America's most visible public space, the highway, ruined by traffic control devices

It is bad enough that most of our public spaces are perceived mostly through the frame of the windshield. And now that our attention is too often on the virtual landscapes of the GPS or, even worse, we are fully distracted by text messages, e-mail and gadgets of all kinds, highway engineers must have concluded that aesthetics don't matter at all any more. Not that public space aesthetics were often a top priority.  Thus, already in 1927 H.L. Mencken in his grim humor mused about the "libido of the ugly" suspecting "a love of the ugly for its own sake".
Indeed, campaigns such as Ladybird Johnson's Highway Beautification Act of 1965 can only be understood in the context of the institutional neglect of the public roam or worse, its continual assault on it. So here we find ourselves, many decades later still bemoaning the same things that bothered already Mencken when he traveled from Baltimore to Pittsburgh (although, truth be told, he traveled by train).

And that is why today there is a great deal of real joy within me, and within my family, as we meet here in this historic East Room to sign the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Now, this bill does more than control advertising and junkyards along the billions of dollars of highways that the people have built with their money--public money, not private money. It does more than give us the tools just to landscape some of those highways. This bill will bring the wonders of nature back into our daily lives. This bill will enrich our spirits and restore a small measure of our national greatness. Lyndon B Johnson, 1965

The quality and care of the American public space (or the lack thereof) is such a wide field that we want to narrow it down to one particular thing for the purpose of this blog: The way how utilities, street lights, signals and other electric equipment impose themselves and are seemingly in an arms race towards bigness and ugliness.
In a quest to create the strongest, most mass producible, cheapest to erect pole that can carry the largest possible number of signal-heads,  camera detectors, signs and streetlights safely through any kind of weather, the engineers came up with poles as fat as bridge pylons crudely bolted to baseplates floating above concrete footings. Inelegantly bolted to the sides of those pylons are cantilevers reaching in a ridiculously disproportionate way across all lanes of those huge intersections.

While bridge and building engineers traditionally tried to work "tectonically" i.e. design structures which follow elegantly the forces into the ground, these pylon-mast-arm beasts are designed on the concept of brute force and probably cost alone. Nationwide, these abominations are replacing the older more elegant pole and span-wire constructions that had a bit of the feel of third world when the signal heads were dangling in the wind, but did their job with a lot less steel.

Even inside cities, in real streets with sidewalks and buildings all around, the monster poles are replacing the historic poles which had brackets and often combined trolley wires,  street lights and signals. And while the highway departments are at it, they also add all kinds of boxes on or near the ground that house electric meters, transformers, conduit ends and whatever else is apparently needed these days to run a set of traffic control devices. These stainless steel boxes are not only less elegant than typical refrigerators, they often block the path and views for pedestrians.

It seems that in the past the two unholy partners of street uglification, the highway engineers and the utility engineers, had some level of collaboration. Thus, many times street lights were mounted on signal poles and signal poles were, in fact, also utility poles. Not any more. Now the signal poles spring up right next to the overloaded utility poles which are leaning already any which way under the cables, telephone wires and high voltage lines strung carelessly along our arteries and alleys.
The below photos speak for themselves.

It is time that we get out of our cars and walk our streets to see what has been done to them. Let's wake up and request design competitions for traffic control devices and maybe create some rules for the utilities as well. Let's revive President Johnson's thoughts about a quality public realm and prove Mencken wrong. We have  long way to go, though.

For a good example of how to design decent public spaces, we don't have to go no further than Washington DC, our capital. There we not only see beautiful plazas, parks and avenues but also attention to detail when it comes to utilities, power lines and signal devices.
Imagine, back when DC had streetcars, it didn't even allow them to have the overhead wires! (This discussion was recently revived when streetcars came back to DC on H Street). For traffic signals no mast-arms and no dangling heads are allowed. All signals sit on decorative posts at the corners of intersections and they have a nice historic color instead of flaming yellow.

The first four photos are all from one extra hideous intersection, but they could be pretty much anywhere in the US

Signal poles with huge cantilever arms require huge pylons, footings and connection bolts, often sitting in sidewalks creating tripping hazards. Plus there are meters and control boxes which block pathways and views for pedestrians.

Utility companies offer their poles to telephone companies and to cable companies until they are so loaded that any major storm could knock them over. This picture shows the next generation signal installation. No more span-wires, instead gigantic galvanized steel poles and mast-arms. Yet the utility poles will remain and so there is just additional clutter .

