3 ms·

Also, nobody wants to walk in Houston. AC is required to survive there.

brailsafe 8y ago
Perhaps if buildings were a bit taller with people and businesses closer, you'd require less walking and it would be spent more in the shade.
- romwell 8y ago
  There's also the radical European idea of planting (gasp) trees in the streets to provide shade when the sun is out. (And, while we're dreaming, putting benches in the streets so that tired walkers could have some rest, and maybe even putting little plazas at street intersections to provide spaces for people to socialize and thus making the whole process of walking around the city more enjoyable).
  - kraigie 8y ago
    Also gasp mass transit. A dozen small compact cites with trams (streetcars) modern ones get up to 40mph can serve to create a good cbd at the hub, fit well with walking and cycling while providing critical mass for there to be enough things and places nearby. If service is 24/7 and stops are spaced close enough you can even park most cars outside the city.
graeme 8y ago
I've been to Cuba. There are old cities in the Spanish style, and new ones (1950s) in the american style. In the spanish cities you can walk comfortably. The buildings are tall enough and near enough to the sidewalk that you can always find shade. And everyone walks on the shaded side of the street. In the american cities the buildings are set back, and there is no shade. People still walk (they're poor), but there are a lot more horse carriages that pass by to offer people lifts. Walking isn't so feasible.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- exelius 8y ago
  Walking has never been feasible in the South US. It works in Cuba because Cuba is a small island with a lot of people. Density is forced, so you don’t need a car to get to everything — thus your walking trips are 10-20 minutes long. Living in the south, it would take me 15 minutes walking just to leave my neighborhood. And most neighborhoods remotely outside the cities do not have sidewalks. So it’s a chicken-and-egg problem. Just bear in mind most cities in the south (especially Texas) were very small prior to the mass adoption of automobiles and air conditioning. My hypothesis is that the car was required for large Texas cities to exist, and as a result the city has always been a sprawled mess. So the real question is whether we should build cities this way in the first place? But it’s kind of an irrelevant question — we do and will continue to build cities this way regardless of it being a good idea or not.
  - graeme 8y ago
    That's a good argument: the development of cities post-AC and post-car strongly favours the current model. But, is it possible that cities were small because the wrong building style was used? After all, the Spanish colonies to the south of the US are warmer than the South, but had large cities.
  - waldrews 8y ago
    Cuba is small? The length, just under 800 miles, is about the same as the distance from New York to Chicago.
kraigie 8y ago
There are underground and above ground non auto networks. See Canada, las Vegas, Portland transit mall

Perhaps if buildings were a bit taller with people and businesses closer, you'd require less walking and it would be spent more in the shade.

romwell 8y ago
There's also the radical European idea of planting (gasp) trees in the streets to provide shade when the sun is out. (And, while we're dreaming, putting benches in the streets so that tired walkers could have some rest, and maybe even putting little plazas at street intersections to provide spaces for people to socialize and thus making the whole process of walking around the city more enjoyable).
- kraigie 8y ago
  Also gasp mass transit. A dozen small compact cites with trams (streetcars) modern ones get up to 40mph can serve to create a good cbd at the hub, fit well with walking and cycling while providing critical mass for there to be enough things and places nearby. If service is 24/7 and stops are spaced close enough you can even park most cars outside the city.

graeme 8y ago

I've been to Cuba. There are old cities in the Spanish style, and new ones (1950s) in the american style. In the spanish cities you can walk comfortably. The buildings are tall enough and near enough to the sidewalk that you can always find shade. And everyone walks on the shaded side of the street. In the american cities the buildings are set back, and there is no shade. People still walk (they're poor), but there are a lot more horse carriages that pass by to offer people lifts. Walking isn't so feasible.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
exelius 8y ago
Walking has never been feasible in the South US. It works in Cuba because Cuba is a small island with a lot of people. Density is forced, so you don’t need a car to get to everything — thus your walking trips are 10-20 minutes long. Living in the south, it would take me 15 minutes walking just to leave my neighborhood. And most neighborhoods remotely outside the cities do not have sidewalks. So it’s a chicken-and-egg problem. Just bear in mind most cities in the south (especially Texas) were very small prior to the mass adoption of automobiles and air conditioning. My hypothesis is that the car was required for large Texas cities to exist, and as a result the city has always been a sprawled mess. So the real question is whether we should build cities this way in the first place? But it’s kind of an irrelevant question — we do and will continue to build cities this way regardless of it being a good idea or not.
- graeme 8y ago
  That's a good argument: the development of cities post-AC and post-car strongly favours the current model. But, is it possible that cities were small because the wrong building style was used? After all, the Spanish colonies to the south of the US are warmer than the South, but had large cities.
- waldrews 8y ago
  Cuba is small? The length, just under 800 miles, is about the same as the distance from New York to Chicago.

kraigie 8y ago

There are underground and above ground non auto networks. See Canada, las Vegas, Portland transit mall