Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
D AV I D M . L E V I N S O N
S P O N TA N E O U SA C C E S S :R E F L E X I O N S O ND E S I G N I N G C I T I E SA N D T R A N S P O R T
N E T W O R K D E S I G N L A B
Copyright © 2017 David M. Levinson
published by network design lab
tufte-latex.googlecode.com
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the “License”); you may not use this file except incompliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under theLicense is distributed on an “as is” basis, without warranties or conditions of any kind, eitherexpress or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations underthe License.
First printing, September 2017
5
Contents
1 The City Spontaneous 19
2 The 60-Year Line 23
3 Community without Dendricity 25
4 The Pint-of-Milk Test 29
5 The Timeless Way of Building Networks 37
6 Axioms about Roads 41
7 Garden Streets 45
8 Vitality 49
9 An Archipelago of Walkability 53
10 Filling-in 57
11 Leapin’ Frogs 61
12 The Reorganization of Road Function 67
13 Beyond the Plan View 71
14 Interfaces of Freedom 89
15 Instruments of Control 107
16 Shared Space 129
17 Winter is Coming 131
18 Diversity as Insurance 141
19 Differentiate City and Country 145
20 Don’t Confuse the Place for the Time 147
6
21 Great Britain doesn’t have an Americans with
Disabilities Act 151
22 Designs Serve Varied Interests 153
23 A Vision of Visions 155
24 A Faster Horse 157
25 The Ant and the Grasshopper 159
26 Deconstructing Busytown 163
27 Spontaneity in a Can, Spontaneity in a Plan 173
28 Building the City Spontaneous 177
29 Framing Regional Development 183
30 First, Do No Harm 187
Bibliography 191
List of Figures
1 Creative Commons License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.1 Petticoat Lane Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191.2 High Stakes bookstore, London, England . . . . . . 22
2.1 Twin City Rapid Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1 The People Tree of Columbia, Maryland . . . . . . 253.2 Map of Columbia, Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263.3 Central Places in Southern Germany . . . . . . . . 263.4 Columbia, Maryland as built . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1 7-11 convenience store in Columbia, Maryland. . . 294.2 Rating daily needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.3 Pockets of walk accessibility, Minneapolis . . . . . 36
5.1 Timeless street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375.2 Street scenes in Wuhan, China . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.1 Street types matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.1 Three magnets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457.2 Letchworth, England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467.3 Welwyn, England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467.4 Kentlands, Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467.5 Hampstead Garden Suburb, England . . . . . . . . 477.6 Glebe, New South Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477.7 St. Anthony Main, Minneapolis, Minnesota . . . . 477.8 Delft, Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477.9 Shopping streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487.10 Hopkins, Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
8.1 Street, Seoul, South Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498.2 Conditions of diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
9.1 Calhoun Square, Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . 539.2 Map of Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8
10.1 Arby’s in Minneapolis, Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . 5710.2 Site of Marshall High School, Minneapolis . . . . . 5810.3 4th and Nicollet Parking Ramp, Minneapolis . . . . 5810.4 Minneapolis Green Line - Axis of Redevelopment . 5810.5 Site of Wesbrook Hall, University of Minnesota . . 5910.6 Site of Arby’s, Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
11.1 Main Street - Arbor Lakes, Maple Grove, Minnesota 6111.2 The Shoppes at Arbor Lakes, Maple Grove,
Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6211.3 Land use pattern in Maple Grove, Minnesota area. 66
12.1 Midtown Greenway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6712.2 Reorganization of road function . . . . . . . . . . . 70
13.1 May Live to See . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7113.2 London Underground cutaway views . . . . . . . . 7213.3 DaVinci sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7313.4 Nobody walks! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7413.5 Housing in Stevanage, England . . . . . . . . . . . 7513.6 London Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7513.7 Washington Avenue Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7513.8 Skyways in Vienna, Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7713.9 Staircase poster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7813.10 Staircases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7913.11 Met Life Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8013.12 Air rights, freeway caps, and land bridges . . . . . 8113.13 The space beneath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8213.14 Minnesota State Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8413.15 Alleys and pedestrian street crossings . . . . . . . . 8613.16 Eyes on the street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
14.1 Transit information in Tokyo . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8914.2 Lexington Market, Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9114.3 Train stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9414.4 Copenhagen bus stop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9514.5 Local transit in Copenhagen . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9614.6 Bus stop signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10114.7 Coca-Cola Headquarters, Atlanta, Georgia . . . . . 10214.8 Kitchen Town, Tokyo, Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10214.9 Train station markings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10314.10 Uni-signal traffic light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10414.11 Standardization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
9
