10 ms·

Basically in the 50's, we started building cities at automobile scale, instead of at human scale like we used to, and the design goal for roads was simply to mo

by l1ambda 11y ago

Basically in the 50's, we started building cities at automobile scale, instead of at human scale like we used to, and the design goal for roads was simply to move as many cars through as quickly as possible. Things like 12' wide travel lanes instead of 10', ridiculously huge building setbacks, right turn arcs, 140' wide lots instead of 70', wide neighborhood roads (encourages speeding), no street parking (drivers slow down on roads with parked cars and on roads with no marked centerline), etc. Also, everybody wants to live in a cul-de-sac, which greatly limits how far you can walk (https://www.walkscore.com/walkable-neighborhoods.shtml https://www.walkscore.com/walkable-neighborhoods.shtml) versus a standard grid layout. (But if you look at real estate pricing, the data show people want to live in walkable areas; a home in a walkable area will often command a 1.5x to 2x price premium over a similar home in a typical car-centric suburb.) All those details add up to create a poor and dangerous pedestrian experience. Now, most towns in America have realized that was extremely bone-headed, possibly unsustainable (it costs a lot of money to run all those electrical wires, plumbing, and roads), and we are trying to undo the past 70 years of engineering. Oh, and this was all mandated by building codes (law) so even if one wanted to build a walkable suburban business park, it was not possible. There is a entertaining talk about all this by James Kuntsler at https://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia?language=en#t-43078 https://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_sub...

learc83 11y ago
>a home in a walkable area will often command a 1.5x to 2x price premium over a similar home in a typical car-centric suburb. I suspect this has more to do with fact that walkable areas are much more likely to be located in city centers with higher overall real estate prices than with the desirability of walkable neighborhoods.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  I suspect this has more to do with fact that walkable areas are much more likely to be located in city centers with higher overall real estate prices than with the desirability of walkable neighborhoods. One also has to consider that new families with young children are high on the list of demographics looking for suburban homes, and are likely to have less money, so suburban homes are cheaper by necessity. Cul-de-sacs wouldn't be so bad if they had well-maintained pedestrian lanes that cut between them and neighborhood shops instead of big box stores.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    What's so great about "neighborhood shops" over big box stores? Higher prices and smaller selection?
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      We need both, but by neighborhood shops I mean little cafes, restaurants, galleries, markets, etc. that you can walk to for day to day needs, while still leaving the big box store for long-term and bulk purchases. The reduced density of suburbs wouldn't support very many of these shops, but if they're spaced well, they could serve as walkable gathering points for the community.
      - douche 11y ago
        If you're counting little cafes, restaurants, galleries and markets among your day-to-day needs, you've already gentrified yourself out of the range of 90% of the population.
        im2w1l 11y ago
        1. So what if he wants to live in a nice neighbourhood? 2. Those things are not exclusive to expensive places. Even the poor parts of town in far away countries have those things.
        Symbiote 11y ago
        No, he hasn't, except for the galleries. In England at least, a poor area still has little cafés [1]. The menu is similar enough — fried breakfast etc — but it will be served on an actual plate, rather than a chopping board or slate. The choice of restaurant might be a larger pub, or a place that also/only offers take-away (McDonalds or a small Cantonese place, for example). The market probably has less promotion of organic produce, and will sell produce as well as cheap clothes and household goods. I used to live in a poor area of London, which I think was built in the 1960s. There were cul-de-sac roads, but most of them continued with footpaths so journeys wouldn't take too long. On the main road there was a school, church, doctor's office, dentist, library, small grocery store, beer/wine shop, bakery, cheap café, pizza take-away, Chinese take-away, Indian take-away, fish and chip shop, pharmacy, newsagent, youth club and 'village' green including play equipment. The pub-with-dining had recently closed, I'm not sure if that's still the case. All of this is within 5-10 minutes walk of most people, beyond that distance and they are close to the next cluster of shops. There wasn't a market, but there was a market selling fruit and veg in the nearest 'town', which was about 5-10 minutes by bicycle, or 10-20 by walk+bus. [1] http://www.constructionphotography.com/Details.aspx?ID=11957&TypeID=1 http://www.constructionphotography.com/Details.aspx?ID=11957... — "builder's caf" or just "caf" is a slang term for them.
