Livable Cities
A Priorities Institute Publication ISSN #1099-3231	Spring 1999 - Issue #4

Home Page - Livable Cities #5 - Livable Cities Index

TEN WEEKS ON THE ROAD From September 28^th through December 17^th, my partner and I explored 27 states domestically, and 12 nations in Europe. Some of our objectives included:

3) In the US a comprehensive public transportation network is fragmented at best. In Europe public transportation is well established, efficient, safe, and fairly comprehensive, though losing miles of track and ridership relative to the growth of automobile dependence.

4) With few exceptions, the most livable, exciting communities are those over 80 years old, generally found in small towns and the inner core of cities. These are the areas where tourists would visit and find the most interesting ambiance. In many cities, the renovation and redevelopment of these areas parallels the economic vitality of that city. They amount to small pockets of excitement within what would otherwise be characterized as homogeneous, boring bedroom communities and commercial strips.

Our observations confirmed the positions established by The Priorities Institute from it's conception. Certain lands should never be paved over, including:

• •Prime agricultural lands;
• •Wildlife corridors and migratory routes, and;
• •Green belts, scenic vistas and historic lands.

Recognizing a net population increase of 2.5 million people per year, we are not anti-growth, but are in favor of intelligent growth. We promote regional planning that preserves the lands listed above. There are logical reasons for regional planning in this manner, however, logic, common sense, and the common good are not necessarily the predominate forces in guiding land use planning. Powerful vested interests have goals in opposition to the development of truly livable communities and selected land preservation.

The ideas of The Priorities Institute and it's "Livable Cities for the 21^st Century" project are aimed at ensuring a sustainable future for all people and a maximum variety of flora and fauna. This is in direct contrast to the short-term profit motives of major corporations, financiers, developers, and, too often, from the politicians whom receive major financial contributions from such special interests.

While there are signs that such groups are becoming 'enlightened' to quality-of-life and sustainability issues, our perception is that it is too little, too late. Many 'so called' environmentally friendly products or, from a development point of view, 'New Urbanist' or 'Green' principles, are little more than marketing tags to sell products. Often such tags may make the buyer feel good about a purchase without recognizing the bigger picture of their destructive behavior.

For example, the Home Builders Association of Denver named the president of U.S. Home Colorado as the builder of the year. This developer builds 'green,' meaning they use 'environmentally sound practices and materials.' On the surface this sounds highly desirable, and it is. Homes should be built environmentally sound with non-toxic paints, flooring, carpets, etc. What is overlooked by the average newspaper reader is that this company, along with most other developers, is adding to the endless sprawl that is causing outrageous pollution and congestion in the Denver area. Governments allow this to happen for various short-sighted reasons.

The pattern of sprawl promoted is lowering the quality-of-life for the Denver region as-a-whole. This low-density development pattern perpetuates automobile dependence and results in an extremely segregated landscape. Boredom, alienation, crime and a perpetual cycle of urban decay is the result. Such development is subsidized by the inner city residents in disproportionately unfair ways.

Hidden subsidies encourage suburban sprawl at the expense of inner cities nationwide. The costs of government services will increase greater than what the impact fees and property taxes will cover. This is an unsustainable development pattern completely lacking in the amenities that make inner cities, older towns, and farm living wonderful.

Vincent Carroll, an editor with the Rocky Mountain News, writes: "No matter where we live in America today, we're pretty much guaranteed a daily drive through corridors of retail schlock....You know what I'm talking about: building after building so ugly and cheap that the collective result appears to have been designed as a practical joke by an architect from hell."[1/12/97]

The most disheartening thing about the continuation of this growth pattern is the lack of creative visions being spelled out as alternatives. Too many people assume this is the only pattern of development. Most people assume that safe, modern, economically viable cities must be automobile dependent. The vision of The Priorities Institute with respect to land use planning is so different from the status quo of even the most 'progressive' thinkers that it's almost as though we've arrived from a different planet!

