Say George Clooney went to Nobu last night and ran into Diddy in the valet line, where they discussed their mutual affinity for Kiton suiting. How do we know? Photographs, of course. Why do we care? Not sure, but USC Planning Professor Elizabeth Currid has taken a stab at it.  Three years ago Currid gratified the hipster set with The Warhol Economy (Princeton University Press), a glowing account of how creative industries -- broadly defined -- have elevated not just the culture but in fact the economy of New York City. Her analysis, which included both in-the-know accounts of things that cool people do as well as a rigorous economic analysis of creative industries, met with generally enthusiastic reviews (including one from me ) from both the trade and mainstream press, in part because her topic itself was inherently seductive. Currid is emerging as a cross between Andres Duany and Michael Musto. While Warhol barely mentioned any place other than New York, Currid's forthcoming book, Starstruck: The Business of Celebrity (Faber & Faber), promises to give a little more love, and hold a little more relevance, to her adopted West Coast. Starstruck does not come out until November, but I had the good fortune of hearing her speak on it yesterday in, of all places, Cambridge, Massachusetts (a place where both the celebrities and the planning go back a wee bit further than, say, Miley Cyrus). I went to find out if her work holds any clues for how California -- at least the famous, sparkly part of it -- can prosper from its association from fame and, more importantly, whether the built environment has anything to do with the fortunes of its stars. If New York has a monopoly on creativity, we know intuitively that California surely has few rivals in the area of celebrity. That is, in fact, the conclusion that Currid draws empirically: Los Angeles and New York are the mega-galaxies in the universe of stardom. London plays a supporting role, and, beyond that, a smattering of odd places – Park City, Cannes, Canada (broadly defined), and Las Vegas – play host to celebrity escapades, accomplishments, and media events. Currid's research employs a new methodology that seems incredibly fun and increasingly trendy. She gained access to Getty Images' database of celebrity-related photos and used Natural Language Processing to comb through over 600,000 photos of over 71,000 people in 200 locations. With some statistical wizardry, she used the photos to identify the hottest celebrities and the hottest places where they appear in public (or at semi-public events). This methodology is rife with biases, but it's a fascinating use of the vast natural database that emerges now that everything is available electronically. With more rigorous testing, it may inform planning for generations to come -- the realization of the potential of Web 3.0. As online databases grow, planners from almost anywhere can find photos of their cities and draw conclusions about how people use space within them. The Warhol Economy was mainly a descriptive piece, but it did conclude with some compelling recommendations that imaginative planners could consider in order that the built environment (and, in some cases, city economic development policy) be designed to promote creative economies. Her thesis is that creative industries thrive almost exclusively on personal contact and that personal contact relies on venues where it can take place. Control and production are one in the same and therefore happen in the same place, unlike, say, industrial production in which headquarters might be located in cities while factories have long fled overseas. Unfortunately for planners, Currid pans out rather than zooms in this time. In her talk she gave little heed to Los Angeles' built environment, noting only that a small handful of neighborhoods (Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood) host the vast majority of celebrity-related events. Otherwise, she takes her theoretical cues from Saskia Sassen to discuss the ways that celebrities create inter-regional linkages between cities that serve more as nodes than actual places. In some ways, this is only appropriate, if you think that celebrities are images and not real people, I suppose. Only in the question-and-answer period did Currid address the irony of celebrity and cities: the super-famous and super-wealthy live within camerashot of many of the least privileged people in the country, living and working in neighborhoods that are far from flashy. Great disparities in wealth and disproportionately large underclasses emerge in many major cities, but in Los Angeles the difference is so much more pronounced because the latter often appears literally in the background of the former. On that point, Currid said, and I quote loosely: I don't know what you do. This is where policy is very important. It policy for stars or for cultural industries. It's policy for equitable cities. Rent or social services that make people's lives all right as they get priced out. Those are real kinds of things we can do that are in many ways removed from the phenomenon I was talking about today. They are more about the global cities with the elite and poor service workers, and that latter group is disenfranchised. Currid seems to approve of stardom and the creative industries, at least to the extent that they create significant economic benefits for their host cities. She is careful to point out, though, that it's impossible to know whether the industries created the cities or vice-versa. As much as her current work is removed from the actual practice of planning, it presents planners -- at least those in Los Angeles -- with the challenge of not accepting this unclear correlation and in fact figuring out how the city can be designed both to keep the celebrities happy and to capture the economic spinoff effects of their wealth. Currid makes it clear that Hollywood (the industry) isn't leaving Hollywood (the place), and yet the industry's urban currency is quite different from that which takes place in New York. It also seems to address the rest of Los Angeles with indifference, if not contempt. Whether planners in Los Angeles and its neighboring cities can create more places not where awards galas can take place but rather where creative folks can get together and share ideas, and figure how to use the celebrity economy to the benefit of the entire place. The first step might be to encourage LA's public to spend less time reading Us Weekly and more time looking around their own city. --Josh Stephens

What appeared last fall to be a major win for property rights advocates may have been a fleeting victory. Earlier this month, an en banc panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to rehear a rent control case from the City of Goleta, meaning the earlier ruling in favor of the property owner is wiped out. Last September, property rights advocates appeared to achieve a breakthrough in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta when a Ninth Circuit panel, in a 2-1 ruling, determined that the city's mobile home rent control ordinance amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property. The ruling was important for two reasons: First, the Ninth Circuit agreed to consider the mobile home park owners' claims, which normally would have been fully litigated in state court and would not have reached federal court. Second, the Ninth Circuit panel struck down the ordinance on its face. There was no instance in which the regulation could be constitutional, the court ruled. It was exactly the sort of ruling that mobile home park owners across the state and property rights advocates in general have sought for years. However, the majority ruling came with a dissent that suggested the ruling may not survive. In that dissent, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote that the property owners had suffered no compensable taking because they bought Ranch Mobile Estates long after rent control was already in place. The archives of the CP&DR Legal Digest are packed with mobile home rent control cases. Although the details vary from case to case, the gist of the mobile home park owners' argument