Live data from Hacker News

Culdesac Tempe: The first car-free neighborhood built from scratch in the US

culdesac.com

361–370 of 384 posts

Re: Culdesac Tempe: The first car-free neighborhood built from scratch in the US

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well… most towns/subdivisions with zealous planning suck. The best cities in the world appear to be very organically grown. Maybe this is an illusion?

> Maybe this is an illusion? It's a virulent meme. Planned towns are bad. Organic growth is good. Planning is tyranny, is oppression, is taxation. Please read "Seeing Like a State". Organic growth is freedom, is markets, is good. It's not entirely wrong, just extremely misleading. Urban planning doesn't have to create complete, inflexible designs, managing every tiny bit of life. And outside some failed experiments[0…

Maybe instead of urban planning, you need "urban philosophy".

American urban philosophy is the car and the road and segregation. Everything else is secondary.

American suburbia is just Conway's law on a massive scale.

Re: Culdesac Tempe: The first car-free neighborhood built from scratch in the US

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those aren't "planning" codes, it's more rules and guidelines. Development is still largely free and left to the market so long as they stick within the guidelines.

It's those rules and guidelines that make suburbia so miserable though. When you can't build retail without 1 off-street parking spot per 100 sq ft or new residential without 1.5 parking spaces per bedroom, then there is no possible outcome other than the car-dependence we see today. Parking requirements make building a walkable town impossible.

Car dependence comes from the low density infrastructure. The rules are a consequence of that. Low density infrastructure exists because many cities were built during a time when car companies were trying to make the automobile mainstream.

Re: Culdesac Tempe: The first car-free neighborhood built from scratch in the US

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's those rules and guidelines that make suburbia so miserable though. When you can't build retail without 1 off-street parking spot per 100 sq ft or new residential without 1.5 parking spaces per bedroom, then there is no possible outcome other than the car-dependence we see today. Parking requirements make building a walkable town impossible.

Car dependence comes from the low density infrastructure. The rules are a consequence of that. Low density infrastructure exists because many cities were built during a time when car companies were trying to make the automobile mainstream.

Density is limited explicitly by code. It's limited implicitly by parking requirements which are code. Car dependence also largely follows from segregation of uses (residential and retail can't mix) which is again code.

Re: Culdesac Tempe: The first car-free neighborhood built from scratch in the US

#365

Unfortunately this project lacks two things which are essential to a long-lasting, sustainable, and human-friendly town. 1) Architecture that inspires, elevates the soul, and will last the test of time. All I see is soulless pre-fabs. It looks like you're living in a shopping mall. 2) The freedom to create buildings and institutions that are meaningful to the residents who reside there. Churches, schools, sporting cl…

I tend to agree. Communities need to be built organically. Let's say a town has 5,000 buildings in it; is somebody going to pay an architecture firm to design 5,000 buildings for them? Or are they going to pay them to design 40 buildings and copy and paste 125 times? Neighborhoods in the United States have a tendancy to look like shit, and that's because most of them are planned developments that were designed and co…

I think that I agree, hoping that if I understood your comment correctly the crucial factor is "time"?

Re: Culdesac Tempe: The first car-free neighborhood built from scratch in the US

#366

Unfortunately this project lacks two things which are essential to a long-lasting, sustainable, and human-friendly town. 1) Architecture that inspires, elevates the soul, and will last the test of time. All I see is soulless pre-fabs. It looks like you're living in a shopping mall. 2) The freedom to create buildings and institutions that are meaningful to the residents who reside there. Churches, schools, sporting cl…

Yes, this place looks like its going to have an HOA with $472/month fee, a bunch of annoying people on a power trip to tell you how your house should look like.

I'd want more of an "ground-up" place, not "top-down" neighborhood. Independent people, businesses and families getting together in an emergent fashion without a planner.

