White Paper

st
A 21 century revamp of urban design:
City 2.0

A strategy to live luxurious and productive lives in

affordable and non-toxic cities, that offer a good sense
of community and privacy, in an energy independent
and environmentally sustainable fashion.

Written by
Thomas Vincent Garrett

Be The Change Development

Los Angeles, CA
2010
Dear Reader,

I love urban planning. I’m passionate about urban planning because it so

profoundly affects our life, for better or for worse. It affects the quality of our food,
air and the cost of living, as well as our sense of community and privacy. As such,
these are the standards of value guiding my work.

I don’t like calling what I do “urban planning.” Cities don’t need planners,
they need designers. A good designer considers a product holistically and values
both form and function. He seeks to maximize value in every detail. As a complete
design City 2.0 utilizes leading edge thought, innovative ideas, and break-though
technology to make a city for the 21st century that is beautiful, functional and
sustainable.

In this essay, my standards of value serve as the lens through which I will
discuss how we arrived at today’s city design, how it affects our lives for the worse
and the amazing potential that is possible.

Sincerely,
Tom Garrett

2
Table of Contents Page

Los Angeles As We Know It 4

Today… Los Angeles Sucks 5

Consider Mr. Normal 6

LA Sucks and We Can’t Fix It 7

The Joys of Bankruptcy 8

City 2.0 9

Conclusion 16

3
 Chapter 1

Los Angeles As We Know It

Los Angeles as we know it was designed in the 1950’s, during a time of
innovation. As American manufacturing was turned toward consumption, following
World War II, the cost of automobiles dropped significantly. At the same time
government had surplus funds and roads were affordable to build (1). The result is a
city built around the automobile, with residential, commercial and industrial areas
miles apart.

Los Angeles (1950’s) City 2.0

Roads built for cars
Building-use separated (low density)
Materials new / affordable
Utilities centralized, affordable
Water/Power use in efficient

At the time, utilizing the opportunities available in the development of Los

Angeles led to a great improvement in the quality of life for the residents. Compared
to cities around the world Los Angeles was a promise of what was possible.
Residents enjoyed living in quiet and peaceful neighborhoods that were far from
busy, polluted and dense commercial centers. It was affordable to own a car, which
made it convenient to drive to the shopping or working areas of town. The roads
were adequate for the number of cars, traffic jams were a rare occurrence. No longer
did residents have to walk long distances to public transportation pick up/drop off
areas, or ride on loud and smelly buses, or wait for public transportation or walk long
distances from the drop off areas to where you needed to go. The car saved people
time and energy while offering a comfortable and private mode of transportation.
In the 1950’s, Los Angeles was appropriately designed based on those
circumstances. The numerous parts that come together to make a city are highly
inter-connected, as conditions change in one area the effects can be felt throughout
the city. Thus, cities must be sensitive to changes and flexible enough to evolve.
Think about this… it is 1955, you just bought a brand new Chevrolet. It is by far the

4
best vehicle ever made and you love it. If Chevrolet kept selling the same car,
without implementing new technologies and practices into the car - today’s
consumer would be flabbergasted that such common accessories such as power
steering, power windows, AC, airbags, seatbelts and radios would be missing. As
crazy as it seems to drive around today in a car from the 1950’s, I’m going to
illustrate how crazy it is to be living in a city designed in the 1950’s.
As current situations change, cities must also change or loose relevance. As
population grew, resources became more expensive and new ideas and technology
were discovered the design of Los Angeles did not evolve. So what was the result?

Chapter 2

Today… Los Angeles Sucks!

Driving. Driving sucks. Time spent driving has steadily increased since the
mid 1970’s (2). Most of the increase is due to congestion on the roads… traffic (3).
This is a very sad and unfortunate trend. Time spent in traffic is wasted - time that
could have been spent working, with friends, with family or spent relaxing. Traffic
is stressful. Driving in traffic is a boring, monotonous task that requires your
attention. Traffic irritates people. Irritated drivers are far more likely to drive
aggressively and get into road rage. Being stressed out has a quantifiably negative
impact on your health. Furthermore, as we sit in traffic an invisible cloud of carbon
monoxide engulfs us (4). Carbon monoxide is a toxic substance. Sitting for hours in
a cloud of toxic gas sucks. Owning a car is expensive (5,6). In California,
registration fees have increased by 300% in the last 10 years. Most parking spaces
require a payment. Large amounts of our income and gasoline purchases are heavily
taxed, to provide our roads. Car maintenance is costly and requires hours of valuable
time. Driving violations are expensive and require much time to resolve. Driving is
dangerous. It is probably the most life threatening thing you do and you have to do it
all of the time (6).