is that mobile homes in rent-controlled parks sell for a premium because of the rent regulation. Thus, the park owners argue, the regulation is an unconstitutional transfer of wealth from the park owner to the mobile home owner. For years, park owners did not make much headway with this argument – until 2004, when a Ninth Circuit panel invalidated a City of Cotati mobile home ordinance . However, the precedent in the Cotati case did not last long, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year in Lingle that the basis for the Cotati ruling – that the rent control regulation did not "substantially advance" a legitimate government purpose – was not proper for a takings case. In the Goleta case, the property owners made the same transfer-of-wealth argument, but this time they passed the Penn Central test – which provides a higher bar than the now-vacated "substantially advances" test – to prove that a taking had occurred. The Penn Central test involves three main planks: 1) the regulation's economic impact on the property owner; 2)  the extent to which the regulation interferes with investment-backed expectations; and 3) the character of the government action. In Guggenheim , the court determined that 1) the regulation was a "naked transfer" of wealth; 2) the property owners could argue the law interfered with their investment-backed expectations; and 3) it was improper for the city to single-out mobile home park owners. In his dissent, Judge Kleinfeld agreed the regulation did transfer wealth, but he said the property owners suffered no compensable loss because the basics of the regulation have been in place since 1979. Exactly why the Ninth Circuit agreed to reconsider the 2009 Guggenheim decision is unknown, but I suspect that the two-judge majority's rather expansive interpretation of Palazzolo may be a factor. The general rule is that regulations must be challenged shortly upon their enactment. But in the 2001 Palazzolo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted a landowner to contest a pre-existing wetlands regulation as a taking. However, it is important to remember that in Palazzolo , the same person (but a different legal entity), owned the property both before and after the regulation was established. In the Goleta case, the park owners bought the property 18 years after Santa Barbara County enacted rent control. It was no secret that the government held rents at Ranch Mobile Estates below market rates.  If the property owners can't get past a narrower interpretation of Palazzolo , they may find an opening in the City of Goleta's incorporation – and its perfunctory readoption of the entire county code – in 2002. Technically, a new regulation went into effect after the property owners bought the park. I shall make no prediction except for this one: If the 11-judge en banc panel ends up blessing the original Guggenheim decision, mobile home rent control in more than 100 California cities and counties will be in deep trouble. – Paul Shigley

The California Supreme Court has ruled that a project's air impacts are to be measured against existing ambient conditions, not against a permitted level of operations for the emitter. The unanimous ruling upholds an appellate court's decision that a proposed expansion of a ConocoPhillips oil refinery in Wilmington and Carson must be measured against on-the-ground conditions and, therefore, requires an environmental impact report (see CP&DR Legal Digest, March 2008). In 2003, ConocoPhillips proposed to modify and augment existing facilities in order to produce an ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. These changes would entail, among other modifications, a substantial increase in the operation of its cogeneration plant and boilers, which were subject to existing permits limiting their rate of heat production. ConocoPhillips applied to the South Coast Air Quality Management District for a permit to make the modifications. SCAQMD prepared an initial study and then a negative declaration, concluding the project would not have any adverse environmental impacts. However, during the environmental review process, the environmental justice group Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) submitted evidence that the project would increase nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by more than 600 pounds per day and that this amount could cause adverse health affects in surrounding neighborhoods. In response to this CBE's contentions, SCAQMD determined the increased steam generation from the cogeneration plant, in addition to other newly proposed activities, would create between 201 and 420 pounds per day of additional NOx emissions. Although the district had adopted a threshold of significance for NOx of 55 pounds per day, it determined that the revised increase was acceptable because the project would not have a significant environmental impact because the increased steam generation would not exceed the maximum rate of heat production allowed under the existing permits. CBE nevertheless filed suit against SCAQM, with ConocoPhilips as a real party in interest. The two mounted a joint defense. The Supreme Court analyzed two questions: First, whether the prior operating permits established a baseline for review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of a "new project." Second, whether the record supported a fair argument that the project would have significant adverse effects on the environment and, therefore, require preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). On the first question, the district and ConocoPhillips argued that using the pre-project NOx emissions as a baseline for analyzing the project's effects would violate vested rights held by ConocoPhillips to operate its boilers at permitted levels. The court disagreed, citing � 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. " he impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the court. SCAQMD and ConocoPhillips contended that using the existing conditions as the baseline for analysis would violate the statute of limitations, because CEQA analysis of the diesel fuel project should not constitute review of the district's previous approval of the boiler permits. Again, the court disagreed. It noted that CBE did not attempt to set aside the district's approval of the boiler permits � only approval of the ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel project, which was timely challenged. Finally, SCAQMD and ConocoPhillips argued that numerous Court of Appeal decisions supported the use of maximum operational levels allowed under a permit as a CEQA baseline. This is known as the Fairview line of cases (see CP&DR Legal Digest, April 1999). The court rejected this argument and factually distinguished the ConocoPhillips project from the projects in the Court of Appeal cases. The latter had involved modification of a previously analyzed project or the continued operation of equipment without significant expansion of use, the court determined. "We conclude the district's use of the maximum capacity levels set in prior boiler permits, rather than the actually existing levels of emissions from the boilers, as a baseline to analyze NOx emissions from the diesel project was inconsistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines," Werdegar wrote. On the second issue � whether the record provided substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project would have significant adverse effects � the court held that the district's own negative declaration provided evidence the project would have substantial air impacts. Thus, an EIR should have been prepared. The court remanded the issue of how to calculate the true baseline to the district for analysis in the project EIR. The Case: Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, No. S161190, 2010 DJDAR 3872. Filed March 15, 2010. The Lawyers: For CBE: Adrienne Bloch, (510) 302-0430. For the South Coast Air Quality Management District: Bradley Hogin, Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, (714) 558-7000. For ConocoPhillips: Jocelyn Thompson, Alston & Bird, (213) 576-1104. --Katherine J. Hart

