Ditch the Car

Back to Brookline: a relatively new city as far as the East Coast is concerned. It is quite plausible to say that I see more morning and evening commuters using mass transit than I do in cars.  That isn’t to say locals do not have or drive cars; they simply aren’t as necessary.  Boston is among one of the last cities (that I can think of or find through research) which has kept its above rail system the same from conception.  San Francisco is another and over the years has impressively incorporated street cars from other US cities with failing systems.  These days, the SF street car line is more of a novelty, just as the cable car line is.  The Green Line of Boston’s “T” system is a similar system with much more extensive destinations.  The line uses cars similar to a street car, but made more suitable for also traveling underground.  Some, but few, lines of Boston’s street car system were abandoned once the streets became more car friendly; however, the lines that do still exist (the B,C,D, and E) run similarly through the street and with traffic, just as they would have a century ago.

Park Street Station, one of Boston’s first T stops, is now a major destination for commuters and tourists.  It is used similar to the way it was completed in 1894, with the addition of the Red Line and later the Orange Line.  As I commuted through Park Street Station yesterday, my attention was quickly turned to a recently posted piece of signage denoting the station’s history.  It was nothing more than a large sign with simple text and an original blown up photograph taken during construction.  These and other memorabilia (including an original early 1900’s street car) can be found throughout several Green Line stops.  It is a simple gesture, some might find as a reminder, to signify the history of the T system.  For many Bostonians, especially those who are part of the “generational effect,” it is incredibly easy to take for granted how easy it is it to get around in this city.

The T system, all governed by one management system, MBTA, is a mass transit system that promotes fluidity and efficiently.  I digress to clarify that the transit systems of LA, SF, Seattle, and others alike in size are made up of multiple transit authorities.  For cities like Boston (even more impressive, New York) to use a consolidated method, adjoining its commuter rail, bus, subway, and ferry transits into one organized system is impressive, but more so, it is incredibly effective.  Most people in Boston don’t second guess using the T (subway) or the busses.  Before living in Brookline- where I travel primarily by T- I lived in Brighton Center, where commuting via bus was the norm.  Yes, many people in Brighton drive to work, but a staggering number of middle class Bostonians (including all surrounding metropolitan cities, districts, or towns) use the bus.

I was a bit ignorant to the idea of using public transit before moving to Boston.  The cities which I resided in previously never quite drew me into the idea of using an alternative method of getting around at a consistent degree of usage.  I used the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and CalTrain every now and then in the Bay Area and Septa in Philly (in a very apprehensive state), but not to the point of appreciating it thoroughly for what it was.  Like many suburban Americans, I grew up always having a ride to and from a specific location via car.

After my first year of living in Boston, I concluded that many Bostonians using the T, view it is as a way of life.  There is rarely a question of safety, security, or scheduling.  With this, I made sure my relatively recent move to Brookline from Brighton entailed having close proximity to a T stop.

How to Ruin a City

My recent move to the city of Brookline, a local town within the metropolitan Boston area, has greatly increased my awareness for mobility.  In an earlier thought regarding the lack of mobility in the greater Los Angeles area, I expressed the lack of automotive access with the ever increasing growth of the city.  I am eager to admit that for once in the past century the “automobile” is losing popularity.  Around the country, local and state officials are seeking alternate methods of improving America’s “car crisis” by investing interest in rail and rapid transit.  For conundrums such as LA’s- with such a vast amount of land occupation, and land use strictly needed for commuting- the problem lies heavily on the local governments’ ability to accept the problem and agree to fix it.

 In the LA’s defense, they are doing as much as they can.  The city has desperately, yet unsuccessfully, attempted fixing and updating the mass transit system.  I would not say that it has totally failed, but it has very low ridership.  And with few people riding the mass transit, it appears to be failing before our eyes.  In fact, many people forget that LA has a subway system.  Remember, it was under construction (an overwhelmingly drawn out phase of its birth) during the final scenes of Speed…where Keanu finally kisses the random bus rider, Sandra Bullock atop a mass of construction rubble- a possible hint of foreshadowing for the subway’s future demise? 

The system was proposed to be completed well before the final shots of Speed were filmed- a metaphor for the surrounding transit systems as a whole- a day late, a buck short.  Come to think of it, why was there a 60 foot gap in the freeway that Keanue had to jump with a 1950’s style bus?  Yet another transparent shortcoming for Caltrans (California Transportation Authority) revealed by the mid-nineties melodramatic screenplay.  In addition, the incomplete system is meager to accommodate the geographical makeup of the surrounding areas needing an efficient method of commuting in and out of LA’s financial district.  I’ll have a Speed refresher soon- I’m sure the director has noted this imperfection as well.

All in all, the city of LA grew up too fast for the citizens and the local technology to catch up.  Like many cities in the early 20^th century, LA had a thriving street car system.  As the city grew outward, it grew out of its ability to provide adequate transport to the suburbs, where the majority of the population was forming.  Eventually, like the rest of the street car-friendly cities (but not all, as I am soon to divulge) the idea was abandoned for more up-to-date technologies.   LA’s solution to traffic, failing mass transit, and transportation efficiency has been in the works for decades.  The outcome of political agendas, lack of resources and funds, and social ignorance has allowed the transportation problem to flourish; additions have been made at small scales and large –yet reluctant- budgets, and in effect an outdated master plan is being realized at the same time as new methods and technologies are available.  The unfortunate reality is that the massive scale which would be necessary to allow ease of transport for commuters from all local regions would be so extensive that it may just be impractical.   The saving grace is California residents keep the automotive market competitive.  

