A2aWAZTtudcQikeRNkn0hwgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1108/perimeter%2B320%2Bby%2B640%2B1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="677" data-original-width="1108" height="245" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gbf6QOaOv2w/YR81-SoWrcI/AAAAAAAAFfo/b6VrDl34h5A2aWAZTtudcQikeRNkn0hwgCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h245/perimeter%2B320%2Bby%2B640%2B1.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p>In the image above, the block size depicted is again 260' by 580' buildable. Clockwise from the lower left, the building thicknesses are 40', 50', 60', and 70'. The height is 55', or 5 stories with a half-exposed basement and parapet. With the thinner buildings, the interior courtyard is quite large, and the distance between the interior apartments on the long sides is almost three times that of exterior apartments to blocks across the right-of-way. Occupants of interior apartments on the short sides would barely even notice the far end. The interior apartments on the long sides of the thickest building are still separated by twice the width of the street. Clearly blocks developed in the perimeter form could be reduced in size by a significant amount before the units are adversely impacted. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m3MR1qejbYg/YR82LvmooyI/AAAAAAAAFfs/I-WxMBJE3zIbFtqr-C01vznvibXpsQnrACLcBGAsYHQ/s1149/perimeter%2B320%2Bby%2B320%2B1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="694" data-original-width="1149" height="241" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m3MR1qejbYg/YR82LvmooyI/AAAAAAAAFfs/I-WxMBJE3zIbFtqr-C01vznvibXpsQnrACLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h241/perimeter%2B320%2Bby%2B320%2B1.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />Here I have simply reduced the blocks to half their length. The courtyards are still larger than the street width, but the space is no longer sufficient to host an (American) football game. Nonetheless, it would still be possible to put a playground, a basketball or tennis court, and a gazebo for picnics within the space - if residents desired such amenities. These would be shared between fewer units, increasing the cost per unit, but would have less demand for usage. A clear advantage with smaller blocks is that the streets become more walkable, with more paths between destinations and more street frontage for businesses. The effect is greater with shorter blocks (blocks that tend towards being square) than narrower blocks (blocks that tend towards being long and thin).<br /><p></p><p>There are some technical tradeoffs between the thicknesses. Thin buildings dictate that any spaces created for businesses on the ground floor would be relatively small. Many businesses feel they need certain dimensions to operate effectively, and avoid smaller units. Thick buildings provide larger floor plates, but also mean inside corners become difficult to allocate usefully on residential levels, increasing the price of each unit. Thick perimeters also mean that a large portion of each unit will receive little to no natural light, because the inner portions are used for kitchens, bathrooms, storage, and other support functions that are in small, closed rooms. At least some of those rooms have to be positioned on an exterior wall in thinner buildings, trading floor plan efficiency for natural light and fresh air.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mAq1Jb5BWY4/YR82-a7ckOI/AAAAAAAAFf4/GHyhS2jAreYIREBvQfNCBHc3cRbFmEy7QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1065/perimeter%2B320%2Bby%2B640%2B2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="522" data-original-width="1065" height="196" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mAq1Jb5BWY4/YR82-a7ckOI/AAAAAAAAFf4/GHyhS2jAreYIREBvQfNCBHc3cRbFmEy7QCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h196/perimeter%2B320%2Bby%2B640%2B2.png" width="400" /></a></div><p>The perimeter can be broken to resolve some of those problems, though at the price of the continuous perimeter, and an urban feel. And once the perimeter is broken, the desire for parking could overwhelm the desire for open space, and the interiors of the block could end up covered in pavement. Parking within the block would also reintroduce the problems associated with curb cuts. However, a less rigid adherence to building to the limits of the property lines in each block would allow for more architectural expression and a wider variety of living experiences.<br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LmVeJl6nSEA/YR83LoX3UNI/AAAAAAAAFf8/UmZtuqK3qSYrvWCh7bzBDIt8Zznuj6eOwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1077/perimeter%2Beixample%2B1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="590" data-original-width="1077" height="219" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LmVeJl6nSEA/YR83LoX3UNI/AAAAAAAAFf8/UmZtuqK3qSYrvWCh7bzBDIt8Zznuj6eOwCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h219/perimeter%2Beixample%2B1.png" width="400" /></a></div>Above I have depicted some blocks based on one of the best known grids in urban planning, the Eixample ("Expansion") district of Barcelona, Spain. They are much larger than the blocks I have been examining, with unique, chamfered corners. Those cuts were made because the planner believed that large, cumbersome steam tractors - an advanced technology at the time - would be important for moving goods and people around the city. Unfortunately, with current transportation technology, the extra space at the intersections is usually dedicated to parking, dumpsters, or ill-defined pavement, degrading the quality of the space. Regulations implemented in 1958 allow for very thick perimeter apartments, as well as significant height increase over what the planner originally envisioned. Almost all of the blocks have been fully enclosed as well as filled in, eliminating a key component of the plan, which was garden space available for all residents to enjoy.<br /><p>
