Some Examples of Structural Adaptivity

As a follow-up to my post titled A New Approach, following below are several examples of how I propose that structural adaptivity should be applied as a guiding principle for future growth and development in the US.  As I explained before, I believe that structural adaptivity is the only logical approach to building our man-made environment for a rapidly changing, uncertain, unpredictable future.

Bus Rapid Transit.  Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a system of individual self-propelled vehicles (often several linked together) that can and do travel on conventional streets and highways, on dedicated lanes on surface streets, and/or on separate intersection-free busways dedicated to buses only.  Likewise, the rapid transit buses can leave their normal routes of travel and enter and leave most all areas of a city or region.  As a modern system providing rapid mass transit, it also normally has features similar to rail rapid transit, e.g., off-board fare collection, platform-level boarding, efficient and rapid scheduling, etc., and it oftentimes has traffic signaling priority at any street intersections.

We must change our thinking to favor bus rapid transit over rail rapid transit.  BRT is a much more adaptive and resilient system suitable for our needs.  Bus rapid transit is the most adaptable existing type of system for moving large numbers of people at decent speeds.  It should be the focus of our transit plans for at least the first half of this century.  It is already succeeding in other countries and provides many advantages. 

BRT can be moved from one location or corridor to another when needed, can be expanded or shortened in length quickly, and can be built in incremental stages with different stages involving expanded services areas and/or involving increased quality, comfort, speed and technological improvement.  Likewise, the vehicles can deviate off their normal route if necessary even into residential and other neighborhoods then linking back into the primary bus-way.  The vehicles can operate on their own bus-way or on the existing road system, can operate from different power sources, and can operate with a wide variety of spacing distance options for stations stops.  Costs to build the systems are far less than light rail and are quicker to build/establish.  Additionally, with their flexibility to deviate from their main bus-ways, they offer many more service advantages for handicapped, elderly and children.

BRTs are certainly less vulnerable than rail rapid transit to the negative consequences of a major catastrophe and they would be far superior in assisting with meeting the rescue, evacuation and re-building process after a catastrophe.

BRT systems, being a fairly new concept in city and regional development in our part of the world, are well established and successful in many parts ofSouth America,Europe, andAsia.  (One of the systems is reported to carry more than 10,000 passengers per hour in peak directions and handle more than 50% of all vehicle trips.)  BRTs are also being tried out or seriously considered in some parts of the US, including Los Angeles, Boston, Northern Virginia, Eugene Oregon, and others.  The US Federal Transit Administration is now including them in its planning, reporting and other functions.

In-fill Development.  Now, consider the current focus of planners and other development leaders on always wanting to push new or re-development into vacant or under-developed urban land space.  This includes land spaces that always have been vacant or agricultural, land spaces upon which development has been removed, and land upon which the tax revenues are so modest that there is pressure to re-development them for a much “higher use.”  Often in-fill development is tied to increasing the tax base of the area but it also seems to have taken on a shtick of its own.  The idea that all lands within urban areas must be fully developed in order to achieve maximum efficiency of the urban “network” is dangerous and non-adaptive. 

There are many changes coming that will need pockets of vacant and/or underdeveloped land in order to be incorporated quickly into our fast moving economy and way of life.  In the situation of global warming, for example, many espouse the idea that we will produce less carbon byproducts by having every one living and doing business as closely together as possible.  However, once the climate is considerable warmer, we will also need more pockets of tress and other vegetation for their cooling effects. 

In addition, if we soon become a nation of many more tele-workers, we will need spaces within each neighborhood for service business to support the tele-workers in their own neighborhoods.  Moreover, if energy begins coming to us from satellites, we need spaces for energy receivers in local areas/neighborhoods.  And, as people live longer and longer lives, unless we want them all to live in large institutional developments on the edge of cities, we need sites to build small senior citizen centers and housing still within our neighborhoods.   Many more examples could be cited.

In-fill development sometimes can be a good choice but, as a rule, it should not be promoted automatically.  

More research and planning are needed to establish good guidelines in decision-making for these many situations.  Such research and planning should consider possibilities of short-term temporary uses/development and open space uses (subjects that will be discussed more).  It should also look into how to generate more governmental revenues (and other public benefits) from short-term and temporary uses to offset the perceived loss of such revenues from in-fill development.

We need rather quick opportunities for adapting to changes in what people want and need.  In-fill, short-term, and open space uses must be operated as an adaptivity “system” or “network,” in unison with each other, supplying the urban area with a ready reserve of developable land in critical and strategically planned locations.

Mega-structures/developments.  Mega-structures/developments should be built only with great caution and care.  Few are resilient or adaptable.  Idealistic, long-term solutions to meeting our needs must be postponed.

Most futures-oriented planning often presents fascinating projections of giant superstructures right out of science fiction.  In some cases, these are already being built.  Maybe someday these will come but we now live in a world which is changing too fast to believe that we know what types of mega-structures will have long term usefulness. However, not now.  Risk management goals must supersede our desires for such monuments to our pride.  We need to adopt a “no regrets” strategy.

