Wanted to let everyone know about this upcoming conference that the MassDOT will be putting on next week. Please see the invite below from Joshua Robin, MassDOT.

----- 

On Eventbrite here: http://massdotdevconference.eventbrite.com/

The Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation is pleased to invite you to the MassDOT Developers Conference, on November 14th, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, MA. The Conference is free and open to the public. EOT, which becomes MassDOT on November 1, is also announcing the 2009 EOT Developers Challenge, which inspires developers to create both applications and data visualizations, to submit them to EOT, and to release them to the public. The two top submissions will receive a CharlieCard valid for one-year of free travel on the MBTA, in addition to recognition at the Conference.

Our multi-modal data set, hosted on the EOT Developers Page, is being used by smart, innovative software developers to build applications that benefit transportation users, travelers, and riders. EOT has engaged these developers, holding developers’ meetings and engaging the community through Twitter and Google Groups, and hopes to expand its data and incorporate more information in real-time. The Conference and Challenge are a fantastic opportunity to engage in the process of turning this data into an application that has impact in the real-world. It also provides participants a stage to showcase their work.

The Conference and Challenge are part of the Patrick Administration’s commitment to comprehensive transportation reform and creating a modern, efficient, and customer-friendly transportation system. These initiatives are also a part of Governor Patrick’s Civic Engagement agenda, which seeks to foster creative new ways for citizens to engage in state government. A Boston Globe editorial has labeled the Developers Page "a smart, 21st-century alternative," and the program was featured in a front-page story in the Boston Metro newspaper.

The Conference and Challenge are modeled on similar efforts in Washington D.C., where the city's Apps for Democracy program returned 47 iPhone, Facebook and web applications with an estimated value in excess of $2,600,000 to the city. Applications and visualizations may be submitted through November 9th, 2009. Developers and data visualization experts will submit their creations to EOT, where the applications will be judged on the quality of design, usability, and convenience. The two first-place winners in each category will each receive a CharlieCard valid for one year of travel on the MBTA’s rapid-transit and bus system.

The Conference is free and open to the public. It will include plenary sessions featuring speakers from the transportation and technology community, and breakout sessions, where developers can meet to discuss EOT’s data and what applications they are working on. The Conference will also include training sessions for the Regional Transit Authorities, which provide transit services outside of Greater Boston, to help those agencies maintain their data in open and available formats on the Developers Page.

Please email Joshua Robin at joshua.robin@eot.state.ma.us with questions or comments. 
To RSVP please click here: http://massdotdevconference.eventbrite.com/

First-year UEPer Marcus Rozbitsky suggested this book review of "Green Metropolis".

While I haven't yet read the book, I found the points made by the review to resonate with discussions from a few of our UEP classes.

In "Developing Sustainable Communities," Dr. J examines and points out the fact that "green" and "sustainable" have become such marketing terms that the message is getting lost and may potentially be diluting the effort. David Owen seems to attack that effort to market through "green actions" by instead changing the entire message. Instead of writing yet another book that purports what we should be doing, Owen has instead taking the perspective of starting at "what are we doing right?" This same question was recently raised by Barbara Parmenter in the "Cities in Space, Place, and Time" class. All too often, planners ask what the community wants rather than asking what the public also likes about their community so as to make sure those initiatives continue.

By examining "what we're doing right," Owen's determines that communities like New York City are the models we should follow. Through denser and closely-integrated neighborhoods, resources and energy needs are reduced. Of course it's pointed out that New York City's model status was not so much created thanks to numerous, forward-thinking policy initiatives, but more so due to development pattern, speed of growth, and geographical constraints.

Reviewer Margaret Mittelbach certainly paints a great picture regarding Owen's efforts to shift our thinking around green. If you've read the book, please let us know what you think about Owen's examination. 

The auto industry is back at it. In the wake of near collapse, manufacturers are on the attack and on multiple fronts. Americans are shifting (slowly) away from an auto-scentric view to a more multimodal paradigm. Did anyone get to go to Rail~Volution this weekend at the Westin (some really great information and a lot of energy)? But the car companies won't give up without a fight.

Exhibit A
Advertising - Audi recently put out a new ad to promote their "clean diesel" A3 TDI. As they put it, it's more "fun" to do your part by driving their car rather than using any alternative to the automobile. It's quite funny how they show the negative aspects to alternative travel methods and not a single negative aspect to driving a car.

Exhibit B
Design Competition - Lexus is sponsoring the Parkitecture Design Competition. As Americans decide to use other transit options, the need for multiple cars within their family is shrinking. Lexus thinks otherwise. The competition promotes the concept of 1) a free-standing building (great use of land area) and 2) the need to store up to three autos (though they do not state this is for the hypothetical family but they also do not state that you should consider in the design the access by multiple families).