- eru 11y ago
  A city centre, in order to be a centre, has to be denser. Density and walkability go hand in hand. But sure, the real test would be non-walkable neighbourhoods next to city centres.
- princeb 11y ago
  No doubt city centres are walkable but this comment begs the question though - why are city centres 2x as expensive as suburbs? If the density and land scarcity is the reason then why do developers want to build on more expensive ground in the city than in the suburbs? Why are people willing to pay 2x to live in cities than in suburbs? I think the real reason is that walkability (and hence city centres) are desirable which makes them cost more, and not because city centres are ipso facto expensive.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    Let's say that BigCity has a residential capacity of 1 million people, but 3 million people want to live there. Meanwhile, its suburbs have a capacity for 5 million people, and 6 million want to live in the suburbs. Even though more people want to live in the suburbs, prices will probably be higher in the city.
forrestthewoods 11y ago
Bone-headed? I dunno. The cost to upgrade cities is beyond absurd. Installing a subway or light rail into an existing city is comically expensive.
- cmarschner 11y ago
  Lots of European cities built these systems after WW2. Lots of Chinese cities have been doing it since the 2000s. Apparently it makes sense. When I see that a city like Seattle is not able to build mass transit between west and east side, and instead is maintaining gridlocked 10 lane "free"-ways and wider bridges I find that very comical. It is one of the main reasons I feel alienated every time I visit the area.
BrainInAJar 11y ago
The #1 reason why cities are not built to human scale and why chain businesses with slim margins survive and local businesses do not is 100% civil politics. It's parking minimums. Eliminate parking minimums and commercial real estate becomes cheaper, building setbacks get smaller, and walking becomes the rational way to get around because stuff is closer together & driving short distances becomes more difficult.
marcoperaza 11y ago
I'd argue that trying to build widespread mass transit in America today is what's bone-headed. The road infrastructure already exists and connects just about every town in the US. Electric cars will solve the fuel efficiency issue to a large degree, and self-driving cars will fix congestion and safety. I can't believe some of the outrageous stuff this Kuntsler guy says: >We have about, you know, 38,000 places that are not worth caring about in the United States today. When we have enough of them, we're going to have a nation that's not worth defending. And I want you to think about that when you think about those young men and women who are over in places like Iraq, spilling their blood in the sand, and ask yourself, "What is their last thought of home?" I hope it's not the curb cut between the Chuck E. Cheese and the Target store because that's not good enough for Americans to be spilling their blood for. (Applause) We need better places in this country. Really? We have a lot worth fighting for, and it's not any physical city, nor should it be. Rather, it's the 300 million people that call this place home, your family and friends among them. It's the idea--the reality--of mankind living in freedom, of opportunity for all, of equal justice before the law, of the dignity of the individual. >We are entering an epochal period of change in the world, and -- certainly in America -- the period that will be characterized by the end of the cheap oil era. It is going to change absolutely everything. [...] We're not going to be rescued by the hyper-car; we're not going to be rescued by alternative fuels. No amount or combination of alternative fuels is going to allow us to continue running what we're running, the way we're running it. This guy is just plain wrong. There's no reason why plug-in electrics, and a power grid running on nuclear & renewables, can't replace our current reliance on oil and internal combustion engines. I've lived in suburbs and in cities, and my take is that the current zeitgeist (that suburbs are evil) is way off the mark. In suburbia, I had boundless privacy and freedom in my home. In the city, I can't play my speakers loud without getting a noise complaint. In suburbia, I could hop in my car and go wherever I want whenever I want. In the city, parking is expensive and public transit is not fun. I have to take several buses, at particular bus stops, at particular times. My door to door morning commute is twice as long by bus as by car. In suburbia, I might have heard a few cars passing by at night, or the occasional loud outdoor party. In the city, I have to choose between burning alive and trying to sleep to the tune of my neighbors' loud conversation on their balcony. There's a lot of great things about the city too--I choose to live in one! Different strokes for different folks. Or even the same folks at different points in their lives.