15.1 Shared space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10715.2 Don’t walk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11015.3 Beg buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11115.4 Shibuya, Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11215.5 Refuge islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11415.6 Do not wait here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11515.7 Temporary sidewalk obstructionism . . . . . . . . . 11715.8 Permanent sidewalk obstructionism . . . . . . . . . 11715.9 Walking in the street is highly dangerous . . . . . . 11815.10 Desire line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12015.11 A tree dies in Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12215.12 No parking sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12415.13 Stop for pedestrians in crosswalk . . . . . . . . . . 12615.14 Crosswalk meanings vary globally: Wuhan . . . . . 12815.15 Crosswalk meanings vary globally: Sydney . . . . 128
16.1 Exhibition Road shared space, London, England . 129
17.1 Atlanta ice storm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13117.2 ‘Cul-de-snow’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13417.3 Packed ice in Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
18.1 Convergence of modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14118.2 Hurricane Rita evacuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
19.1 Broadacre City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14519.2 Red Routemaster, city bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14619.3 Green Routemaster, country bus . . . . . . . . . . . 146
20.1 Hampstead Garden Suburb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14720.2 Australian suburbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14920.3 Model of Shanghai, China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
21.1 Step-free network, London, England . . . . . . . . . 151
22.1 Car, bus, bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
23.1 Knowledge Navigator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
24.1 People’s Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
25.1 The Ant and the Grasshopper . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
26.1 What Do People Do All Day? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16326.2 Richard Scarry’s later books . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
27.1 Street performers, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan . . . . . 17327.2 Street performer, Santiago, Chile . . . . . . . . . . . 176
28.1 Spontaneous development vs. spontaneous action 177
29.1 Skyline, Minneapolis, Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . 183
30.1 Berlin Wall, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
List of Tables
4.1 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
14.1 Principles of interaction design . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
26.1 Table of businesses in Busytown . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Copyright
Figure 1: CreativeCommons License https:
//creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc/4.0/
©David M. LevinsonLicensed Under: Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International You are free to:
• Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium orformat
• Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you followthe license terms.
Under the following terms:
• Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a linkto the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do soin any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests thelicensor endorses you or your use.
• NonCommercial — You may not use the material forcommercial purposes.
• No additional restrictions — You may not apply legalterms or technological measures that legally restrict others fromdoing anything the license permits.
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of thematerial in the public domain or where your use is permitted byan applicable exception or limitation. No warranties are given. Thelicense may not give you all of the permissions necessary for yourintended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, ormoral rights may limit how you use the material.
Acknowledgments
The following reviewed and provided feedback on earlier drafts ofthis book: T.F. Carpenter, Ahmed El-Geneidy, Anson Gock, EnriqueGomez, Kevin Krizek, Wesley Marshall, Stuart Whitaker. Numerouspeople gave feedback on the many earlier blog posts on which thesechapters were drawn. The opinions and errors are solely those of theauthor.
Preface
Much of Spontaneous Access is drawnfrom my blog The Transportist,http://transportist.org/. orstreets.mn, http://streets.mn/.although it has been significantlyedited and reorganized from poststhat may have appeared there.The http://transportist.orgblog was previously known as thehttp://transportationist.org.
I grew up in Columbia, Maryland, a highly planned new city fromthe 1960s. As I was constantly reminded in the promotionalliterature, it was a better place to live with fewer problems thanunplanned sprawling suburbs or the decaying inner city.1
1 (Levinson, 2003)
Living in the Next America sparked an interest in city planning,and after some diversions into electrical engineering, including astint as a co-op student-worker at Hayes Microcomputer Products(the modem company), I returned to planning by way of civilengineering. I did a year of grad school in city planning at GeorgiaTech and took a summer job in Silver Spring, Maryland at theMaryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission –Montgomery County Planning Department (MNCPPC-MCPD –they didn’t hire you unless you could say that abbreviation fivetimes fast). They hired me full-time as a planner to work on thetransportation model, so I dropped out of planning school.
Columbia, like most suburbs, was sterile – nothing was out-of-place. It differed from suburbs in scale, some 14,178 acres (57.38km2), and in orderliness. An alternate title for this book was
Designing Networks and Nexus. In asense, both titles refer to the samething, the relationship between places(nexus) and networks (plexus). Placeand Plexus discussed some of the ideaspresented here, in later chapters, butdid not focus on them. NEXUS is alsothe acronym I gave to my researchgroup on Networks, Economics, andUrban Systems. The word networkdescribes ‘any interconnected groupor system,’ while nexus describes ‘aform of connection, a connected group,the centre of something.’ A nexus isa particular connection, which maybe found at the center or core of thesystem, while a network is a set ofconnections.
