4 ms·

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 f

by 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.
  - dpark 10y ago
    I don't dispute at all that you can build nice neighborhoods. I live in one and love it. If there were fewer cars, that would be even better. Autonomous vehicles don't really reduce the number of cars on the road, though. They just reduce the number of parked cars. You need great public transit and great walkability to really reduce the number of cars.

by muninn_ 10y ago

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.
- dpark 10y ago
  I don't dispute at all that you can build nice neighborhoods. I live in one and love it. If there were fewer cars, that would be even better. Autonomous vehicles don't really reduce the number of cars on the road, though. They just reduce the number of parked cars. You need great public transit and great walkability to really reduce the number of cars.