With big budgets and already-established mechanisms, the auto industry has the potential of slowing and/or steering the multimodal paradigm shift that has been brewing. How can we sustain and continue this shift, given this bear's desire to monopolize?

Wired Magazine ran a feature earlier this year about the effect of designing under constraint. The primary point of the section dealt with the fact that artists, architects, engineers, and designers work best when they are provided a set of guidelines under which to produce a work. It is under these restrictions that innovation and creativity flourish. Wired quickly sets this view of constraint against the lack of restraint that led to the housing market and financial crash. It is generally accepted now (though certainly in discussion) that regulation is needed. As Scott Dadich points out "the lack of limits has proven to be a false freedom."

Planning certainly falls under the hat of "regulation." Does planning work best when we as planners are faced with restrictions (NIMBY-ism, environmental protection, public involvement) or lack thereof (urban renewal)?

A couple things to think about:
Jane Jacobs would probably prefer to restrict/end planning altogether.
And then there's the fact that the APA just gave a planning award to the Houston neighborhood of Montrose, an unplanned neighborhood.

So where does that leave us? Are we like the designers, able to provide a better built environment to the public through restrictions (both on ourselves and on the practice of building)? As the policy writers, do barriers help us to frame an issue and focus on potential actions and initiatives?

This evening, the MA Chapter of the APA and MIT hosted a talk by Anthony Flint about his new book Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took On New York's Master Builder And Transformed The American City". Attended by about 50 people, the group included professors, practitioners and students from across Massachusetts.

To begin with, Flint described the present focus on planning - infill, redevelopment, building off of and expanding public transit. As he noted, this stands in stark contrast to the actions happening in the 1960s - and it was these two pivotal people (Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs) who helped get us to where we are today.

It was interesting to hear how he compared the two. Generally, the planning field is (now) very critical of Robert Moses while many (especially the New Urbanists) praise Jane Jacobs. It turns out though that they had their similarities and weren't wholly positive or negative.

One of the biggest issues facing planners these days is NIMBY-ism (Not-In-My-Back-Yard). Flint pointed out that it was Jacobs that really started this concept. Her efforts to protect New York's neighborhoods from demolition for highway projects encouraged the public to protect their home and the area around it. He also noted that it was this same "protectionism" that she sponsored that saved homes in the West Village. That same neighborhood has gone through major gentrification, resulting in the displacement of the same people Jacobs wanted to save from highway displacement. It's resulted in a new guerilla campaign More Jane Less Marc. Of course, he brand of public concern and action had a much greater positive effect - such as the great freeway revolts in Boston and San Francisco.

While Jacobs provided America with the concept of "human-scale neighborhoods," Flint made the case for Moses's concern and focus on infrastructure. We are at the cusp of an infrastructure meltdown. Sadly, the public backlash regarding Moses caused us to turn away from infrastructure rather than incorporate it equitably.

Flint closed his presentation with the question "How does a city reinvent itself?" Jacobs left us the owner's manual for the city and neighborhood. Now we need to embrace density through proper design and scale, transit node focus, and distribution of parks.

Following his presentation, Flint opened the floor to questions and discussions. These included:

• Do we need government subsidies?
• What will be the effect of the new MassDOT
• Smart growth initiative for mixed-income developments
• How to balance NIMBY-ism
• Developing on/near the Greenway
• Flint's concern and focus on climate change and our responsibility for immediate action
• Where is the future of planning heading?
• The importance of visualizing a plan through new technology and how it fits into the regional framework
• Jacobs would support the Times Square traffic calming measures (she attempted something similar) and potential congestion charges
• Potential for sustainability to converge the engineering and planning fields

This past Monday, the US Green Building Council (USGBC) approved transitioning the LEED for Neighborhood Development pilot program into a full certification program. Up to this point, this certification process was provided to a select few projects in the US. The USGBC put the program up to a vote and all four voting organizations (Congress for the New Urbanism members, CNU Board of Directors, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the USGBC) approved the transition. 

The main difference between LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) and LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) is the project impact scope. A major criticism of the LEED-NC system is that a developer could build a Platinum LEED structure - out in suburbia in a greenfield. The LEED-NC does not evaluate the infrastructure needs, location, or transportation for a project. LEED-ND on the other hand acknowledges a large scope of impact. Developers are evaluated on use of land, correlation with surrounding use, consideration for brownfields, and access to public transit - to name a few.

The LEED-ND system is studied and incorporated into Christine Cousineau's "Green Urban Design" course.

For the New Urbanism News article about this: click here. 

To learn about the USGBC and its LEED accreditation programs: click here.