9 ms·

Walkable Cities Enjoy More Freedom

92 points by oftenwrong 9y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>That’s all fine, but who pays? It’s true that large-scale urban redevelopment projects can be very expensive. However, engaging with private capital has proven to be a viable strategy both in and outside of the UK. >Few years ago, when I was serving as an elected official in Moscow, I was the only outspoken YIMBY in my district. Once at the public hearings I was even accused of being bribed by the developer — just because I supported a private park project! So this is just a play to privatize public land? I like walkable areas and I really like areas that anyone can walk in. Who cares how walkable a space is when your ability to actually walk there is subject to the whims of a private individual?
- xxpor 9y ago
  There's plenty of examples of private spaces that have to remain open to the public. Usually it's done to get a zoning variance. An example: Trump Tower's lobby :)
- dublinben 9y ago
  Presumably this park would have been built on private land, so it wasn't going to "privatize" any public land.
- sethhochberg 9y ago
  "Privately owned public spaces" do indeed have a pretty mixed history... but if projects can be structured in such a way as to let a private entity provide support for public land, the results can be fantastic. The Central Park Conservancy or Bryant Park Corporation in NYC are great examples - public land, managed and principally funded by private entities, going way beyond what a public parks department could ever hope to accomplish on their own. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15355610/nyc-privately-owned-public-spaces-audit https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15355610/nyc-privately-owned... POPS projects can work if the government enforces them properly. They aren't replacements for public parks, but are better than nothing on a block that might otherwise not have any public space at all - and even public parks can benefit from private investment and control if done properly. Both the city and developers though should avoid the trap of thinking a POPS is a substitute for a public park. They serve different purposes.
  - sp332 9y ago
    Another example: Occupy Wall Street was forced out of Zuccotti Park repeatedly for trespassing. That's because it's not really a public space.
    - nradov 9y ago
      Cities frequently limit opening hours for public parks and force out people who are present after hours.
      - sp332 9y ago
        "About half of the privately owned plazas are required to be open 24 hours a day, according to the Department of City Planning." This includes Zuccotti Park. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/nyregion/zuccotti-park-is-privately-owned-but-open-to-the-public.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/nyregion/zuccotti-park-is-... Edit: you know what, I'm not going to get into it here... it was years ago and people can look up what happened if they're interested.
    - mseebach 9y ago
      OWS was easily the most visible public protest in decades, going on for two months. Not sure that example exactly supports your thesis.
- LeanderK 9y ago
  as someone who was once part of various eco-activism movements, you really start to notice all the privately owned public places. Usually, all political rallies or demonstrations are not allowed there. I think this is really unhealthy for the society, as activism and rallies etc. are an important part of the political discourse. Public places need to stay public to allow them to reflect all the facets of society. Homeless people don't disappear because you ban them, pollution doesn't disappear because you ban public stunts trying to get the focus of the society, rallies raisinw awareness about the limitation of personal freedoms, surveillance etc. Living in a bubble of happiness is not the reality for most people and it's getting easier and easier to either don't notice or purposely ignore it. I understand you view, but a place only governed by law and not by private motives is something very valuable.
- jpao79 9y ago
  Here's an example of a 'privatized' but urban walkable village with 'public' spaces in Silicon Valley: http://www.spur.org/news/2016-08-10/urban-design-deconstructed-walking-tour-santana-row http://www.spur.org/news/2016-08-10/urban-design-deconstruct... It's pretty nice and seems like it'd be a nice place to live but I haven't lived there nor have a talked with anyone who has.
  - nradov 9y ago
    The people who live at Santana Row generally like it … which isn't surprising since they're affluent enough to live somewhere else if they wanted to. Although it's entirely artificial it is a nice place to live with low crime (private security), decent property maintenance, lots of retail close by, and easy access to major roads.