To find some semblance of truly livable, sustainable communities we visited Singapore last spring. Here we found comprehensive planning that addresses the interrelationship of health, security, environmental issues, education, economics, and a variety of transportation and recreational issues to form a 'holistic' approach to land use planning.

Nowhere in the US or Europe did we find a more comprehensive and compassionate development system. This is not to overlook various authoritarian and overzealous policies in Singapore. Nor is it to ignore the often remarkable developments in the US or Europe.

SELECTED URBAN SCENARIOS - GOOD AND BAD

Commerce City, Colorado: To the northeast of Denver proper is this large area characterized in the past as a smelly industrial zone, and in the future as the last undeveloped area of metropolitan Denver that includes the airport, DIA. For the planners of Commerce City, any residential developments represent a marked improvement to their long-standing perception as an industrial armpit. Unfortunately, concepts of sustainability, transit villages, New Urbanism and Neotraditional planning are not part of their vocabulary. Thoughts of high-density developments connected by light rail to inner city Denver are absent.

What will result across the whole stretch of the latest extension of Denver's beltway, C-470, will be more low-density, auto-dependent, and characterless sprawl. The result will also be more congestion for the overall metropolitan area, more pollution, more homogeneous and dull bedroom communities, and a distraction from the possibilities of pedestrian oriented communities. Oh yes, there's also the proposal of a mall the size of the Twin Cities' Mall of America. Remember, after work and home, Americans spend more time at malls than anywhere else.

Kansas City, Missouri & Kansas: This is an extremely auto-dependent, sprawled city. The wealthy, old neighborhoods are embellished with neighborhood statues and impressive landscaping. Crown Center, City Market, and parts of the downtown have some walkable, livable aspects to them. Country Club Plaza is a remarkable shopping complex, the first to be developed outside an urban core. The Spanish-style architecture, statues, and fountains make it nice to walk around, if you can find a parking space! Modern, commercial shopping corridors nationwide look pitiful compared to this 1920s prototype.

St. Louis, Missouri: There seems to be no end to the sprawl. One outlying community, Wildwood, has adopted 'New Urbanist' principles to avoid the pitfalls to such sprawl. Nevertheless, all the once separate communities, from St. Peters to Belleville (Illinois) seem to be merging into one endless, nearly indistinguishable, traffic clogged, commercial strip and suburban wasteland. Inner city St. Louis offers many attractions, including parks, riverfront developments, the Metrolink light rail network, the magnificent St. Louis Cathedral, various nicely renovated neighborhoods around Morgan St. and Forest Park, fine universities, etc. What stood out was the quantity of barren lots next to deteriorated, yet spectacular, Victorian-architecture houses. This place is begging for renovation and infill development. The ritzy suburbs are growing endlessly while the inner city is ignored.

Athens, Ohio: A university town with around 22,000 situated between two sections of Wayne National Forest. A very quaint, walkable downtown with many lively, community owned businesses. This town is perfect for some long-term 'holistic' planning, involving citizen input as to what they want this area to look like in the years 2020 and 2050. Its charm should be preserved, as should the tens of thousands of small towns across America that are distinguishable from the suburban schlock that predominates the larger, metropolitan cities.

Marietta, Ohio: With around 15,000 citizens, this beautiful little town is beaming with renovation and civic pride. You can still see the old trolley tracks in the brick streets. There is a wonderful walkway along the Ohio River for the public. Like Athens, it would be wise to do long-range planning now to encourage sustainable growth and vitality through the next century.

Roosevelt Island (New York City), New York: Located in the middle of the Hudson River between Long Island and Manhattan, I had heard that this was an auto-less new town in-town. From Queens you cross a bridge to an expensive, multi-level parking complex in the middle of the island. Off the main street to the west side of the island are high rise apartments, a nice park, and carefully planned river front promenade with benches facing the plethora of high rise buildings in Manhattan.