5
 Buildings. The buildings in our city suck. Every building in Los Angeles
has toxins in the indoor air, which we breathe while inside. It sucks that many
buildings were built with lead paint, which causes birth defects and brain damage for
young children (7,8). It sucks that many buildings have asbestos in them – the only
known cause of Mesothelioma (9). We are discovering that even new products are
toxic. Energy efficient CFL light bulbs have mercury in them (10). If a CFL light
breaks, the room is considered a severe health threat and professional crews must
contain the toxins and remove them. Everything from computer printers, to pool
cleaning supplies to carpets off-gas toxic chemicals.
Our city’s power system sucks. 85% of our power comes from coal-fired
plants (11). This sucks because somewhere within a few hundred miles of your
home there is a huge power plant emitting tons of toxic chemicals into the air
everyday (12). The way our electrical grid works, requires power plants to produce
enough energy to meet peak power demand 24 hours a day. Demand decreases at
night, this ends up wasting 60% of all energy created (13,14)! It sucks that 60% of
all the carbon dioxide our power plants emit and we breathe, is produced for power
that is not even used. Our power is run by government sponsored monopolies.
Monopolies suck because they are not beholden to the customer, that is why their
service sucks, their bills are confusing and they have done very little to modernize
their equipment.
Our water system sucks. It sucks because the government sponsored
monopoly servicing our water needs, puts chlorine in the water (15). Chlorine kills
all of the living organisms in the water, but it is a highly toxic chemical. Bathing in
and drinking water that has small amounts of a toxic chemical in it, does not sound
like a good thing. Also, our water is delivered in lead pipes (16). Over the years,
lead pipes corrode and leach into the water. Lead is a highly toxic substance (17).
Our cities lack community. The spread out design of our cities makes it
difficult to visit with friends, family or organizations we belong to. Conversely, our
cities lack privacy. Our city design makes visiting with neighbors rare, yet, you can
most likely hear your neighbors TV and/or other public noise such as cars driving by.

6
When driving you are isolated from the other drivers yet you don’t have privacy as
anyone can see into your car. A daily balance of community and privacy is very
important to your health.

Chapter 3

Consider Mr. Normal…

He wakes up in his suburban home to the sound of his neighbors’ dog,
lawnmower and/or car. In his home, the carpet, walls, towels and sheets off-gas
chemicals that are proven neuro-toxins. The cereal he eats for breakfast originated
over 1,500 miles from where he lives and thus generated 21 pounds of carbon
dioxide emissions getting to his home (18). He works 20 miles from where he lives,
so he spends 7.5 hours per week commuting to and from work - that is 15 full days
of commuting per year! The long hours of driving in heavy traffic include exposure
to pollution, noise, aggression and isolation.
This has a measurably negative impact on his
health. Furthermore, the cost of operating a
car has steadily increased over the last 20
years. Today, car payments, insurance,
gasoline, registration and maintenance costs
are forcing people to spend more and more of their income on transportation. Sadly,
during this period, mobility on the car infrastructure has steadily gone down. In
addition, local and national governments, which have misallocated tax dollars, no
longer have the money to pay for expanding roads in order to alleviate the traffic.
Spending so much time and energy just
getting to work greatly reduces his
productivity at work and thus reduces extra
profits he could have earned. His office is
filled with the same off-gassing elements as
his house. This is why his city is

7
experiencing exponentially rising rates of disease, rates that are un-paralleled in
human history. Tired from his day at work, commuting and being exposed to toxic
chemicals, he comes home with little energy. He rarely comes into contact with his
neighbors, but is always aware of their presence, as their activities can be heard from
his house. He is too exhausted at the end of the day to venture back out to meet up
with friends, family or organizations he would like to belong to.

