Balconies bring quality to urban life

 A plant adorned balcony provides outdoor place, access to food and improves the ambiance of a dense urban environment.

The gardening time of year has arrived once again and I'm missing out because, living in a 80 unit mixed-use and transit accessible unit, I don't have private outdoor space for plants. This has me thinking about solutions for a high-density urban lifestyle.  And in walkable urban neighborhoods details matter. I am sure you like the taste of fresh, local foods and appreciate other people living in apartments and condos (because it preserves the sub/ex-urban settings). If you're like me, you enjoy the pleasure of a walkable urban environment and enjoy private, outdoor space ... with life.  

Density with taste 

Even if an urban lifestyle isn't for you, quality urban places can become destinations and add to the economic structure of a city. Plus, we already build high density dwellings and if we are going to invest and construct these types of developments they may as well not be shit. 

Balconies adorn the façade of buildings facing La Rambla in  Barcelona, Spain. 

Steve Jobs said in a 1995 TV interview, "It comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best things humans have done and then try to bring those things in to what you are doing." Picasso had a saying, "Good artists copy; great artists steal. I have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

One place worth stealing from is Spain. One of the most memorable streets I have visited in my life is La Rambla in Barcelona, Spain - a city with a population count around that of Portland, OR. Spain also wrote the Laws of the Indies, which dictated urban form when building new cities in the Americas that centered around the public sphere.

Thinking back to my time at La Rambla - I remember the liveliness,  artisan commerce, feeling of security, connection with the culture ... and the balconies. Specifically, I remember looking up to a woman  tending her bird on her third floor balcony and placing myself up there in my mind. Balconies play a notable role on La Rambla and are one (of many) aspects of that celebrated street - and throughout Spain.

Through observation, it's evident that balconies can provide an extra element of fulfillment.  If windows are the "eyes" of a building, then balconies can serve the purpose of the eyelashes. Just as eyelashes help keep the dust out of our eyes, balconies help keep the dust off public spaces. They are useful along with mixed-use to serve areas with high levels of pedestrian traffic, including plazas, sidewalks and other urban places to help create a feeling of walkability.

Growing food out your window (or door)

Local food is all the craze and gardening is hip again, including an Michelle Obama's organic garden at the White House. Some have enjoyed it their entire lives.

Balcony garden on what looks like a fire escape.

Those living in urban apartments, find it hard to find places to garden. Sure, there are community gardens, but it's just not the same. This is especially true for those who moved to urban areas, who habitually had a yard in the past.

Yardless gardening requires a place to grow and some likely modifications to your style. You'll probably have to switch to container gardening and worm vermiculture instead of composting, but having the space of a balcony can facilitate the innate nature one can feel to grow their own food. 

Balconies serve multiple purposes

You don't really appreciate six square feet of outdoor space until you have none.  At this in my life, during this time of year - living in a pre-WWII and mixed-use downtown development - I would greatly appreciate even two square feet of space outside my window. I'm sure others would as well - for plants, standing, sitting.  It'd be a great place for a little garden with some space to stand tend the plants while providing "eyes on the street."

Adding just a small amount of square footage outside my 320 square foot apartment would greatly add to utilitarian and monetary value of the apartment, but just as importantly it would add to the complexity and transparency of the pedestrian experience and urban design quality.  In English, that means it would make a place more interesting and understandable.

Creating quality urban habitat 

In land-use code implementation, zoning can dictate the use.  Other metheds, like Form Based Codes, minimum setback requirements and parking minimums, prescribe the form or look of the building and neighborhood. These regulatory structures provide an implementation tool for turning a vision into reality.  On possible tool for adding what I think of as "eye lashes" on the windows could potentially be a Balcony Overlay Zone (BOZ).

Think of a public square with outdoor restaurant seating.  Think Europe.  Adorned along the human- scale buildings are balconies.  BOZs can be used with other tools, perhaps Transit-Oriented Development,  for activating private outdoor space that adds interest to the urban environment and provides a place for sitting, watching and growing food.

For those who can not wait 

Some people are going so far, craving the balconies as a place for getting in touch with nature, they have created their own solutions. If you do not want to wait for a change in codes and market forces before you start using the space outside your window, here are some videos of some creative solutions for growing food out your window.  

After watching these videos, I was so inspired that I came up with a design similar to the top video from France, the Volet végétal.  But, alas, I live in a historic building with outdoor seating below and the management company did not think it was as good of an idea as me.  So, to carry you forth in utilizing space outside your window, here are some inspiring videos:

Cars and the freedom of a minority

As shocking as it may sound, a minority of Americans own cars. Yet, much of the public space in cities (streets) is dedicated to their high-speed movement.  This take-over of public space has occurred in less than 100 years (less than 20 is more accurate) and did not happen without opposition.  People strongly opposed the take-over of city streets by the "death cars" at the turn of the century and people still oppose this take over, today.