This was the highlight of this development. The retail core is disheartening. Roosevelt Island received Title VII assistance in the early 1970s to give life to this underutilized 147-acre island. The original master plan had a continuous 4-mile promenade, high-density clusters of 'c' shaped subsidized apartments separated by parks, and a dynamic town center with retail, hotel, and 200,000 square feet of office space.

The master plan was severely bastardized. What exists is a cold streetscape without views of the river on either side. There are cold, cement facades, cars along the main street, and little that would distinguish this from the worst Scandinavian or mediocre East European designs. Trells bar and an old church were the only buildings on a human scale.

There is a subway stop and an aerial tram that crosses the river under the Queensboro Bridge, offering a wonderful alternative transportation source, but they are isolated! This place has location, location, location, but it's been terribly ignored. The potential to create a mixed-use, exciting, fun community is yet to materialize.

London, England, and New York City, New York: Parts of London and New York City are the most congested, intense, crazy, scary, liberal, ugly, exciting, and beautiful characteristics of any industrialized, English-speaking city. You can find nearly anything in either city. If you love a big city lifestyle, stimulus and variety, architecture and people watching, the inner sections of these cities are wonderful.

On the other hand, parking, hotel, apartment and condominium prices, crime and the traffic are worse than average. Many neighborhoods just outside of the city core are seriously dilapidated and unsafe to be in. The suburbs never end, but, there are extensive public transportation networks offering alternatives to automobile commuting.

The Kentlands, Montgomery County, Maryland: This is a community designed in the 'New Urbanist/Neo-Traditionalist' style. In other words, when residents get home from work they can walk around and experience a more comfortable feeling than when walking in most suburban developments of the past 50 years. Some townhouses resemble those of historic sections of Frederick, Maryland or Georgetown, in the District of Columbia. Large public spaces, landscaping, separation of sidewalks from the street, pedestrian-oriented scale and public lakes give the place a safe and comfortable feel, though somewhat as though you live in a fish bowl.

There are pocket parks in the middle of blocks and as some corner lots. Sidewalks cut through the middle of blocks past 'old style' American homes with white picket fences and long porches with rocking chairs. Educational and senior facilities exist. Some shopping facilities will open shortly, offering some community residents a comfortable walk for necessities, possibly work. For a suburban lifestyle 25 miles from the White House, the Kentlands is slightly higher density, more quaint, and significantly more expensive than surrounding communities.

Montgomery Village, Montgomery County, Maryland: Just outside Gaithersburg, Maryland, near the Kentlands, Montgomery Village with around 17,000 residents incorporates many aspects of the new town movements over the decades. There are plenty of bike corridors, a separation of pedestrians from cars, and a center commercial area, including some apartments above shops. In contrast to the Kentlands, Montgomery Village has a greater variety of affordable housing and apartment options, larger public spaces, but less quaint landscaping and no alleys with granny apartments above garages. Some developers included garage fronted streetscapes, a practice frowned upon by New Urbanists.

Washington, DC metropolitan area: Will the suburban growth ever end? How long before such historically unique and appealing towns such as Frederick and Annapolis, Maryland, become nothing more than outlying subdivisions of DC? How bad must the weekend commute to and from the Atlantic Ocean or Shenandoah National Park be before the region invests in alternative transportation options, such as a high speed train to Ocean City? I lived in the DC area for 12 years and moved out about a decade ago because, among other reasons, of the traffic and outrageous costs. Unfortunately, Denver, where I've lived around for the past 9 years, is modeling itself with the same unbridled growth pattern.

Bristol, Virginia, and Johnson City, Tennessee: These towns seem to have lost their downtown vitality to suburban, commercial growth. The local planners and politicians would be wise to study the attractiveness of towns with vibrant downtowns and consider restricting further low-density outward growth and concentrating on revitalizing their old cores before they deteriorate further.

Gatlinburg, Pigeon Forge, Sevierville, Tennessee: Nestled up against the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Gatlinburg has long been a tourist haven. Though parking and congestion are bad, the town has a degree of charm to it. On foot one can encounter many craft shops and pedestrian tailored areas.

