{"id":1502,"date":"2014-12-17T16:47:36","date_gmt":"2014-12-17T21:47:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/digital-computational-studies-2430-fall-2014\/?p=1502"},"modified":"2014-12-17T16:47:36","modified_gmt":"2014-12-17T21:47:36","slug":"walkportland-enhancing-the-pedestrian-experience-in-portland-me","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/digital-computational-studies-2430-fall-2014\/public-space\/walkportland-enhancing-the-pedestrian-experience-in-portland-me\/","title":{"rendered":"WalkPortland: Enhancing the Pedestrian Experience in Portland, ME"},"content":{"rendered":"

WalkPortland: Enhancing the Pedestrian Experience in Portland, ME<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Research question<\/strong><\/p>\n

Portland, Maine has a parking problem in its Downtown area. Residents, commuters, and tourists cite the parking situation as a detriment to the overall experience of the city. The city government is aware of the issue and has been working to modify the physical and legal structure regarding downtown parking to increase efficiency and enhance people\u2019s experience of Portland. In my own research, I noticed a general sense of dissatisfaction with the physical capacity of downtown parking, but also a seemingly unnecessary reliance on cars for city as small in population and area as Portland.<\/p>\n

The solution I propose is an extension of the city\u2019s stated commitment in the 1991 Comprehensive Plan to \u201cunderstand and enhance the physical framework of the built environment to assure a livable, pedestrian-oriented, human-scaled downtown.\u201d[1]<\/a> It would take the form of a mapping app, which would make parking information readily available and also serve as a legible, pedestrian-oriented map of Portland. A key feature of the app would be 5- and 10-minute walk radius maps that would hopefully help to reconnect Portlander\u2019s perception of the city\u2019s size and walkability to its actual area. The app would be supplemented by physical maps in downtown Portland, which increase the accessibility of this resource and also serve as advertisement for the app.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Approach to the common good for the city <\/strong><\/p>\n

The common good in the city rests in large part in the interactions between city government and the people it serves. A government that seeks to understand and respect the will of its people is one that seeks to act for the common good. This definition is cultural; it has to do with the comfortable maintenance and development of existing culture in the city. Portland\u2019s existing policy regarding its Downtown states the city\u2019s desire to develop the space in the best interests of the people, while being careful to maintain the existing culture and identity.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Including systematic goals in writing towards respecting the people who occupy and create Downtown helps to keep \u201cthe common good\u201d something that citizens help to define. City changes that do not align with the popular idea of common good are held accountable by town documents and goals such as that to \u201cpreserve and strengthen the unique identity and character of the Downtown.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

It is also important, however, to question the existing structures and create plans and policy that keep in mind those for whom Downtown\u2019s existing structure is not<\/em> ideal, and who might prefer to see Downtown\u2019s \u201cunique identity\u201d move in a different direction.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Approach to the smart city <\/strong><\/p>\n

In the age of growing populations and shrinking resources, the Smart city is efficient, safe, sustainable, and adaptable. The use of new technology is not explicit in this definition, but often the ideas or solutions that meet this description make use of new technologies. In terms of adaptability, too, the capacity of an existing structure to expand spontaneously or over time as needed speaks to its continuing usefulness and relevance; often this means that the structure is technologically updated.<\/p>\n

In Against the Smart City<\/em>, Adam Greenfield raises the important concern regarding the \u201cseamlessness\u201d with which technology is integrated into smart cities. He criticizes devices that are \u201cbolt-ons rather than anything designed into the urban fabric itself ab initio<\/em>.\u201d[4]<\/a> Portland\u2019s commitment to maintaining the existing structure and identity of the Downtown presents somewhat of a challenge in utilizing new technologies in that space, but it also provides a foundation from which to build\u2014one that ensures that the whatever solutions are put in place operate as a part of the city, rather than as an addition to it.<\/p>\n

Greenfield also criticizes solutions in which \u201cthe collection and analysis of data [is] enshrined at the heart of someone\u2019s conception of municipal stewardship.\u201d[5]<\/a> This hearkens back to the idea of the common good, bringing important concerns of privacy and security into the mix as the daily act of citizenship becomes a source of data-production. Because of its small size but strong sense of urbanity and community, Portland could be an excellent model of smart city technology employed with the common good very much in mind.<\/p>\n