This month more Census forms will arrive in California mailboxes than in those of any other state. And, while anxieties about response rates and undercounts persist nationwide, it is likely that California will fill out and submit more of them than will any other state. In its rawest state, the resulting data will give planners their most fundamental piece of data - the sheer number of people the state must accommodate. At the same time, this year's Census will lay some disputes to rest while, possibly, kicking up new ones that may persist for the next ten years. The most pressing issue, therefore, for California's demographers and planners to find out exactly how many people live in the state - a figure that is currently disputed to the tune of 1.5 million people. That's the difference between the 38.3 million residents that the California Department of Finance estimated as of January 1, 2009 and the 36.7 million that the Census Bureau estimated at the same time. Though both figures are based on the 33.8 million logged in the 2000 Census they have diverged over the past decade due to differing estimates of domestic in- and out-migration. That number is "unprecedented," said Hans Johnson, associate director at the California Public Policy Institute. "It's a phenomenal difference. There's no doubt that as a state our population growth has slowed compared to previous decades-the key question is how much." The desire to bridge this gap, and avoid the perennial threat of an undercount, has prompted cities across the state to embark on campaigns to encourage residents to respond quickly and accurately. April 1 is "Census Day," the official point of reference on which responses are to be based. "The Census Bureau has basically been saying that people have been leaving California in greater numbers than people have been coming to California," said Mary Heim, chief of the Demographic Research Unit at the California Department of Finance. "We don't think it is to the extent that the Census Bureau thinks people have been leaving the state." While Heim and others are curious to find out from the 2010 whether their numbers are correct, they of course carry more than trivial value. They will determine how many House seats the state will pick up - two if the state estimates are correct and none if the Census Bureau estimates are confirmed. The latter scenario would be the first time since 1920 that the state did not gain seats. The data will also serve as the baseline for all future demographic projections conducted by the Department of Finance. Most importantly for local and regional planners concrete, the Census will provide authoritative figures on which to base everything from transportation models to the Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA) process, which attempts to prescribe the amount and location of housing that a given region needs to accommodate population growth. "That process looks at what kind of housing is there, what's the population, and that process depends on the Department of Finance's projections," said Gordon Garry, director of research and analysis at the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. "We're hoping that this Census bridges divide between the Department of Finance and Census. For our RHNA process that's one less data problem." Other problems, however, may arise at a finer level of detail. What the Census will not include is the long-form questions that have, since 1940, asked one-sixth of American households to reveal fine details about their lives. The long form was scrapped following the 2000 Census, so planners who are accustomed to relying on detailed, nuanced Census data to analyze and plan their communities may not get the detail that they expect. "It's going to be the thinnest Census ever conducted," said Dowell Myers, professor of Urban Planning and Demographics at USC. "The most important thing for planning is the homeownership data. Except, first they threw our air conditioning, then they threw out bathrooms, now they've thrown out the whole housing unit. The only question left is, are you an owner or a renter?" Instead, everyone will receive the standard Short Form, asking for age, sex, race, ethnicity, household size and homeownership. "That doesn't give planners a lot to work with," said Myers. From that data planners will be able to get occupied housing counts and derive average household size and vacancy rates, according to Heim. More detailed information will come from the American Communities Survey, a monthly survey of 250,000 households nationwide that was fully implemented by the Census Bureau in 2006. The Census Bureau will be compiling three- and five-year averages of survey data - with the Census as a baseline - in order to replace the long form. However, even though the ACS is ongoing and not decennial like the Census, its comparatively small sample size has made some researchers wary of its reliability. Because ACS takes only a sample of households, it will have a wider margin of error than will the Census, which is presumed to have a nearly perfect response rate. PPIC's Johnson noted that this sampling problem may affect small cities and counties more than it will large ones and put California at less of a disadvantage than it does more rural states. Even so, the absolute discrepancies and margins of error may be significant. "I have real reservations (about ACS)," said Heim. "I think we don't totally grasp how you use five-year averages, three-year averages, and annual data. It's like a whole new world out there." "That's a challenge for people who study things like poverty concentrations," said Johnson. "You cannot look at the Census to get that anymore." Additionally, the short form obscures some data that planners consider crucial to creating the next generation of transportation plans. SACOG's Garry said that fine details about household demographics can have big impacts on travel patterns, thus making the combined data from the Census and ACS crucial to regional planning. "(Regional planning agencies) are going to be caught holding the bag figuring this out," said Myers. "Our new travel models are much more travel-behavior based we've gone to another level of detail," said Garry. "It turns out that the kind of household makes a big difference in the travel demand and how respond to how far away things are and job locations and what kind of transportation choice will they make." Even with the "thin" short form and questions about how the ACS and Census will match up, demographers are hoping that the deluge of fresh data will answer lingering questions and confirm predictions about what has, by many estimates, been an usual decade for the state. The Census may offer a macro-level account of the recession and foreclosure crisis by allowing analysts to extrapolate the rate of vacancies that have been caused by foreclosures. "Are people doubling up?" said Heim. "Are multiple families in one housing unit?" On the other hand, the Census may reveal less housing density thanks not to economic conditions but rather to the aging of the population and the settling of the state's immigrant population, both of which have a tendencytend to reduce household sizes. The numbers may, therefore, indicate a trend that would give smart growth advocates pause. "One reason density has increased in the past wasn't that we were building more housing units but that we had more people living in housing units," said Johnson. "Over time as immigrants adapt to life in the United States they might start living in smaller households." Moreover, Heim noted that elderly residents are becoming a larger percentage of the state's population. They tend to live alone or in pairs and therefore have less per-unit density than would nuclear families. Eventually, however, those homes will turn over. Concerns therefore persist about the combination of demographic and economic trends and the ability of the next generation of would-be homeowners to fill the state's existing housing stock. "The projections are interesting but also threatening," said Myers. "Older baby boomers are going to be selling, progressively. Are there going to be enough younger homeowners to pay for that built-up equity over the past few decades?" Statewide, the Census will assign hard numbers to the trends that have defined the state's development over the past ten years. "Things that I'll be looking at include changes in inland vs. coastal areas, north vs. south and some of the regional patterns," said Johsnon. "And looking specifically at what were the big changes in terms of racial and ethnic mix? How much have cities been transformed?" From there, California's planners can begin to think about how the state will-and should-be transformed in the next ten years. Contacts: Gordon Garry, Director of Research and Analysis, SACOG (916) 340-6230 Mary Heim, Chief, California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit (916) 445-3878 Hans Johnson, Associate Director, Public Policy Institute of California (415) 291-4460 Prof. Dowell Myers , USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development (213) 740-7095