  - microtherion 9y ago
    If you want to try it, there is a Hotel that is part of it. The whole thing is definitely walkable, but ultimately it just feels like an outdoors shopping mall to me.
emodendroket 9y ago
Define "freedom." (the article does not do this, by the way)
- lurchpop 9y ago
  The author also makes a few contradictions. They need less surveillance because there's more "eyes" on the ground, and yet the biggest walkable cities that come to mind, nyc and London are the most heavily surveiled on the planet. big walkable urban areas also happen to be less safe from crime, rather than safer as the author asserts.
  - crispyporkbites 9y ago
    > big walkable urban areas also happen to be less safe from crime, rather than safer as the author asserts. citation?
    - gowld 9y ago
      population density ("urbanness") correlates with crime rate. "Big" and "walkable" do not, as far as I know. https://nycdatascience.com/blog/student-works/pressure-cooker-higher-population-densities-increase-crime/ https://nycdatascience.com/blog/student-works/pressure-cooke...
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        How do you tease them out though? The walkability guys are talking about making living spaces denser, after all.
  - IWeldMelons 9y ago
    Dunno, NYC is safer than many, many non-walkable cities.
  - CalRobert 9y ago
    You definitely need a citation if you're going to make a claim like walkable areas are less safe from crime. However, we've also legalized killing people with your car if it's an accident (or you can plausibly claim such). It's not technically a crime, but it's still a bummer. The US has around 32000ish auto deaths a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... It has around 15000ish murders per year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... I suppose that a few of those are vehicular homicide, but most aren't. I quite like not being killed while I walk or cycle, and it looks like it makes sense to focus on not getting killed by cars.
sp332 9y ago
Why are Le Corbusier's giant buildings worse than Barcelona's superblocks?
- andys627 9y ago
  Barcelona's are shorter, include a variety of buildings per block, and are generally ringed by retail. Example: http://www.densityatlas.org/user-images/139-1.jpg http://www.densityatlas.org/user-images/139-1.jpg Le Corbusier was building single taller buildings, surrounded by empty lawns. Example: http://scd.france24.com/en/files/imagecache/france24_ct_api_bigger_169/article/image/corbusier-plan-voisin.jpg http://scd.france24.com/en/files/imagecache/france24_ct_api_...
  - IWeldMelons 9y ago
    I live in ex-USSR and Soviet urban planning was a mix of both approaches.Sadly, today they are building up in a chaotic way, because corruption.
crispyporkbites 9y ago
As a european a non-walkable city seems like an oxymoron to me (although I have travelled extensively in the US so I do know what this is referring to). A friend of mine lives in the docklands (a new area in east London with a massive amount of new flats, having undergone substantial redevelopment in the last 10 years) and regularly complains about being a 20 minute walk from any shops or retail space. Why would you want to live in a city that you can't walk around? If you're not going to live near people (and the associated economic/social activity), why not live in the countryside where you get the benefits of space, fresh air and open space as a trade off?
- graeme 9y ago
  Commute distance? To get to "the country" in most north american cities you need to live 2+ hours from downtown, so it's not feasible if you work there. I live in an urban, walkable area, to be clear, so I'm not entirely sure of the motives.
  - nradov 9y ago
    There are real "country" areas within a reasonable commuting distance (much less than 2 hours) of San Jose. Of course the land is quite expensive but if you've got the money it's totally possible to own a small farm or piece of forest.
    - xyhopguy 9y ago
      Within 20 miles of somewhere like Portland for that matter. My in-laws live in the Portland burbs and everything between their house and the next town is farmland.
  - seqastian 9y ago
    So don't work down town?
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      That's typically where the best jobs are (or maybe even the only jobs, depending on industry).
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
Having lived in Boston/Cambridge and a bunch of "middle of nowhere" cities in places where the weather means you stay inside a lot during certain parts of the year I disagree with the premise of this article. More people in the same or less space leads to less freedom. Walking doesn't have that much to do with it.
- Newtopian 9y ago
