6 ms·

I think he's barking up the wrong tree. The problem isn't "movie set urbanism", it's just boring, old "too much parking". Too much parking creates sparseness

I think he's barking up the wrong tree. The problem isn't "movie set urbanism", it's just boring, old "too much parking". Too much parking creates sparseness which reduces walkability. But putting parking behind stores ("movie sets") creates a human scale street space. While organic urban growth should be cherished, there are extreme cases, like most American towns and cities, where urbanism needs to be forcefully bootstrapped. In this case, we're artificially accelerating the evolution of a neighborhood and skipping over the early rural and suburban forms, going straight to a small urban core. I can see the long term hope of infilling those parking lots with more buildings as the town grows outwards.

C1sc0cat 7y ago
If you don't have of street parking you get congestion as people park on streets - that is the reason why planners mandate of street parking.
- ch4s3 7y ago
  I my recommend “The High Cost of Free Parking” by Donald Shoup to get a sense of what planners actually think about street parking.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    My home town in Florida, and the town I just moved out of in New Jersey, think of street parking as a cash cow.
- michaelt 7y ago
  I've heard of towns that attempt to solve this by marking roads residents-permit-parking-only, then only issuing one parking permit per house. Of course, it's not a perfect solution - you need exceptions for the elderly and infirm who need regular care visits; some sort of guest permit for anyone who hires tradespeople; and people who need a work vehicle have to do without a non-work vehicle, or be forced out. And it's a whole lot more fair if you set the rule before people buy the homes, rather than imposing it later.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    Just charge for parking with the goal of always having one empty parking spot per block. Everything else will work out: those who need to park there now will find a price, those more price sensitive will move elsewhere. If there is high demand someone will open up a parking garage. All of that assumes good transit though. Without good transit everybody must have a car per adult plus a one spare per family. When you have to pay the expensive of several cars the additional costs of parking starts to hurt. Most people do not see any real alternatives to cars: transit needs to come every 10 minutes all day and get me many different places within half an hour to count as good.
- gindely 7y ago
  Yet people continue to walk around in those areas. There's masses of onstreet parking here in Berlin and not that much off street parking, but the footpaths are always crowded. It's the same in Melbourne - some parts have onstreet parking and lots of people, and some parts of only off street parking and few people. If getting people to walk between destinations is a goal, you should increase the proportion of on street parking and decrease the proportion of off street parking. This will slow down the cars and increase foot traffic, since it becomes more competitive. Also, by using the connecting space as parking places, you acknowledge the viability of using connecting places as destinations. But if your goal is to eliminate car congestion, you aren't doing it right. Planning should optimise for humans and tax revenue, not cars.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    um walking why on earth did you jump to the conclusion, How do busses ambulances etc move through a city that has narrow streets crammed with cars. Of course with European city's with wide boulevards might not be as bad - though of course those wide streets are designed to stop barricades and to allow for the use of grape shot to stop the rioting presents.
    - pas 7y ago
      dedicated bus/taxi/emergency lanes
    - icebraining 7y ago
      > with European city's with wide boulevards How many European cities have you visited? A few cross-city boulevards don't define the street layout. The average street width in Amsterdam is 9.5m, in Paris is 10.6m, in Brussels is 13.2m, and in Barcelona is 13.9m; compare with Manhattan's 15.9m.
- pas 7y ago
  yes, and? congestion is a given. some folks just love sitting in traffic. the important thing is to provide better alternative ways of getting around. eg walking from the nearest subway/tram/bus stop.
mtberatwork 7y ago
> You get something that is an entertainment product—it looks cute, but it’s functionally like a movie set or a theme park. Its design has the aesthetic signifiers of a traditional town, but none of the functionality, none of the deep responsiveness to the needs of the people living there. I think he encapsulates things nicely here. Barring some exceptions, town/village life in the US is basically non-existent. There are no central squares/plazas, no pedestrian only downtowns, no local bakeries/butchers/grocers, no transit, etc. Everything is a facade designed around the car.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  All of those are benefits that come from high density living. But while they might say they like those benefits, most people will choose the benefits of low density living, such as more space (quarter acre lots with detached garages and front and back yards and 2,000+ sq ft interiors). Not to mention the benefit of being able to segregate children into different schools by socioeconomic status, by restricting different incomes from living in the same school district via zoning laws requiring large lots and expensive properties, which also leads to unfeasible public transportation.