Regional planning has just won a round in its age-old battle against local prerogative. Earlier this month, an Alameda County Superior Court judge struck down voter-approved housing caps in the City of Pleasanton and ordered the city to zone more land to accommodate the city's fair share of housing. Judge Frank Roesch sided with affordable housing advocates, who have pressed Pleasanton for years over what they consider exclusionary housing policies. The ruling strikes me as very important -- but not quite as important as some people might think. It's not such a big deal because this was a Superior Court ruling that applies only to one city. Unless the case is appealed and a Court of Appeal publishes a similar decision, no legal precedent for any other city has been established. Still, the ruling is a big deal for two reasons: It emboldens affordable housing advocates, and it may portend future skirmishes as regional planning imperatives continue to take hold in California. First, a little background on Pleasanton, a city of nearly 70,000 people in Alameda County. In 1986, city voters approved a growth management ordinance and housing cap. In 1998, they modified the earlier restrictions by approving Measure GG, which limited annual housing permits to 750 units per year and – most importantly – established 29,000 units as the maximum number of units in town. In 2008, voters approved Measure PP, which reaffirmed Measure GG and tightened the definition of a housing unit. Over the years, the city has grown into a substantial job center thanks to development of business parks. By one estimate, at least 40,000 people commute to Pleasanton on a daily basis. Meanwhile, in 2001, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that Pleasanton's share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 1999-2006 period was 5,059 units, including 2,423 units for very low, low- or moderate-income households. As you might imagine, this was not a popular mandate in Pleasanton. Despite studies and promises, city officials never zoned adequate land to accommodate the RHNA housing numbers. The Department of Housing and Community Development refused to certify the city's 2003 housing element update. The San Francisco-based group Urban Habitat Program sued to enforce the housing element law in 2006. The group first had to win a procedural battle even to get its claims heard by a judge (see CP&R Legal Digest , September 2008 ). Judge Roesch's ruling on those claims is straightforward. "It is self-evident that the city cannot comply with the state statute requiring the city to accommodate its RHNA when the city is not permitted by its local law, Measure GG, to allow the number of housing units to be built that would satisfy the RHNA," he wrote. "The question of which law prevails is elementary. State law preempts whenever local laws contradict state law." Roesch ordered the city to strike Measures GG, PP and QQ (another 2008 initiative) from all planning documents and to zone land for housing pursuant to the 1999-2006 RHNA. He also ordered the city to halt issuing non-residential building permits until its general plan complies with state law. The ruling was a home run for the housing advocates. "This is the first time that a court has ordered a jurisdiction to rezone sites to meet the need identified in the previous RHNA," said Richard Marcantonio, attorney for Urban Habitat Program. Other cities also failed to zone adequate land during the last RHNA round, and even more cities in the ABAG region missed last year's deadline for updating housing elements. I can guarantee that Marcantonio knows which cities. I strongly suspect that many of the cities dodging the housing law are hoping Pleasanton does not appeal Roesch's decision because a similar ruling by an appellate court could establish a precedent that those cities don't want to see. At this point, Pleasanton has not announced a course of action. It's too early to appeal because Urban Habitat Program claims of housing discrimination are still pending. A City of Pleasanton spokeswoman said officials have no comment. However, former Pleasanton Mayor and Councilman Tom Pico, speaking on KQED radio's "Forum," defended the city's growth policies and called the RHNA process "seriously flawed" because it penalizes the city for having a BART station and employment centers. There's nothing wrong, he said, with putting the housing for Pleasanton's workers in the neighboring cities of Dublin and Livermore. He further contended the city is nearly at buildout. Pico was not speaking for the city, but it is exactly that sort of attitude that has gotten Pleasanton in its current pickle. In approving SB 375 , the Legislature made regional planning an even greater priority than it has been under the housing element law. The idea behind SB 375 is to force cities with transit and jobs – cities like Pleasanton – to accept lots of new housing as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars. In other words, the conflict that continues to play out in Pleasanton could become commonplace around California. – Paul Shigley

The hottest web meme of the past two days -- in urbanist circles at least (I shudder to think of what the hottest overall meme is) -- is the chart of the most photographed cities and landmarks in the world.  Last year a team of Cornell researchers assumed the guise of part Web trawlers and part econometricians and, with the help of photo-analysis software, identified every photo on the Flickr photo-sharing site that could recognizably be associated with a city.  It ranked the top twenty-five cities and then the top seven most commonly photographed subjects in each.  Not surprisingly, Europe wins the prize for the most photogenic landmarks worldwide.  The Eiffel Tower, Trafalgar Square, the Tate Modern, Big Ben, and Notre Dame cathedral round out the top five, although New York ranks first overall among cities.  But not far down the grid an astounding pattern emerges: three of the top 25 most photographed cities are in California: San Francisco (third), Los Angeles (seventh), and Lee Vining (13th).  Just kidding; 13th goes to San Diego.  This study does not suggest that these are the absolute most popular (or at least photogenic) places in the world, since anything that uses Flickr as a dataset is bound to be rife with bias.  Most notably, the data is biased towards those who have web access and, moreover, have the savvy or sense of exhibitionism to use Flickr.  The demographic traits of that population surely look nothing like that of the world as a whole, and they are in fact likely to be biased towards the very cities that make the top of the list.  Flickr itself is a subsidiary of Yahoo!, which is, naturally, based near San Francisco, so the study may say more about the respective cities' tech savvy than their aesthetic appeal.  Though the study seems to have more to do with the web than with cities per se, it has the unfortunate indirect effect of celebrating landmarks over streetscapes and, indeed, icons over places.  I like San Francisco's Union Square (SF #3) and adore the Santa Monica Pier (LA #5), but I don't even know what it would mean to "go" to the Hollywood Sign (LA #2) and I'm not quire sure what to do about "seals" in San Diego (#4).  