I'd just like one small change to cities. Sidewalk escalators/treadmill of varying speeds. It would make commutes so much easier, plus people could actually get some modicum of a workout while commuting. I mean, it worked on the Jetson's, right?
We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
141–150 of 344 posts
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#142The very title is as ridiculous on its face as is the underlying idea. It suggests that the car is a being of its own that the city was built for. It doesn't occur to the author that each car has at least one person in it. Almost always that person is driving so she may interact with other people, work with other people, or transact business with other people, or he is himself driving for a business that is doing work for other people.
The city was built so people can get around and interact with others. The means by which people are doing this is cars and trucks. The city is indeed built for people, which is precisely why the city accommodates cars: they are immensely useful means of transportation. It's ridiculous to suggest the city is "built for cars" as though the car is some sort of being with wants and demands. The car is serving the people of the city.
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#143> Websites like Zillow and Apartments.com offer calculations for commute length and walkability to everyday destinations like grocery stores If I'm walking to the store, do I (a) try to carry 20+ grocery bags home for my family of five or (b) make a grocery trip twice a week? I don't love either of those. And that's only groceries, not shopping in general. My wife got a 50lb bag of fertilizer from Tractor Supply yest…
Other people have mentioned picking up a day's worth of groceries on the way home from work. And now and then when you need to buy more than you can carry? You use one of these: https://cdn.instructables.com/FP2/EECN/FRXUSVAV/FP2EECNFRXUS... And I think part of the point is that for a city we should be building for dense apartments, not single-family residences.
City. I live in a city (to be precise Lehi City, Utah [1] population 65k).
If we're talking large cities, say pop 400k+ (San Fran is 870k), then sure assume apartments. I didn't see any qualifiers; it seems the author is advocating these ideas for all cities.
And 70% of Americans live in city/town/village/hamlet/whatever of less than 100k. [2]
(Perhaps that is solely because of the aforementioned urban planning issues, and they would all jump at the chance to live in a shared dwelling in a dense well-planned city. I suspect not, but perhaps.)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... 94m of 325m live in city of 100k+
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#144For anyone who wants to see a pragmatic way to build cities and communities, I'd highly recommend Christopher Alexander's A Pattern Language . https://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Language-Buildings-Constructi...
And his "Build Living Neighborhoods" site: http://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-exp.htm
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#145It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". On the surface that kind of makes sense, using a large stick to strongly encourage change, but I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bi…
There is still the time loss. Private vehicles usually save time and have maximum schedule flexibility. Bicycles a scooters could help with the last mile, if they can be managed well.
Of course everyone has different thresholds. But I'd guess most people work hard to earn enough for their own time saving luxuries, even if the external costs will hurt their children later in life.
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
US towns stopped building as a dense collection of buildings at the end of the 19th century. Modern "towns" are a dozen or so old buildings from that era surrounded by dozens of square miles of urban sprawl mcmansion housing. Fundamentally the US simply has a density problem at all grades of construction. Its just more apparent in cities where the overconsumption of land per capita impacts more people.
The US also has a ton of land. I stayed with family in a British suburb once, and everything was still neatly squished in together, even single-family houses, compared to the expansive yards of American suburbs. Kids could walk to school and everything.
The fact that kids walking to school is surprising really highlights the difference. Growing up in the UK, people who got driven to school were the odd ones (depending somewhat on the area).
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#147I wonder if all these sour grapes about cars will simmer down if a generation comes along that can more easily afford them again. The area I live in is pretty dense (a mixed commercial-suburbanish area in the most densely-populated state) and also very car-enabled, and it works out fine. The stores I go to are within minutes of driving for me, and work is 10-15 minutes away. I don't know the official term for such a…
> I wonder if all these sour grapes about cars will simmer down if a generation comes along that can more easily afford them again. In the UK you could afford a car on minimum wage. I have a car. I still don't think cities should be designed for cars. How can anyone look at one of those pictures of American five-lane highways of bumper-to-bumper traffic and think that is in any way sane?
> In the UK you could afford a car on minimum wage.
Parent said easily afford, not afford.
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#148What I would like is an electric bike and a legal structure where I can take one on the freeway(goes at least 60mph) and in bike lanes(go slow there). Range 30mi.
Something that is safe at 60mph is not really a bike anymore.
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#149> Websites like Zillow and Apartments.com offer calculations for commute length and walkability to everyday destinations like grocery stores If I'm walking to the store, do I (a) try to carry 20+ grocery bags home for my family of five or (b) make a grocery trip twice a week? I don't love either of those. And that's only groceries, not shopping in general. My wife got a 50lb bag of fertilizer from Tractor Supply yest…
Its pretty great to get groceries the day of on your way home from work. Ingredients are fresh, and nothing sits around wasting away in your freezer or fridge. Your town has to be setup well for it though.
Being able to store 2 weeks of groceries in the fridge is a feature for people with > 2 children. It's not a bug.
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#150It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". On the surface that kind of makes sense, using a large stick to strongly encourage change, but I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bi…
There is still the time loss. Private vehicles usually save time and have maximum schedule flexibility. Bicycles a scooters could help with the last mile, if they can be managed well. Of course everyone has different thresholds. But I'd guess most people work hard to earn enough for their own time saving luxuries, even if the external costs will hurt their children later in life.
In addition, if you are doing shopping which involves any significant volume of goods or groceries, carrying it on public transit is a real problem. The tendency is to buy small amounts frequently at higher prices.
If there are two or more in a small car, it's also usually less expensive.
If the parking problem were forthrightly addressed, this, along with the increasing use of efficient Uber/Lyft/taxi, would greatly reduce traffic and associated pollution. Most of those cars are orbiting, looking for a parking spot. The half life of a parking spot is about 20 seconds.