Not just the housing, but the schools, retail, and offices andindustry were all where they belonged, i.e. where the planners putthem. Like most suburbs (and frankly most cities), everythingclosed on time (9 pm) aside from a few pubs (very explicitly nobars, and not until Columbia had come of age (well, turned 10)were pubs allowed), night clubs, and movie theaters.
Was there a way to gain the benefits of Columbia without its costs?Can we build a better city with appropriate, but not stifling planningregulation? Can this be decentralized, or more precisely, what isthe most appropriate mix of centralized and decentralized decision-making?
Spontaneous Access, while it can be read in isolation, is one volumeof a set of books on transport. The theme echoes that of a 2007 bookI wrote with Kevin Krizek: Planning for Place and Plexus: MetropolitanLand Use and Transport.
16
The title is apt as we are dealing with networks that operate overphysical space and time, where spatial and temporal relationshipsbetween network elements shape their use and form. The locationof activities also gives obvious shape to the network, and theconfiguration of the network dictates what activities will be locatedat what places. The schedule of activities dictates the use of thenetwork, and thus the capacity that is required to achieve aparticular quality of use.
Planning for Place and Plexus views the world focusing on the ideaof agency, and the relationships between agents, who may betravelers, firms, or governments. It thus aims for developing apositive understanding of cities and their networks do work.Spontaneous Access considers in more depth the physical networkunderpinnings that shape, and are shaped by, the relationshipsbetween agents. It talks to the perspective of the centralplanner/engineer/architect who is designing systems to serveusers, by examining the world from the perspective of an informeduser. It provides a worldview which complements that described inother books, but also goes more in-depth into normative designprinciples.
The Transportation Experience: Policy, Planning, and Deployment withBill Garrison guides the reader to how transport systems came tobe, but can really be thought about as macro-transport. That worksets the stage for Spontaneous Access which is far more micro in itsapproach.
It differs from two earlier works. The first, FinancingTransportation Networks, based on my dissertation On Whom the TollFalls, examined issues about how to pay for roads, and consideredthe tradeoff between taxes and tolls. It described that choice asendogenous to the question of jurisdiction size and the amount ofinter-jurisdictional travel. Resources are a critical factor in this book.Understanding money flows is not independent of the designdecisions we make.
The second, Evolving Transportation Networks, with my brilliantstudent Feng Xie, examined how networks grow and co-evolve withcities. Networks and technologies have trajectories that are broadlyindependent of individual decisions. But the devil is in the details.Technologies that worked well in one place don’t in another, andthat is in part a question of implementation and contextualization ofthe design. As the well-quoted philosopher Anonymous said:
“In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they are not.”
There are several themes in the book.
17
Cities and their networks operate on multipletimescales simultaneously. Traffic lights change by the second,rights-of-way last millennia. Cities see massive daily flows of peoplein and out. The core, timeless, enduring elements contrast with thefaddish ephemera that too much effort is focused on. The future isemerging, but determining what we are looking forward to will beenduring or ephemeral should be the critical focus of anyoneinvolved with transport and city design.
This book does not shy away from the normative andprescriptive. In this it differs from much academic work,including my own, which tends to the positive and descriptive.Principles are laid out, which I believe to be true and correct, manyof which are not scientific in the way they are framed. They ofcourse may lead to testable hypotheses, but they are alsovalue-based.
The idea of the ‘spontaneous city,’ one that serves needsand wants in real-time, is a theme running through boththe title and the text. What conditions encourage people totake advantage of their city (and therefore make it stronger)? Whatconditions worsen life for the users of the city?
The emergence of new transport technologies gives us achance to restore and correct, to right what is wrongwith the places we live. From the railroad and electric streetcarcreating separation between places where people lived and wherethey worked, to the elevator enabling high rise construction, to themotorcar which put suburbanization into overdrive, all significanttransport innovations reshape cities. The new autonomous vehicle,the new electric vehicle, the new shared vehicle, the vehicle form,shape, and size are a transformation of similar scale and scope. Thesechanges will create opportunities over the coming decades, which wecan seize or reject.
This book is about how cities do work, how cities canwork, and how cities should work. In part it is abouttraditional fields of planning and engineering, but takes a muchbroader concept of design principles than those fields usually do.This is because it is also about evolution and it is aboutopportunism. The world is changing fast. We can make it a morehumane place than it has ever been, or we can allow it to devolveinto a more brutish environment, where we remain a victim of our
18
collectively built environments, rather than their master.When the book speaks of ‘cities’ it really means the entire
metropolitan ‘urban system,’ not just the historic core city (or thecentral business district). Downtown is but a part of the city, andthe central city in many metropolises is neither a plurality ofresidents nor workers.
