I think car-only cities sounded like such a good idea during urbanization. I wonder what current trendy ideas we'll look back on with regret.
Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities
271–280 of 370 posts
Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's hardest to find, and what I prefer, is somewhere it's easy to walk and drive. I've lived in walkable places where if you do have to drive, traffic is a nightmare. And then of course there are places where you can drive without traffic but there is nowhere to walk to. I think I prefer the latter with my lifestyle, though it becomes more frustrating for meeting friends, going our for dinner + drinks, etc. For sp…
I think it's hard to find because those two preferences are in direct, irresolvable conflict.
> I think it's hard to find because those two preferences are in direct, irresolvable conflict.
Plenty of places that were built pre-WW2 have people walking for groceries and such, cycling and taking transit to work, and yet still have cars (street parking and back yard garages) for other longer distance errands:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb
Two go-to examples I use in these types of discussion in a particular neighbourhood I know; larger houses:
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toron...
More modest:
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O...
Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities
#273Sometimes I think Americans don’t know how badly they want this. Americans will tell you how wonderful European cities are with their small streets and their public squares filled with great restaurants. They think we don’t have cities like that because we’re lacking some fundamental European-ness. No. We just put cars everywhere. Cars ruin everything. Now you have wider streets. Louder streets. More dangerous street…
You are right, and there are also design speeds routinely imposed on new/“improved” U.S. roads that enable or even require (under govt safety standards) wide roads, which just encourage faster driving and worsen the problem. Even here in nyc we have some roads like this. Thankfully they are a smaller proportion than in the rest of the country. But mainly that’s because of the age of the streets — we are lucky to have old ones not ruined by our engineers and government.
https://www.strongtowns.org/slowthecars
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/10/20/taking-pedest...
Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities
#274Sometimes I think Americans don’t know how badly they want this. Americans will tell you how wonderful European cities are with their small streets and their public squares filled with great restaurants. They think we don’t have cities like that because we’re lacking some fundamental European-ness. No. We just put cars everywhere. Cars ruin everything. Now you have wider streets. Louder streets. More dangerous street…
I was going to write almost very similar comment. A follow up question will be how badly they want it and are they willing to give up their cars to have a walkable City and you would immediately see how many are actually interested in it
The problem is that American cities also generally don't have functioning mass transit systems. And even in those that do (New York), they don't always go where you need them to go, so mass transit trips can be 2-3x longer than a car trip.
Want to do a big shopping trip? Have more than 1 child you need to move around the city? Want to do more than 1 specific errand in the same afternoon? Without a car, all of this becomes a huge pain in the ass even in New York or Boston, which have extensive networks of subways and buses, let alone anywhere else.
And now let's say you want to get out of the city for the weekend. Do you rent a car? That's way more expensive in the long run compared to owning.
We would need to fundamentally redesign our cities/towns and transit systems for Americans to be able to give up their cars.
Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In this case Americans have chosen the [car-centric] suburbs in droves. What alternative do they have if that is all that is being built?
For the record, I'm not defending car-dependent living. I wish there were more walkable options in the US for people to live in (myself included). But there's an awful lot of copium in these kinds of threads that shallowly blame the lack of choice as to why American life is so car-dependent. Housing markets are extremely good at responding to consumer demand. Here's a good quantitative data point of people expressing…
> Houses have gotten 60% larger while households have gotten 15% smaller in the last 50 years. That didn't happen in spite of consumer demand.
Pre-WW2 there were large houses, in walkable and transit/cycle-friendly neighbourhoods, where people also now own cars:
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toron...
There were also more modest homes in the same are:
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O...
These places now cost quite a lot, but in roughly 1960-90s they were relatively cheap because all the WASPs moved to the suburbs because 'downtown was for immigrants'; this particular neighbourhood was >90% Polish during the time period. Just to the east of this neighbourhood is Little Portugal, and to the west a large Ukraine community used to be concentrated (with a smattering of Lithuanians).
Now that urban living has become fashionable again, it has been gentrified (no more Poles) and the prices are crazy high.
But there's nothing unique about how it was built, and nothing is stopping communities from (e.g.) instituting zoning to mandate higher density (but less than Hong Kong levels):
Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can kind of have it if you mean walkable to just the general store, a cafe and a few other things but you can never have everything because many kinds of stores can only exist with a certain population close enough. What I love about living in the city is literally _everything_ I need is within walking distance. I have not used a car or any form of public transport in months and have felt no need to, I can buy an…
I just disagree. I live in the very environment you claim doesn't exist
So do I! I’m kind of baffled reading this thread - folks are discussing my neighborhood as if it’s a theoretical impossibility.
A “small” SFH lot is 0.15 acres. That’s over 6,500 square feet! You can comfortably build a >2,000 square foot house with a front and back yard, off-street parking, garden, trees, etc in that space. Simultaneously, it will only require about 50 ft of sidewalk length.
My wife and I share one car, which we primarily use to visit friends in the suburbs. I walk to the grocery, dining, bars, coffee shops, parks, greenways.
Our house is nearly 100 years old. We would have loved to buy something newer, but American neighborhoods haven’t been designed in this sensible way for a long time.
Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
The solution to this is plentiful, well-placed municipal parking garages priced cheaper than street parking. Santa Monica does this where they have about 6-7 city-run garages spaced throughout the city with easily visible electronic signage indicating the amount of available spaces. Street parking is much more spare and priced higher. It's an enlightened alternative to tearing down buildings for more single-level lot…
The solution is better rapid mass transit between and within cities!
[deleted]
Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities
#278Has anyone done a recent survey of how many people want more free parking spots? More traffic lanes? More bridges and tunnels for cars? Do people want higher or lower speed limits? Cheaper or more expensive gas for cars? More or fewer lanes dedicated to busses/bikes? We should not jump to conculsions about what people want before asking all relevant questions.
Everyone wants more walkable cities. Thats like asking if people want cleaner water or better hospitals. Such questions are meaningless on thier own.
Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 apartment buildings are what add density. People who live in single family homes will invariably take the extra 15 to 20 minutes to drive to Costco and save money.
As someone who lives in this sort of neighborhood, I see every day that this isn’t true.
Why would you spend 30-40 extra minutes in a car when you could be walking down tree-lined streets to your neighborhood bakery?
Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was going to write almost very similar comment. A follow up question will be how badly they want it and are they willing to give up their cars to have a walkable City and you would immediately see how many are actually interested in it
The problem is that American cities also generally don't have functioning mass transit systems. And even in those that do (New York), they don't always go where you need them to go, so mass transit trips can be 2-3x longer than a car trip. Want to do a big shopping trip? Have more than 1 child you need to move around the city? Want to do more than 1 specific errand in the same afternoon? Without a car, all of this be…
> And now let's say you want to get out of the city for the weekend. Do you rent a car? That's way more expensive in the long run compared to owning.
Are you doing it every weekend? Renting a car for just the odd weekend away would be way cheaper than owning. The initial cost / capital depreciation aside even.
I live in London and don't have a car, a £50+ train out to my parents' seems a bit absurd next to the cost of a train to Paris, Ryanair flights, or my Netflix subscription. But I could do it every other weekend just for the cost of insuring a (basic, sensible) car.
I could probably go more often than I do, take taxis there and back (>2h each way) and still come out ahead vs. car ownership.
Really need a 'day to day' (or specialised, such as needing capacity for something, or disabled access) use to make it worthwhile IMO, too many people I think see it as just a 'standard' thing which must be had.