  "Having never lived in a truly big city I don't really understand why would anyone walk to anywhere, as such more density necessarily means more traffic".. Ok I filtered a bit with what I actually understood... still, you should try living in a really big city, preferably outside of north-america and see what "walkability" really means in it's natural environment.
  - wffurr 9y ago
    Boston/Cambridge is one of the most walkable cities in North America–it's much closer to the European model than the typical North American city. I still don't get what the grandparent is on about though. I live in Boston, and it's pretty great. I feel free to live my life the way I want here, as opposed to being forced into owning a car and drive it everywhere.
    - sampo 9y ago
      The neighborhoods and downtown in Boston can be nice and walkable. But if you want to get around to places around the city, the Boston T has an average speed of about 10 mph [1]. A decent subway system can take you to places at more like 30 mph. NYC subway does about 15 mph [2]. D.C. metro does 30 mph [3]. (Not talking about the train top speed, but the average speed, including stops and acceleration, along the whole line.) [1] For the Green line: http://walkingbostonian.blogspot.com/2015/01/taking-look-at-green-line-average.html http://walkingbostonian.blogspot.com/2015/01/taking-look-at-... [2] https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/17313-subway-system-average-speed-by-line/ https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/17313-subway-system-a... [3] https://ggwash.org/view/4524/average-schedule-speed-how-does-metro-compare https://ggwash.org/view/4524/average-schedule-speed-how-does...
UncleEntity 9y ago
The city has been renovation my neighborhood for the last few years to make it more walkable, they redid the sidewalks on the "main" side street a while back and now they're doing the smaller streets. The "main" street is where they do a monthly art walk kind of thing that draws quite a few people and there's been a surge of massive block-sized apartment buildings going up so now there's also a bunch of restaurants there too. There's a whole lot more foot traffic in the area than when I moved here 6-something years ago. Have mixed feelings about the giant apartment buildings since they're pricey which means the restaurants are also pricey, well out of my meager price range. On a side note, I was talking to a kid who's girlfriend lives in one of the new apartment buildings and he was saying she has to rent it out on Airbnb half the month (and stay at her moms) to afford the rent.
- electricEmu 9y ago
  The city renovated my neighborhood recently as well. It's much more walkable with a street turned into a park, the expensive new apartments, and equally expensive restaurants. I'm all for the density. I already have a nice place that's much cheaper than the apartments. I eat-in mostly to save money. Now, my nightly walks will be more interesting. My options have expanded when I do go out. Your friend might have to consider roommates, a cheaper place, or staying with their parents. If they're renting their own apartment six months a year to afford it, then they can't.
  - UncleEntity 9y ago
    > Your friend might have to consider roommates, a cheaper place, or staying with their parents. If they're renting their own apartment six months a year to afford it, then they can't. Yeah, I was like "huh, what's even the point?" I live 3 blocks away and pay less than half for a two-bedroom with the best landlord ever.
- gowld 9y ago
  Giant apartment buildings aren't pricey. New construction is pricey.
IWeldMelons 9y ago
Her statement is kinda strange that "socialist projects are unwalkable", and whole libertarian fixation on the everything Soviet, keeping in mind that Soviet cities are very, very walkable but becoming less so, because after the fall of USSR zoning rules became less strict.
- golergka 9y ago
  Can you provide an example? Moscow definitely became much more walkable in the last ~20 years, mostly thanks to the private development as well as state-run infrastructure.
  - IWeldMelons 9y ago
    I do not like sharing my location, but where I live, the city is becoming more car-oriented, they began to put commercial buildings into the inner courtyards, and ugly in-fill condo buildings where they do not belong.
- agapon 9y ago
  USSR cities used to be very walkable and very public transportation oriented because they were built with low personal car ownership in mind. And that was the reality until the iron curtain fell and imported cars flooded the market.
- gowld 9y ago
  "socialist/Soviet" probably means "1950s-1970s", when monolothic block projects were popular. In the USA, Robert Moses was the engine of this movement, that was very pro-car / anti-transit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses Also related, the Brutalist design that favored gigantic concrete polygons over more multi-scale human-friendly designs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