Much of this book includes complaint, and it may feel likeshouting into the wind. But every complaint is about a designfailure, either with intention or by accident, that degradesexperience for everyone, or degrades the experience of some for thebenefit of others. Life is comprised of tradeoffs, but not all tradeoffsare made at the appropriate rate of exchange. Both cities and theirtransport networks are the product of thoughtful human actionsand unconscious emergent processes, where systematic behaviordrives the underlying logic of designs.
The optimal design of transport networks to serve thegoal of spontaneous access cannot be determined in theabsence of knowledge about the actual developmentpattern. The optimal development pattern cannot be knownwithout regards to the plan of the network. Discovering the rightcombinations of networks, land use, and other urban features iswhat makes cities successful. The measure of their success is theirpopulation, their wealth, their happiness.
But even more importantly, the optimal transportnetwork for the technology of one era is notnecessarily the optimal network of the future, and thesame is true for development.
1The City Spontaneous
Figure 1.1: Petticoat LaneMarket. Photo by author.
Originally published as Levinson,David (2007-07-13) The SpontaneousCity and (2007-03-16) London’s Only24-hour pharmacy.
Shortly after our daughter Olivia’s birth in March 2007, my wiferequired a breast pump. This is common for new mothers expressingmilk, but we were in the UK and our pump was in the US, andincompatible due to differing electrical standards in any case. Whilepumps are not terribly rare, they are medical devices and could onlybe acquired in real-time at a pharmacy. It was a Sunday evening,about 7 pm. In the US the ’I want it and I want it now’ culture
20 spontaneous access: reflexions on designing cities and transport
has produced a 24-hour/7-day-a-week/52-week-a-year expectationof availability of just about anything, including pumps.1 London,1 In the US, 24 hour on-demand
carpet installation is available. despite some surface similarities, is no Minneapolis. We were tofind that all of the typical drug stores: namely Boots the Chemistand Superdrug were closed, not merely on our local High Street inPutney, but everywhere.
Fortunately, the Internet informed us that Zafash Pharmacy,London’s only 24-hour pharmacy, on Old Brompton Road nearEarl’s Court was open. From our Putney flat, I took the 22 busthere, got the goods, and returned on the 74 and 22 buses, with atotal time of 67 minutes door-to-door-to-door. Google Maps put thedistance at 3.4 miles via road, and said it would take 8 minutes bycar ... there is not a chance this would have been true, even at 7 pmon a Sunday night. Along the way I encountered (and avoided)large numbers of drunk local footie fans coming from a Chelseamatch, played nearby at Stamford Bridge.
Can it possibly be that London, England, a city of 8 million people,has only one 24-hour pharmacy? For a city that is a contender for’capital of the world,’ this is surprising. One could talk about Zafash,run by immigrants or maybe 2nd generation Londoners who have aunique entrepreneurial spirit, and how great that is. Still, it wouldbe par for the course in the US. In my mind the question isn’t whythey are open, but why the others were closed.
Perhaps regulation has something to do with it, I don’t know theextent to which neighborhoods have imposed zoning regulationslimiting hours of operation, but restaurants and pubs couldsomehow figure out how to be open, despite their extra noise.Perhaps it is the costs of paying overtime. Perhaps is is the drainingof the entrepreneurial spirit in this home to capitalism. Perhaps it iscollusion, since if they are all closed, you will just have to shopwhen it is convenient for the chemist, not for you.2 In contrast, US2 This is the reason that auto
dealers are closed on Sundays inMinnesota by state law, it is not
that auto dealers are particularlypious, it is that you will buy a car
anyway, so why make it convenient.
pharmacies are in fierce competition with supermarkets (whichhave been 24 hours in many locales for a couple of decades now,starting since they were doing overnight stocking anyway).
While I could understand why the local stationers isn’t 24 hours,paper is seldom an emergency item, drugs and medical equipmentare. In addition to being bad for customers, it seems that businesshere is leaving money on the table.
Cities enable spontaneous action. In its strongest form, theability to engage in ’spontaneous action’ is the ability to dowhatever, whenever. The phrasing might imply exciting andentertaining things: going out to a concert or a ballgame, playing
the city spontaneous 21
parkour, kayaking on a river, or robbing a bank, but most things arequite mundane, from getting a pint-of-milk to going to theapothecary.