Excellent book.

I first began thinking about this post when I listened to an NPR story Motorists to Urban Planners: Stay in Your Lane. The piece talks about the discussions surrounding modest attempts to bring more balance to the streets by implementing bicycle and bus only lanes in the Washington, DC area.  The story had the same basic argument ... "they want to take away our cars!!!"

Near the end of the piece, they interview Peter D. Norton about the historical role of the automobiles in the city.  They mentioned that he wrote the book, Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City, about the struggle at the beginning of the 20th century of bringing automobiles into the city. I was so excited, finally an urban planning related book that examines pre-1930! I bought the book, right away, and have been reading it since on my Kindle.

This post weaves concepts and stories from the book with my own ideas and interpretations.

Customary role of the street

In our current time people often think that before cars we lived in caves.  It's like nothing existed.  I've wrote about, in a past post, about how we tend to forget there were very intelligent people who lived before the Modern Era and we ignore much of this accumulated urban knowledge in decisions we make about cities today. Well, one of those things we forget is the customary role of the street throughout the ages. 

For thousands of years, a child could go from one side of town to the other without the threat of the being killed. The streets were designed for and used, mostly, by pedestrians - though horses, bicycles, and trams played their roles at various times. As Mr. Norton writes in this book, "When automobiles were new, many city people regarded them as a misuse of streets.  By obstructing and endangering other street users of unquestioned legitimacy, cars violated prevailing notions of what a street was for."

Imagine for a moment what it would have been like for you.  You had spent your entire life being able to go wherever you want.  You could walk down the middle of the road.  You could cross the street halfway.  You could walk leisurely in the road, cross at a diagonal or whatever you like.  When you're child had a lot of energy, you'd tell co to go play in the street.  Then, suddenly, you had these quick moving machines show up and start killing people. In your mind, they were taking away the street.

Strong Opposition to the Automobile

From 1900 through the 1920s there was strong resistance to the automobile.  It didn't just come from "special interest" groups, either.  Mayors, newspaper editorial boards, parents, nurses and nearly every other group was opposed to cars in the city. Most of this resistance came because they were seen as "speeding" machines (like a speeding bullet) and they killed people.  The book tells the story of a woman who lost two of her children in a short time to the automobile.  One child died while waiting along a street and another while riding his bicycle.

Children dedicating a monument to child car accident 

victims by holding up a flower for each child victim

killed in Pittsburgh in 1921. Scenes like this one 

were common across the US.

Groups mobilized against the automobile with the slogan "SAFETY FIRST!"  Police, also, did not like the automobile because it created chaos in the streets. All-in-all, cars were not welcome in the cities and were seen as better suited for rural areas.  Amongst the different groups, the primary lens which directed the view of automobiles was the traditional role of the street and justice. The Philadelphia Public Ledger wrote, in 1920, if a pedestrian is "hurt or annoyed [in an encounter with a car] don't ask wether the victim was wholly or in part to blame.  Suggest that the driver of the motor-car be lynched." 

Others suggested you shoot drivers with your revolver.  

This narrative played out for over 20 years.  Over this time, different lenses began to come into fashion: Justice, Order, Efficiency and, finally, Freedom.  Police had tried to keep speed-limits between 8 and 10 MPH.  Other people argued it wasn't efficient to keep cars slow and they should move quicker through the cities. However, it was the final lens that gave the death blow to cities resisting cars and opened the gates to unfettered access of the automobile into cities at high speeds.  "Motordom" appealed to the rights of the minority and their Freedoms. It worked. And we all know how it turned out.

Freedom of a minority

According to my calculations, from U.S. Census data, approximately 37 percent of people in the United States own a motor vehicle.  You certainly wouldn't know it by looking at any American city or listening to much of the discourse surrounding transportation.  Going back to that story I mentioned at the beginning of the post, urban planners are starting to see the serious value of giving other users rights to the street (as if rights are theirs to "give"). 

However, as with the past, people in cars think they have a right to as much space as they want for the cars.  People get upset about parking tickets and to openly say the phrase "restrict car use" would be committing political, and potentially, career suicide.  We walk a fine line ... trying not to upset car owners - 37 percent of population. I owned a car many years and probably will again. I was once one of those people who believed I had a right to my car wherever I wanted. I once called the police on a guy for parking on the street in front of my house. It's where I parked!!! I've changed.

