A recurring theme of this blog is that we miss so many opportunities to better utilize excess pavement space that so many of our cities and towns have.

In some cases, that simply means we should reduce or remove travel lanes in favor of more on-street parking, wider sidewalks or better provisions for street trees. These are all simple things that can greatly increase our quality of life, and minimize the destruction that planning for high-speed, high-capacity traffic has done.

In other cases, it means getting creative, and using our spaces more efficiently for more hours of the day. When we talk of the 3-legged stool of community building that is design-policy-management, this is often the “management” portion that too often gets neglected.

How about some examples?

One of my all-time favorites is Belden Alley in San Francisco. By daytime, this is a typical service alley like so many in any downtown or urban area. By nighttime, however, the alley transforms. Restaurants actually open onto the alley, and move tables and chairs out onto the pavement space. Bollards are placed at the alley entries so that vehicles cannot drive through. The space becomes alive with people relaxing and enjoying the evening.

The same condition exists in various ways in older cities throughout the U.S. A key component of a recent master plan that we co-authored in downtown Evanston, IL emphasized better use of the alleys as pedestrian ways, building upon a small successful couple of local examples. Other cities with increasingly active urban areas have experimented with this approach, which incidentally helps with safety as well by providing more activity in otherwise dark areas.

But we need not stop at just alleys. Our streets themselves deserve the same kind of thinking. Again, by thinking creatively about how to manage space, we can create more life, and more pleasure in our cities. A great example is the Cicolvia phenomenon. Begun in Bogota, Colombia, the idea was borne to shut down a large amount of the city’s streets (or portions of streets) for most of the day on every Sunday. On the temporarily-closed streets, people ride bikes, jog, walk with their kids, play games and much more. I had the chance to observe this in both Bogota and Medellin in Colombia, and it’s truly one of those experiments that the people who live there find great enjoyment from. Just think of our own over-sized streets, and how easy it would be to close them down for a “slower” Sunday to get out and simply enjoy life in the neighborhood or the City.

The possibilities are endless – the only hurdle we have to overcome is the assumption that all pavement space must be for vehicles all the time. Ray Bradbury eloquently wrote about this in the short story, The Girls Walk This Way,

“We drive… and drive… and drive and come home blind with exhaustion. We have seen nothing, nor have we been seen. Our total experience? Six waved hands, a thousand blurred faces, seventeen Volkswagon rears and some ripe curses from a Porsche and an MG behind.” And later: “Now we must remember that drama and theater are not special and separate and private things in our lives. They are the true stuffs of living, the heart and soul of any true city. It follows we must begin to provide architectural stages upon which our vast populations can act out their lives.”

Belden Alley

Evanston, IL - better utilizing aleys

Ciclovia - Bogota, Colombia

Ciclovia - Bogota, Colombia

We’re obsessed with big: big houses, big churches, big cars, big stores, big food portions. It’s in our nature I suppose to be impressed with size.

When planning for our communities, though, it’s often best to think small. Not small as in small goals or dreams; but small as in the kinds of spaces that fill up our neighborhoods. This is especially true when it comes to spaces that sell things – shops, restaurants, etc.

What are the benefits of small spaces? For one, they are cheap to rent – very important to mom & pop operations and start-ups. If you want to encourage local flavor, local business, etc, thinking small is critical. An all-too-common mistake made by many new businesses is in trying to occupy a space too large from the beginning; especially for dining. But also, an abundance of small spaces creates more street life – just think of the impact of 10 small storefronts vs 2 large ones. And, more businesses means more competition, which is ultimately good for consumers as well. Places that are dominated by a handful of large operators are not only less interesting, but ultimately less responsive to their patrons.

But how to do small and cheap, especially with new construction? In this case, there’s no single answer, as it relies upon the creative possibilities inherent in each place and person. That said, a few examples keep coming back, including some themes we’ve discussed on this blog before. One story buildings that are modest in construction, for example; food carts, mobile stalls, etc. But another idea to examine is an updated version of market stalls, that can be inexpensively built and maintained. One of the best examples of this case is in the early New Urbanist community of Seaside, FL. You may know Seaside as a hallmark of pricey, resort-oriented New Urbanism. But the reality is it has some of the most effective approaches of any new community for how to create incubator retail with success.

Seaside’s town center has a variety of all the techniques mentioned above, in order to deal with the seasonal nature of its business. As the town has matured, more permanent structures have been able to work, but the bulk of the “selling” of things still happens in very informal, inexpensive construction (see photos). Some of the shops shown simply lock up their stall at night, and share a common courtyard with others. It’s a highly effective way to nurture small business in an emerging walkable environment.

Jane Jacobs used to write repeatedly about the virtue of cheap space for shops in an urban environment. She was writing to extol the benefits especially of older buildings. But in many cases we don’t have the older building stock to use, so instead, think about how to creatively build new space that has the same qualities. Small, flexible and cheap is good when it comes to successful, walkable retail.