<style type="text/css">table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;}
.tableizer-table th {background-color: #aadd99; color: #fff; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top; text-align: center;}</style></p><table align="center" class="tableizer-table"><tbody>
<tr class="tableizer-firstrow">
</tr><tr>
<th align="LEFT" height="17" width="106"><br /></th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">24' RH, deep block</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">40' Sixplex, 3BR units</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">Perimeter, 40' thick</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">Perimeter, 50' thick</th>
<th align="LEFT" width="86">Perimeter, 60' thick</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Gross length</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
<td align="RIGHT">640</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Gross depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
<td align="RIGHT">320</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">ROW width</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
<td align="RIGHT">60</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Net length</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Net depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
<td align="RIGHT">260</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lot width</td>
<td align="RIGHT">24</td>
<td align="RIGHT">58</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lot depth</td>
<td align="RIGHT">120</td>
<td align="RIGHT">120</td>
<td align="RIGHT">130</td>
<td align="RIGHT">130</td>
<td align="RIGHT">130</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Lots per block</td>
<td align="RIGHT">48</td>
<td align="RIGHT">20</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Parking – private (spots)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">2</td>
<td align="RIGHT">5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Parking – street (spots)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0.6</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1.5</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0.11</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0.07</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0.09</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Driveway or alley (sq. ft.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">240</td>
<td align="RIGHT">580</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Pct. paved</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.69%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.69%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0.00%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0.00%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">0.00%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Back yard (sq. ft.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1008</td>
<td align="RIGHT">1508</td>
<td align="RIGHT">42312</td>
<td align="RIGHT">71744</td>
<td align="RIGHT">59664</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Pct. back yard</td>
<td align="RIGHT">32.31%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">20.00%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">56.12%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">44.18%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">36.74%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">ROW per unit (ft.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">40.0</td>
<td align="RIGHT">16.0</td>
<td align="RIGHT">7.4</td>
<td align="RIGHT">8.0</td>
<td align="RIGHT">5.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Density per block (per/sq. mi.)</td>
<td align="RIGHT">26,136</td>
<td align="RIGHT">65,340</td>
<td align="RIGHT">89,843</td>
<td align="RIGHT">103,455</td>