Chapter 4
LA Sucks And We Can’t Fix It
Driving. We can’t fix the problems associated with driving. Solution #1:
expand the roads. This won’t work because we can’t afford more taxes and our
cities and states are bankrupt, they can’t afford to build more roads. Solution #2:
private developers could build more buildings in downtown type settings and let
people use mass transit. This won’t work because the zoning codes force developers
to include parking spaces with their development, this brings more cars to the area,
which brings more traffic, which requires more roads to be built – it is a vicious
cycle (19). Solution #3: we could alter our zoning codes by allowing developments
to be built near mass transit without parking spaces. This is a great idea! It would
work beautifully. The one small catch is convincing a city’s planning department to
accept radical change. I have tried and failed. If you know of a way to do this,
please let me know! Historically, government bureaucracies fear change like the
plague and change course slower than the Titanic.
Buildings. We can’t eliminate toxins in our indoor air because lead paint and
asbestos are very expensive and difficult to remove. There are low and non-toxic
alternatives, but the expense of throwing away current materials, buying new
materials and installing them makes the process cost prohibitive for many people.
We can’t fix our power system because renewable resources for power
generation are incapable of meeting the high demand for power our cities require,

8
which is why we cannot shut off the power plants that fill our air with toxins. We
have no alternative to our inefficient electrical grid. Thus, we have no way of
stopping 60% of our power from being wasted. Even if there were a “smart grid”
that would work more efficiently, our cities don’t have the money to afford such
expensive retrofitting.
We can’t fix our water system. Trying to bring safe water to millions of
people, every single day is a very difficult task. The demand for safe water could not
be met if the water monopoly did not use chlorine to sterilize the water. Also, our
government doesn’t have the money to remove and replace the lead pipes that
distribute our water.
We can’t fix our lack of community and privacy because our city’s have
been built in a very “spread out” fashion, we can’t undo the hundreds of square miles
that is suburbia. Nor can we make our developments more spread, so as to give
people more privacy.
Our city’s suck and we can’t fix them.

Chapter 5

The Joys of Bankruptcy

In the 1970’s, the United States was in a terrible recession. After years of
decay the once dominant and profitable American steel industry was on the verge of
complete collapse. This fear drove the companies to beg congress for bailouts -
which never came. They tried to raise prices, but they could not force their clients to
buy the more expensive steel. They tried working harder. They tried many other
things. Do you know what finally happened? Do you know what the solution was?
29 of 33 major U. S. steel producers went bankrupt. After expending all of their
energy trying to avoid reality, the steel producers realized they did not have viable
businesses. They realized bankruptcy was not death, it was only change. It was
painful at first, but a necessary change to ensure the survival of the industry.

9
Bankruptcy was an opportunity to fully and consciously admit they had problems
and inefficiencies in their business operations. These companies were able to start
over. Their reward for embracing change was the opportunity to let go of outdated
processes and re-invest in updating their mills with the latest technology. The forced
re-structuring inspired a renaissance in American steel making, which until then
seemed doomed to lose competitiveness to cheaper foreign steel. From the ashes of
complete collapse the industry flourished (20).
Like the steel makers, we must realize and admit our cities have fundamental
design flaws. Deep systemic problems that will only get worse. Like the steel
makers in the 1970’s we must now face our problems head on. I propose building
new cities from scratch as a cheaper and more effective solution.
City 2.0 is what a 21st century city could look like if built from the ground up
with today’s best technology and knowledge.

Chapter 6

City 2.0
City 2.0 is a conscious representation of a renaissance in American urban
design. It is not trying to improve upon current city designs, because they have
failed. City 2.0 seeks to scrap the whole paradigm and start over. By utilizing the
latest knowledge and technology it will allow residents to live luxurious and
productive lives, in an affordable and non-toxic city, that offers a good sense of
community, privacy and mobility in an environmentally sustainable fashion.

10
City 2.0: a human-centric city, comprised of energy efficient and non-toxic
buildings, 2 hours from a major city, situated on a privately managed organic farm.
Imagine a luxury resort with offices, apartments and shops surrounded by a forest
and meadow.