Kevin Klinkenberg reviews Kansas City street design and the importance of getting the details right. By comparing and contrasting two sections of Westport Road, he looks at how each of the street designs work, the details of each and then show why one is so much better than the other.

Click here to watch video

Building upon previous posts on Path to Prosperity, here’s something simple and inexpensive that can help rebuild the market for successful, walkable communities. Again, it follows the principles of de-prioritizing long-distance fast traffic, and focusing on what works to create balance in a particular neighborhood. Success stories like this are popping up all over the country as cities rethink the policies that crippled their downtowns and older neighborhoods for decades.

The Return of the Two-Way Street

By Alan Ehrenhalt | December 2009

Why the double-yellow stripe is making a comeback in downtowns.
Over the past couple of decades, Vancouver, Washington, has spent millions of dollars trying to revitalize its downtown, and especially the area around Main Street that used to be the primary commercial center. Just how much the city has spent isn’t easy to determine. But it’s been an ambitious program. Vancouver has totally refurbished a downtown park, subsidized condos and apartment buildings overlooking it and built a new downtown Hilton hotel.

Some of these investments have been successful, but they did next to nothing for Main Street itself. Through most of this decade, the street remained about as dreary as ever. Then, a year ago, the city council tried a new strategy. Rather than wait for the $14 million more in state and federal money it was planning to spend on projects on and around Main Street, it opted for something much simpler. It painted yellow lines in the middle of the road, took down some signs and put up others, and installed some new traffic lights. In other words, it took a one-way street and opened it up to two-way traffic.

The merchants on Main Street had high hopes for this change. But none of them were prepared for what actually happened following the changeover on November 16, 2008. In the midst of a severe recession, Main Street in Vancouver seemed to come back to life almost overnight.

Within a few weeks, the entire business community was celebrating. “We have twice as many people going by as they did before,” one of the employees at an antique store told a local reporter. The chairman of the Vancouver Downtown Association, Lee Coulthard, sounded more excited than almost anyone else. “It’s like, wow,” he exclaimed, “why did it take us so long to figure this out?”

A year later, the success of the project is even more apparent. Twice as many cars drive down Main Street every day, without traffic jams or serious congestion. The merchants are still happy. “One-way streets should not be allowed in prime downtown retail areas,” says Rebecca Ocken, executive director of Vancouver’s Downtown Association. “We’ve proven that.”

The debate over one-way versus two-way streets has been going on for more than half a century now in American cities, and it is far from resolved even yet. But the evidence seems to suggest that the two-way side is winning. A growing number of cities, including big ones such as Minneapolis, Louisville and Oklahoma City, have converted the traffic flow of major streets to two-way or laid out plans to do so. There has been virtually no movement in the other direction.

Minneapolis opened its First Street and Hennepin Street commercial areas to two-way traffic on October 11, hoping to pump some life into a stagnant corridor. It’s too early to draw any firm conclusions, but the early responses were mixed. First Street is home to several nightclubs, and some of them complained that bringing in two-way traffic made it difficult for bands with large trucks to park. “The city has royally screwed us,” one club manager declared. The city basically shrugged those complaints off. Its planners claimed the clubowners were making self-interested arguments that ignored the common benefits of a healthier street life.

Before World War II, one-way commercial streets were pretty rare in the United States. People frequented downtowns in which buses and streetcars negotiated two-way traffic, and they got off to shop at the stores that lined both sides of the street. Those who drove could park right along the sidewalk.

After the war, a couple of things happened. Civil defense planners, taking seriously the threat of nuclear attack, worried that residents trying to escape would create gridlock on the crowded two-way streets, imprisoning themselves in smoldering cities and causing many more casualties. The arterial streets were the only escape routes they had. Making them one-way, on an alternating basis, would speed things up and save lives. Or so it was thought.

But atomic bombs were only one factor that made civic leaders and transportation planners partial to one-way streets in the postwar years. They were worried about congestion, period. Some thought that the frustrations of moving through downtown the old-fashioned way were driving people to do their shopping in the suburbs. More mobility might mean more customers. Others, in those pre-Interstate days, cared mainly about the satisfaction of the suburbanites themselves. These people were using the arterial roads to commute in and out of the city, and there was little dispute that one-way streets could get them back and forth more quickly.

By the 1970s, though, there were new urban realities. Large portions of the Interstate Highway System were built, so nobody would have to flee the Soviets on gridlocked city streets. More important, downtown retail customers were shopping at suburban malls no matter what the local chamber of commerce did to try and stop them. Downtown had begun its long, familiar decline. The one-way streets fashioned in the 1950s and 1960s were still pretty good at whisking people out of central cities, but far fewer area residents wanted to enter the cities in the first place. Many downtown one-way streets became miniature speedways that served largely to frighten anyone who had the eccentric idea of strolling down the sidewalk.

Anyone who travels a lot to the center of big cities has had an experience like this: You arrive at night, and start looking for your hotel. You find it, but you can’t drive to the entrance because the street is one-way the other way. Finally you come to a street that goes the way you want, but once you get close again, the signs won’t allow you to make the turn you need to make. You can waste 20 minutes this way. And as you keep driving, you notice that the streets are empty anyway. Any reason that might have existed for turning them into single-purpose speedways simply did not apply anymore.