  - danans 7y ago
    > But while they might say they like those benefits, most people will choose the benefits of low density living, This is heavily dependent on one's conditioning. I grew up in a late mid-century low density suburb - nothing like the exurban sprawl you see today, but still very far from walkable. I instinctively moved from that to high density older neighborhoods as an adult. At least at the moment the trend tends to be towards demand for the benefits of increased density, as the culture has shifted to valuing experiences more than large (expensive-to-maintain) spaces. However, with the old and still vibrant urban neighborhoods now priced out of reach for most, people who are seeking the benefits of urban living are attempting to densify first ring suburbs, which is leading to intergenerational conflicts in many suburban city halls. > Not to mention the benefit of being able to segregate children into different schools by socioeconomic status, by restricting different incomes from living in the same school district via zoning laws requiring large lots and expensive properties, which also leads to unfeasible public transportation. I agree that these factors are all present, and are usually enabled by planning and zoning rules, which often function as a replacement for the illegal racial neighborhood covenant system that used to be common in the US. IMO the current system is a shame, but I'm also aware that the system is working for the subset who can afford to exist on it's beneficial side, and those people tend to vote in local elections.
seanalltogether 7y ago
Really I think these "main streets shops" are designs to replace strip malls in suburban environments, which in my opinion is infinitely better.
- ses1984 7y ago
  Isn't it pretty much the exact same thing?
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    Yes, just tarted-up a bit.
  - treis 7y ago
    This one is pretty much the same thing, but there are plenty of others that combine shopping/residential in one. Effectively a suburban mall with apartments on top. Not my cup of tea, but clearly a step up in walkability over a traditional suburb.
  - devchix 7y ago
    But worse, now you're at the mercy of inclement weather. Near where I live there's a movie theatre at the center of one of these outdoors shopping mall. You line up outside the building to buy tickets. It's a nod to the old-time theatre with the kiosk and ticket-taker but it's cold to queue up in the winter and miserably hot in the summer. There's no awning or overhang or trees. One good-ish thing: in the summer they turn on the outside fountains and kids play there, in the evenings people hang out outside. But it's all driven by commerce, it's not a place that people just gravitate to, it doesn't have its own sense of place, the way a small little urban park is its own place. I wish there were more tiny little urban parks, nothing major, just a small oasis with trees, grass, and some benches. But because we're surrounded by a concrete ocean, who would ever drive to such an insignificant park and enjoy it. The bench will attract the homeless, even less reason to make this space. I can't even articulate the problem - other than infrastructure seems to be going in the wrong direction.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
derg 7y ago
>Too much parking creates sparseness which reduces walkability Anecdotes and all that but for me, there is also definitely a weird psychological factor when walking past big parking lots in the city I live in. It's just... weirdly oppressive in ways I cannot properly articulate, especially living in a city that predates cars by a couple hundred years. It feels like it takes longer to walk past even if it is the same size as the surrounding blocks (or even if it's smaller!).
- timerol 7y ago
  You might be interested to learn about the Gehl Door Average, a metric that Jan Gehl came up with (based on his book Cities for People). It measures the number of doors per 100 meters of street frontage, and is a contributing factor to walkability: https://streets.mn/2014/11/06/front-doors-and-walkable-cities/ https://streets.mn/2014/11/06/front-doors-and-walkable-citie... Parking lots have a 0 GDA, and so feel weirdly empty when walking. (So do parks, but one easily-calculable metric can't capture everything.)
  - clairity 7y ago
    > "Parking lots have a 0 GDA, and so feel weirdly empty when walking. (So do parks, but one easily-calculable metric can't capture everything.)" parks are welcoming, while parking lots are not, so you could also think of parks having infinite GDA, since you can just walk in anywhere (assuming no fences or other impediments along the perimeter).
pas 7y ago
That's very far from any kind of core. :(

