hey, when you've lost Richard Florida....

I think (our own?) Richard Layman had a better idea a few days ago, with city-wide design requirements. More regulation, not less, in other words. Something like Santa Fe, although as usual it is taken too far.

by charlie on May 18, 2012 8:22 am • link • report

Santa Fe is unique as it have a very uniform building standard that is set to a specific time period genre. Or simplified, you either build a pueblo style or Spanish style and it must be brown adobe(stucco now) sometimes you can get away with white. And that is where you start, then you get into the very strict building codes, (no up lighting, second story is forbidden in many areas, types of fences...ect). It is very similar to what Old Town Alexandria's regulations are like. And god forbid if you ever find a possible native american/pre-WII relic on your site.

by RJ on May 18, 2012 8:55 am • link • report

Express summarized the bike boom spurred by CaBi and separated lanes...

I believe these are secondary causes of the "bike boom". What CaBi and the proliferation of bike lanes have done is give "institutional legitimacy" to cycling as a mode of transportation. When local govt makes it clear that bikes *belong* on the streets, more people will ride bikes on the street. Drivers treat cyclists with greater respect. The perception of safety will increase. All of that leads to a virtuous cycle of more bikes on the street, etc...

It's also the reason why issues like helmet use, and jay-biking have such a strong resonance with those who would prefer fewer bikes on the streets: concentrating on those issues tends to strip cycling of its legitimacy.

by oboe on May 18, 2012 9:19 am • link • report

Frequent biking can lead to problems "down there" for men and women, depending on handlebar configuration
From the link:“Handlebars positioned lower than the saddle were significantly associated with increased perineum saddle pressures and decreased genital sensation in female cyclists,” according to the study.

I've always found it weird that American bikes seem to be constructed in such a way that the rides is tilted forward and forced to lean on the handle bar. I think this is because racing and off-road bikes do so, but it's uncomfortable for the casual rider. CaBikes do it to.

.Sikhs may now wear turbans and beards on the job as police officers in MPD.

Bad idea. Police officers represent the state and hence should reflect the neutrality of the state. That is why many representatives of the state, such as police officers, but also military personnel and judiciary folks wear uniforms. It's not a multiform.

by Jasper on May 18, 2012 9:36 am • link • report

@Jasper -

Mountain bikes don't have the forward-oriented geometry that is popular with road racing bikes. In fact, the trend in mountain bikes for years now has been towards slacker head tube angles, lower bottom brackets, and shorter stems.

In fact, a hardtail mountain bike with these modern dimensions and a set of slicks on it can make a great commuting option if you don't like forward-leaning, aggressive roadie geometry.

by J on May 18, 2012 9:43 am • link • report

Richard Florida seems to be knocking down straw men. Maybe it's true that in China and Dubai there are skyscraper canyons being thrown up with no street life, but where is that even being seriously proposed for an American city? Even in a city as large as NYC, how many truly tall skyscrapers have been built in the last decade? 5? 10? It's a tiny amount of the city's footprint.

In the meantime, having someone like Florida with his reputation write a critique of density for its own sake gives support to those that are fighting the minor and marginal density increases that are actually being proposed. Just look at the first comment to his article, it's someone saying essentially "I totally agree with you Richard, density is bad and we should only grow it as absolutely slowly as we have to." I would hope Florida doesn't agree with that sentiment, but his article doesn't make that clear.

by TM on May 18, 2012 9:47 am • link • report

@Jaspar; you are half right about Sikhs.

The issue first came up in Canada,which has a higher percent of punjabis. Of course, the irony there is standard unform (back in the Imperial days) for Indians all involved some sort of turban. I don't think that really applies here.

by charlie on May 18, 2012 9:51 am • link • report

It's also the reason why issues like helmet use, and jay-biking have such a strong resonance with those who would prefer fewer bikes on the streets: concentrating on those issues tends to strip cycling of its legitimacy.

See also the resurgence of the unkillable "cyclists can't get it up" school of dubious research.

