4 ms·

In regard to traffic, I think you just let it happen, and provide metered parking on the streets. If the traffic gets bad enough then people will use the bike l

by muninn_ 10y ago

In regard to traffic, I think you just let it happen, and provide metered parking on the streets. If the traffic gets bad enough then people will use the bike lanes between the cars and sidewalk, or the sidewalks. One mistake I think we make is this idea that we have to prevent vehicle traffic at all costs. Not only does it absolutely never work, it costs money and generally causes the areas where you're attempting to improve traffic to transform into drive through areas. Then we wind up with fast food chains everywhere... . I also should have been more clear in my original post. I was trying to be subtle and make enough suggestions about improving a suburb that we actually turn it into a neighborhood :)

dpark 10y ago
The lack of traffic is the entire reason people want to live on cul de sacs. If you fill a suburban street with traffic, the very people who want to live in the suburbs will not want to live on that street. Which is why people who live in the suburbs vote against multi-use zoning.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to live in a desirable area you have to deal with people going to that area for various reasons. And mostly you wouldn't have traffic problems anyway because people who did happen to be driving to the downtown area for shopping/food would primarily use the main avenue and wouldn't have a reason for going down side streets, so long as you design it such that those streets don't take you to outside highway arteries.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You were the one proposing that you could: "you can still obtain the benefits of the suburbs while not having to live in a suburban desert" If you "fix" the suburbs, they won't be the suburbs that people want to lie in anymore. > And mostly you wouldn't have traffic problems anyway because people who did happen to be driving to the downtown area for shopping/food would primarily use the main avenue and wouldn't have a reason for going down side streets, so long as you design it such that those streets don't take you to outside highway arteries. Your vision of the "fixed" suburbs must involve either tons of parking garages or mass parking lots. Otherwise everyone driving in will absolutely be driving down side streets because they need to park. I think what you're envisioning is not the suburbs at all but neighborhoods that you'll find in any city. Seattle is full of neighborhoods where there's mixed-use buildings and other shops and restaurants along "main" streets and single-family homes surrounding this. These aren't the suburbs, though. These are urban neighborhoods.
    - muninn_ 10y ago
      Well the benefits of the suburbs are that they usually don't have a lot of through traffic, and you can have a large house or lot. And no my vision for these fixed suburbs would involve the removal of most parking garages and lots, so there won't be anywhere to drive to. There wouldn't be a reason to drive down any street really. Ideally what you'd want to do is make it very expensive to park at meters and the maybe one garage you have, and then have parking on side streets for residents only. Then we would only have autonomous vehicles which don't need to park, uber/taxi, and walking/biking.
      - dpark 10y ago
        > Well the benefits of the suburbs are that they usually don't have a lot of through traffic, and you can have a large house or lot. And you're going to create traffic, destroying the first benefit on your list. This implies traffic: "If you want to live in a desirable area you have to deal with people going to that area" > And no my vision for these fixed suburbs would involve the removal of most parking garages and lots, so there won't be anywhere to drive to. So no one will visit? I don't think your vision is honestly very well thought out. > Then we would only have autonomous vehicles which don't need to park, uber/taxi, and walking/biking. So your plan hinges on 1) autonomous vehicles 2) everyone taking a taxi, or 3) everyone walking/biking. 1. Autonomous vehicles effectively don't yet exist, and when they do it will likely be years before they replace people's cars. They will generally have the same shortcomings as taxis when they do arrive. 2. Taxis exist and have not replaced peoples' cars. People who own a car generally prefer to drive rather than wait 15+ minutes for a taxi/Uber and then pay $35 for a short ride. For families with small children, taxis are effectively useless because of the need to provide a carseat. Also, taxis don't sit around in suburbs because there's not enough business. So 15 minutes is probably an optimistic wait. 3. Suburbs are neither walkable nor bikeable, especially for children (or families with children). That's almost the definition of a suburb: you can't walk anywhere. So again, I find your vision unrealistic. You're going to create a mixed-use zone in the middle of a suburb and somehow that area won't be filled with traffic, but it will attract people. It will also somehow be within walking distance of a large population of patrons in spite of the sprawl that a suburb implies. Your vision is basically to have all the benefits and none of the drawbacks without an explanation. It's sprawled but walkable. Population is low but it still supports businesses. People want to come but there's no traffic.