C1sc0cat 7y ago

If you don't have of street parking you get congestion as people park on streets - that is the reason why planners mandate of street parking.

ch4s3 7y ago
I my recommend “The High Cost of Free Parking” by Donald Shoup to get a sense of what planners actually think about street parking.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  My home town in Florida, and the town I just moved out of in New Jersey, think of street parking as a cash cow.
michaelt 7y ago
I've heard of towns that attempt to solve this by marking roads residents-permit-parking-only, then only issuing one parking permit per house. Of course, it's not a perfect solution - you need exceptions for the elderly and infirm who need regular care visits; some sort of guest permit for anyone who hires tradespeople; and people who need a work vehicle have to do without a non-work vehicle, or be forced out. And it's a whole lot more fair if you set the rule before people buy the homes, rather than imposing it later.
- bluGill 7y ago
  Just charge for parking with the goal of always having one empty parking spot per block. Everything else will work out: those who need to park there now will find a price, those more price sensitive will move elsewhere. If there is high demand someone will open up a parking garage. All of that assumes good transit though. Without good transit everybody must have a car per adult plus a one spare per family. When you have to pay the expensive of several cars the additional costs of parking starts to hurt. Most people do not see any real alternatives to cars: transit needs to come every 10 minutes all day and get me many different places within half an hour to count as good.
gindely 7y ago
Yet people continue to walk around in those areas. There's masses of onstreet parking here in Berlin and not that much off street parking, but the footpaths are always crowded. It's the same in Melbourne - some parts have onstreet parking and lots of people, and some parts of only off street parking and few people. If getting people to walk between destinations is a goal, you should increase the proportion of on street parking and decrease the proportion of off street parking. This will slow down the cars and increase foot traffic, since it becomes more competitive. Also, by using the connecting space as parking places, you acknowledge the viability of using connecting places as destinations. But if your goal is to eliminate car congestion, you aren't doing it right. Planning should optimise for humans and tax revenue, not cars.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  um walking why on earth did you jump to the conclusion, How do busses ambulances etc move through a city that has narrow streets crammed with cars. Of course with European city's with wide boulevards might not be as bad - though of course those wide streets are designed to stop barricades and to allow for the use of grape shot to stop the rioting presents.
  - pas 7y ago
    dedicated bus/taxi/emergency lanes
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > with European city's with wide boulevards How many European cities have you visited? A few cross-city boulevards don't define the street layout. The average street width in Amsterdam is 9.5m, in Paris is 10.6m, in Brussels is 13.2m, and in Barcelona is 13.9m; compare with Manhattan's 15.9m.
pas 7y ago
yes, and? congestion is a given. some folks just love sitting in traffic. the important thing is to provide better alternative ways of getting around. eg walking from the nearest subway/tram/bus stop.