I wonder why we never see any studies on how "sitting on your ass for 14 hours playing fantasy football and eating buffalo wings every Sunday" correlates to sexual drive and performance?

by oboe on May 18, 2012 9:58 am • link • report

Personally,

I like the pluralistic approach. I'm not part of a religion where wearing an item is generally required but I reject the notion that one has to be all state or all religion in order to work effectively. Yes, there can be conflicts between the two forces but they can be magnified if there is never any sort of allowance for the two to interact. A sikh officer on the squad can help deal with issues with that community without feeling like he has left it behind.

/the problem we have in the US is not the pluralism its that people are afraid of the country no longer being a "Christian Nation" and fight to uphold that advantage.

by X on May 18, 2012 10:07 am • link • report

I've always found it weird that American bikes seem to be constructed in such a way that the rides is tilted forward and forced to lean on the handle bar. I think this is because racing and off-road bikes do so, but it's uncomfortable for the casual rider. CaBikes do it to.

I think partially it's what you're used to, but also what you're using it for. Distances tend to be greater in the US. And an upright bike tends to become more uncomfortable more quickly than one in which the rider's weight is distributed in a triangle between the bars and the seat. Particularly if the road surface is anything but super smooth.

In another lifetime, I used to ride motorcycles with a few guys who had old BMW sport/touring bikes from the 70s. Most of the US market bikes had drop bars and an upright (Harley-Davidson) position. The Euro market bikes had flat bars, and a "triangle" position.

While the upright position is great for riding to the local coffee shop, or boulangerie, if you're on the bike for more than 30 min, and are reasonably fit, it's not at all clear to me that sitting upright is more comfortable than the triangle position.

As far as the CaBi geometry, I marvel every time I see one that a 5' tall woman, and a 6'5 man can both ride the same bike. My guess is that the position is more of a reach for the smaller rider, and more upright for very large people.

by oboe on May 18, 2012 10:17 am • link • report

I'm all for opening up the MPD to Sikh's. Its a minor accomodation. The Sikh's are known for being respectful of other religions, and are well known for military and police service in Asia. You often see a big Sikh guy standing outside the bank in Malaysia.

As for CaBi: its great to see its success. Its also funny to see all the naysayers continuing to argue that bikesharing won't work, and that nobody bikes.

by SJE on May 18, 2012 10:22 am • link • report

Re: Sikhs. Will they be permitted to wear the kirpan? I hope so -- wouldn't want to be the bike thief confronted by a cop wielding an eight-inch dagger!

by Arl Fan on May 18, 2012 10:29 am • link • report

I did not bike because someone chopped my lock and stole my bike. But I'm glad the council's riding in Google cars instead of funding MPD anti-bike theft programs. Hooray priorities.

by Ronald on May 18, 2012 10:30 am • link • report

It's also the reason why issues like helmet use, and jay-biking have such a strong resonance with those who would prefer fewer bikes on the streets: concentrating on those issues tends to strip cycling of its legitimacy.

Hmmm, I disagree. I believe concentrating on those issues is in reponse to the notion that cyclists can have it both ways. I don't see how pointing out these contradictions deligitimizes it as a mode of transportation.

by HogWash on May 18, 2012 10:33 am • link • report

@ charlie:The issue first came up in Canada,which has a higher percent of punjabis

In the UK, they also get to wear turbans. Don't know if that was before or after Canada.

@ oboe:While the upright position is great for riding to the local coffee shop, or boulangerie, if you're on the bike for more than 30 min, and are reasonably fit, it's not at all clear to me that sitting upright is more comfortable than the triangle position.

And CaBikes are intended for shirt trips like that...

While the upright position is great for riding to the local coffee shop, or boulangerie, if you're on the bike for more than 30 min, and are reasonably fit, it's not at all clear to me that sitting upright is more comfortable than the triangle position.