Most disturbing to those who believe in California urbanism, some of the state's top scorers aren't so much places as they are artificial attractions: Disneyland (LA #1), Coit Tower (SF #1), and -- brace yourself -- Comicon (SD #7), which isn't even a place so much as a universe all its own.  California's notoriety is heartening, and the study suggests that if all else fails the state can still count on revenue from tourists (and comic book aficionados).  But the study ignores that which California so desperately needs: genuine, attractive, liveable places.  Tourists are not so likely to snap photos of Old Town Pasadena or of the dozens of main streets in the Central Valley, but those are the places that need the most attention and, ultimately, will generate the most economic activity as they enable Californians to mingle with each other.  The best places are, in short, those that don't stand out.  California needs ordinary places that evade the shutter not because they are unattractive but because they they are so intertwined in the fabric of residents' lives that they cease to seem special at all.  Indeed, urban planners should (and probably do) know better than anyone else in California that "special" is not the same thing as "spectacle."  We now have scientific proof that California has plenty of the latter; our challenge is to build more of the former. -- Josh Stephens PS.  Far more fascinating, and less predictable, than the ranking of discrete sights are the activity maps that the researchers extrapolated from the aggregate data:

Gov. Schwarzenegger is going around the state urging lawmakers to approve a measure that would provide $200 million in tax credits for homebuyers. The governor claims the measure will save or add thousands of construction jobs. His claim is hardly new. But is there any real basis for it? Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal 's Evan Newmark posted a blog with the headline, "Don't Be Brainwashed by the Housing Cult" in which he questioned the assumption that homebuilding is a pillar of the economy. If Newmark is right, it demands a reconsideration of how the government subsidizes home construction. Specifically, Newmark challenged the statement by Toll Brothers CEO Bob Toll that new home construction directly or indirectly provides one-fifth to one-quarter of all jobs in this country. It was the sort of boast that we hear frequently from the industry. Newmark, however, noted that homebuilding accounted for only 2.5% of GDP last year. Even in early 2006, when homebuilding was booming (and, as it turns out, we were overbuilding by a large amount) the industry amounted to 8% of GDP. Newmark doesn't think much of the homebuilding industry's ongoing demand that the federal government provide subsidies to new home buyers, or of the industry's pressure on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA to continue supplying taxpayer-guaranteed mortgages to new home buyers. He notes that 14.5% of housing units in the country are sitting vacant, and he concludes , "It seems that the only Americans who really need more new houses are the American home builders." I might expect this sort of commentary from an environmentalist or a greenie masquerading as an academic. But Newmark, although a contrarian and a shit-disturber, is no tree-hugger or slow-growther seeking additional government regulation. He's an unapologetic capitalist, and he has actual facts behind his argument here. We Californians like to think our state is different. After all, California reliably adds about 500,000 new residents every year. Even last year, when the California economy was in worse shape than at any time since the Depression, the state population grew by 367,000 people, according to Department of Finance . California, the argument goes, will always need additional housing units. I tend to accept that argument. But if Newmark's economic analysis is to be believed, the home construction imperative is social, not economic. We should build housing because people need shelter, not in order to employ people. One year ago, the California Building Industry Association convinced state lawmakers to provide a tax credit of up to $10,000 to buyers of new homes. About 10,000 buyers took advantage of the program, getting themselves an average credit of about $7,000. The CBIA, state lawmakers and Schwarzenegger touted the program as a job-booster. Heck, even I offered a qualified endorsement . Now the CBIA and Schwarzenegger are calling for $200 million of tax credits for the buyers of any home, new or not. --------Update-------- The governor signed AB 183, the $200 million tax credit, into law on March 25. ------------------------- However, all of the evidence says that last year's program did nothing more than permit homebuilders to unload inventory. According to the Economic Development Agency, construction jobs fell by 18% to 570,000 in 2009 . The CBIA itself bemoans that housing starts remained at the lowest level ever recorded in 2009. I'm going to suggest that if the government wants to subsidize new housing, it should fund the units Californians actually need – and not simply toss money untargeted into the market. And what we need are not the three- and four-bedroom single-family houses that are the specialty of the CBIA's members. The average household size has been decreasing for years, and the fastest-growing household segment is one- and two-person households: seniors (by 2030, 20% of Californians will be at least 65 years old), singles, childless couples and single people sharing quarters. What these smaller households want are – this is not a big surprise – smaller housing units in convenient locations. About 57% of California's housing units are detached single-family houses, according to the Department of Finance's 2008 California Statistical Abstract . It's safe to assume that most of these are suburban-style houses that were originally designed for mom, dad and their two or three kids. But this sort of nuclear family will account for only about 25% of California households by 2020. The one- and two-person household is replacing the Leave It To Beaver family. Give these small households 800 to 1,000 square feet of well-designed living space (or un-designed living space, as in a loft), preferably within walking distance of the grocery, a coffee house, the library, a cinema and a park, and these people are as happy as clams. If the government wants to subsidize new housing, it should aim squarely at the units that we truly need. And it should do so because people need decent shelter, not for any other reason. – Paul Shigley

Covered by chaparral and dry brush, the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties are at a perennial risk of wildfire. And when the seasonal Santa Ana winds sweep through, they bring Apocalyptic storms of fire and ash that rain down on, and sometimes consume, the communities that press up against these slopes. Into that path comes a proposal the G. Miller Development Company to build 110 luxury homes on 670 rugged acres just outside the Rancho Cucamonga city limits and bordering San Bernardino National Forest. It's a plan that many locals call a dangerous gamble, one that will place hundreds of new residents � and local emergency responders -- in heart of fire country. More than 30 residents spoke out against the project at an August 2009 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hearing. None spoke out in favor. And yet, the project remains under consideration as the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission awaits the release of a revised environmental impact report.  The proposal calls for Rancho Cucamonga to annex the land.   But it's not just the fire risk that has locals up in arms about the proposed development. What has them uneasy about the plan is the big name behind it: U.S. Congressman Gary Miller.  