No doubt, there will still be a need for such structures in some cases.  Large transportation structures, giant buildings, entertainment complexes, sea walls, water storage facilities, energy generators, and similar structures will continue to be built.  However, caution must be abided to avoid construction of anything that we make such a commitment to that we become “trapped” to continue supporting it for a long-term period of time.  Moreover, we need to make them no larger than is absolutely necessary.  They must be designed to be adaptable – to be capable of going through any number of changes and to be removed if no longer needed.

Maybe by midcentury, we will be better equipped to make long-term commitments to such major decisions about what will, in the long-term, be needed and have substantial permanence.

Re-balance the location of major urban development in the US.  This example is a long-term activity.  Significant progress can only be made over many decades.  Regardless, if we are really serious about achieving resilience for our country, we must start the long-term activities as well as the more immediately needed activities at the same time.

Today, the US has a totally unbalanced spatial structure of urban development clustered mostly along the ocean coastlines in groupings we are now calling “megalopolises.”  Of the very largest metro areas, those with populations of more than 5 million, 94 percent of their residents are located on or within several hundred miles of the coastlines adjacent to the oceans, gulf, and Great Lakes. 

Not only does this existing pattern lead to the problems of livability, it is totally non-adaptable.  In order for the US to meet the future, it must be able to continue its economic strength if any of the major metro areas fails or greatly weakens.  It must be able to shift people, economic activity, governance, and all related activities from one area of the country to another, from coastal areas to inland areas, from the warmest areas to the colder areas, from low rainfall areas to high rainfall areas, etc.  Moreover, by having a diversity of large urban centers in a great variety of locations with a great variety of resources, each competing with each other in their methods and strategies, we will have greater capacity to keep coming up with the best solutions to the problems of the day.

Re-balancing is already underway in other countries.  In the European Union, for example, they have developed policies and investments, including re-balancing policies and investments, for the entire continent and for regions that cross national boundaries, under the umbrella of the European Spatial Development Perspective. Other countries or areas are also on the record for their re-balancing ideas and programs, including many of the individual countries inEurope, plusJapan(e.g., the “growth pole development strategy”), Israel, Australia, Madagascar, China, Turkey, North Africa, Philippines, Chile, and many others, depending on how spatial rebalancing is defined. 

Re-balancing will need to focus primarily on positive actions, not on regulations or penalties.  It needs to focus on the underlying forces of the free market that are likely to take us in that direction anyway - especially the forces which come from private business operated risk management.  The risks of living in many of the largest urban areas, if translated into their true costs to our society, and especially if translated into actual charges on the people and businesses occupying such urban areas, will eventually exercise a strong force on our society to re-balance itself. 

Re-Localization.  Re-localization is already beginning to be a significant force in the US.  It goes by many names:  transition towns, bioregionalism, sustainable living, open source ecology, etc., some of which are more about back to the land, low tech, or survivalism, but all are contributing to the movement.  I am using the term in reference to a community or region gaining the capacity to locally produce many of the goods and services it needs on a more or less daily basis.

As we are able to re-balance our regions in the US, we must also make them reasonably independent for short-term time periods.  By this, I mean reasonably independent from the whole, and reasonably independent from each other - to the extent practical.  Each region must be able to adapt to the future even if other regions nearby fail to do so from time to time.

Reasonably independent means each area having semi-independent support systems within all or most all of the individual regions.  By support systems I am referring to independent or semi-independent “capacities” for the following: 

• A regional source of "power" (electricity generation, normally) and a distribution system which is semi-independent from the national grid.  TheUSmust not be vulnerable to high-impact breakdowns (black-outs/brown-outs).  Now, this vulnerability is very unsettling.  In the longer-range future, it will be critical.
• A large capacity and balance of food production and distribution (again, all within each region).
• A large capacity and balance of health care.
• Large capacity and network of modern communication systems, well connected and with easy access to national and international systems, but generally semi-independent from them.
• A broad package of businesses and industries capable of meeting the most essential day-to-day and week-to-week consumer needs for goods and services.
• A good capacity and network of social and governmental services, including educational facilities and services.
• Large capacity and network of transportation systems, well connected and with easy access to national and international transportation systems, but generally semi-independent from them.  In the not too distant future, this is also likely to include transportation systems into "space," and/or engaging in sub-orbital flight.
• Other capacities and networks that provide similar assets for short-term independence.
• There already are many local, regional, and national organizations working towards these goals.  City and regional planning must also be assisting by means of identifying different types of land needed for each, helping to reserve such land, and identifying and helping provide the appropriate infrastructure for each.

Re-localization does not mean the creation of independent regions or governments or the redistribution of local governments.  Our country’s major strength is the success of each metro area and each rural area all working together and contributing to the greater good.  Nevertheless, for short-term time periods, each area of the US must be capable of continuing to produce and thrive even if regional disruptions occur.

I have many more examples of structural adaptivity I would like to share in future posts.

William Schnaufer