My First Bike Ticket

That's right, I got pulled over on my bike in Central Park. I really hope people find this post and learn from it because I was completely unaware that you can't be in The Park after 1am and before 6am, not even on the roads in a moving vehicle . This is cited in Title 56 of the Parks and Recreation laws in section 1-03 part (a) items (1) and (3). The reason for this completely stupid law is for "safety" not only for bums who would stay in the park and freeze to death in the winter, but for pedestrians who might be attacked by ruthless hoodlums. Yes, people should be careful, but this law is straight up stupid. Riding or driving on the roads in Central Park late at night is much less dangerous than riding on the avenues outside The Park. What could to happen to me? Is somebody going to throw a brick at my head when I'm riding? I don't even have to justify people who run around the resevoir before 6am. This law is straight up dumb.

And I got busted for it. I was out riding home from the West Village on a Friday night and after coming up the bike lane on 8th Ave I shot through the park at Columbus Circle. As I was riding up the east edge of the loop, I see lights and a cop car pulls up next to me, and one of the two officers asks me to "pull over." I was a little surprised when the other cop got out and asked me to dismount my bicycle. The only thing I could possibly think of was that a bike had been stolen matching mine's description. After taking my information, I waited about 10 minutes for them to run my record. I started to wonder if there was more to the story and then a black SUV pulled up and I overheard the driver asking one of the cops for directions and hearing the cops tell the man that the park was closed. The man responded with an apology and drove away. It was then I realized that technically I wasn't supposed to be there. They couldn't be giving me a ticket though, could they? How about a warning? If that was the reason I was "pulled over" I'd be pretty angry.

Well, that was the reason. I was dumbstruck when I was handed a criminal court summons. A summons is an order to appear in court, it's not a fine that I just pay and mail in. Either way this was going to be a substantial inconvenience. One of my personal weaknesses is that my facial expressions are at times pretty transparent to my emotions. Apparently blatantly rolling my eyes didn't make the one officer happy, to which he replied by asking me in an antagonizing manner "What's wrong, you look like you're not happy about this." Oh, that set me off. "Yeah? I look unhappy? I wonder why! Maybe because you just pulled me over and gave me a summons for RIDING MY BIKE IN THE PARK!?" I couldn't help it, I was so livid. We want back and forth for a little bit arguing about if there was a sign and if there was where it was and how I was supposed to see it at night. The cop ended the confrontation by walking back to the car and telling me to leave. What an ass.

Like I said, a summons requires you to attend court regardless of your plea, so of course I pleaded NOT-guilty. After various pro bono consultations with several informed acquaintances, I was prepared to make my case in front of the judge. My first argument was that the part of the law that was cited, item (1) rather than item (3) under part (a) of section 1-03 in Title 56 was not an item with a fine attached. Item (1) says that you may use park from 6am to 1am. Item (3) says you can't use them after the curfew, and that's the item with a fine associated.

http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/rules_and_regulations/rr_1-03.html

My second argument was that I was not put under proper notice that such a law existed because the signs (which I went back and found later) we mere 6" wide dark green non-reflective signs that a pedestrians wouldn't even notice, let alone somebody flying by on a bicycle. Straight up lame.

Let's play "Find the Sign!"

Sitting in court, I had to listen to the 20 or so people before me go up and argue their violations. Most were for open containers. Once was for soliciting ads, one was for going the wrong way down 2nd Ave. When I got up there, I whispered to the public attorney that I was going to plead not-guilty for this curfew violation and when he repeated that to the judge I received a confused look and the question "what were you doing in the park"? After explaining that I was riding home the judge responded by asking "don't you work in the morning, what are you doing out so late?" I replied with, "It was a Friday night, you honor, but even so, what the heck does that matter?" I didn't actually say the second part of that, but I sure thought it. Why are people giving me such a hard time about this?!? It's an embarrassment to our legal system! I then heard, to my surprise, the judge chuckle and say "get our of here kid, you're dismissed." I looked at the public attorney with a confused look to which he responded "That's a good thing, you're dismissed. You can leave." I didn't even get to use my arguments. Oh well.

The story would have been better if I had gotten a BUI...