Now, in my mind, beyond order and efficiency, I think this is an issue of justice.  Do children not have a right to their city?  Do mothers not have a right to not drive their children everywhere?  Do families and friends not have a right to safe cities?  If, as the Constitution says, "All [people] are created equally", don't the other 63 percent without a car have a right to not be harassed by those in automobiles?  

To be clear, I am not against cars.  I think cars are fantastic things for road-trips, camping, emergencies, agriculture, etc.  I just question whether or not on the opposite of "freedom-for" is an argument for "freedom-from"? Is there no freedom from automobiles? Safety.  Quiet. Peace. Sustainability. EQUITY. Are those not a type of freedom?

In all, cars are in cities and will probably be here to stay.  However, I think brining more balance to the equation should not be out of the question.  If there are hundreds of people who use a sidewalk, like here in downtown Portland, and seven parking spots where a wider sidewalk could ... should ... be, then that majority has a right from the freedoms of a minority and a wider sidewalk (pavement as called in England) should replace those parking spots. 

When discussions about using streets for more than just solo automobiles arise in the public dialogue, remember, this is not about punishing people for using automobiles.  It's about treating all citizens equally and ensuring safe streets --- for everybody!

As always, feel free to let me know what you think by leaving your comments below.  

Our Forgotten Connection with Time

Humans have lived for thousands of years and, yet, in our current culture we have forgotten about our connection with time.  People are connected through relationships, space and TIME.  We are connected to the people who came before us and we're connected with those who will come after us. Somehow, we don't seem to acknowledge this time aspect in many decisions that are made with regards to cities and the built environment.

 View from above the National Mall in Washington, DC.

Looking back just over 100 years at one of the most exciting times for urban planning, the City Beautiful movement - which took its inspiration from Haussmann's Paris - worked to create a society with order, civil engagement and social integration through placing world-class public space at the top of the agenda. During this time they created parks, monuments and civic buildings that we still appreciate today.  One of the crowning achievements from this era is the National Mall in Washington, DC, where tens of thousands of citizens meet for civic engagement.  The decisions made at that time are strongly connected with time. What do the decisions made today say about our perceived connection with time? How will our decisions impact future generations?  How do they relate to the past?

I can't tell you the last time a monument of epic proportion was constructed in one of America's cities.  Or in nearly any city to tell you the truth.  Can you think of one? When was the last time that we thought, "this is going to stand for many years and future generations will be connected with us through this space?"

Focus on the "NOW!"

Many of the decisions made, today, are made with weighing the costs and benefits - perhaps over the next 20 years for a major project. Generations in the past had the options to develop land in a way similar to what we call urban sprawl, but they resisted.  They did not spread out because they understood that once this land is developed, it will be very difficult to return it to the previous state. Now, we cover these valuable lands in suburban "snout houses" that probably won't be around in 200 years.

Instead of thinking about our actions as connected to our collective past(s) and to the future, there seems to be this overwhelming consensus idea that our form of society will not be around in 100 years.  That should be a sign.  But, instead, we use it as an excuse to build suburbs, shift public resources to private interests and over-consume nearly every resource on the planet.  I'm not even going to delve into petrol-chemicals.

Typical Suburban "Snout Houses"

 

Connection to the Past

We have forgotten our past, at least everything before WWII. Native Americans struggle to hold on to their past, but the dominant culture does its best to squash that memory.  African-Americans try to hold on to their past and remember, but the racial histories are something we don't like to discuss.  Is this why we forgotten our past and are so eager to think about the now?  Is it racism?

No matter the cause of our eager desire to quell our connection with past and the importance of history (it was once now!), in denouncing the importance we do ourselves a disservice in our civics and spiritual peace. We must remember the past, embrace it and learn from it. After all, the post-Depression reforms could have helped prevent our current recession if we'd remembered the lessons and not repealed Glass-Steagall during the '90s. In urban planning, as I mention in this blog post, we have a lot to learn from the pre-modern era. 

A Bright Spot

Sign welcoming you to the Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness in Montana

The environmental movement offers a bright spot.  I'm not talking about sustainability and corporate green-washing (though some are good), but the movement that gave rise to the wilderness.  Being from Billings, MT, I appreciate the Beartooth Mountains.  I appreciate their beauty, wonder and natural state.  Getting out there in nature is one of the most calming and clarifying things and individual can do.

When I think about these mountains, and all wilderness areas, I am reminded that they will be preserved for future generations.  As long as the protections aren't watered down, generations 200 years from now will appreciate them in the same was we've been able. We'd do well for ourselves to consider these very long-term aspects as we move forward in our civilization.

It's time to make the connections!