<td align="RIGHT">133,403</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>I have used an assumption of two persons per large bedroom and one person per small bedroom to calculate densities, except for zero and one bedroom units, where I allocate one person regardless of size. The density values also reflect actual floor plans, which I have not shown here. The 40' thick buildings are laid out with 4 units per floor, with two facing out to the street, and two facing in towards the courtyard. This is similar to "garden" apartments found in America. The 50' thick buildings have only two units per floor, with exposures on both sides. This arrangement is common in Europe. The 60' buildings are fairly standard interior corridor buildings, with units ranging from 0 to 5 bedrooms. These are seen in many countries.<br /></p><p>In general, I think that the blocks for this form of building could be reduced in size in one dimension or another from the 260' by 580' block I have been working with. However, the size remains effective, allowing for high densities. In an urban area with multiple different building forms, continuity with other parts of the grid is important. Without a pressing need to reduce the blocks, I will continue to work with the size I have been using. In a future post I will examine block sizes for high-density apartment buildings.<br /></p><p></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6147084853783647900.post-17394238013572981772021-08-19T02:57:00.000-04:002021-08-19T03:02:29.997-04:00Planning: Curb Lawns and Trees<p>A curb lawn, one name for a strip of vegetation running along a roadway, is a frequent element of rights-of-ways in America and other countries that have similar suburbs. There is a wide variety of names for the feature, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_verge">as documented here.</a> While often maligned for being nothing more than a monoculture of parched crabgrass, they can be important elements of streetscapes when utilized properly.</p><p>The best use of curb lawns is for planting trees. Trees have a number of benefits to the users of a right of way, and to the residents that live nearby. One is that they can provide shade for pedestrians, making their journey more pleasant on warmer days. They can also shade hard surfaces such as sidewalks, roadways, and buildings, reducing the urban heat island effect. Another benefit is that they absorb pollutants and particulates, improving the air nearby. Trees benefit surrounding areas by absorbing storm runoff, reducing the chances of flash flooding, and the amount of water that has to be treated in combined sewer systems.</p><p>Trees also have less immediate benefits. Foremost is that most people find a street planted with trees to be aesthetically pleasing. This is generally reflected in property values, though it should be noted that may be more of a correlation than a causation. Trees are pleasing not only for the shade they provide, but because they help shape the space for pedestrians, by providing a canopy that encloses and a prospect through which people can see other people and objects moving in the distance. Large boulevards in European cities with double rows of trees excel at providing both qualities.<br /></p><p>However, curb lawns have benefits even when they are not used to plant trees. The primary benefit is to provide a buffer space between pedestrians and moving vehicles. Without space to mitigate the sound and air movement created by a
passing vehicle, many pedestrians find walking along busy roads
unpleasant. Another is that they allow for various streetscape items to be installed so they do not constrict or block the sidewalk. Permanent items include signage, lampposts, telephone poles, fire hydrants, and traffic signals. Other items may include bike racks, trash and recycling receptacles, restaurant seating, and benches. These useful features add texture to the street and should be enabled as much as possible.<br /></p><p>In narrower rights-of-way , where there isn't sufficient area for a continuous curb lawn, space for trees can be designed to alternate with space for parking. Such arrangements still provide for both a buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles, and most of the benefits of trees. The compromise reduces the area for other vegetation and for the other minor uses that people find for the area, but are good nonetheless. Busy roads with a line of bollards or similar devices to separate traffic from pedestrians may still be safe, but can appear unfriendly. <br /></p><p>Some of the utility of curb lawns is dependent on climate. In drier areas of the world, there may not be enough moisture for any vegetation to grow naturally in a curb lawn, let alone leafy, shade-providing trees. Irrigation can be installed, but apart from high-traffic commercial areas, investing in such technology does not make sense. It is reasonable in most arid regions to eliminate curb lawns along residential streets and place the sidewalk directly along the roadway, with the two areas only separated by a curb. However, the important of a buffer space between pedestrians and vehicles should not be forgotten, and busier roads should still provide separation between the two groups of users. The distance can be reduced with a physical barrier of sufficient height, but those are expensive and are mostly used along limited-access highways. <br /></p><p>Ultimately, the presence of trees and curb lawns is a cultural practice. There are many successful urban environments where neither are present. However, there are good reasons for them to be installed where rainfall is sufficient. They should not be discarded in the pursuit of either maximum density or maximum parking.<br /></p>PeakVThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08375073589474044484noreply@blogger.com0