Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too much density decreases the quality of life. Overcrowdedness, very long waiting times at every establishment or government office, increased ease of pickpockets etc. to "disappear into the crowd", higher prices. You already see all this in many existing cities; you want that, but worse? I'll take malls connected by highways over that any day. Malls are nice and cars are a better experience than transit/walking in…
> Too much density decreases the quality of life. Too much of anything decreases quality of life. Everyone has their own taste, but generally speaking, if every journey out of your home has to begin and end with a parking space because you live in a pedestrian-hostile environment, that will certainly damage quality of life and the social fabric of that place as a "town".
Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive
91–100 of 429 posts
Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive
#92Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive
#93Lol America. Where walkable streets are justified by economics and not humanities.
Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities.
No. The human being is more like an oligarchy or a board. (Or, as one of Carrie Fisher's characters put it, a "committee.") Economics is something like a 30% shareholder. Philosophy, culture, and mental models are something like 40% -- there is no absolute majority shareholder, but culture has a plurality.
Economics can gang up with the base instincts to overwhelm philosophy/ideology/culture, but economics just by itself would be overpowered by philosophy/ideology/culture. The situation here in SF is a great example of this. Ideology causes SF to pass laws and have regulations which work to SF's economic detriment.
Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive
#94Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive
#95Lol America. Where walkable streets are justified by economics and not humanities.
Most Americans don't live in cities. To a degree that stands in stark contrast to Europe. Over 60% of the population of Germany's capital lives in the city proper. Just 11% of the population of America's capital lives in the city proper. To Americans, quite reasonably, pedestrians are just in the way of the offices and businesses they need to drive to. Economics helps explain in concrete terms why they might prefer to support policies that on their face seem to be against their interest.
Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive
#96I live in Boulder and attribute much of the quality of life here to walkable (and bikeable) streets. We have hundreds of miles of multi-use paths that are used extensively for getting around and for recreation. Our main road downtown has a pedestrian mall for a number of blocks that keeps traffic away and lends itself to street performers, community events, and a generally calming atmosphere. Downtown parking lots ar…
Boulder's a great place in many ways, but it's also what got me really interested in urbanism, and getting involved at a local level, because it is an abject failure in terms of being affordable to even middle-class people who didn't buy in 30 years ago, with average house prices somewhere around 700K or north of that. This is, in part, because they refuse to add denser areas like the downtown in more parts of the ci…
You go around Boulder and it doesn't feel like a city — this is part of the charm and also part of the problem.
Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities.
Everything is humanities, even economics.
Everything started out in the humanities. It's sort of like a primal trunk or root. I think philosophy, history, and art still have a lot to tell us about the human condition. I think some of the key questions to be asked are still waiting to be asked. However, I do think that science will deliver the final answers. (Giving more fodder for additional questions.)
Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive
#98I cannot even begin to convey how much I disagree.
The purpose of public funded transportation infrastructure is to make transportation cheap (in terms of time, money, frustration or any other metric, they are all interchangeable) to the point where anyone can use it. In an ideal world physical distance would be negligible part of any decision. Travel would be as inconsequential as getting water from a faucet. Obviously this is little more than a fantasy.
Making cities walk-able at the expense of some longer range form of transit is not something I endorse in any way shape or form. Making longer range transportation more expensive (time and money are basically the same thing at this level) creates a negative incentive for people to move about beyond a the limited distance of cheap alternatives (i.e. walking). While that may be a benefit to the wealthy it creates is a detriment to the poor. For example, you're stuck paying too much for bad selection at the local grocery store because you can't afford the level of mass transit pass or a car that would let you get to the better grocery store in a reasonable time (or maybe the increased demand for buses and rail degrades their quality substantially).
To hear the author toss in the tax argument annoys me. Transportation isn't free. It costs money and time. It's basically a tax on physical distance. There's no such thing as good roads in a city. They're busy and slow during basically all the hours which people want to use them. People don't pay for a car or rail pass because they want to but because the benefits of increased freedom of movement outweigh the costs. The costs aren't cheap. If increased business/commerce and tax revenue is your argument for reducing the capacity of people to get in/out of your city then you should be asking yourself how the heck you got to a the point where people would rather put up with driving than live/work/spend money in your city.
Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
That concept has already been implemented. Urban planners who practice it call it "new urbanism". It has been a mixed bag, but is better than the "malls-connected-by-highways" approach of many suburban development s.
Too much density decreases the quality of life. Overcrowdedness, very long waiting times at every establishment or government office, increased ease of pickpockets etc. to "disappear into the crowd", higher prices. You already see all this in many existing cities; you want that, but worse? I'll take malls connected by highways over that any day. Malls are nice and cars are a better experience than transit/walking in…
Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive
#100I've often wondered why somone moderately wealthy doesn't just start a super dense town, e.g. everything within 100 acres, and be within 10 miles of a major city. Create tons of these at a 50K people/sqmi density and implement some sort of hub spoke transportation with the major city being the hub and it could work!
The Woodlands, TX is the closest thing in the US. 2,500 people/sqmi 100k town outside of Houston. Started in 1974. At least as far as large scale current corporate city developments.