4 ms·

>Cars are mandatory by design in the US. This is the heart of what needs to change in the US. World-class bike cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen were just a

>Cars are mandatory by design in the US. This is the heart of what needs to change in the US. World-class bike cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen were just as car-centric in the 20th century as any American city. It took decades of deliberate, systematic change to make what they are today. This is just as possible for American cities as it was for their foreign peers. >everything is just closer together over here To this point, human-scale cities with fewer cars directly enable closer and denser habitats. Cars are a direct impediment to more livable cities. If you remove the cars, all of a sudden you have more space for people.

sailfast 7y ago
If you could afford a large house with a yard, a few minutes drive from a walkable downtown, would you want to be told that instead of building that home you have to live in a dense downtown because you cannot build your house with a yard to preserve farmland and promote 'walkability'? Would you want someone to tell you that your choices are limited because your city prefers "human scale" instead of whatever you prefer on the market that is totally doable? While I acknowledge that in the United States the culture is extremely car-centric and that must change, some of that is history / culture / lobbying but a lot of it is because not all of us have the good fortune to be Dutch. As a result, housing choices and preferences are much different. Making a more bike-centric culture starts with a number of things, not just bike lanes and denser cities. The city as a whole has to want it, first, and then continue to prove out the concept that bike-friendly can still be business friendly. (See: the old saw that "if my people can't park they won't shop here") Note: I'm in favor of denser cities, but I also acknowledge that it removes choice and it's not just my opinion that matters. Also, I can't afford a house in Amsterdam.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  Thing is, we have more rules forcing people to be low density than we do forcing people to be high density (in the US). So we have, indeed, removed choice - from those wishing to be in a compact area. To give just one example of these many, many, many rules, I just spoke with an architect about changes to my house and one of the rules is I need at least 2.4 metres of basically dead space where I meet the road because it's assumed I'll be sitting there in a car looking left and right before exiting. Saying "nah I ride a bike so I'm going to put a hedge up there" isn't an option. "house with a yard, a few minutes drive from a walkable downtown," Problem is that every time you drive to that downtown you make it a bit less walkable by virtue of bringing your car. In effect, everyone there is paying a little bit of their quality of life for your parking. Sometimes, this makes sense (having a place for ambulances is good), but sometimes you end up with a tragedy of the commons.
  - Noos 7y ago
    You may have a bike now, but there will be times when you or others visiting may need to use cars there. If you have a delivery made, yes they will back out of your driveway. If people visit you in a car or taxi (do you think they will all walk from the train station, including your 65 year old grandmother?) you need it. You get sick and need a taxi to the doctors office? Need it. Tumble off the bike and break or sprain something, and you rent a car while you recover? Need it. Do you plan on selling the house, and the buyer is a tradesman who need a truck to do landscaping or carry his tools? You're not going to cycle always and forever. A lot of people here one day are going to get old enough where cycling is a chore, even with a ebike. At that point the hedge becomes an expensive nuisance.
    - davidw 7y ago
      Just because someone might need a car at some point, doesn't mean that everything should be designed around them. Relevant: https://twitter.com/mlroach/status/1216078001709780992 https://twitter.com/mlroach/status/1216078001709780992 "News article: can bicycles replace many car trips for some people? That person: nobody can ever replace any car trips with a bicycle trip because I drive cross country every week with 14 hockey players and their equipment."
- davidw 7y ago
  > yard ... farmland Those are two very different things. Housing with yards, by and large, makes the city sprawl more, which takes away farmland. If you want to dwell in a single family unit - that's great! You should absolutely be able to. But other people ought to be able to be free to make different choices.
  - sailfast 7y ago
    Sorry, I wasn’t super clear there. In the Netherlands you are prevented from building new dwellings in many places to preserve farmland. This is an explicit decision by the government (and the Dutch people) because that part of the culture is important to preserve, especially in some of the green belt areas. This makes the landscape awesome and amazing, and also keeps cities tighter knit. Obviously in the US more and more acreage around urban areas is being bought up and turned into housing stock and some of these areas can be quite far away, far apart, and not subject to as many zoning restrictions especially where population is already somewhat spread out (thinking of SW Ohio here, particularly)
    - magduf 7y ago
      Oregon (US) has something similar in the Portland area; they call it the "urban growth boundary".
      - davidw 7y ago
        All Oregon cities have an UGB. It's not a hard boundary, and can grow as the city demonstrates a need.
      - sailfast 7y ago
        This seems like a reasonable way to ask the question "do we want to expand" as a population every so often, provided it's not to hard to change, and it doesn't promote NIMBY issues that reduce supply and overall growth opportunities for the city.
        7y ago