A Republican who has represented nearby communities of Brea, Diamond Bar and Yorba Linda since 1998, Miller is also the sole proprietor of the development company that bears his name. Though Miller's job gives him no direct jurisdiction over local land use, neighbors worry that his influence and reported close relationship with Rancho Cucamonga Mayor Donald Kurth are enabling the looming approval of a project that some consider a disaster waiting to happen. "We all know that there are fires, floods and earthquakes," said Danae Delaney, an opponent of the project who's part of the Rancho Cucamonga Conservancy. "That area is a high fire risk, a high flood risk, and in an earthquake zone with many faultlines running through."  Denaley said that the homes would themselves be a risk to their occupants, and if a blaze were to threaten the homes, "It's just putting our fire personnel and our emergency rescue personnel more at risk," said Delaney. In 2003, a fire known as the Grand Prix burned nearly 8,000 acres in and around Rancho Cucamonga, prompting the evacuation of nearly 2,000 homes, 13 of which were destroyed. City estimates put the damage from that fire at more than $7 million. The next year, a fire destroyed the Carrari Ranch Christmas Tree farm � which, before its crop went up in smoke, occupied the very site that Miller's company is now trying to develop. Since long before he was elected to Congress, Miller has been a prominent developer in the Inland Empire.  His company bought the Christmas tree farm from the Carrari family in 2004 after the fire wiped out their business. Miller has not publicly released details of the sale, but various reports put the final price tag at $2 million. Whether or not Miller ends up developing the site himself, opponents fear that, at the very least, he might flip the property upon receiving city approvals.  "He wants an approved tract map," said Frank Schiavone, a long-time resident who has been a vocal opponent of the project at Carrari Ranch since it was announced in 2005. "I don't think I'm coming from another planet when I say that a property with an approved tract map is going to be worth a heck of a lot more than just a plain old piece of property." Miller's office declined to comment for this article. Final approval of the project is still six to nine months away, according to Candyce Burnett, a senior planner at the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Burnett is currently working with Miller's company on a revised scope of work for the project, which released a draft environmental impact report in June 2009. The new scope of work includes additional studies that would demonstrate acceptable environmental impacts. "Additional studies are dealing with fire safety, as well as a downstream stability study," said Burnett. Though the last major fire was in 2003, she said the area is at regular risk of wildfire during the dry and windy season. "That's why we're looking at the additional fire studies to look at evacuation procedures and the potential for apparatus to fight fires in that area." The project scope would require annexation of the 670-acre site into the city of Rancho Cucamonga, adoption of the specific plan crafted for the 342-acre project site, an amendment to the city's general plan, and a development district agreement. The proposed residential lots range from 10,200 square feet to a little more than one acre each, and the entire project has an average density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre. About 200 acres of open space will also be included. Another of the more contentious aspects of the project is the required inclusion of 41 acres of fuel modification in the hillsides around the development � a requirement that opponents view as proof of the site's inherent danger. "It's just dangerous," said Delaney. "I think it's irresponsible to build in an area where you know there's a greater risk of having a natural disaster." She and others in town are also upset about the aesthetic ramifications. The Carrari Ranch site is located on a hillside that is visible from almost every part of Rancho Cucamonga. And though there is a handful of homes sprinkled up in the foothills around the elevation of Miller's proposed project, some say the sight of a 110-home gated community would be hard to miss . "We can only go so far up into the foothills. There's a lot of scenic beauty looking up, and if it gets developed we're not going to have that," said Delaney. But getting those homes up into the hills won't be easy. Due to the parcel's rugged terrain, the development will require the movement of about 7 million cubic yards of dirt to fill in areas and create an area flat enough to build homes.  It would also alter a landscape that is currently wild.  "I'm looking at it from an environmentalist's point of view," said Schiavone. "There's a very rare habitat there. There's sensitive species there. And I'm sure nothing's going to be done to mitigate the environmental damage this project is going to cause." Despite the local concerns, the project seems to be moving forward. Burnett expects the additional studies will be complete in a few months, clearing the way for a revised environmental impact report. Work on the project could begin by year's end. The first residents could move in within five years. For the vocal opponents in Rancho Cucamonga, the project seems unstoppable. Schiavone said he feels there's little he and other community members can do to halt a project with so much power behind it. However, he concedes that he has seen no proof of abuse of power on the part of Miller -- but he still believes it. "The way Congressman Miller is going about this is what really bothers a lot of people," said Schiavone. "Obviously he's throwing his weight around." Contacts: Congressman Gary Miller (Washington, DC): 202-225-3201  Candyce Burnett, City of Rancho Cucamonga: 909-477-2750 Frank Schiavone: 909-987-6805 Danae Delaney: 909-758-0282 -- Nate Berg

The primary takeaways from last week's California Redevelopment Association conference was unambiguous: stakeholders and public officials alike must know the true impact of reduction of redevelopment funding in communities and statewide. Panels on the final day of the conference sent attendees home with some idea of the steps that both local agencies and the state association must take to achieve this goal and keep the state's redevelopment agenda on track. Representatives from law enforcement, labor, environmental, real estate development, and social service organizations emphasized the need for broad-based coalitions to work together to communicate this message. Chair of the California League of Conservation Voters Tom Adams noted that the "paradigm shift in the environmental community based on the passage of SB 375" has made "environmentalists recognize that redevelopment is an essential tool" to reduce the state's carbon footprint.  Leaders Christine Minnehan (Western Center on Law & Poverty) and Chief Susan Manheimer (California Association of Police Chiefs) confirmed the need for other groups to identify commonalities and represent the different perspectives of redevelopment, social services and law enforcement, respectively. On the policy side, the private sector, represented by Renata Simril, senior vice president at Forest City Enterprises, urged greater flexibility to address sustainability issues rather than "imposing artificial constraints – such as requiring LEED silver certification on any commercial building over 50,000 square feet in the City of Los Angeles." Former legislators Dede Alpert and Jim Brulte underscored the importance of working with groups outside of the redevelopment world and also of the need to educate legislators and staffers on the relevance of redevelopment. Brulte noted that "so many of the legislators don't really know what redevelopment does. Send in the interest groups whom legislators benefit from…to show them the impact of these cuts." Brulte contended that "every dollar taken from redevelopment affects public safety," or the irony of Republicans who might typically scoff at redevelopment spending who then hold fundraisers in venues that benefited by redevelopment funding. Good fodder for local agencies who will need all the help they can get in holding on to their funds from the state. Overall, the conference addressed both the basics and complexities of climate change, from baseline discussion of SB 375 and AB 32, identifying impacts of vehicle trip reduction, to financing programs for green development. Similar to the reaction of planners on climate change regulation ( CP&DR Insight, Vol. 23 No. 01 Jan 2008 ), those in the redevelopment field are incorporating more green and transit-friendly elements into their projects.  Finally, the national economic climate was felt as sessions on federal foreclosure assistance programs and financing projects through ARRA funds were well attended. CP&DR attended some of these sessions and for the first time attempted to relay key sessions via a live twitter feed. You can access the public twitter feed on the conference here: http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23calredev  without having to register for a twitter account. -- Allison Joe