As far as the CaBi geometry, I marvel every time I see one that a 5' tall woman, and a 6'5 man can both ride the same bike. My guess is that the position is more of a reach for the smaller rider, and more upright for very large people.

As a 6'8" man, putting the CaBike seat between 8-9, I can state that I still lean over.

by Jasper on May 18, 2012 10:33 am • link • report

@ SJE:I'm all for opening up the MPD to Sikh's. Its a minor accomodation. The Sikh's are known for being respectful of other religions,

The problem is that while Sikh's may be fine people, other religions may not. Do we want to allow members of the Westboro Baptist church to express their hateful bile religion during police duties?

by Jasper on May 18, 2012 10:36 am • link • report

@oboe -

I strongly disagree with what seems to be your assertion that a more laid out geometry with more weight on the bars is better for rough surfaces. A more upright position allows you to more easily move your weight fore and aft and to stand in order to juke the bike underneath you. Importantly, this geometry makes it a lot easier to get back and avoid a pothole-induced endo, or to brake hard without going over the bars. Look at the geometry on a dirt jumper or a DH rig or a trials bike.

I wouldn't want to go out and ride a century on a bike with DH geometry because the pedaling position is somewhat inefficient and the aerodynamics are garbage, but most people bike commute only, what, 5-10 miles max? There is no reason to go out and do that on your lycranaut-mobile. Something with casual XC mountain biking geometry is great for this job.

by J on May 18, 2012 10:39 am • link • report

@Jasper:

"The problem is that while Sikh's may be fine people, other religions may not."

Before you know it they'll be letting URBANISTS be cops.

by Ronald on May 18, 2012 10:40 am • link • report

CaBi numbed the jingles in my dingles. Not even a tingle.

by Jeff on May 18, 2012 10:43 am • link • report

So if I join MPD, will they allow me to wear my spaghetti and meatball headdress, since I have been commanded to do so by the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

by MM on May 18, 2012 10:52 am • link • report

What I find interesting about the bike geometry and numbing research is that different geometries work better for men and women. It makes it difficult to develop a "best geometry" for bike share.

by OctaviusIII on May 18, 2012 11:05 am • link • report

@J:

"I strongly disagree with what seems to be your assertion that a more laid out geometry with more weight on the bars is better for rough surfaces. A more upright position allows you to more easily move your weight fore and aft and to stand in order to juke the bike underneath you."

I think this is a matter of degree here. @Jasper was pointing at CaBi bikes as an example of a bike that wasn't "upright" enough. I defy you to show me a bike made for off-road use that has a more upright position than a CaBi bike. If you're standing up the entire time you're riding (e.g. DH, or BMX), it's one thing, but if you're not, having your arms soak up some of the impact (rather than just compressing your spine for hours) is critical.

Something with a casual XC MTB geometry is exactly what I'm talking about. That's considerably more "aggressive" than CaBi.

(Leaving aside "comfortable position" for a moment, comfort over the long-haul is also a function of efficiency in the sense of muscle fatigue, and just how long you're in the saddle.)

Anyway, you hear arguments from the Bicycle Chic crowd all the time that nothing but an upright, step-through bike and street clothes is necessary, since that's all anybody in Copenhagen rides, but that's only partially true. That's what people who don't ride any significant distance ride.

People still buy touring bikes with drop-bars in Denmark, or Holland, it's just that their numbers are dwarfed by the number of people who use bikes to take short trips of a couple of miles.

Here are a few Dutch and Danish cyclists I've caught red-handed using non-upright bikes:

I'll be forwarding this evidence to their respective embassies, of course..

by oboe on May 18, 2012 11:06 am • link • report

@Jasper-We're not talking holding signs saying G@D Hates F#@s, we're talking about a beard and a turbin, which has never been a problem, as far as I can tell, anywhere else in the world. In fact, a Sikh was given the honor of being part of the Queen's Guard in '09 I think. His turban was the same color as his unit's helmets. There will be no doubt that he is a member of MPD.
@Arl Fan-Not a whole lot of modern Sikhs (outside of Orthodox ones)carry an 8-inch kirpan. He will probably have a ceremonial one under his shirt however.

by thump on May 18, 2012 11:07 am • link • report

@Octavius:

What I find interesting about the bike geometry and numbing research is that different geometries work better for men and women. It makes it difficult to develop a "best geometry" for bike share.