Cap and Trade

I am still getting acquainted with the economic science of this, but one question I'd like to pose back to Mike or anybody who has expertise here: How do you rate "effective?" other than the 10% overall goal. The overall emission reduction is based on a current baseline carbon emission, and if run properly, a company or state could only buy a who bundle of credits if they are sold by another, therefor ideally if they are bought or sold for $4 or $40 wouldn't change the overall emissions, only the profit and expenses of the entities buying and selling them. The price per credit will be solely a product of how difficult it is for the market as a whole to reduce emissions. If 10% is overly ambitious, the credits will sell for much higher. Does anybody know the penalty for exceeding the 10% reduction after 2018, is it just the cost of the allowances needed to satisfy the limit? Could allowance credits be sold by the govt if we (market as a whole) are already at the carbon emission limit?

The cap-and-trade program is something both presidential candidates supposedly support. As far as I can tell, the only major difference between the tho is McCain favors certain free allowances for specific entities as to not drastically disrupt certain key markets, and Obama only favors allowances to be purchased, regardless of how 'delicate' the market is. I will hold off on comments regarding their stances in hopes that this will be revealed more during the debate tonight, if it even happens.

NYC Housing Plan

I'd like to just start a thread regarding local (NYC) updates for planning. As discussed, part of "sustainability" is providing economical housing options for our current and future local residents. It's part of that greater discussion of making our city more socially equitable, especially since the financial future is less certain than it was 3 weeks ago.

Here is one development that's part of a much greater plan. We should track this closely because it's a very significant current case study happening right here...

http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2008b%2Fpr372-08.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1

Bethlehem Steel

Since we were talking about industrial relics and also steel today, I thought I would comment briefly on my experience with Bethlehem Steel.

Bethlehem Steel was one of the two large steel mills in the US (along with US Steel in Pittsburgh) from after the civil war and throughout the 20th century. Not only did the mill supply much of the steel for most major cities and structures, including the Empire State Building, Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam, but the company was the perfect case study for the birth of labor unions, industrial social fabric of the US, and the 1980's industrial decline due to cheaper foreign supply. Bethlehem Steel went bankrupt in 2001 and has since been closed off and developers went to work thinking about what they could do with such a "wonderful" opportunity.

After a failed attempt by the Smithsonian to open a museum in the old steel mill, the wall caved for typical glitzy money-making development. Slot machines, hotels, restaurants, a performance venue dominate the master plan, although some of the structures, including the large blast furnaces (visible from miles away) will be preserved and somehow incorporated into the plan. The development, despite the obvious controversy has spawned an enormous amount of commercial developments including shopping centers and various entertainment facilities. The landscape, demographic and culture, especially in South Bethlehem, is changing at an absurd rate. There is too much to say about all of this.

I went to Lehigh for the 5 years right after the mill was closed, and had my opportunities to jump the fence, sneak around, and try to glimpse into the past in a setting in the middle of one of the most significant industrial legacies in the world.

Here are some of my photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/18241051@N00/sets/72157607459020390/

Last time I was there was for a wedding in the Spring. They had definitely cleared out many portions of the site in preparation for what looked to be either excavation, or at the very least parking. The blast furnaces and most of the structures still remain. There have been significant condo and multi use development surrounding the site tho that started when I was attending school and is now complete.

Yellowstone

Since we were talking all about Yellowstone today, I figured I would share the photos I took when I was out there last month...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/18241051@N00/sets/72157606938657309/

Green Codes

As far as a green building goes, once the developer/client has agreed to a certain goal (LEED level or other standard), the responsibility lies in the hands of the GC for all aspects of the "construction submission" (as opposed to the "design submission" obviously in the hands of the arch & engineer). GC is in the perfect position to educate (from 1 on 1 discussion to regular meetings) and enforce (hold payments) the subs on these standards.]

I'd also like to add another note, which I hope people can respond to or comment on. In terms of planning and more specifically in terms of changing codes, I am presuming that new standards are never arbitrary, but based on the observation of prior accomplishments. For example, Bloomberg wouldn't have mandated some of his initiatives such as local law 86 (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/ll_86of2005.pdf) if i wasn't for so many completed LEED projects in NYC and in other cities. So then it's developers like Durst (Conde Naste bldg, 1 Bryant Park, Helena....) who can provide a template once again for raising the bar even further.

So here is the question I pose: Do progressive developers drive the movement for which the code then adopts, or should the code lead the way and force the developers to adapt?