Besides maintaining thought of the common good, another important factor in helping smart cities to retain their \u201ccity-ness\u201d is the concern of technological ubiquity. A city cannot be built only on smartphones, touchscreens, and Wi-Fi; it functions through human interactions. Tony Hiss[6]<\/a>, Guy Debord[7]<\/a>, and Henry Grabar[8]<\/a> all speak to the place-driven, human quality of cities, especially through Hiss\u2019s idea of \u201csimultaneous perception\u201d as one of the core qualities that makes a city a city. Almost as a modern day defense of Debord\u2019s derive <\/em>as a way of experiencing that quality of the city,<\/em> Grabar points out, \u201cThe reverie of wandering, on foot or on wheels, can\u2019t be calculated by an algorithm or prescribed by an app.\u201d[9]<\/a> However, technology can<\/em> be used to enhance and facilitate human interactions and understandings of place, rather than make that understanding \u201cunnecessary.\u201d Hiss, Debord, and Grabar\u2019s ideas are of great importance in the unique experience of being in a city, and it is possible to make them present in a smart city, as well. In terms of the WalkPortland app, keeping the app\u2019s focus on getting people out of the shielded bubbles of their cars and out into the city is a way of using technology to promote and facilitate human interaction in the city.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Literature review<\/strong><\/p>\n

Andres Duany and Jeff Speck view \u201csmart\u201d not only as the utilization of new technology and design, but also as the return to some older forms of the same. Their book The Smart Growth Manual<\/em> highlights \u201cwalkability\u201d as a key feature of a smart city\u2019s successful future. Unlike their parents\u2019 generation, millennials (people born between approximately 1983 and 2000)[10]<\/a> have tended not to buy their own cars, opting instead for a more walkable city life. And the \u201cif you build it, they will come,\u201d policy applies here: 64% of people first identify and move to a city they like, and then<\/em> seek a job there.[11]<\/a> Key to creating that desirable city image is \u201cwalkability.\u201d Duany and Speck encourage planners to<\/p>\n

\u201cfoster \u2018walkable,\u2019 close-knit neighborhoods: These places offer not just the opportunity to walk\u2014sidewalks are a necessity\u2014but something to walk to, whether it\u2019s the corner store, the transit stop, or a school. A compact, walkable neighborhood contributes to peoples\u2019 sense of community because neighbors get to know each other, not just each other\u2019s cars\u201d[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0This community is the place for a city\u2019s life, culture, and social capital to be created, learned, and reproduced.<\/p>\n

In keeping with Greenfield\u2019s concept of urban and technological seamlessness, Duany and Speck also advocate for \u201c[taking] advantage of existing community assets: from local parks to neighborhood schools to transit systems, public investments should focus on getting the most out of what we\u2019ve already built.\u201d[13]<\/a> One method they cite for encouraging people to leave their cars and walk is to make that the most economical option by imposing higher parking fees. This method incentivizes people to use public transportation or walk.<\/p>\n

However, this solution raises its own set of concerns about who then gets to benefit from walkability. As Sarah Marusek discusses at length in Parking Politics<\/em>, higher municipal fees such as parking costs have disproportionate effects between socioeconomic classes, and in this way parking becomes yet another way of separating those who have the right to the city and those who have the means to the city.[14]<\/a> Curbside parking, an equalizer in the world of private and pay-to-stay parking lots, can be restrictive in ways that make driving possible for some and impossible for others. Marusek also cites a case study in which parking rights are connected to whether or not people can call themselves \u201cresidents.\u201d At Amherst College, \u201cfrom September through May, city streets are strictly reserved for town residents who have a town-sanctioned parking permit. This restriction is in place to keep visitors, i.e. students, from claiming parking spaces and leaving no place for \u2018rightful\u2019 residents to park during the school year.\u201d[15]<\/a> While the students reside there most of the year, they are not eligible to be considered residents of the town.<\/p>\n

The takeaway from both Duany and Speck\u2019s work and Marusek\u2019s work is that urban planning innovations\u2014 smart or otherwise\u2014 have fallout of many different forms, affecting different groups of people in predictable and unpredictable ways. They key role of government in these situations is to respond not only to problems in the city but to their solutions as well.<\/p>\n