by muninn_ 10y ago

dpark 10y ago

The lack of traffic is the entire reason people want to live on cul de sacs. If you fill a suburban street with traffic, the very people who want to live in the suburbs will not want to live on that street. Which is why people who live in the suburbs vote against multi-use zoning.

muninn_ 10y ago
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to live in a desirable area you have to deal with people going to that area for various reasons. And mostly you wouldn't have traffic problems anyway because people who did happen to be driving to the downtown area for shopping/food would primarily use the main avenue and wouldn't have a reason for going down side streets, so long as you design it such that those streets don't take you to outside highway arteries.
- dpark 10y ago
  > Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You were the one proposing that you could: "you can still obtain the benefits of the suburbs while not having to live in a suburban desert" If you "fix" the suburbs, they won't be the suburbs that people want to lie in anymore. > And mostly you wouldn't have traffic problems anyway because people who did happen to be driving to the downtown area for shopping/food would primarily use the main avenue and wouldn't have a reason for going down side streets, so long as you design it such that those streets don't take you to outside highway arteries. Your vision of the "fixed" suburbs must involve either tons of parking garages or mass parking lots. Otherwise everyone driving in will absolutely be driving down side streets because they need to park. I think what you're envisioning is not the suburbs at all but neighborhoods that you'll find in any city. Seattle is full of neighborhoods where there's mixed-use buildings and other shops and restaurants along "main" streets and single-family homes surrounding this. These aren't the suburbs, though. These are urban neighborhoods.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    Well the benefits of the suburbs are that they usually don't have a lot of through traffic, and you can have a large house or lot. And no my vision for these fixed suburbs would involve the removal of most parking garages and lots, so there won't be anywhere to drive to. There wouldn't be a reason to drive down any street really. Ideally what you'd want to do is make it very expensive to park at meters and the maybe one garage you have, and then have parking on side streets for residents only. Then we would only have autonomous vehicles which don't need to park, uber/taxi, and walking/biking.
    - dpark 10y ago
      > Well the benefits of the suburbs are that they usually don't have a lot of through traffic, and you can have a large house or lot. And you're going to create traffic, destroying the first benefit on your list. This implies traffic: "If you want to live in a desirable area you have to deal with people going to that area" > And no my vision for these fixed suburbs would involve the removal of most parking garages and lots, so there won't be anywhere to drive to. So no one will visit? I don't think your vision is honestly very well thought out. > Then we would only have autonomous vehicles which don't need to park, uber/taxi, and walking/biking. So your plan hinges on 1) autonomous vehicles 2) everyone taking a taxi, or 3) everyone walking/biking. 1. Autonomous vehicles effectively don't yet exist, and when they do it will likely be years before they replace people's cars. They will generally have the same shortcomings as taxis when they do arrive. 2. Taxis exist and have not replaced peoples' cars. People who own a car generally prefer to drive rather than wait 15+ minutes for a taxi/Uber and then pay $35 for a short ride. For families with small children, taxis are effectively useless because of the need to provide a carseat. Also, taxis don't sit around in suburbs because there's not enough business. So 15 minutes is probably an optimistic wait. 3. Suburbs are neither walkable nor bikeable, especially for children (or families with children). That's almost the definition of a suburb: you can't walk anywhere. So again, I find your vision unrealistic. You're going to create a mixed-use zone in the middle of a suburb and somehow that area won't be filled with traffic, but it will attract people. It will also somehow be within walking distance of a large population of patrons in spite of the sprawl that a suburb implies. Your vision is basically to have all the benefits and none of the drawbacks without an explanation. It's sprawled but walkable. Population is low but it still supports businesses. People want to come but there's no traffic.