Spontaneous action requires at least two elements.
1. The presence of things to do. The thing must be where I want itto be, and it must be open or available when I want to use it.
2. The ability to reach those things. I need to have a means oftransporting myself conveniently from where I am, to where Iwant to be, when I want to go there. In short, there must be bothdestinations and networks that satisfy action.
In the real world, spontaneous action is limited to what othersare willing to allow or accommodate. The world, fortunately, is noSpringfield ’Do What You Feel Festival.’3 There are many things, 3 The Simpson’s Episode Season 5,
Episode 7: “Bart’s Inner Child.”Following a self-help guru, the townof Springfield decides to act like Bart,disaster ensues.
that for technical or economic reasons, I cannot acquire, and manyactivities I cannot engage in because they do not exist. Others areprohibited by law or custom, like robbing a bank, and thus have ahigh likelihood of imposing penalties I might not want, likeattending prison or being transported to a foreign land. Others aresimply discouraged by reputation effects, and the desire to not onlydo what I want today, but to retain the option to do what I wanttomorrow.
There are many locations that have networks, and people whohave vehicles, that allow them to move about easily. In any smalltown or rural area, someone who has a car can easily move about,but there is, from the big city perspective, nowhere to go. These areashave high mobility.
Some places have lots of activity, most notably high density cities.However because of crowding it may be difficult to move aroundvery much, these places may be congested, limiting the speed andcomfort of travel.
In the best cities, there are many places to go and things to do. Inthose cities, the network is constructed with appropriatedifferentiation so faster and direct links connect dense places. Therelatively slow speed of large cities (compared with suburbs or ruralareas) is compensated for by the short distance, so that these areashave high accessibility.
Different people want different things. If we all wantedthe same things, life would be pretty boring. Still accessibility issomething that almost everyone does want, though everyone alsohas a limit to how much money and time they will pay for it.
22 spontaneous access: reflexions on designing cities and transport
Places with higher accessibility allow more spontaneous actionthan places with lower accessibility. Land prices are higher in placeswith high accessibility both because of the scarcity of such places andtheir value.
There is a premium to be paid for the ability to engage inspontaneous action. In economic terms, this is an option value thatpeople hold. Even if they never go to a club, or a show, or a game,or the museum, or the local dairy store, or the particular specialistshop (like the bookstore specializing in gambling books I found inLondon, in Figure 1.2), accessibility gives them the option ofengaging in that activity.
Figure 1.2: ’High Stakes’ abookstore specializing in booksabout gambling in London,England.
One opposite of spontaneous action is scheduled action. If Icannot engage in things when I want, I must plan in advance whento do them. This may be because of other people’s constraints, orlimitations to the transport system, or hours of business of the thingI seek. The advantage of a large city is the increased flexibility, thehigh frequency of transit services, and the increased likelihood offinding a 24-hour store specializing in what you seek (London’s lackof 24-hour services notwithstanding).
New technologies make on-demand travel and activity easier.Without requiring the night bus and night train,mobility-as-a-service, ranging from taxis to car-sharing, to a futurewith cloud-commuting based driverless cars, relaxes many of thetemporal constraints of travel for the carless. Automation enablesstores and services to be available 24 hours a day. One can imaginegoing to an unstaffed corner shop and being able to buy goodspretty easily. More futuristically, online purchasing (via voicecontrol) with robotic or aerial drone deliveries make the acquisitionof stuff easier.
Yet automation still has limits. Meeting of random people at aplace requires other people to be there. Meeting specific peoplerequires engaging in the frictions of pre-planning and coordination.But with apps for social connection with both friends and strangers,spontaneity reigns.
Bibliography
Alexander, C.1968. A city is not a tree. Ekistics, 139:344–348.
Alexander, C.1979. The timeless way of building, volume 1. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Altshuler, A. A.1966. The city planning process: A political analysis. Cornell UniversityPress.
Ames, Iowa Planning Department1997. Land use policy plan. Technical Report p.8., City of Ames,Iowa.
Appleyard, D. and M. Lintell1972. The environmental quality of city streets: the residents’viewpoint. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 38(2):84–101.
Ballon, H.2012. The greatest grid: The master plan of Manhattan, 1811-2011.Columbia University Press.
Bar-Yosef, A., K. Martens, and I. Benenson2013. A model of the vicious cycle of a bus line. TransportationResearch Part B: Methodological, 54:37–50.
Bennett, J. and J. Morris2006. Gateway people. Technical report, Institute for Public PolicyResearch.
