Though parking lots are a necessary evil for many cities, surrendering space to automobiles places an undue burden on housing and urban development. On boulevards and avenues across the country, cars circle in an endless cycle, seeking the perfect parking spot and clogging city streets with noise, pollution and traffic. All the while, the space set aside for automobiles wreaks havoc on urban housing. In many cities, developers must provide adequate off-street parking options for any new construction, which ultimately undermines affordable housing initiatives. But what if there was a better way? Last month, the White House released its Housing Development Toolkit. A summary of suggested policy adjustments, the toolkit includes a number of suggestions aimed at helping cities increase affordable housing inventory. The toolkit’s recommendations cover tax adjustments, changes to local zoning laws, and the reduction or elimination of off-street parking requirements. “Parking requirements generally impose an undue burden on housing development, particularly for transit-oriented or affordable housing,” states the report. “By reducing parking and designing more connected, walkable developments, cities can reduce pollution, traffic congestion and improve economic development.” Killing the Commute In the 50s and 60s, the mass exodus to the suburbs was seen as a sign of progress. As incomes rose, families ditched apartment living for open spaces, big backyards, and longer commutes. Over the years, the distance between work and home has grown. These days, many Americans spend several hours a day locked in their vehicles traveling to and from the office. While once economic success once spurred urban flight, high rents and few options are behind today’s workforce relocation. With inflation rising and salaries stagnant, many workers find themselves priced out of their neighborhoods. Ironically, it’s often regulations on parking and transportation that end up adversely affecting affordable housing stock. As the toolkit explains, “These requirements have a disproportionate impact on housing for low-income households because these families tend to own fewer vehicles but are nonetheless burdened by the extra costs of parking’s inclusion in the development.” Low Rents and Bigger Inventories As the toolkit points out, many cities, including Denver, New York, and Minneapolis have already experienced positive results after reducing or eliminating minimum parking regulations. In Seattle, decreasing minimal parking requirements in the city center resulted in “a wave of new development, including hundreds of units with now associated parking spaces.” Even more, eye-opening, a study on Seattle’s decision corroborated the connection between minimum parking requirements and housing costs. In fact, not only did the requirements reduce the number of total units available, they often triggered 50% higher rents. No More Wasted Space With vacancies at a premium, it makes little sense to set aside large swaths of vacant property for the storage of cars often used just a few hours a day. In addition, vehicles in motion are equally nefarious. A study by UCLA urban planner Donald Shoup estimated vehicles cruising around a 15-block stretch of Los Angeles released 730 tons of carbon dioxide annually while also gulping down 47,000 gallons of gas. Apply those numbers nationally, and you can see why it makes good environmental and economic sense to not only move cars off the road but also eliminate the total number of private automobiles in urban environments. There will always be the stubborn holdouts who will cling to their steering wheels with steely determination. For most city dwellers, though, a functioning – and functional – public transportation infrastructure can make car ownership obsolete. Fewer cars ultimately mean fewer parking spots, freeing up all that square footage for housing, including affordable developments. In other words, for proponents of affordable housing, reducing or eliminating parking requirements is a win-win. “Minimum parking requirements [are] the most noted barrier to housing development,” states the Toolkit. “By reducing parking and designing more connected, walkable developments, cities can reduce pollution, traffic congestion and improve economic...

In the quest for a healthier, more transit-friendly Atlanta, a growing grassroots movement is backing the BeltLine plan. The Atlanta BeltLine, which includes 1,300 acres of parks, 33 miles of multi-use trails, 22 miles of rail transit, and 5,600 units of affordable housing, has grown from a seedling in the mind of a Georgia Tech student into a full-fledged redevelopment movement supported by civil leaders, residents, and national environmental organizations. Repurposed historic railway corridors and remediated brownfield make up the backbone of the BeltLine, accompanied by the addition of new parks and trails that unite various parts of the city into one, easily accessible whole. The BeltLine has caught the attention of multiple media outlets, and recently earned praise from The Sierra Club’s Smart Choices, Less Traffic report, where it was heralded as one of the nation’s finest examples of eco-conscious transportation initiatives. “If they pull it off, and I think they will, it will be a model, and pull them out of the economic doldrums they are in,” said Chris Leinberger, a leading scholar and expert on walkable urbanism. “The BeltLine is going to save the city of Atlanta and become a major economic generator for the entire region.” Most civic support has been poured into the transit lines. The BeltLine holds the ability to make the neighborhoods of Atlanta more accessible and united. A poorly developed public transit system and mind-numbing traffic (Atlanta tops Forbes’ “Worst Cities for Commuters List”)  currently locks residents within their neighborhoods and suburbs. To ease transportation woes, the BeltLine will connect 45 neighborhoods via rapid rail transit, merging with existing MARTA systems to extend access to the city’s suburbs. As each segment of the BeltLine reaches completion, more residents can enjoy abbreviated commute times. Improved public transit will also reduce Georgian’s dependency on personal motorized vehicles and the carbon footprint that they leave behind. While the transit line holds the