Re: Culdesac Tempe: The first car-free neighborhood built from scratch in the US

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post I was responding to suggested that it wasn't necessary to arrange for at least one grocery store in the walkable neighborhood, and that leasing to retail establishments could be entirely up to the building owners. I was observing that if that results in no grocery stores located in the neighborhood, that would make the neighborhood much less walkable. (Even if there's one in walking distance, hopefully it ha…

What's "far too often"? If it's a pleasant 5 minute walk, why wouldn't you want to go out for groceries every day?

For much the same reason I don't want an hour-long commute: I don't want to waste the time. I enjoy taking a pleasant 5-minute (or 20-minute) walk regularly, but I'd much rather spend 90 minutes grocery shopping a month rather than 10-20 minutes every day or every few days.

Re: Culdesac Tempe: The first car-free neighborhood built from scratch in the US

#368
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A new Tesla is all of those things too, but expecting a construction laborer or call center worker to drive one is delusional.

... you clearly don't know much about construction laborers. Construction laborers (in the U.S.) typically make fucking bank, as it's impossible to hide the fact that they're ruining their body doing the work. This is where the stereotype of construction laborers driving brand new stupidly large lifted trucks comes from. They have money. Given the fact that "Wealthfront helps you build wealth by doing nothing. We mak…

Ad hominem much?

Skilled trades make bank. General labor doesn't https://phoenix.craigslist.org/evl/lab/d/tempe-construction-...

$30K / yr. That's a perfectly fine starting point, on par with what I made in the Marines. So I have a pretty good idea how much money that is, and it isn't anywhere that you are thinking about renting an apartment that has an actual marketing department and gets discussed here.

Re: Culdesac Tempe: The first car-free neighborhood built from scratch in the US

#369
post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I’m an outlier but, in a city I feel generally safer riding on the road in traffic than on dedicated lanes and paths. In traffic with cars, everyone knows the rules, has the opportunity to see and use signals, and has regulated safety standards. I’ve ridden on separated bike lanes that were so dangerous I opted to use the main road and still felt safer with people trying to run me off the road honking and scre…

> I know, I’m in the minority on this. That’s because it doesn’t make sense? Even if you consider you might hit a tree, another bicyclist, or a unlighted lamp post on the regular, it’s still much safer than being hit by a two ton car just a single time. Everyone knows the rules and uses signals on bike lanes as well. I genuinely do not understand how you arrive at feeling a road full of cars is safer.

Partly because in my experience this:

> Everyone knows the rules and uses signals on bike lanes as well.

… is not true. Mostly because I’ve been on too many separated bike lanes that really aren’t separated—in really dangerous ways—and can’t be without eliminating the car traffic entirely.

As an example: there is a separated lane in downtown Seattle. It runs along a one way road, on the left hand side. The road has frequent signals for left hand turns, with separate stop signals for cyclists and cars. The stop signals for cyclists are smaller and uncommon, so they’re easy to miss. And they’re timed in an unusual order that frequently confuses cyclists and drivers alike.

All of those things led to several cases where I was nearly hit by a car anyway, under conditions that just don’t exist in shared traffic.

And this lane like many others has a beginning and an end, where cars can and frequently do mistakenly enter.

If all of that is not enough, some parts of the lane also has parking to its right, with ramps on either side for pedestrians to access/exit their vehicle, which are often used for deliveries to local businesses, often large deliveries where the delivery person has limited vision.

All of those things are more dangerous, and more likely to result in collisions and accidents (at least in my mostly bike-friendly city) than just normal traffic flow.

Sure this example is particularly badly designed. But it’s not dissimilar to many others I’ve ridden.

This is all not to mention dedicated but non-separated lanes where getting doored by people parking is common and drivers frequently use as a passing lane.

In those cases, the otherwise well accepted (here) “if it’s unsafe beside car traffic, take the lane” is considered an affront by a lot of drivers who expect you to stay in the bike lane. So now you have the added risk of road rage for no good reason.

I can absolutely understand why anyone would prefer these trade offs. But to me they make everything about riding in mixed traffic more perilous, and I’d prefer the risk where I know everyone is following the same set of rules.

Post reply on HN