Thirty years ago Pigeon Forge was known for its pottery factory. Today, Pigeon Forge and Sevierville constitute one long commercial strip aimed towards the automobile and spending. If planning codes exist, they are not geared towards the pedestrian. The confluence of rivers that meets at Sevierville is not noticeable, nor is any appreciation of the beautiful Tennessee countryside.

Blowing Rock and Boone, North Carolina: Like Athens and Marietta, Ohio, these towns are on a pedestrian scale, pleasant to walk around, touristy yet not so large as to have attracted many tacky franchises. Local planners should take a long-term look at how they want their towns to grow, before growth destroys the towns unique character and human scale.

Laurel, Mississippi: The downtown features represent little quaintness of old inner cities, and few amenities of the new. We searched unsuccessfully for redeeming features, like a smokeless breakfast venue or a grocery with fresh juice or coffee.

New Orleans, Louisiana: There is no place on earth like the French Quarter and parts of New Orleans' uptown. Unfortunately, for decades white flight has resulted in a reduced tax base, reduced social service and public school funding, and resultant high crime and poverty. Nevertheless, much revitalization has occurred throughout Orleans parish to keep it a vibrant city well worth visiting. Their flirtation with gambling is a case study in how poorly such facilities aid cities' overall health and quality of life.

Covington and Mandeville, Louisiana: This region, on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain from New Orleans, has long been a getaway destination from the hot summers of New Orleans. In the past twenty years it has grown extensively as people flee the negative features of the New Orleans area, particularly crime. Unfortunately, the pattern of growth has been mostly commercial schlock and exclusive communities entirely catered to automobiles. Traffic and ugliness have covered the thick woods and wetlands. The old sections of Mandeville, Covington, Madisonville and Abita Springs are still charming, but without a visionary, regional, long-term plan to control growth, this once destination community will be little better or different than the suburban/exurban developments lacking character that are growing across the country at a rate of 50 acres an hour. Hopefully, their New Directions 2025, comprehensive plan will offer hope for future generations

Houston, Texas: There must be some redeeming features to this town, but I couldn't find them. The downtown is badly in need of infill and rejuvenation. With few exceptions, the traffic and endless low-density suburbs are a disgrace to any principles of livable/walkable communities.

Austin, Texas: A nice, vibrant downtown does little to take away from the outrageous costs of inner city living and the endless sprawl. When will cities determine that increasing size at some point lowers the quality of living of not only the city residents, but those of the once unique towns that surround it? A high speed rail link between Austin and Houston and Dallas would be a wonderful accomplishment. Setting urban growth boundaries around said cities, and encouraging high-density, sustainable transit-villages at various locations along such a rail route would offer a smart growth alternative to the current out-of-control suburban growth.

Small Texas towns: Outside of the major cities are unique, human-scale towns such as Jasper, Lufkin, Nacogdoches, Llano, Brady, and San Angelo. These are the towns where one can park free, or even better, walk to mom and pop services and Bar-B-Q joints without fear of senseless crime. These are the places that would benefit from citizen awareness and planning forums to determine what type of environment they want their grandchildren to grow up in.

Enlisting the help of New Urbanist/Neotraditional visionaries could enlighten small town planners and policy makers to the alternatives of uncontrolled sprawl and prevent small towns from looking like ghost towns or boring, homogeneous, auto-dependent developments with no character and redeeming features. Towns with pride and livable planning policies will attract desired investors and caring residents. Towns with a high quality of life and a desirable future plan will attract quality employers and residents without having to offer economic incentives such as tax abatements and land subsidies.

[Additional city reviews, from across Europe, Florida, and various western states will be in the next issue of Livable Cities]

WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND MIGRATORY ROUTES

One of the land types we promote the preservation, or creation, of, is a connected system of corridors for people, and especially, animals to use to travel significant distances. For people, this can offer the prospects of traveling by paths from one community to the next, as a healthy alternative to automobile usage. For animals, it offers an alternative to the inevitable inbreeding that occurs in a series of isolated parks.