92 points by oftenwrong 9y ago

>That’s all fine, but who pays? It’s true that large-scale urban redevelopment projects can be very expensive. However, engaging with private capital has proven to be a viable strategy both in and outside of the UK. >Few years ago, when I was serving as an elected official in Moscow, I was the only outspoken YIMBY in my district. Once at the public hearings I was even accused of being bribed by the developer — just because I supported a private park project! So this is just a play to privatize public land? I like walkable areas and I really like areas that anyone can walk in. Who cares how walkable a space is when your ability to actually walk there is subject to the whims of a private individual?

xxpor 9y ago
There's plenty of examples of private spaces that have to remain open to the public. Usually it's done to get a zoning variance. An example: Trump Tower's lobby :)
dublinben 9y ago
Presumably this park would have been built on private land, so it wasn't going to "privatize" any public land.
sethhochberg 9y ago
"Privately owned public spaces" do indeed have a pretty mixed history... but if projects can be structured in such a way as to let a private entity provide support for public land, the results can be fantastic. The Central Park Conservancy or Bryant Park Corporation in NYC are great examples - public land, managed and principally funded by private entities, going way beyond what a public parks department could ever hope to accomplish on their own. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15355610/nyc-privately-owned-public-spaces-audit https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15355610/nyc-privately-owned... POPS projects can work if the government enforces them properly. They aren't replacements for public parks, but are better than nothing on a block that might otherwise not have any public space at all - and even public parks can benefit from private investment and control if done properly. Both the city and developers though should avoid the trap of thinking a POPS is a substitute for a public park. They serve different purposes.
- sp332 9y ago
  Another example: Occupy Wall Street was forced out of Zuccotti Park repeatedly for trespassing. That's because it's not really a public space.
  - nradov 9y ago
    Cities frequently limit opening hours for public parks and force out people who are present after hours.
    - sp332 9y ago
      "About half of the privately owned plazas are required to be open 24 hours a day, according to the Department of City Planning." This includes Zuccotti Park. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/nyregion/zuccotti-park-is-privately-owned-but-open-to-the-public.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/nyregion/zuccotti-park-is-... Edit: you know what, I'm not going to get into it here... it was years ago and people can look up what happened if they're interested.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    OWS was easily the most visible public protest in decades, going on for two months. Not sure that example exactly supports your thesis.
LeanderK 9y ago
as someone who was once part of various eco-activism movements, you really start to notice all the privately owned public places. Usually, all political rallies or demonstrations are not allowed there. I think this is really unhealthy for the society, as activism and rallies etc. are an important part of the political discourse. Public places need to stay public to allow them to reflect all the facets of society. Homeless people don't disappear because you ban them, pollution doesn't disappear because you ban public stunts trying to get the focus of the society, rallies raisinw awareness about the limitation of personal freedoms, surveillance etc. Living in a bubble of happiness is not the reality for most people and it's getting easier and easier to either don't notice or purposely ignore it. I understand you view, but a place only governed by law and not by private motives is something very valuable.
jpao79 9y ago
Here's an example of a 'privatized' but urban walkable village with 'public' spaces in Silicon Valley: http://www.spur.org/news/2016-08-10/urban-design-deconstructed-walking-tour-santana-row http://www.spur.org/news/2016-08-10/urban-design-deconstruct... It's pretty nice and seems like it'd be a nice place to live but I haven't lived there nor have a talked with anyone who has.
- nradov 9y ago
  The people who live at Santana Row generally like it … which isn't surprising since they're affluent enough to live somewhere else if they wanted to. Although it's entirely artificial it is a nice place to live with low crime (private security), decent property maintenance, lots of retail close by, and easy access to major roads.
- microtherion 9y ago
  If you want to try it, there is a Hotel that is part of it. The whole thing is definitely walkable, but ultimately it just feels like an outdoors shopping mall to me.