sailfast 7y ago

If you could afford a large house with a yard, a few minutes drive from a walkable downtown, would you want to be told that instead of building that home you have to live in a dense downtown because you cannot build your house with a yard to preserve farmland and promote 'walkability'? Would you want someone to tell you that your choices are limited because your city prefers "human scale" instead of whatever you prefer on the market that is totally doable? While I acknowledge that in the United States the culture is extremely car-centric and that must change, some of that is history / culture / lobbying but a lot of it is because not all of us have the good fortune to be Dutch. As a result, housing choices and preferences are much different. Making a more bike-centric culture starts with a number of things, not just bike lanes and denser cities. The city as a whole has to want it, first, and then continue to prove out the concept that bike-friendly can still be business friendly. (See: the old saw that "if my people can't park they won't shop here") Note: I'm in favor of denser cities, but I also acknowledge that it removes choice and it's not just my opinion that matters. Also, I can't afford a house in Amsterdam.

CalRobert 7y ago
Thing is, we have more rules forcing people to be low density than we do forcing people to be high density (in the US). So we have, indeed, removed choice - from those wishing to be in a compact area. To give just one example of these many, many, many rules, I just spoke with an architect about changes to my house and one of the rules is I need at least 2.4 metres of basically dead space where I meet the road because it's assumed I'll be sitting there in a car looking left and right before exiting. Saying "nah I ride a bike so I'm going to put a hedge up there" isn't an option. "house with a yard, a few minutes drive from a walkable downtown," Problem is that every time you drive to that downtown you make it a bit less walkable by virtue of bringing your car. In effect, everyone there is paying a little bit of their quality of life for your parking. Sometimes, this makes sense (having a place for ambulances is good), but sometimes you end up with a tragedy of the commons.
- Noos 7y ago
  You may have a bike now, but there will be times when you or others visiting may need to use cars there. If you have a delivery made, yes they will back out of your driveway. If people visit you in a car or taxi (do you think they will all walk from the train station, including your 65 year old grandmother?) you need it. You get sick and need a taxi to the doctors office? Need it. Tumble off the bike and break or sprain something, and you rent a car while you recover? Need it. Do you plan on selling the house, and the buyer is a tradesman who need a truck to do landscaping or carry his tools? You're not going to cycle always and forever. A lot of people here one day are going to get old enough where cycling is a chore, even with a ebike. At that point the hedge becomes an expensive nuisance.
  - davidw 7y ago
    Just because someone might need a car at some point, doesn't mean that everything should be designed around them. Relevant: https://twitter.com/mlroach/status/1216078001709780992 https://twitter.com/mlroach/status/1216078001709780992 "News article: can bicycles replace many car trips for some people? That person: nobody can ever replace any car trips with a bicycle trip because I drive cross country every week with 14 hockey players and their equipment."
davidw 7y ago
> yard ... farmland Those are two very different things. Housing with yards, by and large, makes the city sprawl more, which takes away farmland. If you want to dwell in a single family unit - that's great! You should absolutely be able to. But other people ought to be able to be free to make different choices.
- sailfast 7y ago
  Sorry, I wasn’t super clear there. In the Netherlands you are prevented from building new dwellings in many places to preserve farmland. This is an explicit decision by the government (and the Dutch people) because that part of the culture is important to preserve, especially in some of the green belt areas. This makes the landscape awesome and amazing, and also keeps cities tighter knit. Obviously in the US more and more acreage around urban areas is being bought up and turned into housing stock and some of these areas can be quite far away, far apart, and not subject to as many zoning restrictions especially where population is already somewhat spread out (thinking of SW Ohio here, particularly)
  - magduf 7y ago
    Oregon (US) has something similar in the Portland area; they call it the "urban growth boundary".
    - davidw 7y ago
      All Oregon cities have an UGB. It's not a hard boundary, and can grow as the city demonstrates a need.
    - sailfast 7y ago
      This seems like a reasonable way to ask the question "do we want to expand" as a population every so often, provided it's not to hard to change, and it doesn't promote NIMBY issues that reduce supply and overall growth opportunities for the city.
      - 7y ago