Notice the various street light types (cobra-head and box fixture, one uglier than the other). The ubiquitous cell phone tower makes an appropriate background. The old spanwire and the new mast arm mounted signals (still covered up) are seen together here.

That signals and lights can also be held up by much smaller poles is proven by this example in Manhattan. This is not a historic intersection although the equipment is modeled after historic precedents. This is new newly re-designed area of the Hudson Expressway where it comes down at grade near Battery Park.

Pioneer Square, Portland, historic traffic signal.  (Net image)

Four sided compact signals were hanging from wires over the center of Baltimore intersections before streets became one way streets. Some signals are still in place likes this one.

Washington DC, typical signal on fluted pole with grey or dark green colors instead of bright yellow. The District of Columbia does not allow the span-wires and mast arms and should be a model across the nation. (Net image)

Useful Links:
Project Public Spaces
The American Public Space
Learning From Las Vegas
The Geography of Nowhere
The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices

Growing Baltimore. Yes!

Finally growing Baltimore, the city that shrank by one third in 50 years, is on the agenda. The newly elected Mayor postulated this goal as a central theme of her inaugural speech. Good for her.

For years I have been pestering first Mayor Martin O'Malley and then Sheila Dixon with the slogan "Baltimore 850,000", a much more ambitious goal than 10,000 families in 10 years, but still. The Comprehensive Plan, the guiding planning document of the city, stated growth as a goal and includes a capacity analysis indicating that Baltimore has the infrastructure to support tens of thousands of new residents. Then a list of projects surfaced how Baltimore wants to attract growth expected from BRAC (the national base realignment that is supposed to bring 40,000 additional residents to Maryland) but was soon forgotten. Then the city started a new zoning code and a strategy towards growth in TOD zones (Transit oriented development).
But it took until now, that this become a banner goal stated by the Mayor for everyone to see.

See Dan Rodricks' column in the SUN:
Growing Baltimore, the only way!
I posted the following comment under his column online:

Rodricks is right, the forever naysayers and pessimists repeating the same old litany of Baltimore's ills over and over have no vision and not the one who lays out the goal of growth. The closest thing to a "silver bullet" which can solve urban decay is adding population and new demographics to the City. More people will makebetter schools, result in less crime and will allow to lower taxes. Those who think that this is impossible not only ignore the progress that the city has made in many areas but ignore also the demographic and cultural shifts out there, the stagnation in suburbs and the desire to live in urban and vital places which have begun to revitalize cities all across the nation. Progress is made not only around the harbor but also in many neighborhoods. Witness the communities around Patterson Park, along Eastern Avenue or go to Druid Heights and Reservoir Hill or Remington. That a depopulated city in decline can fill its vacant houses and become vital again has been proven. Look at Boston and compare it to the early seventies, or more recently, look how our neighbor DC has righted itself. Nobody says this is easy. But snide comments from those who prefer to sit in their armchairs and watch are of no help.

Hamden in its holiday glory

Baltimore Inner Harbor on a recent rainy night

Brandnew townhomes in Druid Heights, just completed in spite of the recession

Zero Energy Construction Crosses the Ocean. New York Times 12/4/11

The NYT article (link below) is interesting for a few particular messages:

1. The differential cost between standard construction and zero energy construction is higher in the US because the standard is cheaper (and lousier one might say, i.e. the base code requirements are lower)

2. The much lower cost of energy in the US makes it more difficult to amortize the extra cost for energy efficiency

3. Many of the products and technologies needed for energy efficient construction are not available in the US. This is a particular issue for government funded projects with a "Buy USA" requirement. It also drives cost up and uses energy for distant transport. 

The new ASHRAE standard and strengthened LEED requirements for energy should take of item 1. For item 2 we need higher taxes on energy so that higher cost is coupled with a public benefit instead of just profits for energy and oil.
Item 3 will take care of itself once the other two are in effect.