Learning from Those Who Know

The following is a blog entry I wrote in response to a post made on my company's internal web forum. Our global Sustainability Executive depicted how she has seen blatant resistance to positive change in certain areas. The company I work for is an international Real Estate Investment, Development and Construction Management company. Below is my response to the post:

-----

I will make an attempt to be as specific and direct as possible. I beleive one of the greatest barriers for those of us in environmental sustainability-promoting roles is the fact that we ourselves are too broad with our ideas. Like Amber mentioned, those of us in Construction Management have the amazing opportunity to look at things on a minute scale. We see how the elements physically go together and more importantly, we work with, and have personal relations with the very people who perform the physical labor responsible for our tremendous buildings rising from the ground. Yes, we must utilize the resources of fellow coworkers in other cities, but more importantly we need to utilize the resources that are right in front of us. 

I have an amazing labor foreman. I hear from others that he is one of the best, but I only know from personal experience. I constantly ask him, "Jimmy, how does this work?", "Why do we do this that way", or more frequently, "What the heck am I looking at right now?!?" I have come to realize that he is my biggest ally when it comes to positive change. He's KNOWS how to set up a loading dock and where to put waste containers because he'd DONE it before, many, many times. He is the guy to talk to when it comes to figuring out if it will ever be possible for NYC to embrace source separation of waste rather than comingling. It's the Teamsters that will be able to figure out how to get the drivers to stop idling. It's the Tin-knockers who will be able to figure out the best ways to keep ducts stored so the wrap doesn't get damaged or removed prematurely. The list goes on. We need to make relationships and friends out of these people, not only because they deserve as much respect as any Project Manager or Super or Exec or PIC, but because it's THEM who will be the key players in making a serious and meaningful change. 

I credit my generation in the enthusiasm many of us share, but I blame us in not utilizing the greatest allies we have: the construction workers themselves. Many have been building buildings longer than I have been alive. If I myself fail to embrace the wealth of experience that I have available to me through these workers, than I have failed miserably in doing the best possible job of promoting positive change.

False Green

In general terms, I had always struggled with the concept of commercial "marketing" as it relates to fancy advertisements and clever gimmicks. Although I consider myself a staunch capitalist, it always made me uncomfortable that, when boiled down to simplest terms, convincing somebody to buy or invest in something all boils down to "deceit." How can I convince somebody that they need something more than they actually do. (Yes there is an aspect of need, we all need things, but it's safe to say most of us Americans have much more than we need). Good marketers accomplish this by equating NEED and WANT. They convince people that since something is COOL then you WANT it and somehow therefor NEED it, so you BUY it.

In terms of certain environmental products, such as wind power devices for example, the same strategy has been utilized. The underlying theme is commendable (clean energy, renewable energy, etc...), but since our society is so fixated on what's COOL, we have settled for branding methods based the now-standard form of marketing deceit.

Small scale wind power is one of many new enviro-fads. As observed in Sept 4 NYT article "Assessing the Value of Small Wind Turbines" By KATE GALBRAITH, cities such as San Francisco and New York and Boston are embracing the IMAGE of wind power, in pursuit of the end goal of relaxing dependance on "dirty" power, although on a small scale it is almost impossible to be economically sustainable. It's a noble ambition, but I can't help but relate it to the same silly (and frankly embarrasing) strategies that we use to market everything from extra sharp knives to fancy cars. Many individuals, governments and institutions are even open to the shallow nature of their "environmental" endeavors. The minds behind the small (and pretty much useless) experiemental wind turbines on top of the Holyoke Center office complex are open with the idea that its purpose is to create "outward symbols of our commitment to renewable energy." They know it's an investment not worth the financial return. Wow, talk about 100% image.* (*image has a value and therefor this statement can be argued in terms of "worth" as it may attract clients, tenants, etc..)

It's this "image" that bothers me. For an extreme example, I am currently working on a project that is marketed as "green" (and even pursuing certification), but the fact of the matter is, in terms of the big picture, this is purely marketing. Not only is it "cool" to be green now, but the multi-millionaires who spend way too much money on a high-end condo are feeling a soothing of their conscience by "saving the planet" when in fact, they are doing very little, and spending a lot of money to do so. I will be touching on this idea much more in the future.

Now let me be honest with myself. Going back to wind power, I do believe that these achievements are stepping stones to bigger and better achievements. It hurts me to say, but this marketing, this "image" that is portrayed, while shallow right now, is necessary to justify the means. After all, we are a capitalist society, and when it comes down to it, we have to convince people to pay for things. Right now we are paying off the technology, I suppose. I just hope people don't settle for having done their part in "saving the world" just by throwing 5 grand at a small device on their roof when in fact their personal benefit is merely looking cool.