Meanwhile, local governments were slowly learning that the old two-way streets, whatever the occasional frustration, had real advantages in fostering urban life. Traffic moved at a more modest pace, and there was usually a row of cars parked by the curb to serve as a buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles. If you have trouble perceiving the difference, try asking yourself this question: How many successful sidewalk cafés have you ever encountered on a four-lane, one-way street with cars rushing by at 50 miles per hour? My guess is, very few indeed.

So over the past 10 years, dozens of cities have reconfigured one-way streets into two-way streets as a means of bringing their downtowns to life. The political leadership and the local business community usually join forces in favor of doing this. There are always arguments against it. Some of them are worth stopping to consider.

Among the critics are traffic engineers and academics who were taught some fixed principles of transportation in school decades ago and have never bothered to reconsider them. Joseph Dumas, a professor at the University of Tennessee, argued a few years ago that “the primary purpose of roads is to move traffic efficiently and safely, not to encourage or discourage business or rebuild parts of town . . . . Streets are tools for traffic engineering.”

If you agree that streets serve no other purpose than to move automobiles, you are unlikely to see much problem with making them one-way. On the other hand, if you think that streets possess the capacity to enhance the quality of urban life, you will probably consider the Dumas Doctrine to be nonsense. That is the way more and more cities are coming to feel.

There are other arguments. It’s sometimes said that more accidents occur on two-way streets than one-way streets. The research that supports this claim is decades old, and to my knowledge, has not been replicated. Even if you accept this argument, though, you might want to consider that, at slower speeds, the accidents on two-way streets are much more likely to be fender-benders at left-turn intersections, not harrowing high-speed crashes involving cars and pedestrians.

Finally, there are complaints from fire departments that it takes them longer to reach the scene of trouble when they have to thread their way around oncoming traffic, rather than taking a straight shot down a one-way speedway. I can’t refute this, and in any case, I don’t like arguing with fire departments. But I have to wonder how many people have died in burning buildings in recent years because a fire truck wasn’t allowed to use a one-way street.

I wouldn’t argue that two-way streets are any sort of panacea for urban revival, Vancouver’s experience notwithstanding. And I understand that they are not always practical. Some streets simply are too narrow to have traffic moving in both directions; others have to be designated one-way because their purpose is to feed traffic onto expressways.

What I would say is this: When it comes to designing or retrofitting streets, the burden of proof shouldn’t fall on those who want to use them the old-fashioned way. It should be on those who think the speedway ideology of the 1950s serves much of a purpose half a century later.

In his seminal book “Great Streets”, Allan Jacobs wrote “given a limited budget, the most effective expenditure of funds to improve a street would probably be on trees.”

I couldn’t agree more.

This is not simply an exercise in greenwashing or tree-hugging. In fact, when planning for cities one of the more damaging paths to go down is to think that green is always good. It’ll be interesting in fact when the current phase of green fancy dies down so we can start to have more rational discussions of what “green” is appropriate in a walkable environment and how much.

But I digress.

Street trees, on the other hand, are a simple intervention that is almost universally of value to walkability. And by street trees I do not mean ornamental, fruit, or flowering trees. Instead, I’m referring to the kind of tree that actually grows tall and provides shade over the sidewalk and the street. The virtues of these trees (or as engineers like to refer to them – fixed hazardous objects) are so numerous that it’s a wonder we often don’t have more rigorous programs for planting and maintenance. Here’s just a few:

-they provide shade and comfort for pedestrians
-they cool the pavement, extending its usable life (moderating temperature swings reduce cracking/swelling)
-they add beauty to the walking experience

And I’m sure we could go on.

Of course, there are important design issues to consider. First, try not to do too much; a consistent spacing of the same species not only provides a better canopy, but is more harmonious in appearance.

Second, be careful about the space needed for a good quality street tree. A minimum space is usually needed for long-term health (and sidewalk protection), but overdoing it in width is also unnecessary. High quality trees can very often work in 4 or 5′ grates or lawns. Again, match the species to the design goals and don’t fall back on one-size-fits-all solutions.

One other important thing about trees is that people love to volunteer time to plant them. So in terms of an effort that can be undertaken with fairly minimal expense, consider establishing a tree fund that volunteers can implement. It need not be brain surgery to lay the groundwork for a quality tree canopy.

Finally, a note on maintenance. Simply planting trees alone and letting them grow will not achieve the desired result. Trees do need some form of maintenance, including watering, fertilizing, and especially pruning. Limbing them up as they grow so that the trees grow “over” pedestrians (and building signs) is critical. Sometimes volunteer groups can do this, but often this kind of long-term effort requires a dedicated paid person or persons.

Below are two examples of tree use in the Kansas City area. The top example is that of the Westport area, home to many different shops and bars. The bottom picture shows a more residential setting in the Brookside area, south of downtown Kansas City.