The purpose behind the WalkPortland app is twofold: to decrease car use and car presence in Downtown Portland, and to help people to enjoy the city on foot. The decrease in car traffic may already be underway. A November 2014 article from the Portland Press Herald reported that in Maine, the populations renouncing their cars include not just the millennials that Jeff Speck cites, but Maine\u2019s aging population as well. \u201cAt both ends of the age spectrum, people increasingly want to live near restaurants, shops, and cultural amenities.\u201d [16]<\/a> A more pedestrian-friendly Portland and pedestrian-oriented technology to accompany it would benefit multiple populations.<\/p>\n

However, the response to the city\u2019s varying plans to show less privilege to cars and autos is not totally positive. Portland\u2019s plan to consolidate and shrink the Franklin arterial, thereby \u201c[reconnecting] side streets and [improving] pedestrian and bicycle access\u201d[17]<\/a> is seen by some as a danger to the city, one that \u201cshuts down the life blood of commerce, transit and mobility\u2026 [because] if people can\u2019t drive here, they\u2019ll go somewhere else.\u201d[18]<\/a> This is a serious concern to the city of Portland, which is \u201cthe financial and commercial capital of Maine.\u201d[19]<\/a> If the attempt to take cars out of Portland comes too quickly or before people are ready for it, the effects could have serious consequences for Maine\u2019s economy.<\/p>\n

In his lecture \u201cThe Walkable City,\u201d Jeff Speck cites not only the enormous health benefits of walkability, but its economic, environmental, safety, and citywide benefits as well. The \u201cinactivity borne of landscape\u201d has more effect on obesity in America than does diet.[20]<\/a> There is a direct link between the prevalence of asthma and auto exhaust emissions in urban areas.[21]<\/a> The benefits of walkability are not just individual; it also fosters community and drives people to shop and buy more locally, making their communities wealthier from the inside.<\/p>\n

And yet, the car and parking problem in Downtown Portland remains, a strain on the environment (among other things), and a major inconvenience. Apps for increased urban convenience have a large and growing market, and WalkPortland would be one of many attempts to help people navigate a city in a specific manner. The online design and tech magazine Web Urbanist ran an article listing thirteen interactive city maps, which ranged from the frivolity of a smartphone-supported citywide Pacman game called MapAttack, to the everyday usefulness of the widely popular app ParkMe, which locates open parking spots. The goal, in general, is to make the city more conveniently and easily accessible so that people can get what they want from it, when they want it. \u201cApps for smartphones, tablets and other gadgets are making big urban centers feel smaller than ever, making it easy to catch a ride, find cheap eats, check out street art and make new friends.\u201d[22]<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Methods <\/strong><\/p>\n

Input from actual Portland residents was immensely helpful in identifying parking as a major concern for the city, and in gauging people\u2019s conception of the city\u2019s size and walkability. I conducted interviews with 3 residents of Portland and 1 commuter into the city, keeping notes of how exactly they phrased their thoughts on the city. I also collected one mental map of the city from each participant. For my own perception of the city\u2019s size and walkability, the time I spent interviewing and a transect walk to the West End were both helpful. I used QGIS to measure distances in Portland to gauge the perception of walkability against the actual distance.<\/p>\n

I created a simple base map of Portland, focusing on the Downtown area. I included data layers from the City of Portland that I thought would be helpful in creating a legible map for pedestrians, including of course major roads and sidewalks, but also building outlines (gray), open space (green), the boundaries of \u201cDowntown,\u201d (pink) historic landmarks (yellow and blue), and Metro bus routes (light blue lines). [Figure 1, Figure 2]<\/p>\n

I concentrated on the scale of the map, and decided to keep my approach to a specific neighborhood of Portland, since my hope was to take Duany and Speck\u2019s advice to \u201cplan in increments of complete neighborhoods.\u201d[23]<\/a> Building outlines are an unusual inclusion in a city map, but at a pedestrian scale this seemed to make the map much more easily legible to its user. I wanted to create a map that was visually legible, appropriately scaled, and included more than just tourist attractions or sponsored locations and advertisements.<\/p>\n

I also created a map showing the transportation network available around Portland (below). The components shown are the interstate (black), the Metro bus line (orange), the Portland Explorer tourist bus route (red), and railroad tracks (dotted black line). Once again, downtown is shown to help understand the relationship between Portland\u2019s transportation network and its commercial center (pink). With a closer zoom, it becomes apparent that in fact Downtown is serviced more satisfactorily by Portland\u2019s tourist bus (red) than by its city bus (orange). [Figure 3, Figure 4]<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n