Getting Around

It is plain to say that all cities have their uniquenesses.  All cities have their cultural fabric, vernacular qualities, weather climates, historical context, occupied land area, geographical relationships, and so forth; there are thousands of specific qualities that delineate one from the next.  One that I'm becoming very familiar with is the circulatory layout.  This may encompass several ideas: mass transit, pedestrian traffic, and road and highway configuration.  While appearing to all be inherently different, they all serve the same general purpose: transportation.

Due to the abundant popularity the car gained in the 20th century, our cities merely molded to the concept of automobile transport for future planning purposes.  Unlike the older American cities on the east coast- who's city streets had been established decades and sometimes centuries prior- western American cities and towns were quick to embrace the newer technology.  The car allowed faster transport, which meant wider and longer spans of roadway, which in turn allowed and enabled linear growth.  Often used as an example is Los Angeles and respectfully so.  Now the biggest city in the US in land area, it portrays a sense of infinity.

With very little context of a "downtown" district, LA has zoned its city in a way that discourages any centralized point of the city.  One may argue that "downtown is where the taller buildings are."  Rarely do residents or vacationers seek out "downtown" LA as a travel destination.  So, where would one want to go in LA?  Anywhere that is easy to get to?  Good luck.  A standard commute anywhere in or around LA is a 45 minute mess.  Traffic is inevitable in this day in age regardless of the city; however, the ratio of cars to drivable area within LA is staggering.  Moreover, the dependency of cars in southern California is greater than any city I've ever lived in or even visited.

It appeared to me that California land growth in the 20th century was in competition with the state's automotive growth.  From Chula Vista- California's most southern city before Mexico- and the city of Santa  Barbara- the most northern extension of the Los Angeles metropolitan area- is a 250 mile stretch of uninterrupted land, mostly developed with the exception of Camp Pendleton Marine Base.  After making this drive numerous times, I have come to realize the cohesiveness each bordering city has with one another, almost to the effect that there aren't borders at all.  Where does one city one city need to end and another begin if there are merely 250 miles of continuous cities?  Let me note that these cities lack the unique and distinguishable qualities any one New Englander might be able to relate to.

I digress by adding that much of the state of California is uninhabited or used as farmland.  This statistic reveals the disparity between the populated presence in such locations like the Bay Area and LA versus the sparsely occupied areas of the Central Valley, Mendocino and Shasta.  Generally, the sprawl that came from centralized overcrowding created bad habits for our political heads, planners, developers, and architects.    Opposed to the generation effect (based on the idea that cities grow as families grow and stay grounded within the same city), cities like LA sprouted up from virtually nowhere and all patrons involved with the planning process developed outward and carelessly, rather than upward, mindfully.  Over time, this rapid and conscienceless expanse has shown faltering environmental, social, and economical effects.

The Beginning

For months now, I've been working up the motivation to write of my knowledge in design, society, built environments, cities, and everything in between. Recently, I've spent a lot of time reading and learning about the design perspectives from a bystander's point of view. I found it so interesting that I thought, "not only do I wish to reveal my thoughts, but also convey them as a design; through images, drawings, analysis, etc."- merely the point for which I am writing as we speak.

I am a bit reluctant to admit that my New Year's resolution to "read and write more" was the over-ruling factor to finally begin documenting my observations. But it isn't as if I have little to discuss. In fact, the topics which I choose to expose are numerous and extensive.

It has been decades in the making that will truly allow these personal reflections to achieve credibility and personality. In these years, I have spent time traveling to and living within a variety of North and Central American cities. I am the first to advocate traveling, but furthermore, I would encourage a stint of grounded living in a community varying greatly to that of any experience prior. I speak in retrospect. I obviously did not understand the positive outcome moving and traveling would have on me. More importantly and ironically, I am grateful in that it provokes a unique design perspective.

As an undergraduate, I was given the opportunity to travel abroad like many undergrads are. To this day, I would not be able to give a reasonable explanation why I never studied any further than outside the US. I wish I had, but do not regret it. In fact, I haven't even traveled to Europe. Instead, I have 27 years attributed to living in (6) US states, (8) cities, and (10) residences (excluding the numerous college pads where I resided for a year on average). More than that, I have traveled to all but 8 continental US states, many parts of the Caribbean, and various cities in Mexico, and Central America.

I'm not sure how and even if I would benefit from "vacationing" to Europe (or any foreign country or continent for that matter with such differing cultures and history). By no means would I not take up an opportunity to experience civilizations with such uniqueness from mine. Maybe I am a bit regretful. Moving on, though, the reality of me applying what I see or learn to my design career is almost unlikely to occur. The histories and civilizations which have spawn from countries with such age gaps over the Americas are so vastly different that the application of gathered information toward a project with such varying context is merely irrelevant. In Lehman's terms, I can be more informative as a designer towards a project with application of varying US knowledge over that of knowledge from anywhere else.

That said, America is much more diverse than it is ever given credit for. To be able to fathom the diversity, combined with the richness of history and culture that Japan or Italy have would be incomprehensible for your average 22 year old. Backpack through the US. Try understanding where you live. Spend a Winter in Chicago or a Summer in Phoenix. There may not be any glamor to my proposal, but it is a conceivable reality.