That was my point, made better than I did. Regardless of what the optimal geometry is for a man or a woman, or a small person versus a large one, it's unlikely that CaBi is going to reflect that. To paraphrase noted 18th century misogynist Samuel Johnson, "[CaBi] is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

by oboe on May 18, 2012 11:09 am • link • report

@Jasper; the issue is one of endorsement. Basic first amendment stuff. You can be a cop and be a Westboro member. That isn't an issue. the issue is by allowing distinctive religious gear (hijab for muslim female cops) are we endorsing that religion?

The problem in Canada was RCMP regulations requiring that stupid hat.

Sikhs are the easy case. Hijab, religious holidays, etc are the tought ones. As someone said, Sikhs don't make a big deal on the kirpan, which is theortically important as the turban -- although clearly turban is more visible.

by charlie on May 18, 2012 11:10 am • link • report

@X "/the problem we have in the US is not the pluralism its that people are afraid of the country no longer being a "Christian Nation" and fight to uphold that advantage"

I think religion tends to get blamed/credited for a lot of things when in fact it's really just 'culture' that people are concerned with. I think the French have it right when they legally require that French customs and mores have the legislative right (e.g., students not wearing burkas in class) and that religion be kept to ones private affairs. For example, they made the point that Western democracy had fought many battles to arrive at a point where women are to be accorded all the same rights as men, and that they weren't going to let religion be used as an excuse to not give the same protections to all members of their society. I think another way of looking at it is 'When in Rome, do as the Romans'.

Besides, true religion is in what is in one's heart and translates to how one treats those around them. If you really need to dress a certain way to remind yourself of your commitment to your beliefs, then you should be looking closer at your own beliefs and commitment to them.

by Lance on May 18, 2012 11:42 am • link • report

@charlie

Now now, the Mounties' stupid hat is just for the dress uniform. Typically the RCMP look like normal cops. The problem was the Reform Party allowed their members to vote on their political platform and members, being rather conservative, weren't so keen on Sikh headgear being part of the RCMP.

by OctaviusIII on May 18, 2012 11:50 am • link • report

"Besides, true religion is in what is in one's heart and translates to how one treats those around them. If you really need to dress a certain way to remind yourself of your commitment to your beliefs, then you should be looking closer at your own beliefs and commitment to them."

IE the approach to religious ritual expressed by Jesus is the true and correct one, and those approaches which involve restrictions on dress or diet, such as Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, or traditional Judaism, are false. Gotcha.

by RebelJew on May 18, 2012 11:59 am • link • report

The problem is that while Sikh's may be fine people, other religions may not. Do we want to allow members of the Westboro Baptist church to express their hateful bile religion during police duties?

WTF, Jasper? There's a difference between proselytizing and wearing a required piece of clothing that happens to be visible.

by JustMe on May 18, 2012 12:06 pm • link • report

@OctaviusIII ; and because of unfortunate division back in the punjab, the entire issue of wearing a turban became highly politicized among Sikhs. Ujjal dosangh got beat up because of his refusal to wear one. Anyway. Too much baseball. As I said, Sikhs are the easy case when the pop up.

by charlie on May 18, 2012 12:23 pm • link • report

@ oboe:Here are a few Dutch and Danish cyclists I've caught red-handed using non-upright bikes

I do not think that drugged Tour de France winners qualify as representative of average bikers.

@ charlie:the issue is by allowing distinctive religious gear (hijab for muslim female cops) are we endorsing that religion?

It's the opposite. Uniforms are worn for a reason: to show neutrality. By allowing people to break the uniformity (for whatever reason), you break the neutrality. Police officers represent the law, not themselves. That's why they all wear the same uniform.