by l1ambda 11y ago

learc83 11y ago

>a home in a walkable area will often command a 1.5x to 2x price premium over a similar home in a typical car-centric suburb. I suspect this has more to do with fact that walkable areas are much more likely to be located in city centers with higher overall real estate prices than with the desirability of walkable neighborhoods.

nitrogen 11y ago
I suspect this has more to do with fact that walkable areas are much more likely to be located in city centers with higher overall real estate prices than with the desirability of walkable neighborhoods. One also has to consider that new families with young children are high on the list of demographics looking for suburban homes, and are likely to have less money, so suburban homes are cheaper by necessity. Cul-de-sacs wouldn't be so bad if they had well-maintained pedestrian lanes that cut between them and neighborhood shops instead of big box stores.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  What's so great about "neighborhood shops" over big box stores? Higher prices and smaller selection?
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    We need both, but by neighborhood shops I mean little cafes, restaurants, galleries, markets, etc. that you can walk to for day to day needs, while still leaving the big box store for long-term and bulk purchases. The reduced density of suburbs wouldn't support very many of these shops, but if they're spaced well, they could serve as walkable gathering points for the community.
    - douche 11y ago
      If you're counting little cafes, restaurants, galleries and markets among your day-to-day needs, you've already gentrified yourself out of the range of 90% of the population.
      - im2w1l 11y ago
        1. So what if he wants to live in a nice neighbourhood? 2. Those things are not exclusive to expensive places. Even the poor parts of town in far away countries have those things.
      - Symbiote 11y ago
        No, he hasn't, except for the galleries. In England at least, a poor area still has little cafés [1]. The menu is similar enough — fried breakfast etc — but it will be served on an actual plate, rather than a chopping board or slate. The choice of restaurant might be a larger pub, or a place that also/only offers take-away (McDonalds or a small Cantonese place, for example). The market probably has less promotion of organic produce, and will sell produce as well as cheap clothes and household goods. I used to live in a poor area of London, which I think was built in the 1960s. There were cul-de-sac roads, but most of them continued with footpaths so journeys wouldn't take too long. On the main road there was a school, church, doctor's office, dentist, library, small grocery store, beer/wine shop, bakery, cheap café, pizza take-away, Chinese take-away, Indian take-away, fish and chip shop, pharmacy, newsagent, youth club and 'village' green including play equipment. The pub-with-dining had recently closed, I'm not sure if that's still the case. All of this is within 5-10 minutes walk of most people, beyond that distance and they are close to the next cluster of shops. There wasn't a market, but there was a market selling fruit and veg in the nearest 'town', which was about 5-10 minutes by bicycle, or 10-20 by walk+bus. [1] http://www.constructionphotography.com/Details.aspx?ID=11957&TypeID=1 http://www.constructionphotography.com/Details.aspx?ID=11957... — "builder's caf" or just "caf" is a slang term for them.
eru 11y ago
A city centre, in order to be a centre, has to be denser. Density and walkability go hand in hand. But sure, the real test would be non-walkable neighbourhoods next to city centres.
princeb 11y ago
No doubt city centres are walkable but this comment begs the question though - why are city centres 2x as expensive as suburbs? If the density and land scarcity is the reason then why do developers want to build on more expensive ground in the city than in the suburbs? Why are people willing to pay 2x to live in cities than in suburbs? I think the real reason is that walkability (and hence city centres) are desirable which makes them cost more, and not because city centres are ipso facto expensive.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Let's say that BigCity has a residential capacity of 1 million people, but 3 million people want to live there. Meanwhile, its suburbs have a capacity for 5 million people, and 6 million want to live in the suburbs. Even though more people want to live in the suburbs, prices will probably be higher in the city.

forrestthewoods 11y ago

Bone-headed? I dunno. The cost to upgrade cities is beyond absurd. Installing a subway or light rail into an existing city is comically expensive.

cmarschner 11y ago
Lots of European cities built these systems after WW2. Lots of Chinese cities have been doing it since the 2000s. Apparently it makes sense. When I see that a city like Seattle is not able to build mass transit between west and east side, and instead is maintaining gridlocked 10 lane "free"-ways and wider bridges I find that very comical. It is one of the main reasons I feel alienated every time I visit the area.

BrainInAJar 11y ago

The #1 reason why cities are not built to human scale and why chain businesses with slim margins survive and local businesses do not is 100% civil politics. It's parking minimums. Eliminate parking minimums and commercial real estate becomes cheaper, building setbacks get smaller, and walking becomes the rational way to get around because stuff is closer together & driving short distances becomes more difficult.

marcoperaza 11y ago

I'd argue that trying to build widespread mass transit in America today is what's bone-headed. The road infrastructure already exists and connects just about every town in the US. Electric cars will solve the fuel efficiency issue to a large degree, and self-driving cars will fix congestion and safety. I can't believe some of the outrageous stuff this Kuntsler guy says: >We have about, you know, 38,000 places that are not worth caring about in the United States today. When we have enough of them, we're going to have a nation that's not worth defending. And I want you to think about that when you think about those young men and women who are over in places like Iraq, spilling their blood in the sand, and ask yourself, "What is their last thought of home?" I hope it's not the curb cut between the Chuck E. Cheese and the Target store because that's not good enough for Americans to be spilling their blood for. (Applause) We need better places in this country. Really? We have a lot worth fighting for, and it's not any physical city, nor should it be. Rather, it's the 300 million people that call this place home, your family and friends among them. It's the idea--the reality--of mankind living in freedom, of opportunity for all, of equal justice before the law, of the dignity of the individual. >We are entering an epochal period of change in the world, and -- certainly in America -- the period that will be characterized by the end of the cheap oil era. It is going to change absolutely everything. [...] We're not going to be rescued by the hyper-car; we're not going to be rescued by alternative fuels. No amount or combination of alternative fuels is going to allow us to continue running what we're running, the way we're running it. This guy is just plain wrong. There's no reason why plug-in electrics, and a power grid running on nuclear & renewables, can't replace our current reliance on oil and internal combustion engines. I've lived in suburbs and in cities, and my take is that the current zeitgeist (that suburbs are evil) is way off the mark. In suburbia, I had boundless privacy and freedom in my home. In the city, I can't play my speakers loud without getting a noise complaint. In suburbia, I could hop in my car and go wherever I want whenever I want. In the city, parking is expensive and public transit is not fun. I have to take several buses, at particular bus stops, at particular times. My door to door morning commute is twice as long by bus as by car. In suburbia, I might have heard a few cars passing by at night, or the occasional loud outdoor party. In the city, I have to choose between burning alive and trying to sleep to the tune of my neighbors' loud conversation on their balcony. There's a lot of great things about the city too--I choose to live in one! Different strokes for different folks. Or even the same folks at different points in their lives.