4 ms·

That fits. NYC was fairly walking friendly. San Diego was not intended to have pedestrians at all as far as I could figure. Most striking was how much space

That fits. NYC was fairly walking friendly. San Diego was not intended to have pedestrians at all as far as I could figure. Most striking was how much space it took up when flying in compared to population. Then you'd see minor residential streets with road an pavement wide enough to be a 4 lane highway. I don't know how zoning works in the US, but I guess that's the explanation for all the shops and bars being miles away from where people live? Or is that another car-related choice?

jowiar 11y ago
Yep. San Diego is largely a post-car creation. Philadelphia is a city of rather similar population, but is basically the same size as it was in 1890[1]. San Diego, on the other hand, grew almost 10-fold from 1890 to 1930, then again from 1930. I don't know too much about zoning processes, aside from that in the mid-to-late 20th century, mixed use zoning wasn't in fashion. My grandfather was a suburban mayor in the '60s, and when he talked about zoning process, he said it was: "Well, we drew a box and put the residential here, and the commercial district here" -- and San Diego was built up at a similar time, so I expect a similar process existed. A decent representation of this process is SimCity -- that the entire notion of mixed-use zoning was absent is certainly a reflection of 20th-century urban planning. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population_by_decade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_the_United_S... [2] http://www.sandiegohistory.org/links/sandiegopopulation.htm http://www.sandiegohistory.org/links/sandiegopopulation.htm
- CalRobert 11y ago
  SimCity also got rid of the bane of the US city, massive surface parking, because it made the game boring and the cities unappealing. from http://humantransit.org/2013/05/how-sim-city-greenwashes-parking.html http://humantransit.org/2013/05/how-sim-city-greenwashes-par... "Librande: Yes, definitely. I think the biggest one was the parking lots. When I started measuring out our local grocery store, which I don’t think of as being that big, I was blown away by how much more space was parking lot rather than actual store. That was kind of a problem, because we were originally just going to model real cities, but we quickly realized there were way too many parking lots in the real world and that our game was going to be really boring if it was proportional in terms of parking lots. Manaugh: You would be making SimParkingLot, rather than SimCity."
CalRobert 11y ago
I live in a San Diego neighborhood built in the 20's along a street car line. It's about 3 miles from downtown. (Edit: the streetcar is long gone, though there's a bar called Station nearby and a few other hints of its former existence). It's not bad for SD, but the streets are wide and drivers blow through stop signs constantly. I can, at least, walk to several great bars, a small Target Express, and a few other amenities. It's low to moderate density because the homeowners fight all new construction tooth and nail (I go to the planning meetings). There isn't a single bike lane in my community. Any time someone suggests building something they are told they have to build massive amounts of parking, so nothing gets built. Of course, their charming cottage homes (which would be illegal to build now) are $700k to ~$1.1million, so it's great for the landowners. Not so much everyone else. The people who live and vote here are mostly owners, so they have a very strong interest to fight any new construction, increasing the scarcity of their asset, and its value. I can't see how this changes so long as any area which is composed primarily of landowners can vote to make sure nobody else is allowed to build there.

jowiar 11y ago

Yep. San Diego is largely a post-car creation. Philadelphia is a city of rather similar population, but is basically the same size as it was in 1890[1]. San Diego, on the other hand, grew almost 10-fold from 1890 to 1930, then again from 1930. I don't know too much about zoning processes, aside from that in the mid-to-late 20th century, mixed use zoning wasn't in fashion. My grandfather was a suburban mayor in the '60s, and when he talked about zoning process, he said it was: "Well, we drew a box and put the residential here, and the commercial district here" -- and San Diego was built up at a similar time, so I expect a similar process existed. A decent representation of this process is SimCity -- that the entire notion of mixed-use zoning was absent is certainly a reflection of 20th-century urban planning. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population_by_decade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_the_United_S... [2] http://www.sandiegohistory.org/links/sandiegopopulation.htm http://www.sandiegohistory.org/links/sandiegopopulation.htm

CalRobert 11y ago
SimCity also got rid of the bane of the US city, massive surface parking, because it made the game boring and the cities unappealing. from http://humantransit.org/2013/05/how-sim-city-greenwashes-parking.html http://humantransit.org/2013/05/how-sim-city-greenwashes-par... "Librande: Yes, definitely. I think the biggest one was the parking lots. When I started measuring out our local grocery store, which I don’t think of as being that big, I was blown away by how much more space was parking lot rather than actual store. That was kind of a problem, because we were originally just going to model real cities, but we quickly realized there were way too many parking lots in the real world and that our game was going to be really boring if it was proportional in terms of parking lots. Manaugh: You would be making SimParkingLot, rather than SimCity."

CalRobert 11y ago

I live in a San Diego neighborhood built in the 20's along a street car line. It's about 3 miles from downtown. (Edit: the streetcar is long gone, though there's a bar called Station nearby and a few other hints of its former existence). It's not bad for SD, but the streets are wide and drivers blow through stop signs constantly. I can, at least, walk to several great bars, a small Target Express, and a few other amenities. It's low to moderate density because the homeowners fight all new construction tooth and nail (I go to the planning meetings). There isn't a single bike lane in my community. Any time someone suggests building something they are told they have to build massive amounts of parking, so nothing gets built. Of course, their charming cottage homes (which would be illegal to build now) are $700k to ~$1.1million, so it's great for the landowners. Not so much everyone else. The people who live and vote here are mostly owners, so they have a very strong interest to fight any new construction, increasing the scarcity of their asset, and its value. I can't see how this changes so long as any area which is composed primarily of landowners can vote to make sure nobody else is allowed to build there.