Sometimes one has to leave the conference hall and go and check things out for oneself -- it wouldn't be a redevelopment conference without a nerdy redevelopment tour.  I would have liked the California Redevelopment Association conference to have explored more offsite opportunities, and have taken more advantage of accessibility to the Gold Line, newly extended to East LA.  Instead, I detoured from the main conference agenda to check out two of the LA area's most vaunted redevelopment zones: Old Town Pasadena, Downtown Los Angeles, and North Hollywood.  Some reflections�  Past: Old Town Pasadena Old Town has long been the poster child for (successful) downtown redevelopment - even by Shigley's standards . Walking from the Pasadena Convention Center to Old Town is still a bit awkward, but street-level retail has thirived.  The changing economy has resulted in the departure of a few major restaurants (Gordon Biersch, Jerry's Deli), and interesting retail turnovers � venerable Saks Fifth Avenue transformed into Gen Y emporium Forever 21, and the United Artists movie theater - long a cornerstone of Colorado Blvd. - has been transformed into a Tiffany & Co.  Old Town has held its own - constantly changing its approach, but remaining true to the dedication to revitalization and walkability (except for that one block) and continues to attract tourists and locals alike.  I'd be curious to see how Old Town does in the next ten years - will it continue to reinvent itself, or will the sheer number of tourists that come through the city continue to support it without any ongoing changes?  Old Town has hit on a nearly perfect formula for the past ten years, and shoppers have responded to the old-fashioned main street.  Pasadena must hope that they don't all get nostalgic for indoor malls. Present: Downtown Los Angeles Arts/Old Bank Districts I also ventured to downtown Los Angeles for their Thursday night Downtown Art Walk , which coincided nicely with the conference and easy Metro accessibility (Gold Line light rail to Red Line subway).  From the 1970s until early 2000s, this area was the home of Skid Row, dilapidated office buildings, and deserted streets in the evenings.  Although most of the "character" remains in the form of some spectacular Philip Marlowe-era buildings, it has transformed into more of an urban, revitalized environment, mostly a result of the efforts of the CRA/LA and early urban living developers such as Tom Gilmore.  Their vision was for a place where people could "live, work, and play," and it seems that the vision has just now become reality. Walking between Spring and Main Street, between 4th and 8th Streets, the new residents of the lofts and live/work spaces and the "established" residents of Skid Row interact somewhat in harmony.  And on nights like the Art Walk it seems to be a true 24-hour urban environment - if even for a few days a month.  We thought the vibe was close to what we imagine was New York City in the early 80s - packed intersections, interactions on the street, and public and private spaces utilized by artists. Interesting elements include: on-street live music performances, the takeover of an alley by the Skid Row Artists Collective, and the mobile food trucks which have permeated the Southern California food scene.  We also noted that the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency was relocating its headquarters - out of downtown L.A, and across the I-110 freeway - to consolidate spaces with the City's Community Development Department - after over 30 years in the heart of it all on 6th Street.  The romantic planner in me wants to think that the CRA/LA's done what it's needed to do in the area and is moving on to a different area; to the more likely practical side of this move is probably fiscally related. Future: North Hollywood Finally, between the two more established redevelopment areas is the North Hollywood redevelopment area , which has the potential to be a great transit hub and a vibrant place � but it's not there yet.  Noho's notoriety as an arts center is conflicted.  There are vibrant and diverse arts media in the area, but the place hasn't be knitted together yet.  Although several parcels have been identified by Los Angeles Metro, a number of economic and physical challenges exist.  The connections between the Red Line train (underground) and the street-level Orange Line bus turnabout are less than linear, forcing Red Line riders to exit the station, surface to street level, cross Lankershim to wait for the Orange Line busses.  In addition, the potential for the synergies found in Downtown LA during the Art Walk are more difficult to imagine in Noho.  This is the Valley, so longer corridors with larger gaps in between venues and a larger mix of lower-density residential homes create a less walkable area, and one in which redevelopment efforts may require a different approach to revitalization.   Redevelopment zones like these came up often during the conference, and by most accounts they are successful.  But the City of Los Angeles alone has over 30 of them, and they can't all have art walks and subway stops.  So challenges still remain for planners and community development officials.  Let's hope that many of them are inspired by these projects and by what's been presented at week's conference!

In planning, as with anything else, the progress does not arrive merely with the flow of time. The enthusiasm and ideas that swept over these pages in the first decade of this century -- smart growth, downtown revitalization, AB 32, SB 375, and all the rest -- are now met with delay, deferral, and, in some cases, bankruptcy. And yet, even in mellow times, any moment can be a crucial moment in planning. Buildings may take their time, but deals, laws, and policies can be enacted at any time and yet have long-reaching, sometimes unanticipated effects. (Just ask Suzette Kelo, or the authors of CEQA.) Development, deterioration, and even stasis can mean triumph -- or tragedy -- for many people. One neighborhood group cries victory, while another is condemned to live in the shadow of something awful. Such are the stories of land use, albeit at their most melodramatic. The prospect that California will never run out of land use stories -- a prospect so axiomatic as to hardly require mention -- has held firm ever since CP&DR started chronicling them 25 years ago. Cities, in fact, are on the rise, and planning is heeding the call to manage larger populations while conserving resources. But, as I assume editorship of this publication, what is far less certain is the future of journalism. Planning and journalism share a potent relationship. All of us who write, blog, and otherwise muse on land use enjoy the juxtaposition between the ephemeral nature of media and the permanence of the things that we cover. Stories come and go (and sometimes plans do too), but, roads, buildings, and communities remain. This permanence requires that we get our stories right the first time (and hundredth time as well, depending how many CEQA suits get filed). Though all journalists draw satisfaction from their role in the democratic process, rarely is the connection between reporting and the real world so direct as with land use. Buildings cannot hide, but they sometimes require journalists to help them speak. Good stories -- well researched, clearly written, objectively recounted -- can