In Montana, 'linkage zones' have been identified to protect grizzly bears in Swan Valley and elsewhere. The goal is to limit human developments in isolated bear habitat, and to work with timber operators to avoid cutting during key times when the bears are active. In southern Florida, underpasses were built so the rare panther has an alternative to crossing busy highways. Such an underpass was also recommended for elk in Colorado.

Establishing permanent wildlife corridors should be done statewide, regionally, and/or nationally. Part of such corridors would be areas dedicated to migratory geese, swans, cranes and songbirds, many of which have seen their feeding and nesting habitats lost to development. The US Dept. of Agriculture operates the Conservation Reserve Program to preserve migratory lands. Farmers are paid to remove parcels of land from production. Over 36 million acres of land were in this program in 1994. Farmers receive payment yearly, but political changes can mean the elimination of this and other worthwhile programs. Something more permanent is needed.

Additionally, since migration occurs intercontinentally, more efforts are necessary to preserve habitat worldwide. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and its Partners in Flight' program work to preserve lands internationally, as does the Audubon Society. Worldwide, however, over 40 million acres of tropical forests are lost each year, about the size of Washington State.

As an example for the rest of the world the US can establish wildlife corridors and migratory habitats for permanent preservation. The Fish and Wildlife Service can identify preservable corridors for protection with its 'gap analysis' program, whereby satellite imagery maps species and habitats across the country. Land outside these habitats should then be assessed for appropriate use. Prime farmland should be preserved, as should scenic vistas, historic lands, and greenbelts around sizable cities. The land that remains should be considered for various types of development only after carrying capacity is established, taking into account traffic and water availability issues.

Piecemeal development is destroying wildlife, the livelihood of farmers, and prospects for a sustainable future. While this proposal is grandiose and clashes with the development dreams of many current property owners, the establishment of the National Park and Forest systems was also controversial in the days of its origination. Private landowners can be compensated in many tried and successful ways, such as with tax easements or development credits to be used in other areas. A continuation of the status quo of hodgepodge growth is disgraceful with its associated sprawl, congestion, alienated suburban existence, pollution and ecological destruction. It is past time to get serious about stopping unsustainable and ugly growth, and about the preservation of the precious flora and fauna species that remain.

DENVER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

Throughout the US, transportation boards exist to try to improve transportation flow, and sometimes to offer options to the omnipresent automobile. In general, the whole country is plagued by increasing congestion and easily criticizable public transportation systems.

Denver is no exception. In October I read the platforms of the twenty-one candidates for eight open seats on the RTD board. The candidates, all men, generally would like more bus service, more park and ride facilities, and one or two light rail lines from downtown to the new airport and/or the Denver Tech Center (DTC).

Voters rejected the line from downtown to DTC in the past, in part because of heavy propaganda about the costs and benefits. Relatively little has been heard of a line to the airport or to some of the other suburban communities, or to the mountain ski resorts where weekend traffic is nightmarish. The assumption is that costs are prohibitive.

A major problem with light rail lines is that our communities are so low-density that people would have to drive to a parking lot that, with luck, would not be filled. In Washington, DC, some lots for the metro fill up by 7am. If you arrive too late, you have to drive downtown. Both the parking lots and metro cost significant money.

Another problem with light rail and subways is that they don't go where people need to go. In the Denver area, 70 percent of commuter traffic goes from suburb to suburb. If a light rail line goes to DTC, even with three stops most workers would have a long walk to work, or would have to catch a separate bus. Walkable retail and lunch options are nearly non-existent.

No public transportation option is good in a low-density city designed to exclusively accommodate the automobile. Suburbanites living three blocks from the grocery will drive because, among other reasons, one stands out like a sore thumb walking around neighborhoods designed for the comfort of the automobile. Zoning may require sidewalks in suburbs, but few use it. If children on bicycles on such sidewalks make one wrong move they could end up in the middle of a street with cars rushing by at 50 mph.