Los Angeles (1950’s) City 2.0

Roads built for cars built for people
Building-use separated (low density) mixed-use (dense)
Materials new (toxic) and affordable non-toxic
0Utilities centralized, affordable de-centralized
Water / Power use in-efficient, efficient

Let’s use the matrix above as a road map to explore the design and benefits of City
2.0.

11
 All ROADS are built for people, not cars - this is called human-centric
design, think of Disneyland, an outdoor mall or a promenade. In order to
accommodate the limited distance we can comfortably walk, the city must have a
greater density compared to traditional cities, this means building up, before building
out. Along with density comes BUILDING-USE that is mixed, which means each
building has multiple uses. For example, a building could have a grocery store,
bank, café and dry cleaners on the first floor, office and meeting rooms on the second
floor and residential units above. Common promenade areas become the “roads”
connecting the buildings. Human-centric design is far denser compared to traditional
suburban and urban areas, yet it feels more spacious and convenient because it does
not have to accommodate the automobile. The bustling energy in the town would
come from people walking and talking. Like at a mall the parking structure would
be immediately adjacent to the city, so it would be easy to get to a car and drive to
another city.
As a benefit of human-centric design there would be no parking tickets, car
accidents, DUI’s or traffic jams, as well as much less noise and pollution in the
outdoor air! In a regular city, up to 30% of an apartment’s rent pays for the parking
space associated with the apartment. Since human-centric design does not require
parking under the buildings in City 2.0, residents will save up to 30% on the cost of
their living space. They will also have the option to eliminate car payments, car
insurance, parking costs, gasoline, yearly registration and car maintenance – without
sacrificing mobility. For people earning under $100,000 per year, the percentage of
income saved from not owning a car will have a profound impact on their disposable
income and thus their quality of life. The average American employee spends 8 to
15 hours per week commuting to and from work. Living in City 2.0 will give this
time back to citizens, to be spent as they decide.
Living and working in a dense city makes it easy to visit friends, family and
organizations on a daily, weekly and monthly basis and thus improving one’s sense
of community.

12
 An important requirement of high-density living is the availability and access
to privacy. Each living quarters will be specially designed to be sound proof. At any
time a resident could go home or to the surrounding natural park to relax in true
privacy.

BUILDING MATERIALS would be non-toxic. 50 years ago asbestos, lead

paint and corrosive lead pipes were not known to be toxic. We have since learned of
their toxicity and moved on to materials that are tested and proven to be non-toxic.
These materials would not add to the cost of construction. Non toxic materials are
viewed as more expensive because in a traditional city, retrofitting includes the cost
of removing the original material and installing the new material. City 2.0 will be
built from scratch, so there will be no retrofitting costs involved. The opportunity to
get away from buildings filled with toxic materials would have a profound impact on
personal health.
RESOURCE EFFICIENT: utilizing today’s technology, the buildings
in City 2.0 would use 80% less water and power, without sacrificing functionality or
comfort. UTILITIES: the remaining water and power demand would easily be
met using on-site wind and solar generation. The power generation would be
decentralized by placing solar panels on the buildings and micro windmills on the
farm. This type of renewable power generation is not currently utilized on a mass
scale because there is no way to store the power for use at night or when the wind is
not blowing. At City 2.0, overall demand for electricity would be lowered due to

13
the energy efficient buildings. The low demand would allow batteries to store
enough energy to meet power demand at night. Water demand would be
significantly reduced, not by sacrificing, but by using innovative water use products.
Because City 2.0 would be a small, dense development in a rural area, water could
be sourced and purified on-site. In addition to saving money on water related
infrastructure and transportation, City 2.0 would also eliminate the need for treating
the water with chlorine. Toxins in the outdoor air would be further reduced by the
use of clean power generation.

AESTHETICALLY, City 2.0’s green buildings will have a modern look

with large rooms and lots of natural light. The modern building designs utilize
building materials that have minimal maintenance and replacement costs, such as
weathering steel.

LOCATION: City 2.0 would be approximately 2 hours from a major city.

This strategic location is chosen because land in these areas is affordable; less
developed and offers a cleaner local environment.

