5 ms·

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

by 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.
    - muninn_ 10y ago
      A couple of quick points: 1. Autonomous vehicles are going to drive down the cost of essentially hailing a taxi to the point that it will become an affordable alternative. What we need to do is make it so painful to drive yourself to desirable areas that you basically don't do it. 2. You keep going back to the suburbs, but we've mostly moved past that. The benefits of the suburbs -> having a large lot and not much traffic, are both easily accomplished in a neighborhood. Not every house would be a giant McMansion, but some would. I'm not advocating to seriously create a mixed use development neighborhood in the suburbs. You'd have to demolish the whole thing probably.

by muninn_ 10y ago

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.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    A couple of quick points: 1. Autonomous vehicles are going to drive down the cost of essentially hailing a taxi to the point that it will become an affordable alternative. What we need to do is make it so painful to drive yourself to desirable areas that you basically don't do it. 2. You keep going back to the suburbs, but we've mostly moved past that. The benefits of the suburbs -> having a large lot and not much traffic, are both easily accomplished in a neighborhood. Not every house would be a giant McMansion, but some would. I'm not advocating to seriously create a mixed use development neighborhood in the suburbs. You'd have to demolish the whole thing probably.