Nevertheless, I'm in favor of public transportation in a big way. Denver doesn't need one or two new light rail or bus lines to seriously reduce automobile dependence, traffic and pollution. It needs 50 new lines. Imagine a spider web overlay on any city. This is what people need to get from point A to points B, K, and Z. Look at the metro map of Paris, London or Munich. Lines go everywhere. In Singapore the metro and buses run every three to six minutes during rush hour, and usually no more than every twelve minutes during non-rush hour. They are safe, affordable, efficient, and, with double decker buses, fun. The neighborhoods you pass through have character and charm.

When public transport goes everywhere in and around a city on a regular basis, people will find it desirable. Other than a few conscientious good souls, people riding public transport in America today are generally the poor, elderly, young, and handicapped. With the exception of a very few cities, such as San Francisco, the public transportation systems are so limited, uncomfortable and inconvenient that ridership is less than three percent of the population. The more we build for cars, the less room and relevance public transportation has.

In Denver, buses or light rail is needed not only from downtown outwards like the spokes of a wheel, but from suburb to suburb and into the mountains to the resort towns. Additionally, a ban on new, low-density suburbs should be in effect unless desirable public transport within a three block walk of residences and businesses is also developed. Just say no to continued sprawl!

The primary beneficiaries from unbridled growth today are financiers, developers, contractors, and politicians. Denver already has museums, fine arts facilities, all night super groceries, coffee shops galore, etc. - an additional 100,000 residents will not add anything desirable to the metropolitan area. The quality of life will deteriorate as congestion and pollution get worse. Establish a urban growth boundary around large cities just as Oregon successfully implemented over twenty years ago (this is finally being proposed by various Democrats and Republicans in Colorado).

One might rightly ask, "Yo Einstein, how you gonna fund this outlandish scheme?" I'll first ask, where's the money come from for the $217 billion federal highway bill passed this year? Where did the money come from for the $80 million second phase of the intersection known as the Mousetrap in Denver? That's just one interchange. Governor Roy Romer last year said that Colorado needed $8 billion in state and $5 billion in local funding above existing spending for the state's transportation needs. Where will that money come from? He doesn't know!

Highway construction and maintenance has been subsidized at rates of up to a hundred times more than the federal operating subsidies to mass transit. The World Resources Institute, the Worldwatch Institute, Citizens for Balanced Transportation, and many other analysts have estimated the total subsidy to US drivers to run as high as $300 billion per year, or more than $5.00 per gallon of gasoline consumed by motorists.

Then there are all the direct costs associated with owning an automobile, the initial purchase price and interest, insurance, licenses, registration, taxes, gas, maintenance, repairs and parking. Then there's the cost to motorists and businesses in time wasted in traffic. Add in the difficult to calculate costs of road rage, noise, pollution's effect on human health and crops, the effect of oil seepage into streams, distress from hazardous driving conditions, and, of course, the hundreds of thousands of injuries and over 40,000 deaths per year.

Yes, the costs of creating a truly comfortable, efficient, safe public transportation network in a community that has been completely geared to the needs of automobiles, not people, is very expensive, perhaps prohibitively so. Even if a wonderful public transit system ran frequently up and down every major roadway across the city for free, subdivisions are so spread apart that most residents would have to walk too far to a bus or metro stop to find it convenient. In The Geography of Nowhere, author James H. Kunstler writes, "In LA the very pattern of the city is the underlying problem, and the city is stuck with it. It is stuck with its sprawling low-density single-family house monoculture communities, with its long commutes, and its addiction to gas."(Touchstone Books, New York, 1993, p. 213)