greatest appeal for most Atlantans, it is also the source of the most contention. BeltLine progress has been vastly determined by referendums, the most recent of which failed to gain sufficient support. TSPLOST, which would have added a 1 percent sales tax to raise funds for portions of the project, was declined. Impeded but not deterred, leadership plows forward with the plan. Small victories, such as the recent Old Fourth Ward land acquisition, have kept the BeltLine vision alive. Earlier this year, Atlanta BeltLine Inc. purchased .76 acres of land from The Trust for Public Land. Though insubstantial in size, the space will make a huge impact on the BeltLine’s cohesion. The property will connect the new Eastside Trail with Historic Fourth Ward Park, allowing pedestrians a clear connection to Piedmont Park, Freedom Park Trail, and Jimmy Carter Presidential Library complex. Construction is slated for completion in 2014. Overtime, the Historic Old Fourth Ward property will connect with six existing parks. Researchers have realized that no single type of green space completes a snapshot of a healthier Atlanta, which is a secondary BeltLine goal. Walkability requires a combination of parks, urban gardens, playgrounds, woodlands, alternative transit routes and community plazas to develop an urban culture that is environmentally responsible and promotes residents’ physical and mental health. This spring, Atlanta BeltLine is collaborating with the City of Atlanta to replace the Edgewood Avenue bridge. Pedestrian walkways will be added to the new structure. By April 2014, the new Edgewood Avenue bridge will connect the Eastside Trail to Lake Avenue, DeKalb Avenue, and Irwin Street. This small link in the chain proves to be as important as any other, improving pedestrian access to multiple neighborhoods and their resources. To connect the various parks and residential corridors, a 33-mile network of multi-use trails is in the works. Fortunately for project planners, 22 miles of the trails were previously used for the railroad, thus offering relatively clear and maintained grounds upon which to build. Other portions...

Without making a few drastic changes to the way that American students see creativity, Americans will continue to lag behind other nations in innovative architecture. As the daughter of a very zealous architect, I have grown up tuned-in to the trends that pass through the world of architecture. Our coffee table was stacked with photography books depicting the boldest, most ingenious designs. As a teen, though, I looked at those texts like images from another world. They differed from the boring block school that I attended or the quadrant-riddled hospital a block from my house. Those fancy buildings were elsewhere. Like Sweden. Not much has changed since I was a teen and the rest of the world is beginning to take notice. With the exception of a few shining stars (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and Steven Holl come to mind in recent history) American architecture seems to lack the creative edge seen in places like Singapore, Japan, Denmark, and China. The lack of innovation goes beyond aesthetics into energy efficiency, resource harvesting and conservation. Many new American firms refuse to toe the boundaries already broken by international counterparts. Some believe the cause is a lack of creativity on behalf of American clients and architects. An appreciation and pursuit of ingenuity has dwindled in our culture. Newsweek ran an article featuring the research of Kyung Hee Kim, associate professor of educational psychology at the College of William & Mary. Kim administered the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) which measures three fields of creativity, with questions including topics such as art, mathematics, engineering, science, and interpersonal relationships. After studying the results of 300,000 American participant, Kim noticed a marked decline in creativity when comparing notes to past studies. The scores for elaboration—“ the ability to develop and elaborate upon ideas and detailed and reflective thinking [that] also indicates motivation to be creative”—dropped most significantly “by 19.41% from 1984 to 1990, by 24.62% from 1984 to 1998, and by 36.80% from 1984 to 2008.” According to the tests, the nation has lost the motivation to be creative. As Kim sees it, “The recent decreases in creativity measures indicate a threat to national security.” She stands corrected on a few fronts. In the past, American ingenuity propelled a young, inexperienced nation to stand as a world leader on the forefront of science, technology, and industry. Such haughty accolades seem to be slipping through our fingers by the day. Beyond walking with our heads held high, ingenuity leads to creative ways to solve daily problems. Without that creativity, our very cities are at risk. Brent Ryan, the Linde Career Development Assistant Professor of Urban Design and Public Policy in MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning believes that “bolder, more distinctive civic projects can enhance the comparative advantages of cities as dense, diverse, lively places to live.” In a recent interview he explained that shrinking cities such as Detroit and Philadelphia need a boost in inventiveness to get back on track. Good design (not nearly functional design) shows residents that a city is moving forward; without visual representations of progressive thinking, “it’s harder for [residents] to see a development in their city that leads the way forward.” Good design speaks to structures that inspire minds and solve problems: managing stormwater, recycling graywater, conserving and producing energy, and so fourth. Dying cities need buildings that cooperate with the surrounding environment and support healthy lifestyles for dwellers’ instead of working against them both. To Ryan, innovation should extend beyond opera houses and high rises to “reunite a social agenda with a progressive design agenda.” Without such a creative approach to building, struggling cities risk falling into further disarray. Harboring a tradition of mediocre design may also threaten our nation by alienating the creative minds that we have with us. Frank X. Arvan, President of the American Institute of Architects in Detroit, issued a compelling letter...