Bronson, R. and W. Marshall2014. Alternative and adaptive transportation: What householdfactors support recovery from a drastic increase in gas price?International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology,11(8):2245–2258.
192 spontaneous access: reflexions on designing cities and transport
Brookline, Massachusetts Department of Public Works2013. Crosswalk policy and design guidelines. Technical report.
Campanella, T. J.2011. Jane Jacobs and the death and life of American planning.Places Journal.
Caro, R. A.1974. The power broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York. Alfreda Knopf Incorporated.
Christaller, W.1966. Central places in southern Germany. Prentice-Hall.
Coalition for People’s Transport2004. ‘The place to be on PT’ – A vision for greater Melbourne’stransport. Technical report, Victorian Council of Social Service.
Corbett, M. J., F. Xie, and D. M. Levinson2009. Evolution of the second-story city: the minneapolis skywaysystem. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(4):711–724.
Currie, G. and I. Wallis2008. Effective ways to grow urban bus markets–a synthesis ofevidence. Journal of Transport Geography, 16(6):419–429.
Dijkstra, E. W.1968. Letters to the editor: Go to statement considered harmful.Communications of the ACM, 11(3):147–148.
Dubberly, H.2007. The making of knowledge navigator. Sketching UserExperiences.
Dumbaugh, E. and J. Gattis2005. Safe streets, livable streets. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, 71(3):283–300.
Earle, A.2012. Freedom of Information request to Transport for London.Technical Report TfL Ref: FOI-1375-1213, Transport for London.
Ewing, R., R. Pendall, and D. Chen2003. Measuring sprawl and its transportation impacts.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation ResearchBoard, (1831):175–183.
bibliography 193
Florida, R.2014. The rise of the creative class – revisited: revised and expanded. BasicBooks (AZ).
Foxell, C.2005. Rails to Metro-Land. Chesham, Bucks, England: Clive Foxell.
Galster, G., R. Hanson, M. R. Ratcliffe, H. Wolman, S. Coleman, andJ. Freihage2001. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring anelusive concept. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4):681–717.
Georgetown-Scott County Planning Commissionn.d. Georgetown, Kentucky comprehensive plan. Technical report,Georgetown-Scott County Planning Commission.
Gibson, W.2000. Neuromancer. Penguin.
Gillham, O.2002. The limitless city: a primer on the urban sprawl debate. IslandPress.
Gruen, V.1964. The heart of our cities: the urban crisis: diagnosis and cure. Simonand Schuster.
Guerra, E.2016. Planning for cars that drive themselves: Metropolitanplanning organizations, regional transportation plans, andautonomous vehicles. Journal of Planning Education and Research,36(2):210–224.
Handy, S.1993. A cycle of dependence: automobiles, accessibility, and theevolution of the transportation and retail hierarchies. BerkeleyPlanning Journal, 8:21–43.
Hanson, R.2010. Near-far summary. Overcoming bias.
Hayek, F. A.2011. The fatal conceit: The errors of socialism, volume 1. University ofChicago Press.
Heiskanen, E. and M. Jalas2000. Dematerialization Through Services: A Review and Evaluation ofthe Debate. Ministry of Environment: Edita, jakaja.
194 spontaneous access: reflexions on designing cities and transport
Herman, R., S. Ardekani, and J. Ausubel1990. Dematerialization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,38(3):333–347.
Hippocrates of Cos1923. ‘The oath’. Loeb Classical Library, 147:298–299.
Howard, E.1898. Garden cities of to-morrow, volume 23, 1965 reprint edition.MIT Press.
Huang, A. and D. M. Levinson2011. Why retailers cluster: an agent model of location choice onsupply chains. Environment and Planning B: Planning and design,38(1):82–94.
Huang, A. and D. M. Levinson2013. The structure and evolution of a skyway network. TheEuropean Physical Journal: Special Topics, 215:123–134.
Jacobs, J.1961. The death and life of great American cities. Vintage.
Johnston, R. A. and M. E. Madison1997. From land marks to landscapes: a review of current practicesin the transfer of development rights. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association, 63(3):365–378.
Jossi, F.2013. Landscape expands for artist housing. Finance and Commerce.
Kaparias, I., M. G. Bell, A. Miri, C. Chan, and B. Mount2012. Analysing the perceptions of pedestrians and drivers toshared space. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology andBehaviour, 15(3):297–310.
Kaplan, J.2009. Photo of a shared space street in bern, allowing only bikes,pedestrians and transit. Technical report, Ped and Bike SafetyInternational Scan.
Karndacharuk, A., D. J. Wilson, and R. Dunn2014. A review of the evolution of shared (street) space concepts inurban environments. Transport Reviews, 34(2):190–220.
Kondratieff, N. D.1979. The long waves in economic life. Review (Fernand BraudelCenter), Pp. 519–562.
bibliography 195
Lave, C. and P. Elias1994. Did the 65 mph speed limit save lives? Accident Analysis &Prevention, 26(1):49–62.
Levinson, D. M.1997. The limits to growth management: development regulationin Montgomery County, Maryland. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, 24(5):689–707.
Levinson, D. M.2003. The next america revisited. Journal of Planning Education andResearch, 22(4):329–344.
Levinson, D. M.2007. Density and dispersion: the co-development of land use andrail in London. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(1):55–77.
Levinson, D. M.2016. A random walk down Main Street. Tema. Journal of Land Use,Mobility and Environment, 9(2):31–40.
Levinson, D. M. and K. J. Krizek2007. Planning for place and plexus: Metropolitan land use and transport.Routledge.
Levinson, D. M. and K. J. Krizek2018. The end of traffic and the future of access. Network Design Lab.
Levinson, D. M. and B. Yerra2006. Self-organization of surface transportation networks.Transportation Science, 40(2):179–188.
Linzmayer, O.2006. Steve Jobs’ best quotes ever. Wired Magazine, 29.
Lipsey, R. G. and K. Lancaster1956. The general theory of second best. The review of economicstudies, 24(1):11–32.
Machemer, P. L. and M. D. Kaplowitz2002. A framework for evaluating transferable development rightsprogrammes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,45(6):773–795.
Markusen, A. and A. Gadwa2010. Creative placemaking. National Endowment for the ArtsWashington, DC.
196 spontaneous access: reflexions on designing cities and transport
Marsh, G.2004. Tesco piles ’em high: Flats above supermarkets are a goodbuy. The Times, June 18, 2004.
Marshall, W., N. Garrick, and G. Hansen2008. Reassessing on-street parking. Transportation Research Record:Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2046):45–52.
Melo, P. C., D. J. Graham, D. M. Levinson, and S. Aarabi2017. Agglomeration, accessibility and productivity: Evidence forlarge metropolitan areas in the us. Urban Studies, 54(1):179–195.
Miller, H. J.2004. Tobler’s first law and spatial analysis. Annals of the Associationof American Geographers, 94(2):284–289.
Minneapolis Public Works2011. Tips for pedestrians. Technical report, City of Minneapolis.
Mitman, M., D. Ragland, and C. Zegeer2008. Marked-crosswalk dilemma: uncovering some missing linksin a 35-year debate. Transportation Research Record: Journal of theTransportation Research Board, (2073):86–93.
Mohareb, E., S. Derrible, and F. Peiravian2015. Intersections of Jane Jacobs’ conditions for diversity and low-carbon urban systems: A look at four global cities. Journal of UrbanPlanning and Development, 142(2).
Montgomery County Planning Department1994. Bethesda CBD approved and adopted master plan. p.3.goals 1. downtown., Maryland-National Capital Park and PlanningCommission.
Mulroy, S. J.2001. Right without a remedy-the butterfly ballot case and court-ordered federal election revotes. George Mason Law Review, 10:215.
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices2009. Manual of uniform traffic control devices. Technical report,Federal Highway Administration.
Nelson, D. and J. Niles1999. Market dynamics and nonwork travel patterns; obstacles totransit-oriented development? Transportation Research Record, 1669(-1):13–21.
bibliography 197
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment2006. National inventory report: 1990-2004. Technical report, NewZealand Ministry for the Environment.
Newman, O.1972. Defensible space. Macmillan New York.
Nielsen, J.2004. Remote control anarchy. Jakob Nielsens Alertbox.
Norman, D. A. and J. Nielsen2010. Gestural interfaces: a step backward in usability. Interactions,17(5):46–49.
Norton, P. D.2011. Fighting traffic: the dawn of the motor age in the American city.MIT Press.
Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety2007. Beyond 2010: A holistic approach to road safety in GreatBritain. Technical report, Parliamentary Advisory Council onTransport Safety. Parliamentary Advisory Council for TransportSafety http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm.
Persson, A. and M. Bratt2001. Future CO 2 savings from on-line shopping jeopardised bybad planning. Proceedings of the 2001 ECEEE Summer Study ‘Furtherthan Ever from Kyoto.
Pred, A. R.1977. City systems in advanced economies: Past growth, presentprocesses, and future development options. John Wiley & Sons.