emodendroket 9y ago

Define "freedom." (the article does not do this, by the way)

lurchpop 9y ago
The author also makes a few contradictions. They need less surveillance because there's more "eyes" on the ground, and yet the biggest walkable cities that come to mind, nyc and London are the most heavily surveiled on the planet. big walkable urban areas also happen to be less safe from crime, rather than safer as the author asserts.
- crispyporkbites 9y ago
  > big walkable urban areas also happen to be less safe from crime, rather than safer as the author asserts. citation?
  - gowld 9y ago
    population density ("urbanness") correlates with crime rate. "Big" and "walkable" do not, as far as I know. https://nycdatascience.com/blog/student-works/pressure-cooker-higher-population-densities-increase-crime/ https://nycdatascience.com/blog/student-works/pressure-cooke...
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      How do you tease them out though? The walkability guys are talking about making living spaces denser, after all.
- IWeldMelons 9y ago
  Dunno, NYC is safer than many, many non-walkable cities.
- CalRobert 9y ago
  You definitely need a citation if you're going to make a claim like walkable areas are less safe from crime. However, we've also legalized killing people with your car if it's an accident (or you can plausibly claim such). It's not technically a crime, but it's still a bummer. The US has around 32000ish auto deaths a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... It has around 15000ish murders per year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... I suppose that a few of those are vehicular homicide, but most aren't. I quite like not being killed while I walk or cycle, and it looks like it makes sense to focus on not getting killed by cars.

sp332 9y ago

Why are Le Corbusier's giant buildings worse than Barcelona's superblocks?

andys627 9y ago
Barcelona's are shorter, include a variety of buildings per block, and are generally ringed by retail. Example: http://www.densityatlas.org/user-images/139-1.jpg http://www.densityatlas.org/user-images/139-1.jpg Le Corbusier was building single taller buildings, surrounded by empty lawns. Example: http://scd.france24.com/en/files/imagecache/france24_ct_api_bigger_169/article/image/corbusier-plan-voisin.jpg http://scd.france24.com/en/files/imagecache/france24_ct_api_...
- IWeldMelons 9y ago
  I live in ex-USSR and Soviet urban planning was a mix of both approaches.Sadly, today they are building up in a chaotic way, because corruption.

crispyporkbites 9y ago

As a european a non-walkable city seems like an oxymoron to me (although I have travelled extensively in the US so I do know what this is referring to). A friend of mine lives in the docklands (a new area in east London with a massive amount of new flats, having undergone substantial redevelopment in the last 10 years) and regularly complains about being a 20 minute walk from any shops or retail space. Why would you want to live in a city that you can't walk around? If you're not going to live near people (and the associated economic/social activity), why not live in the countryside where you get the benefits of space, fresh air and open space as a trade off?

graeme 9y ago
Commute distance? To get to "the country" in most north american cities you need to live 2+ hours from downtown, so it's not feasible if you work there. I live in an urban, walkable area, to be clear, so I'm not entirely sure of the motives.
- nradov 9y ago
  There are real "country" areas within a reasonable commuting distance (much less than 2 hours) of San Jose. Of course the land is quite expensive but if you've got the money it's totally possible to own a small farm or piece of forest.
  - xyhopguy 9y ago
    Within 20 miles of somewhere like Portland for that matter. My in-laws live in the Portland burbs and everything between their house and the next town is farmland.
- seqastian 9y ago
  So don't work down town?
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    That's typically where the best jobs are (or maybe even the only jobs, depending on industry).

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

Having lived in Boston/Cambridge and a bunch of "middle of nowhere" cities in places where the weather means you stay inside a lot during certain parts of the year I disagree with the premise of this article. More people in the same or less space leads to less freedom. Walking doesn't have that much to do with it.