14
 The location also allows residents to quickly and easily visit the nearby
metropolitan area for access to work, airports, entertainment, healthcare and/or
shopping. In this design, the adjacent parking structure would be stocked with cars
that can be rented by the hour or by the day. In current cities car ownership is
practically mandatory. The average car is used only 10% of the time, but the owner
pays to own the car 24 hours a day. Micro-rental cars offer a significantly more
affordable mode of transportation by only charging users when they are driving, yet
offering them access to a car at any moment. Additionally, residents will be free to
park their privately owned cars in the city’s parking lot.
City 2.0 will have easy access to affordable, local and organic FOOD due to
its location on a privately managed organic farm. Leading edge organic farms can
produce food without the use of foreign oil, chemical pesticides, chemical fertilizers
or government subsidies. The food will be affordable because the packaging and
transportation costs of the food would be virtually nothing. These farms are not
monoculture. Instead they develop complex growing systems that mimic forests,
prairies and other natural eco-systems. These “food forests” are beautiful to look at
and walk through. They are completely free from toxins. Integrating the town’s
buildings into the farm is like having the town surrounded by a botanical garden that
produces affordable food and acts as a free air filter for the city that silently works
everyday and never breaks!

Chapter 6
Consider an “Eco-Luxury” future…
You wake up in a beautiful apartment on organic sheets and a mattress. It is
50% cheaper than an equivalent apartment in a regular city. It has high ceilings and
soundproof walls. The floor covering and walls are non-toxic. You open the
curtains from your 4th story view and look out over a beautiful lush valley full of
food-producing trees and animals. You shower and get ready for work like in any
other apartment. As you walk downstairs you drop your laundry off at the cleaners
located on the first floor of your building. As you walk out of your building the air is

15
fresh because there are no cars or power plants polluting the air and the dense
vegetation surrounding the city acts as an air filter and thoroughly improves the air
quality. Many people are out walking through the street. There are no cars making
noise or crowding people onto sidewalks. 30 yards down the promenade you meet a
friend for breakfast at an outdoor café. All you hear is a faint hum of people talking
and birds chirping (still no cars). Your affordable breakfast is totally organic and
most of it was produced on the farm surrounding your home. After breakfast you
walk 100 yards down the promenade to another building where your office is located
on the 3rd floor. Your suite has plenty of natural light. You work in one of the many
service businesses in the city offering management, website design, legal services or
graphic design. At lunch you go to another café on the main street – it is also
affordable, fresh and organic. In the afternoon you open a window to let in a fresh
breeze. After work you walk home along the promenade. Upon entering your
building you stop and chat with some neighbors who are hanging out in the lobby of
the building. After a while you pick up your mail and laundry and go to your
apartment. Before dinner you rent a bike for an hour and ride through the valley.
Afterwards, you order dinner to go from the restaurant in the lobby of your
apartment building. You then head up to your apartment with some friends to watch
a movie you received from Netflix on your flat screen TV. At the end of the day,
you don’t think twice about eating out so often, enjoying nice products or using a
service to do your laundry because the money you’re saving simply by living in City
2.0 more than covers the increases in your spending.

Chapter 7
Conclusion
City 2.0 is a city design, holistically crafted based on modern knowledge and
technology, to significantly lower the cost of living, improve health and achieve a
balance of community and privacy for residents in an environmentally sustainable
way.

16
 City 2.0 offers freedom from pollution, noise, traffic, car accidents, rising
costs of food, rising costs of water and power, increasing taxation and regulations. It
is a sustainable solution to problems we have long since resigned ourselves to accept
as “a part of life.”
My company, Be The Change Development is hard at work developing the
first City 2.0, you can visit BTCcampaign.com to get up-to-date news about the
development and sign up on our emailing list to receive a notification when the city
is completed.

See you at City 2.0!