BTW: The beard is not an issue. It's the deviation from the uniform.

by Jasper on May 18, 2012 12:24 pm • link • report

When bike messengers stop going through red lights and stop scattering people as they speed around pedestrians, and basically stop acting as if the rules don't apply to them, then I'll consider them "the boss." For now, I consider them brats and am glad their numbers are declining.

by DTSSER on May 18, 2012 12:26 pm • link • report

Good posts X and JustMe.

by H Street Landlord on May 18, 2012 12:51 pm • link • report

"Uniforms are worn for a reason: to show neutrality. By allowing people to break the uniformity (for whatever reason), you break the neutrality. "

Im pretty sure that is NOT how uniforms originated. Military uniforms did so to make it easier for members of a unit to identify each other on the field of battle, and to add to morale. As late the start of the AMerican civil war different units had different uniforms. Some cases of friendly fire led to the adoption of more or less identical uniforms.

I think uniforms for police serve to identify who is a police officer, and also to intimidate. Many police forces have been far from neutral and yet have worn uniforms.

by RebelJew on May 18, 2012 1:17 pm • link • report

I dunno, getting on a bike now & then keeps my weight in check, and things "down there" always work a heck of a lot better when I'm not carrying around an extra 10 or 15. Just sayin'...

by spookiness on May 18, 2012 1:24 pm • link • report

Re: Sikhs

When a uniform is in conflict with the ability of a centuries old religion practiced by millions of people on most continents on the planet, then the uniform is not neutral. If the uniform was neutral, you wouldn't be able to discern anything about its wearers religion by looking at them. For that reason, a neutral uniform would require everyone to wear a turban with a yamulka on top. That way no one would be able to discern anything about your religion.

If we lived in a sikh dominated society, surly the uniform would require turbans and invariably there would be a hue and cry about making exceptions for non-sikhs.

But I'm willing to agree requiring for all is not practical in our christian dominated society and as a compromise, willing to allow non-sikhs to forgo a turban.

Btw, if you want to make the State more neutral, first get rid of Xmas has a national holiday. What's up with that?

by Falls Church on May 18, 2012 3:39 pm • link • report

@Jasper; we are talking about cross purposes. Same idea: unform is neutral. Can you make an exception without making an endorsment?

The answer, in the US, is usually yes, and espcially for a very small minority religion that nobody pays attention to. Again, a hijab or a piece of "Christian jewlery" is usualy the harder case. I dont' see a lot of people pushing for that, however, so the slippery slope here isn't so steep.

by charlie on May 18, 2012 3:49 pm • link • report

@ DTSSR:When bike messengers stop going through red lights and stop scattering people as they speed around pedestrians, and basically stop acting as if the rules don't apply to them, then I'll consider them "the boss."

So when everybody else start behaving perfectly, you will... That's what everybody is thinking and why nothing changes.

by Jasper on May 18, 2012 3:52 pm • link • report

@Charlie: Are you sure about "especially for a very small minority religion that nobody pays attention to"? Hard to square that with 1st Amendment.

How about: especially when the religious artifact has no impact on job performance. Different agencies have different standards for how noticeable it can be, but the same standard must be applied to all religions.

by Jim T on May 18, 2012 3:56 pm • link • report

@Jim T
Speaking of job performance: apparently, Sikh officers in the UK are looking for a bulletproof turban material so they can join ballistics units.

by OctaviusIII on May 18, 2012 3:59 pm • link • report

Jasper: as others have already said, you can be a member of Westboro Baptist and be a cop. In fact, I am pretty sure you can wear a cross on the job, and I hope that they permit observant Jews to wear appropriate headgear, and Muslim women to cover their hair. The question is whether the change in uniform signals some government promotion of religion: I don't see that here. As for someone's personal beliefs: as long as they do not interfere with their job, its fine with me.

