3 ms·
>A much more vibrant and livable San Francisco likely involves something like 25-50% fewer cars, sidewalks 50% wider, buildings 50% taller, twice the population
by sand500 8y ago
>A much more vibrant and livable San Francisco likely involves something like 25-50% fewer cars, sidewalks 50% wider, buildings 50% taller, twice the population density, and 25X the number of electric scooters, just to throw out some back of the envelope guesses of enough magnitude to alter one's conception of the city in a significant way. But no incrementalist approach will get the city there.
I totally agree. We need to break out of the cycle of designing cities for cars and then not building up public transit because everyone has cars. Another thing important for a vibrant city is an abundance of street level retail.
- pmontra 8y agoI agree with most of that but why should buildings be taller and population density higher? I'd like the opposite: taller buildings == less visible sky, more people around == more noise and more long lines. The three things I didn't like of China when I was there on vacation and I was happy not to find back home.
- sand500 8y agoI think just having more people makes the area more lively. Less people will basically turn it into suburbs. Also higher density means public transportation can be better utilized and reduce the need for cars. I saw this at Arlington and Nova where right around the metro stations, there were high-rises and the area was very walkable and lively.