However, the system we live with today is more expensive than most of us will ever understand, and a disgrace to our civility. It is discriminatory, wasteful, alienating, and despite automobile ads to the contrary, it is ugly. The image of glamour and independence is an illusion. At a minimum, Denver, Colorado Springs, and cities across America would do well to stop sprawl. To manage growth, Boulder, Colorado, has "developed a 27,000-acre greenbelt, a system for controlling the rate of population growth by limiting building permits, and a defined urban growth boundary managed in co-operation with Boulder County."[Peter Pollock, "Controlling Sprawl in Boulder: Benefits and Pitfalls," Urban Land, April, 1998, p. 38]

Sadly, the automobile-dependence we have created is being modeled after by every nation in the world, whether they can afford it or not. A January 5, 1999 article in The Christian Science Monitor described the disastrous results of Arab cities incorporating Western style growth. Regarding Beirut, a city formerly a jewel along the Mediterranean, author Edward A. Yeranian writes: "But now, rising from the ruins of the 15-year civil war that ended in 1990 is a drab, cement-box style of architecture - along with overpopulation, noise, and pollution....In Arab cities like Cairo and Baghdad, Western architecture has come into conflict with centuries-old tradition. What often results is a soulless downtown dominated not by people but by automobiles and a spaghetti of roadways."

In Moscow, there are over 40 serious automobile accidents every day. Nearly 10,000 people were injured, and 1,500 killed in 1995. In Great Britain nearly 4,000 people died in 1994. In 1996, in France, over 8,000 people died in auto accidents, nearly one every hour.

Too many Americans will believe that what's good for the automobile and oil industries is good for Americans. It is not. People everywhere suffer from our over-dependence on the automobile, and it will get worse before it gets better. Don't count on transit institutions to solve our traffic problems. As the editor of Mass Transit magazine wrote, "This industry's top priority, agency by agency, is on attaining funding.... Spending money sometimes seems secondary to getting it."[Jim Duffy, Why Should We Change?" November 1998, p. 6]

MISSION STATEMENT

Our "Livable Cities for the 21^st Century" project is not anti-growth, but is in favor of practicable, civilized growth. We favor the protection of prime agriculture lands, wildlife corridors and migratory routes, and scenic vistas and historic lands. We promote the establishment of urban growth boundaries around cities of approximately 50,000, or ten square miles. Renovation and infill are valuable for barren and deteriorated neighborhoods. To accommodate increasing populations, we promote the creation of high speed rail leading outwards from city cores, past green belts, to new, higher-density outlying communities on lands with the carrying capacity (e.g. water) to handle them. Such new communities should aim to be relatively self-reliant, ecologically sustainable and auto-less, with numerous transportation options in their core. The goals include long-term social, economic, and environmental health and vitality.

TRANSIT VILLAGES

As a livable alternative to sprawl, authors Michael Bernick and Robert Cervero describe transit villages:

"At its core, the transit village is a compact, mixed-use community, centered around the transit station that, by design, invites residents, workers, and shoppers to drive their cars less and ride mass transit more. The transit village extends roughly a quarter mile from a transit station, a distance that can be covered in about 5 min by foot. The centerpiece of the transit station itself and the civic and public spaces that surround it. The transit station is what connects village residents and workers to the rest of the region, providing convenient and ready access to downtown, major activity centers like a sports stadium, and other popular destinations....It is important to emphasize that transit villages are not just physical entities. There are important social and economic dimensions behind the transit village movement. Socially, the hope is that transit villages will bring people from many walks of life into daily face-to-face contact. Today's auto-oriented suburbs have isolated people by age, class, and race - the young from the old, the rich from the poor, whites from blacks. Many upper-class suburbanites are confined to their cars and security-controlled, walled-in subdivisions. By creating an attractive built environment, complete with a civic core and prominent transit node, people are more likely to feel a sense of belonging and an attachment to the community."(Transit Villages in the 21^st Century, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996, pp. 5-6]

British Columbia is emphasizing this type of development with its Livable Region Strategic Plan. To combat sprawl, traffic and pollution in the Vancouver area, the plan calls for future commercial and residential development to be concentrated around six regional town centers, with extensive public transportation leading to each, and their reliable, driverless, fast and user-friendly SkyTrain running through the high-density cores of these towns, and connecting it to downtown Vancouver.

