4 ms·

Jane Jacobs talks about how cities generally fall into one of two different kinds of equilibria: a public transit equilibrium, and a car equilibrium. In each on

Jane Jacobs talks about how cities generally fall into one of two different kinds of equilibria: a public transit equilibrium, and a car equilibrium. In each one, the preferred kind of mobility further shapes land use to make that kind of mobility even more preferable. Most of North America is so stuck in the car equilibrium that it seems hopeless. There's not even a handful of cities that would be nice to get around or live in without a car. This seems like it would take decades to correct, even if most North Americans actually wanted to. As an semi-extremist urbanite I'm incredibly pessimistic about this. I'm somewhat hopeful about new mobility methods like bikeshare or even rideshare, but none of them seem to be actively driving land use changes.

Retric 8y ago
You don’t need a huge public transit system to make the jump. You need high density + mixed use over a relatively small area with good public transit in that area. Which lets two car families drop to one car family’s. This reduces the need for public parking pushing up density and property values. It also makes links to that core of good public transit more valuable. The main problem in the US is you don’t get both high density and mixed use. PS: His harping on Vienna Fairfax completely misses the point, it’s the last stop on the orange line, the parking allows a vast area to commute via the subway including many people just visiting DC. The Pentagon City and Crystal City stops for example directly connect to shopping next to huge residential sections and have minimal parking.
- elvinyung 8y ago
  Well, that does fit into what I meant -- Outside North America, it seems to be generally (more) taken for granted that public transit and density/mixed-use feed into each other (such that either can be a prerequsite for the other), whereas in North America, because we're in such a car equilibrium, public transit mostly just spends most of its time apologizing for the poor land use. Although it is probably worth noting that e.g. Los Angeles has some places (kind of) like what you're talking about [1], but it's basically a drop in the bucket. [1] https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/11/11/meme-weeding-los-angeles-density/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/11/11/meme-weeding-l...
- mikeash 8y ago
  I’m amused by the Fairfax bit. I used to live within walking distance of that station. Almost all of the green space in the article’s image is now designated for commercial use (the remainder has housing), has plans ready to go, and is just waiting for the developer to start putting shovels into the ground. But the developer apparently doesn’t think it would be worth the cost of construction, so it just sits there. I’m not sure what else you could do there, unless you want to have the government heavily subsidize commercial development, which seems like a recipe for empty, decaying buildings in a decade or two.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    The American fascination with single use zoning is so counterproductive. If commercial doesn't work, just put housing next to it! Or build the housing first, or something. Pair with a tax designed to disincentivize land squatting. And it doesn't need to be eight story apartments with elevator, garbage, the whole shebang; a four-family house like this would still be a massive improvement over most American suburbs. https://activerain-store.s3.amazonaws.com/image_store/uploads/1/5/4/4/9/ar137731682494451.jpg https://activerain-store.s3.amazonaws.com/image_store/upload... Plus with how expensive DC is, you could do worse than selling houses.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      This one is the opposite. The developers would be happy to build nothing but housing, but the government wants offices and retail too. The developers built as much housing as they were allowed to without doing the rest (my house was one of them) and then basically bailed out.
      - donarb 8y ago
        In Seattle there are lots of buildings going up that are residential with commercial space on the ground floor. Residential is so profitable that the commercial space can sit empty for quite awhile and still make a profit. They then cover the vacant storefronts with colorful graphics.
adrianN 8y ago
Any urban change takes decades, especially if you have to build things. For example it takes years from proposal to completion of a single bike lane. Digging subway tunnels is much slower. Here in Berlin we're still debating plans that were originally drafted in the seventies. I think the most effective tool cities have is zoning regulations. Getting them right enables the city to harvest organic change as opposed to having to plan every single project. Reducing free parking and allowing mixed commercial and residential use seems to me like the easiest way towards a public transit centric city. In Tokyo for example there is basically no curbside parking and shops are always within walking distance.
- elvinyung 8y ago
  Totally, but in the North America it seems like we are culturally nowhere near aligned on changing this for the better. The cultural opinion seems to be slowly improving, but it still seems like most of North America has very agrarian/suburban tendencies. P.S. Japanese zoning is fascinating [1], but not without its faults. For example, the relatively laissez-faire zoning policies can be seen as to blame for the lack of bike lane infrastructure in most of Japan [2]. That said, 東京がとてもすきです :) [1] http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zoning http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zonin... [2] https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Making_of_Urban_Japan.html?id=KprPdsSvGyoC https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Making_of_Urban_Jap...
- lbriner 8y ago
  The other problem with zoning is that it is not a decision made in isolation. When governments are under financial pressure (aren't they all?), why not zone for what makes the most short-term or long term cash? The environmental benefits of mass transit or even the idea of high density living doesn't necessarily appeal much financially.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    How do gigantic parking lots make most cash in the short term?
oftenwrong 8y ago
Daniel Herriges wrote some great articles about the "activation energy" of walkability, and what significance that has for suburban America: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/14/the-activation-energy-of-a-walkable-place https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/14/the-activation... https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/17/the-catch-22-of-retrofitting-the-suburbs https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/17/the-catch-22-o...
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
> There's not even a handful of cities that would be nice to get around or live in without a car. > As an semi-extremist urbanite Don't call yourself an extremist. There's plenty of people that live without a car in big cities (outside of the US).