Newtopian 9y ago
"Having never lived in a truly big city I don't really understand why would anyone walk to anywhere, as such more density necessarily means more traffic".. Ok I filtered a bit with what I actually understood... still, you should try living in a really big city, preferably outside of north-america and see what "walkability" really means in it's natural environment.
- wffurr 9y ago
  Boston/Cambridge is one of the most walkable cities in North America–it's much closer to the European model than the typical North American city. I still don't get what the grandparent is on about though. I live in Boston, and it's pretty great. I feel free to live my life the way I want here, as opposed to being forced into owning a car and drive it everywhere.
  - sampo 9y ago
    The neighborhoods and downtown in Boston can be nice and walkable. But if you want to get around to places around the city, the Boston T has an average speed of about 10 mph [1]. A decent subway system can take you to places at more like 30 mph. NYC subway does about 15 mph [2]. D.C. metro does 30 mph [3]. (Not talking about the train top speed, but the average speed, including stops and acceleration, along the whole line.) [1] For the Green line: http://walkingbostonian.blogspot.com/2015/01/taking-look-at-green-line-average.html http://walkingbostonian.blogspot.com/2015/01/taking-look-at-... [2] https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/17313-subway-system-average-speed-by-line/ https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/17313-subway-system-a... [3] https://ggwash.org/view/4524/average-schedule-speed-how-does-metro-compare https://ggwash.org/view/4524/average-schedule-speed-how-does...

UncleEntity 9y ago

The city has been renovation my neighborhood for the last few years to make it more walkable, they redid the sidewalks on the "main" side street a while back and now they're doing the smaller streets. The "main" street is where they do a monthly art walk kind of thing that draws quite a few people and there's been a surge of massive block-sized apartment buildings going up so now there's also a bunch of restaurants there too. There's a whole lot more foot traffic in the area than when I moved here 6-something years ago. Have mixed feelings about the giant apartment buildings since they're pricey which means the restaurants are also pricey, well out of my meager price range. On a side note, I was talking to a kid who's girlfriend lives in one of the new apartment buildings and he was saying she has to rent it out on Airbnb half the month (and stay at her moms) to afford the rent.

electricEmu 9y ago
The city renovated my neighborhood recently as well. It's much more walkable with a street turned into a park, the expensive new apartments, and equally expensive restaurants. I'm all for the density. I already have a nice place that's much cheaper than the apartments. I eat-in mostly to save money. Now, my nightly walks will be more interesting. My options have expanded when I do go out. Your friend might have to consider roommates, a cheaper place, or staying with their parents. If they're renting their own apartment six months a year to afford it, then they can't.
- UncleEntity 9y ago
  > Your friend might have to consider roommates, a cheaper place, or staying with their parents. If they're renting their own apartment six months a year to afford it, then they can't. Yeah, I was like "huh, what's even the point?" I live 3 blocks away and pay less than half for a two-bedroom with the best landlord ever.
gowld 9y ago
Giant apartment buildings aren't pricey. New construction is pricey.

IWeldMelons 9y ago

Her statement is kinda strange that "socialist projects are unwalkable", and whole libertarian fixation on the everything Soviet, keeping in mind that Soviet cities are very, very walkable but becoming less so, because after the fall of USSR zoning rules became less strict.

golergka 9y ago
Can you provide an example? Moscow definitely became much more walkable in the last ~20 years, mostly thanks to the private development as well as state-run infrastructure.
- IWeldMelons 9y ago
  I do not like sharing my location, but where I live, the city is becoming more car-oriented, they began to put commercial buildings into the inner courtyards, and ugly in-fill condo buildings where they do not belong.
agapon 9y ago
USSR cities used to be very walkable and very public transportation oriented because they were built with low personal car ownership in mind. And that was the reality until the iron curtain fell and imported cars flooded the market.
gowld 9y ago
"socialist/Soviet" probably means "1950s-1970s", when monolothic block projects were popular. In the USA, Robert Moses was the engine of this movement, that was very pro-car / anti-transit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses Also related, the Brutalist design that favored gigantic concrete polygons over more multi-scale human-friendly designs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture