No, they don’t. This is a classic example of listening to what people say vs observing what they do. And it’s a good lesson in product development. Ask your users “do you want X?” And the answer is inevitably “yes”. Ask them “do you want A or B?” And you’ll start to get a better approximation of user behavior. Better yet is observing actual behavior. In this case Americans have chosen the suburbs in droves. Americans…
This sort of thinking is how city planning and product design gets stuck in a local optimum.
Something I only recently learned is that zoning rules generally require housing developments to include a certain amount of parking. This drives up the cost of housing, because of the space required (either up or out.) Many cities are reducing or eliminating these requirements in an effort to make housing more affordable. However, it does mean that parking will become harder, as there will be more competition for st…
You can reset your costs by renting out the car park. I make $50 AUD/week renting out my city car park to someone who works near by.
That's interesting, but I doubt it would be allowed by most apartment leases, and I think for townhomes, many people wouldn't want some rando parking in their garage.
No, they don’t. This is a classic example of listening to what people say vs observing what they do. And it’s a good lesson in product development. Ask your users “do you want X?” And the answer is inevitably “yes”. Ask them “do you want A or B?” And you’ll start to get a better approximation of user behavior. Better yet is observing actual behavior. In this case Americans have chosen the suburbs in droves. Americans…
Those neighborhoods are deeply subsidized. I don’t doubt that most Americans would like their exact house (or bigger) in a walkable neighborhood over something that’s actually be available in town today, but it’s not a purely market driven choice today.
I recently moved from a house in the suburbs in Australia to an apartment in the city. Got rid of my car and now I just walk to everything I need. I couldn’t be happier. Driving was such a huge stress on my life that is now gone. I can get anything I need within a 10 minute walk. The thing is it just doesn’t seem like the average person is willing to give up single family houses to gain walkability. For me, I would n…
We need more apartments for purchase rather than renting in America. That's practically unheard of in Texas- just about anything in a shared building is only for rent.
This exists. It's usually called a condo or a townhome. I'm sure they exist in Texas too. You'll find them in more urban areas. They aren't as popular during a pandemic, but they usually cost less than a house, and if the organization is functioning well enough, then you also have the outside maintenance covered.
That business district would probably sit mostly empty if the density of customers isn't there. At best you'd get a strip mall with big box stores every 5km like typical American suburbs. If you want a thriving business district with a mixture of local business you need to have density.
> If you want a thriving business district with a mixture of local business you need to have density. I simply disagree. You can have single family homes and a thriving business district. Not ginormous mcmansions. But modest, good-sized single family homes. I disagree with your assessment because I've seen how great things can be in my own neighborhood. I'm not even suggesting no high-density housing. On the actual '…
The stores go empty because people who already have the sunk cost of a car will just drive to the next city for bigger stores at cheaper prices.
People do vote with their dollars. The walkable neighborhoods in my city tend to cost 2-3X more than houses in less walkable areas. There are actually huge swaths of affordable houses built on the outskirts of many towns, but people don’t want them because they’re not close to the walkable parts of the city.
This can be misleading. The supply in walkable areas will, by near definition, be lower than places you have to drive to. Such that the evidence isn't that houses are more expensive in walkable areas. The evidence is that it is not economically viable to build more walkable neighborhoods. Edit: I meant to say it could be an alternative, not that it is.
I have lived in highly walkable neighborhoods. They utilize highrises to increase density (supply) of housing and commercial space. Walkable areas are by necessity higher density, meaning they pack more supply into the same footprint.
I want to live in a walkable streetcar suburb: * Reasonably sized (2-3k soft) lots * Homes built with a variety of beautiful architecture * Area is not overbuilt to the point where all greenery and sunlight are gone and replaced by large buildings * alleys behind the lot, with garages hidden, to keep a single car (which is still really necessary in modern life) * small, thin, tree-lined streets * within walking dista…
The narrow streets with trees is essential. When I used to live in San Diego, the street next to my house, 1 lane in each direction plus parking, was at least 40 ft wide. It was treacherous to cross and obviously people flew down it. Now I live in a temperate east coast city with tree canopies across the street, which in front of my house is only 19 ft wide. I know because it's narrow enough that I was able to use a…
yah, it’s surprising to know that most cars are only 6ft wide, and bigger trucks typically 7ft wide. my street is ~40 ft wide, and reckless/distracted drivers threaten pedestrian safety all the time (running stop signs, staring at phones, etc.). needless to say i’ve yelled at my share of them. i’d love to replace the parking lanes with protected/grade-separated bike lanes and put in a tree-filled median. not only would that make the drivers more mindful, but it would make the neighborhood more pleasant and walkable/bikeable.
No, they don’t. This is a classic example of listening to what people say vs observing what they do. And it’s a good lesson in product development. Ask your users “do you want X?” And the answer is inevitably “yes”. Ask them “do you want A or B?” And you’ll start to get a better approximation of user behavior. Better yet is observing actual behavior. In this case Americans have chosen the suburbs in droves. Americans…
It's not a hard choice when suburbs have been subsidized like hell for about 70 years while money has been drained out of cities to pay for said suburbs. Here in Ohio there is this garbage designation for "rural farming areas" called townships that get huge infrastructures subsidies/grants, even though they are all just suburbs/exurbs.
Look at any of the areas around Cincinnati, Columbus, or Cleveland and check out how many of them have township in their name. It's pretty incredible and absolutely disgustingly dishonest.
How do you feel about medium density? I live in a neighborhood with some of the qualities you describe, and it has lots of small courtyard condos, and 2-3 story apartment buildings. These would've been illegal to build up until the last year or so, but I feel like they're not at all disruptive. I would say even a 5 story building on the main streets is fine in the kind of neighborhood you're describing. This gets you…
They built tall, 3 story, modern "block" townhomes in the backyard next to my 100+ year-old home. They stick out (nothing else on the block is remotely as tall or modern), block sunlight in my back yard all winter, and critically damaged a 100 year old tree in my backyard (of course, nothing I can do about that--developer got away with it). They are a massive eyesore and have made my outdoor space just...frustrating…
> Of course, requiring existing residents' input means that there would probably never be new housing, so that isn't a realistic option.
Yeah it's unfortunate there's not really a way to say "this is getting built, but you have some influence on the details". From what I've seen, a lot of cities have things like design review and environmental review, but they're just used for predatory delay, which just inflates costs and timelines.