inspire the ideas, revelations, debates, and even protests that can make or break plans and developments. We journalists, and we at CP&DR, believe that in the aggregate we will leave an indirect, but distinct, legacy not in our words themselves but in the betterment of a great, if challenged, state. Even as California considers selling a kidney to replenish its coffers, the regeneration of the built environment (as well as the despoilment of the natural environment) will continue. A generation ago, cities were the ones facing their demise while the morning paper ran memorable headlines about rivers catching fire and presidents telling them to "drop dead." Now both papers and cities have reversed their courses, each having heeded the call of history to now head in the opposite direction as they were before. Indeed, whether they prefer downtown lofts or Barbie's Dream House, people will always need places in which to live, work, and dream. But lately it seems that they may consider journalism expendable. My arrival at CP&DR comes at the pivot of journalistic history, from ink to bytes, and, to an extent, from professionalism to amateurism (the latter of which can indeed be excellent). You can't build a mixed-use, transit-oriented temple to New Urbanism without a few bricks, but you certainly can certainly disseminate information, analysis, and opinion without paper. What serious journalists cling to, absent the financial and editorial bulwarks that used to surround print media, is the conviction that objectivity, originality, clarity, expertise, eloquence, balance -- and all the other hallmarks of our profession -- will persevere in the digital era and that readers will respond accordingly. I have written my share of blogs and other informal pieces, and I will continue doing so on the CP&DR website. But a fundamental difference separates blogging from reporting. As a friend of mine, New York Times reporter Nicholas Confessore, trenchantly noted in an article several years ago, when blogs were just emerging, "If every newspaper went out of business tomorrow, blogs would have nothing to blog about." And that's where CP&DR comes in. We may not hit the pavement on broadsheet for a million daily readers, but we will always strive to publish original, high-quality news pieces that give our readers something new to muse over, act upon, and, indeed, blog about. Sometimes we will fall short, but, we hope, sometimes we will hit our mark. This is the motivation that brings me to these pages. Succeeding Paul Shigley, whom I admire greatly, I believe that journalism has a future, and I believe that focused publications like CP&DR can have a tremendous impact, especially now that the stalwarts of our industry are struggling. Whether a locally focused article reaches a small group thoughtful, active people with an intense interest or whether something else flows off our pages, gets swept into the main current of the Internet, and gets blogged, tweeted, and draw up into the great Internet cloud, we hope to do justice to both our topics and our profession. As for what CP&DR will cover under my tenure, we know that plenty of familiar themes and topics will recur -- just as they did in the decade that Paul Shigley covered. But, most likely, the best stories will be the unexpected ones -- the ones that come out of nowhere or, better yet, come from you, our readers, and our network of sources and supporters on the ground. One of the great things about covering someplace as vast and diverse as California that we will never run out of stories to tell. Ultimately, my inspiration stems from California itself. On that topic, I disclose my bias wholeheartedly. It is one of the world's great sub-national entities, and it deserves publications like CP&DR. The land use community here is most obviously bound up in common laws, policies, and landscapes, and less obviously in common styles, cultures, and politics. Above all else, we are bound in common by a spirit of aspiration. I write this greeting, incongruously, from a lecture hall in Cambridge, Mass. It's a fine, if drizzly, place. But, with a heyday reaching back three centuries, it feels different from California. Hopes and dreams really are drawn to California, and they need a worthy landscape in which to flourish. It is an exceptional place, and in the volumes to come, I look forward to capturing a few of its crucial moments and seeing a few of its dreams come true. -- Josh Stephens

For many cities, redevelopment relies on public-private partnerships, innovative financing, and design integrated with existing surroundings which, in turn, often support the hot topics of smart growth, transit-oriented development, and climate change adaptation.  However, in the recent downturn, the tools that are typically available to redevelopment agencies have been limited -- partially because of economic constraints�well, actually all because of economic constraints.   Here at the 2010 California Redevelopment Association conference in Pasadena, attendance has been strong.  Over 1,000 people are expected to attend, making this the 4th highest attendance in CRA conference history.  Not bad for a group whose tax increment revenue has slumped in the current cycle of decreased sales tax revenues and property values - and then threatened by the state for a possible "raid" of $2.5 billion in local redevelopment dollars over the current and upcoming fiscal years.   The conference led off by call to action by CRA Executive Director John Shirey.  Already in litigation with the state over the its takeover of redevelopment funds, CRA appears to be on the defense.  The CRA has developed a strategic plan, which really seems to be a call to arms, the main components of which are:  1) Fight to Protect Redevelopment Funding.  This is reflected in the CRA's current litigation with the state. 2) Support Statewide Ballot Initiative(s) to Protect Redevelopment Funding .  CRA is partnering with the League of California Cities, California Transit Association, and the California Alliance for Jobs to support the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation Protection Act of 2010 , currently in the signature-gathering phase for qualification on the November 2010 ballot. 3) Broaden Base of Support for Redevelopment .  Increased outreach to business groups, labor, environmental groups, and other advocacy groups. 4) Increase Awareness of Redevelopment Benefits and Accomplishments. 5) Increase Participation of Local Elected Officials in CRA .   Many electeds and city managers/administrators do not actively participate in Association advocacy efforts. Other thoughts from the panel following the presentation of the strategy were particularly strong from Cal Hollis, interim director of the Community Redevelopment Agency Los Angeles, and Cecilia Estolano, former head of CRA/LA and now working with the nonprofit Green for All. They focused on the need for redevelopment agencies to shift priorities for long-term sustainability.  Hollis noted that CRA/LA staff are actually working with Small Business Association staff in a greater economic development capacity - the current need is not to build - but to fill buildings and put people to work.  Estolano is taking her new position at Green for All to heart - emphasizing that redevelopment agencies need to place a greater emphasis on sustainability, addressing inequalities and ensuring equal access to good development.  Estolano stated that "making redevelopment about people and talking about creating opportunities for new Californians" will bring redevelopment to the forefront of the conversation.   Other highlights of the day�. The annual awards luncheon highlighted accomplishments of some prominent projects, some unknown projects.  More on those to come.  Green financing session summary:  there are lots of financing programs available - when cobbled together, projects can happen. On deck tomorrow:  Keynote Lunch:  Peter Calthorpe  Climate Action Plans and Redevelopment Redevelopment and ARRA I'll be live tweeting the Calthorpe talk and other tidbits.  Follow CP&DR at @Cal_Plan or read the ar chived twitter feed at  http://twitter.com/cal_plan . -- Allison Joe