Pushkarev, B. S. and J. M. Zupan1982. Where transit works: Urban densities for publictransportation. Urban transportation: Perspectives and prospects,Pp. 341–344.
Qian, Z.2010. Without zoning: Urban development and land use controlsin houston. Cities, 27(1):31–41.
Retting, R. A., S. A. Ferguson, and A. T. McCartt2003. A review of evidence-based traffic engineering measuresdesigned to reduce pedestrian–motor vehicle crashes. AmericanJournal of Public Health, 93(9):1456–1463.
198 spontaneous access: reflexions on designing cities and transport
Samaniego, H. and M. E. Moses2008. Cities as organisms: Allometric scaling of urban roadnetworks. Journal of Transport and Land use, 1(1).
Scarry, R.1968. What do people do all day? Random House.
Scarry, R.1976. Busiest people ever. Random House.
Scarry, R.1994. Busy, busy town. Random House.
Siegan, B. H.1970. Non-zoning in Houston. The Journal of Law and Economics,13(1):71–147.
Social Issues Subcommittee2001. Complete communities in the greater vancouver region:A checklist for providing the social components. Technicalreport, Greater Vancouver Regional District Technical AdvisoryCommittee.
Speck, J.2013. Walkable city: How downtown can save America, one step at atime. Macmillan.
Squamish Downtown Waterfront Initiative. Concept plan. Technical Report Section 3 p.2, Squamish,Washington.
Sutton, P. C.2003. A scale-adjusted measure of ‘urban sprawl’ using nighttimesatellite imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment, 86(3):353–369.
Tobler, W.2004. On the first law of geography: A reply. Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers, 94(2):304–310.
Transport for London2017. Step-free tube map. Technical report, Transport for London.
University of British Columbia1999. Comprehensive community plan: Issues and options.Technical Report p.67, University of British Columbia.
Unterman, D.1990. Accommodating the Pedestrian: Adapting Towns andNeighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling. Personal Travel in the
bibliography 199
US, Vol. II: A Report of the Findings from 1983–1984 NPTS, SourceControl Programs.
US Census Bureau1998. American Housing Survey for the Minneapolis St. PaulMetropolitan Area. Technical report, US Census Bureau. AHS:Minneapolis h170-98-9.
Vance, J. E.1990. The continuing city: urban morphology in Western civilization.Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore.
Vanderbilt, T.2008. Traffic. Vintage.
Vlaskovits, P.2011. Henry Ford, innovation, and that ‘faster horse’quote. HarvardBusiness Review, 29.
Walsh, W. I.1986. The Rise and Decline of the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea company.Lyle Stuart.
Warden, J.2011. (slideshow) a guided tour of the park nicollet project. HopkinsPatch.
Warden, J.2012. City engineer: One-way 8th Avenue is four or five years away.Hopkins Patch.
Washington, D. P. D.n.d. Chapter 9 comprehensive plan. downtown plan element.Technical report, Washington, District of Columbia.
Webb, S. and B. Webb1913. English local government: The story of the King’s Highway.London, Longmans, Green and Co.
Webber, M. M.1963. Order in diversity: community without propinquity. Citiesand space: The future use of urban land, Pp. 23–54.
Wellington City Council. Street performance and busking policy handbook. Technicalreport, Wellington City Council.
200 spontaneous access: reflexions on designing cities and transport
Wendland, A. M.2013. Evolution of the American lifestyle: Understanding recentchanges in Columbia, Maryland to inform future growth. Universityof Maryland, College Park.
Wenzel, T., J. Koomey, G. Rosenquist, M. Sanchez, and J. Hanford1997. Energy Data Sourcebook for the US Residential Sector.Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Report, 40297.
Wernick, I., R. Herman, S. Govind, and J. Ausubel1996. Materialization and Dematerialization: Measures and Trends.Daedalus, 125(3).
Whyte, W.1957. Urban sprawl. In The Exploding Metropolis. Doubleday Anchor.
Williamson, S. H.2007. Five ways to compute the relative value of a US dollaramount, 1790 - 2006. Technical report.
Xie, F. and D. M. Levinson2009. How streetcars shaped suburbanization: a Granger causalityanalysis of land use and transit in the Twin Cities. Journal ofEconomic Geography, 10(3):453–470.
Yerra, B. M. and D. M. Levinson2005. The emergence of hierarchy in transportation networks. TheAnnals of Regional Science, 39(3):541–553.
Yim, Y.1990. The relationship between transportation services and urbanactivities: The food retail distribution case. PhD thesis, University ofCalifornia, Institute of Transportation Studies.