mtberatwork 7y ago

> You get something that is an entertainment product—it looks cute, but it’s functionally like a movie set or a theme park. Its design has the aesthetic signifiers of a traditional town, but none of the functionality, none of the deep responsiveness to the needs of the people living there. I think he encapsulates things nicely here. Barring some exceptions, town/village life in the US is basically non-existent. There are no central squares/plazas, no pedestrian only downtowns, no local bakeries/butchers/grocers, no transit, etc. Everything is a facade designed around the car.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
All of those are benefits that come from high density living. But while they might say they like those benefits, most people will choose the benefits of low density living, such as more space (quarter acre lots with detached garages and front and back yards and 2,000+ sq ft interiors). Not to mention the benefit of being able to segregate children into different schools by socioeconomic status, by restricting different incomes from living in the same school district via zoning laws requiring large lots and expensive properties, which also leads to unfeasible public transportation.
- danans 7y ago
  > But while they might say they like those benefits, most people will choose the benefits of low density living, This is heavily dependent on one's conditioning. I grew up in a late mid-century low density suburb - nothing like the exurban sprawl you see today, but still very far from walkable. I instinctively moved from that to high density older neighborhoods as an adult. At least at the moment the trend tends to be towards demand for the benefits of increased density, as the culture has shifted to valuing experiences more than large (expensive-to-maintain) spaces. However, with the old and still vibrant urban neighborhoods now priced out of reach for most, people who are seeking the benefits of urban living are attempting to densify first ring suburbs, which is leading to intergenerational conflicts in many suburban city halls. > Not to mention the benefit of being able to segregate children into different schools by socioeconomic status, by restricting different incomes from living in the same school district via zoning laws requiring large lots and expensive properties, which also leads to unfeasible public transportation. I agree that these factors are all present, and are usually enabled by planning and zoning rules, which often function as a replacement for the illegal racial neighborhood covenant system that used to be common in the US. IMO the current system is a shame, but I'm also aware that the system is working for the subset who can afford to exist on it's beneficial side, and those people tend to vote in local elections.

seanalltogether 7y ago

Really I think these "main streets shops" are designs to replace strip malls in suburban environments, which in my opinion is infinitely better.

ses1984 7y ago
Isn't it pretty much the exact same thing?
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Yes, just tarted-up a bit.
- treis 7y ago
  This one is pretty much the same thing, but there are plenty of others that combine shopping/residential in one. Effectively a suburban mall with apartments on top. Not my cup of tea, but clearly a step up in walkability over a traditional suburb.
- devchix 7y ago
  But worse, now you're at the mercy of inclement weather. Near where I live there's a movie theatre at the center of one of these outdoors shopping mall. You line up outside the building to buy tickets. It's a nod to the old-time theatre with the kiosk and ticket-taker but it's cold to queue up in the winter and miserably hot in the summer. There's no awning or overhang or trees. One good-ish thing: in the summer they turn on the outside fountains and kids play there, in the evenings people hang out outside. But it's all driven by commerce, it's not a place that people just gravitate to, it doesn't have its own sense of place, the way a small little urban park is its own place. I wish there were more tiny little urban parks, nothing major, just a small oasis with trees, grass, and some benches. But because we're surrounded by a concrete ocean, who would ever drive to such an insignificant park and enjoy it. The bench will attract the homeless, even less reason to make this space. I can't even articulate the problem - other than infrastructure seems to be going in the wrong direction.
- logfromblammo 7y ago

derg 7y ago

>Too much parking creates sparseness which reduces walkability Anecdotes and all that but for me, there is also definitely a weird psychological factor when walking past big parking lots in the city I live in. It's just... weirdly oppressive in ways I cannot properly articulate, especially living in a city that predates cars by a couple hundred years. It feels like it takes longer to walk past even if it is the same size as the surrounding blocks (or even if it's smaller!).

timerol 7y ago
You might be interested to learn about the Gehl Door Average, a metric that Jan Gehl came up with (based on his book Cities for People). It measures the number of doors per 100 meters of street frontage, and is a contributing factor to walkability: https://streets.mn/2014/11/06/front-doors-and-walkable-cities/ https://streets.mn/2014/11/06/front-doors-and-walkable-citie... Parking lots have a 0 GDA, and so feel weirdly empty when walking. (So do parks, but one easily-calculable metric can't capture everything.)
- clairity 7y ago
  > "Parking lots have a 0 GDA, and so feel weirdly empty when walking. (So do parks, but one easily-calculable metric can't capture everything.)" parks are welcoming, while parking lots are not, so you could also think of parks having infinite GDA, since you can just walk in anywhere (assuming no fences or other impediments along the perimeter).

pas 7y ago

That's very far from any kind of core. :(