New York Times Article

USA
Canada
Germany (deutsch)

Example: Oberlin College

Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies--Oberlin College (Oberlin College Lewis Center)

Photo credit: John Petersen, Oberlin College Overview Location: Oberlin, OH Building type(s): Campus, Higher education, Library, Assembly New construction 13,600 ft2 (1,260 m2) Project scope: 2-story building Other setting Completed January 2000 Although the building opened for classes in 2000, modifications continue as the energy performance of the building is studied and is better understood. The building is part of an academic program and consequently has experimental aspects to it that are being evaluated. In addition, improvements will be made as new technologies become available. Rating: Green Building Challenge Rating: Zero Energy Building The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies is located on the Oberlin College campus in Oberlin, Ohio. It houses classroom and office space, an auditorium, a small environmental studies library and resource center, a wastewater-purification system in a greenhouse, and an open atrium. Zero Energy Building The Lewis Center is an all electric building and was designed with maximum energy efficiency in mind. The Lewis Center generates its own on-site electricity through a roof mounted 60 kW photovoltaic (PV) system and a 100 kW PV system located over the parking lot. Because of this, it is a net zero energy building (ZEB). Specifically, the Lewis Center is a: Site ZEB: Building produces at least as much energy as it uses in a year, when accounted for at the site. The Lewis Center is an all electric building that produces all energy on-site using PV. Source ZEB: Building produces at least as much energy as it uses in a year, when accounted for at the source. Because the Lewis Center is an all electric site ZEB it also qualifies as a source ZEB. Emissions ZEB: Building produces at least as much emissions-free renewable energy as it uses from emission-producing energy sources annually. The Lewis Center offsets any emissions for which it is responsible through its PV system which produces electricity with zero emissions. Environmental Aspects Upon initiation of the project, Professor David Orr asked three questions that continue to serve as a guiding philosophy for the Lewis Center: Is it possible—even in Ohio—to power buildings by current sunlight? Is it possible to create buildings that purify their own wastewater? Is it possible to build without compromising human or environmental health somewhere else or at some later time?

Background: (from http://zeb.buildinggreen.com/overview.

 Net Zero Energy Buildings

By Amanda Magee, PE
Steven Winter Associates, Inc.

Last updated: 07-26-2011

Within This Page

• Introduction
• Description
• Application
• Relevant Codes and Standards
• Additional Resources

Introduction

Amid growing concerns about rising energy prices, energy independence, and the impact of climate change, statistics show buildings to be the primary energy consumer in the U.S. This fact underscores the importance of targeting building energy use as a key to decreasing the nation's energy consumption. The building sector can significantly reduce energy use by incorporating energy-efficient strategies into the design, construction, and operation of new buildings and undertaking retrofits to improve the efficiency of existing buildings. It can further reduce dependence on fossil fuel derived energy by increasing use of on-site and off-site renewable energy sources.
The concept of a Net Zero Energy Building (NZEB), one which produces as much energy as it uses over the course of a year, recently has been evolving from research to reality. Currently, there are only a small number of highly efficient buildings that meet the criteria to be called "Net Zero". As a result of advances in construction technologies, renewable energy systems, and academic research, creating Net Zero Energy buildings is becoming more and more feasible.
While the exact definitions of metrics for "net zero energy" vary (this is discussed below), most agree that Net Zero Energy Buildings combine:

• Exemplary building design to minimize energy requirements
• Renewable energy systems that meet these reduced energy needs.

Description

Definitions

As the "zero energy" and "net zero energy" concepts are relatively new, there are not yet definitive, widely accepted zero-energy metrics. The Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have spearheaded much of the work on net zero energy buildings to date. NREL presents several definitions for "net zero energy", and they encourage building designers, owners, and operators to select the metric that best fits their project. The NREL publication Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical Look at the Definition (PDF 477 KB) explores definitions in detail, and it suggests four ways in which net zero energy may be defined:

Net Zero Site Energy

Net Zero Source Energy

Net Zero Energy Costs

Net Zero Energy Emissions

Site Energy refers to the energy consumed and generated at a site (e.g. a building), regardless of where or how that energy originated. In a net zero site energy building, for every unit of energy the building consumes over a year, it must generate a unit of energy.
Source Energy refers to primary energy needed to extract and deliver energy to a site, including the energy that may be lost or wasted in the process of generation, transmission and distribution. For example, a coal-burning power plant may generate 1 Joule of electricity for every 3 Joules of energy in the coal consumed. If natural gas is used at a site, for every 20 Joules consumed, 1 Joule may be needed to extract and distribute the gas to the site. Metrics for net zero source energy buildings account for these factors, though exact metrics can vary depending on site and utility factors.
Net Zero Energy Cost is perhaps the simplest metric to use: it means that the building has an energy utility bill of $0 over the course of a year. In some cases, building owners or operators may take advantage of selling Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) from on-site renewable generation.
Many conventional energy sources result in emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, etc. A Net Zero Energy Emissions building either uses no energy which results in emissions or offsets the emissions by exporting emissions-free energy (typically from on-site renewable energy systems).