As for the Sikhs: its not just the dagger, but the big bracelet their wear, which can be used to do serious damage. Sikhs also used to be put metal bands in their turbans before battle. So, there are plenty of options to be bad-ass.

by SJE on May 18, 2012 4:15 pm • link • report

So if I join MPD, will they allow me to wear my spaghetti and meatball headdress, since I have been commanded to do so by the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Comparing Sikhism to Spaghetti Monster religion is like comparing homo sex to bestiality.

Also, there's a huge difference between an optional religious adornment like a cross and something that is mandated by a religion and widely followed by its adherents. The turban is required by the Sikh religion and widely followed by Sikhs everywhere. The dagger is also required but not widely followed at all, particularly outside of India. The turban is more akin to a yarmulka than a cross since orthodox jews are required to wear one and most orthodox jews do. My understanding is that wearing a cross is not mandatory in any sect if christianity.

by Falls Church on May 18, 2012 4:45 pm • link • report

@Jasper,

"So when everybody else start behaving perfectly, you will... That's what everybody is thinking and why nothing changes."

That makes no sense at all. I'm not asking for perfection; I'm asking that bike messengers obey the rules of the road. If they did that, you would get real change.

by DTSSER on May 18, 2012 6:39 pm • link • report

@dtsser

Bike messengers = taxi cab drivers. Seems there is something about spending hours weaving through urban traffic that leads to a total disregard for rules.

I'm actually glad the messengers are on bikes. If they were driving two ton vehicles they'd be a far greater threat to me.

by jd on May 18, 2012 7:16 pm • link • report

""Besides, true religion is in what is in one's heart and translates to how one treats those around them. If you really need to dress a certain way to remind yourself of your commitment to your beliefs, then you should be looking closer at your own beliefs and commitment to them."

So I'll judge you by your outward garments because religion is all about personal faith? That's like those modernists who criticize a project for using decoration while avoiding looking deeper. Wouldn't you just igore the garments and just look at what's in someone's heart?

by Thayer-D on May 19, 2012 5:46 am • link • report

@jd: good observation re: taxi drivers and bike messengers.

by DTSSER on May 19, 2012 8:23 am • link • report

@ DTSSER:I'm not asking for perfection; I'm asking that bike messengers obey the rules of the road. If they did that, you would get real change.

And bikers and pedestrians are waiting for cars to do the same. You know, stick to the speed limit. Signal when turning. Make a full stop at stop signs and turns on red. Not blocking the box and pedestrian crossings. Keeping 3 feet distance when passing a biker. Yield to pedestrians crossing. Not double park. Etc.

The world does not become a better place if you wait for others to start.

by Jasper on May 21, 2012 10:38 am • link • report

@falls church:

Comparing Sikhism to Spaghetti Monster religion is like comparing homo sex to bestiality.

Oh, nonsense. It's more like an asexual who thinks sex is ridiculous comparing homosexual behavior to heterosexual behavior. All this fancy dress to mollify some imaginary fairy is ridiculous whether you're wearing a turban to impress Ik Onkar, a mitre and bathrobe to impress Jesus, or anything else.

by oboe on May 21, 2012 11:11 am • link • report

Spagetti monster was a pun on rastafarian (pastafarian). it was made up to mock religion.

The real analogy would not be to bestiality, but to someone saying they needed to marry their Ipod, and who had a website devoted to Ipod marriage rights, a website filled with comments from folks who disliked gay marriage and whose goal was to mock it.

by RebelJew on May 21, 2012 11:17 am • link • report

@David other groups such as the Committee of 100 continued to oppose razing the structure.

You have your facts wrong there. The Committee of 100 on The Federal City agreed to stop opposing the razing of the structure conditional on having input on the proposed replacement ... This agreement was effectively breeched in that the Preservation Subcommittee of The Committee of 100 was NOT given an opportunity to provide input. The bad will shown by the developers of this piece of property during its requests to raze the landmarked church continues ...

by Lance on May 21, 2012 5:35 pm • link • report