Retric 8y ago

You don’t need a huge public transit system to make the jump. You need high density + mixed use over a relatively small area with good public transit in that area. Which lets two car families drop to one car family’s. This reduces the need for public parking pushing up density and property values. It also makes links to that core of good public transit more valuable. The main problem in the US is you don’t get both high density and mixed use. PS: His harping on Vienna Fairfax completely misses the point, it’s the last stop on the orange line, the parking allows a vast area to commute via the subway including many people just visiting DC. The Pentagon City and Crystal City stops for example directly connect to shopping next to huge residential sections and have minimal parking.

elvinyung 8y ago
Well, that does fit into what I meant -- Outside North America, it seems to be generally (more) taken for granted that public transit and density/mixed-use feed into each other (such that either can be a prerequsite for the other), whereas in North America, because we're in such a car equilibrium, public transit mostly just spends most of its time apologizing for the poor land use. Although it is probably worth noting that e.g. Los Angeles has some places (kind of) like what you're talking about [1], but it's basically a drop in the bucket. [1] https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/11/11/meme-weeding-los-angeles-density/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/11/11/meme-weeding-l...
mikeash 8y ago
I’m amused by the Fairfax bit. I used to live within walking distance of that station. Almost all of the green space in the article’s image is now designated for commercial use (the remainder has housing), has plans ready to go, and is just waiting for the developer to start putting shovels into the ground. But the developer apparently doesn’t think it would be worth the cost of construction, so it just sits there. I’m not sure what else you could do there, unless you want to have the government heavily subsidize commercial development, which seems like a recipe for empty, decaying buildings in a decade or two.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  The American fascination with single use zoning is so counterproductive. If commercial doesn't work, just put housing next to it! Or build the housing first, or something. Pair with a tax designed to disincentivize land squatting. And it doesn't need to be eight story apartments with elevator, garbage, the whole shebang; a four-family house like this would still be a massive improvement over most American suburbs. https://activerain-store.s3.amazonaws.com/image_store/uploads/1/5/4/4/9/ar137731682494451.jpg https://activerain-store.s3.amazonaws.com/image_store/upload... Plus with how expensive DC is, you could do worse than selling houses.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    This one is the opposite. The developers would be happy to build nothing but housing, but the government wants offices and retail too. The developers built as much housing as they were allowed to without doing the rest (my house was one of them) and then basically bailed out.
    - donarb 8y ago
      In Seattle there are lots of buildings going up that are residential with commercial space on the ground floor. Residential is so profitable that the commercial space can sit empty for quite awhile and still make a profit. They then cover the vacant storefronts with colorful graphics.

adrianN 8y ago

Any urban change takes decades, especially if you have to build things. For example it takes years from proposal to completion of a single bike lane. Digging subway tunnels is much slower. Here in Berlin we're still debating plans that were originally drafted in the seventies. I think the most effective tool cities have is zoning regulations. Getting them right enables the city to harvest organic change as opposed to having to plan every single project. Reducing free parking and allowing mixed commercial and residential use seems to me like the easiest way towards a public transit centric city. In Tokyo for example there is basically no curbside parking and shops are always within walking distance.

elvinyung 8y ago
Totally, but in the North America it seems like we are culturally nowhere near aligned on changing this for the better. The cultural opinion seems to be slowly improving, but it still seems like most of North America has very agrarian/suburban tendencies. P.S. Japanese zoning is fascinating [1], but not without its faults. For example, the relatively laissez-faire zoning policies can be seen as to blame for the lack of bike lane infrastructure in most of Japan [2]. That said, 東京がとてもすきです :) [1] http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zoning http://devonzuegel.com/post/north-american-vs-japanese-zonin... [2] https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Making_of_Urban_Japan.html?id=KprPdsSvGyoC https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Making_of_Urban_Jap...
lbriner 8y ago
The other problem with zoning is that it is not a decision made in isolation. When governments are under financial pressure (aren't they all?), why not zone for what makes the most short-term or long term cash? The environmental benefits of mass transit or even the idea of high density living doesn't necessarily appeal much financially.
- adrianN 8y ago
  How do gigantic parking lots make most cash in the short term?

oftenwrong 8y ago

Daniel Herriges wrote some great articles about the "activation energy" of walkability, and what significance that has for suburban America: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/14/the-activation-energy-of-a-walkable-place https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/14/the-activation... https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/17/the-catch-22-of-retrofitting-the-suburbs https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/17/the-catch-22-o...

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

> There's not even a handful of cities that would be nice to get around or live in without a car. > As an semi-extremist urbanite Don't call yourself an extremist. There's plenty of people that live without a car in big cities (outside of the US).