Columnist warns of forced porch-sitting, with possible mandatory neighbor interaction

[Sorry for the odd typography and text color - I'm trying to use the Google Chrome browser, and it isn't playing nice with Typepad]

Let's take a few moments and discuss the many and varied reasons that Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel conserva-columnist Patrick McIlheran cannot be taken seriously when he attempts to address suburban sprawl issues.

Reason one: Mr. McIlheran, from what I gather, lives in a traditional urban-type neighborhood and spends the balance of his day in a city-based office (at least for now; newspapering is a tough business lately) at the Journal-Sentinel building. He also has written frequently about how he's availed himself to the city of Milwaukee's (increasingly meager) bus transit system.

One wonders how this daily experience gives him any insight whatsoever into the habits and lifestyles created and enforced by suburban subdivisions.

How about this: Plant Mr. McIlheran and family in a Franklin or Oak Creek subdivision - one of the curvy-road, avoid-the-neighbors, park-in-my-backyard, strictly-zoned types that he loves - for a period of one year. And make him work at the Franklin Northwestern Mutual Insurance campus.

Reason two: Despite his obvious dependence on the many well-funded arms of Sprawl Inc. (Reason Foundation, American Dream Coalition [be sure to download their inspiring and not-at-all-funded-by-oil-and-auto-companies "white papers" in their website's "Automobility" section], Randal O'Toole on speed-dial, etc.), he cannot (as per usual, I'm afraid) muster a "fact" that doesn't make you laugh. 

For example: McIlheran has chosen for special mention designer Rick Harrison, who has come up with something that he calls "Prefurbia" (this zany appellation, interestingly, is not mentioned in McIlheran's column, perhaps to accommodate the clumsy headline: "Suburbia that keeps its prefix"). On the plus side, Harrison's "coving" design sets out to eliminate cul-de-sacs, increase connectivity, and decrease paved area. On the minus side, Harrison is oddly drawn to the "speedway" curved road plan that makes so many suburbs deathtraps for bikes and pedestrians. The illustration below is from Harrison's site and depicts a development called "Edgewood" in southeastern Wisconsin:

I've seen worse, but there not much to get excited about here. Unless you're Patrick McIlheran:

And between the angles, setbacks and serpentine streets, the subdivisions use much less pavement - usually 25% less for a given acreage, says Harrison.

"Much less pavement." "Usually 25% less for a given acreage." Less than.... what? Did they stop using editors over at the Milwaukee JS?

Perhaps McIlheran derived his nugget from an old 1998 New York Times profile of Harrison:

In a typical subdivision, streets account for 20 to 30 percent of the land, say builders. At [Harrison-designed] Eagle Pass, however, that figure is 17 percent.

So Harrison's "coving" uses less asphalt than a "typical subdivision"? Not entirely inspiring; the curving roads in Harrison's designs are built for speed, and getting rid of "typical subdivision" cul-de-sacs accounts for a huge amount of asphalt without having to do much else, design-wise.

Heroic? No.

Reason three: McIlheran loves him some drive-thru design.

Built-for-speed roads are worth touting:

His roads are snaky, with few intersections (and, so, few stops).

Excellent - because we gotta get through that residential area at top speed! Hooray - "FEW STOPS"!

Reason four: Like others who lobby for Sprawl, Inc., McIlheran conveys the ludicrous notion that - in a region overrun with non-planned, non-sustainable suburbs that have grown at the whims of developers and their desire for increased and quicker profit (a condition that has created the need for cuts in services while property taxes continue to climb) - creating provisions for New Urbanist or Traditional Neighborhood Development subdivisions somehow limits our choices rather than increasing them by adding another flavor to the mix.

You see, in McIlheran's worldview, the appearance of a non-standard choice in some way magically eliminates countless existing subdivisions - and their ready-to-buy vacancies. So, he uses ludicrous language like the following:

Porches are nice to relax on. Not that you should have to.

People are busy, after all, [quoting Harrison] "and maybe they don't want to know their neighbors that well."

Harrison does not like the dominant planning idea of recent years, New Urbanism, which mandates porches and narrow houses on narrow lots...

So, when they built the wildly successful Middleton Hills subdivision in Middleton, Wisconsin, did residents of the surrounding subdivisions receive orders to get out on their porches? Were they told they'd better learn the names of their neighbor's pets? Did the Middleton Hills "mandate" of "narrow houses on narrow lots" result in letters being sent to nearby Manor of the Lake McMansion subdivision that they'd better start building infill immediately?

Ludicrous.

But, for those with the patience to read to the end of McIlheran's column, all becomes clear, and we have reason five that Patrick McIlheran should not write about planning issues:

And this guy's made money for himself and for developers with such an accommodating attitude. Hallelujah. Ain't America cool?

At least he's fairly transparent in his quest for additional partisan speaking gigs - perhaps at next year's National Association of Home Builder's convention.

Because, goodness knows that "developers making money" is what creates successful communities, and any attempt to enforce standards would be "bossy" ....

[See related: The Conservative Case for Walking and Biking]

Comments

[Michael Horne]

A ridiculous waste of geometry. There are better ways to use 70 acres. You can't build an economically and socially sustainable community on three dwelling units per acre.

[John Michlig]

Frankly, it's getting harder and harder to discern any argument coming from these guys other than "it's our God-given right to drive fast and often."

[jill]

I find it amazing that anyone would think curved streets are made for speed, these are obviously not the same radii as a nascar oval and if anything, curves like this will generally slow vehicular traffic instead of increase it. Why else would they make drag strips straight? You may not like the density, but you are DEAD WRONG on the safety provided by curevd streets as laid out there.

[John Michlig]

A) Though not relevant to our discussion: How much would you be willing to give me, cash-wise, for each suburban curve that I locate and measure which matches the unbanked radius of one or more sanctioned NASCAR tracks?

Hint: You can't afford it.

B) Wide, straight streets = BAD. But, even worse are curvilinear street designs where right-angle turns are avoided in favor of acceleration-friendly curves that make residential areas speedways, and cause drivers to scowl at pedestrians and bikers who have the nerve to be on "their" streets.

These curves increase the design speed (the speed at which a driver feels comfortable driving) of residential roads to deadly levels. Studies show that pedestrian fatalities rise enormously with small increments of speed:
20mph - 5% fatality
30mph - 45% fatality
40mph - 85% fatality

So, a suburban curve-type turn has a design speed of 30-35mph (and, believe me, the drivers use every bit of it), and a traditional right-angle turn on a narrow, grid-type road has a design speed of 5-10mph.

Where do you want a loved one to be crossing on foot?

Of course, if you're in a hurry to arrive at your vital destination a whopping 45 seconds earlier, all of the above is moot.