The biggest asset to accomplishing their ambitious plans was the creation of a Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority to coordinate, plan, finance, and oversee the projects completion. Throughout the US, multi-jurisdictional, local governments work in a piece-meal fashion without a coordinated regional strategy to accomplish overall and long-term transportation and planning goals. Everyone suffers as patchwork development results in unending suburbanization, pollution, and congestion. Bob Lingwood, the overseeing official, says, "In too many cases, the potential of a transit system gets eroded development by development."The lesson is that regional councils of government need real power to plan for the overall area and to fund projects for the long-term benefit of all residents. In Vancouver, the authority will be in a board of elected officials representing the local communities.[Jim Duffy, Editor, "Bold Vision in Vancouver," Mass Transit, November 1998, pp. 8-15]

THE DENVER PEOPLE'S FAIR

The Priorities Institute will for the third year have a booth at Denver's People's Fair, June 5 & 6, 1999. Here we will exhibit our 5' X 8' model of what a livable, eco-city can look like. The colorful, 3-D model features light rail, trolley, bike, walking and horse paths, community gardens, a lively inner city, a huge quantity of open space, organic agriculture and aquaculture, a surrounding green belt, and automobiles parked on the city's outer edge. The model city is completely accessible to service and utility vehicles. Volunteers will be able to answer questions and describe the model.

EDITOR'S NOTE

This is the fourth issue of Livable Cities; the first was in November 1997. The first three were mailed out to an average of 700 people, mostly unsolicited, but also those signing the mailing lists at The People's Fair. Thirty-two recipients have sent money to be included on the subscription, and many others have requested a free subscription.

The costs of just the paper, printing and mailing of issue #3 amounted to around $1000.00. Obviously, I produce this newsletter out of a conviction from the heart; financially I'm losing money. I've received no money from advertisers, foundations, businesses or the government. I will enthusiastically continue to produce the newsletter, however, unless readers give some form of feedback, they will eventually be removed from the mailing list.

There is no mass mailing or marketing department for a organization of this size. Each e-mail, phone call, letter and check that comes in is read and handled by me, the editor, or my partner, Melissa Moon. Those of you who have contributed in any way with feedback and/or money are truly appreciated.

Given that my ideas for better land use planning and city design are so different than any writer or existing community today, I've decided to write two full length books on the subjects. The first is a light-hearted book relating to my travels from Denver to New Orleans via Maine, with the five week excursion to twelve countries in Europe. It should be finished by the summers end.

The second book will focus on my ideas of a more sustainable, livable city. It is not a book describing a Utopia; one person's Utopia is another person's hell! The book will go into detail about the eight areas that I categorize all information into, what I call Basic Human Dignity Needs, or a 'Holistic Index,' including: Health, Environment, Security and Liberties, the Media and Education, Work, Land Use Planning, Government, and International Affairs. In my office these categories are subdivided into nearly 700 sub-issues. I have nearly 40,000 articles, collected since 1986, that fill these categories.

With the information overload that we all can experience daily, this division works for me to make sense of our confusing world. Lacking such an index I experienced information overload and feelings of apathy, a common response of most people given today's crazy pace and complexity. My goal is a compassionate one, to promote the well-being of all people, flora and fauna. I believe that my welfare and security are best assured by promoting the opportunity and facilities for all people to attain dignified survival. Thanks again to all those who have offered volunteer hours, feedback, and contributions to The Priorities Institute.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

• Give a tax-deductible donation. $10.00 will assure you three more publications from The Priorities Institute. You will also get a subscriber number (e.g. Your Name, Subscriber #53). Additional money will be used towards printing and mailings. Make checks payable to The Priorities Institute.
• Give us feedback via e-mail, a phone call, or a letter.
• Supply us with positive examples of people making progress in creating livable communities. Send clippings with sources listed.