Written by
Tom Garrett
Be The Change Development
Tom@BTCcampaign.com

17
 FACT SHEET
1. In 1956, Congress finally passed the "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" Act.
The plan called for 41,000 miles of new highway consuming over 1.6 million acres of land (40 acres
per mile) most of that bought from farmers. Ninety percent of the costs would be paid for by the
federal government out of taxes on gasoline, diesel, rubber tires, heavy trucks, buses and other items
that went into a Highway Trust Fund. (source: livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/life_14.html)

2. Americans Now Spend Over 100 Hours a Year Commuting. More time spent driving to work than
taking vacations. (source: usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/commutetimes.htm)

3. The Texas Transportation Institute estimated that, in 2000, the 75 largest metropolitan areas
experienced 3.6 billion vehicle-hours of delay, resulting in 5.7 billion U.S. gallons (21.6 billion liters)
in wasted fuel and $67.5 billion in lost productivity, or about 0.7% of the nation's GDP. It also
estimated that the annual cost of congestion for each driver was approximately $1,000 in very large
cities and $200 in small cities. Traffic congestion is increasing in major cities and delays are
becoming more frequent in smaller cities and rural areas.

In 2005, the three areas in the United States with the highest levels of traffic congestion were Los
Angeles, New York City, and Chicago. The congestion cost for the Los Angeles area alone was
estimated at US$9.325 billion.[43]

Between 1980 and 1999 the total number of miles of vehicle travel increased by 76 percent.[44] [45]
National and local highway construction programs have accommodated some, but not all, of this
traffic growth. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_congestion#United_States)

Long-term exposure to stress can lead to serious health problems. Chronic stress disrupts nearly every
system in your body. It can raise blood pressure, suppress the immune system, increase the risk of
heart attack and stroke, contribute to infertility, and speed up the aging process. Long-term stress can
even rewire the brain, leaving you more vulnerable to anxiety and depression. (source:
helpguide.org/mental/stress_signs.htm)

4. Carbon monoxide. (source: nutramed.com/environment/monoxide.htm)

5. (source: smartmoney.com/personal-finance/real-estate/no-car-no-foreclosure)

6. (source: edmunds.com/apps/cto/intro.do)

7. 2009 motor vehicle traffic fatalities which show that an estimated 33,963 people died. (source:
nhtsa.dot.gov) 1 out of 8,000 people died last year due to driving.

8. (source: leadtoyrecalls.com/lead_paint_information/health_effects_of_lead.html)

9. (source: blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/08/02/health-blog-qa-lead-paint-toys-and-children/tab/article)

10. (source: ehow.com/about_4613382_side-effects-asbestos.html)

11. (source: greendaily.com/2008/01/06/cfl-bulbs-and-mercury-do-you-know-the-risks)

12. Coal and natural gas-fired power now account for 76 percent of the electricity delivered by the
LADWP. (source: featured.matternetwork.com/2009/7/los-angeles-will-end-use.cfm)

13. Coal emissions also cause urban smog, which has been linked to respiratory ailments, and coal-
fired power plants also contribute to global climate change. Coal plants emit 73 percent of the carbon

18
dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from electricity generators. By releasing the energy stored in
coal, large quantities of carbon dioxide that have been stored in the coal for millions of years are
released back into the atmosphere, increasing the threat of global warming. Coal plants are also a
major source of airborne emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal.

Federal law requires that air pollution be kept within limits. However, these limits are significantly
lower for older coal plants than for newer ones. Even when kept within the air emission limits set by
the Clean Air Act, state-of-the-art coal power plants still produce significant damage to human health,
public and private property, and ecosystems.

The mining, processing, and transporting of coal also insults the environment. In the West, about 87
percent of coal is removed from the earth through strip mining, which can contaminate soils with
heavy metals and destroy near-surface aquifers. In the East, coal is sometimes mined by removing
entire mountain tops to more easily extract the subsurface mineral reserves.

Coal combustion also results in huge quantities of solid wastes. Enormous quantities of waste heat
require large amounts of water for cooling. The collection of this water from major water bodies
threatens local aquatic life, including the killing of fish on the screens designed to keep such
organisms out of the power plant. (source: powerscorecard.org/tech_detail.cfm?resource_id=2)

14. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid)

15. (source: grist.org/article/2009-09-11-how-much-energy-does-the-us-waste)

16. (source: extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/safedrink/chlor.htm)

17. (source: escholarship.org/uc/item/6m68b873)

18. (source: www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/cr/corr_res_lead.html)

19. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_miles)

20. (source: ladbs.org/zoning/zoning_manual.pdf)

21. (source:
cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/13/60minutes/main4801257_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody)

More Evidence for City 2.0

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html

19