3 ms·

First, there is no confirmation that people's lives were just as fulfilling before the development of now-modern US communities. There is evidence that people

by ianb 15y ago

First, there is no confirmation that people's lives were just as fulfilling before the development of now-modern US communities. There is evidence that people did not like their living situation, and pursued other living situations. That's how this all happened. There are storylines that assume that all those people are stupid rubes conned into something they didn't really want, but I find those offensive to my democratic sensibilities. Well... it'd be okay if they were offensive, but they also are far-fetched. But more important right now: we can't just undo this. Metropolitan areas have become much larger than they were before, and you can't squeeze all that development into old boundaries or even old forms. There can't be one center to a metropolitan area. And even the idea of local centers supposes that there are no useful decisions to make, that all providers of a service are equivalent except for their location. There will be a Catholic church in your neighborhood, but will there be a Baha'i temple? Can you get your kid to the daycare you want, then get yourself to the job you want, and get home, and have your partner do much the same, all within your local center or the limited mass transit connections you might find between centers? Is the entire concept of Costco wrong? Because there can't be Costco without decentralized multi-use transportation methods. There's lots of smaller (single-center) towns with a nice downtown, and a crappy strip area elsewhere. In those towns everyone shops in the crappy strip, because they want a nice big grocery store with good prices, and you just don't get that with a local/small grocery store. And businesses that provide real value want to build new buildings, and it's damn hard to build the right building in built-up cores. Maybe resolvable, but it's hard, and regressing to older forms won't do it.

enjo 15y ago
White flight and bussing issues certainly played a part. I'd argue that there were forces at work bigger than satisfaction with place. added on edit: There's lots of smaller (single-center) towns with a nice downtown, and a crappy strip area elsewhere. In those towns everyone shops in the crappy strip, because they want a nice big grocery store with good prices, and you just don't get that with a local/small grocery store. And businesses that provide real value want to build new buildings, and it's damn hard to build the right building in built-up cores. Maybe resolvable, but it's hard, and regressing to older forms won't do it. That's right, but not for the reason you state. They shop at the strip-mall because it's probably closer and more convenient to them. That's the issue. A focused, mixed use center is the ideal but it requires neighborhoods to be integrated into it. The problem with modern American planning has been a desire to strictly separate (usually by massive boulevards) uses from each other. Work pods, retail pods, and living pods are all kept strictly apart. That's when the strip mall becomes more convenient. It's easy to park and quick to get to. However, when you look at cities that do this right (Portland is my go-to example always) then it's a very different picture. They are pushing the concept of "20 minute neighborhoods" with the idea that all of the citizens within Portland will have essential living resource (Grocery Stores and the like) within a 20 minute walk of their house. They are building sidewalks and working to re-engineer neighborhoods to nicely integrate these areas into the actual fabric of the neighborhood. It's a bold plan, but it reflects what has been very successful in that city. There are neighborhoods in Portland where everyone DOES shop in the city center. Between effective transit and smart planning the relatively small city of Portland has built something really cool. They HAVE grocery stores (large format and with those reasonable prices you mention) within easy walking distance of many peoples homes. Those stores are heavily used. I think the issue with urbanism is simply that most people don't have the option. It's something we've had to rediscover and recent trends have certainly shown a movement back towards stronger mixed-use neighborhoods in the last decade.
- nasmorn 15y ago
  I live in Vienna right above a big supermarket. It is a nice neighbour, I couldn't think of any reason why it shouldnt be allowed in a residential zone. It is as if I had a fridge in the cellar with unlimited supplies. Only I havent because that would be a stupid waste of power.
- anamax 15y ago
  > However, when you look at cities that do this right (Portland is my go-to example always) then it's a very different picture. Ah yes, Portland, where diversity is the guy with a tan. Oregon exports folks who tell us how wonderful things can be, but Portland is significantly less dense than other US urban regions. > I think the issue with urbanism is simply that most people don't have the option. Of course they do - they can move to urban areas. Heck - they can even build new ones. There are plenty of places in the US where you can build whatever housing/work fantasy you'd like. If you're correct, folks will pay to live&work there. If you're not ....
- ianb 15y ago
  Well: figuring out cause and effect is hard. E.g.: "They shop at the strip-mall because it's probably closer and more convenient to them. That's the issue." There's more than one way to interpret that. An alternate interpretation that I will offer: the strip grocery store is cheaper and bureaucratically much easier to build (the nature of green field development), and the logistics of using that store are easier (just more space), so that big-box suburban-style stores have driven other kinds of stores out of business, and suppressed the building of new stores. Maybe that's because of subsidies and whatnot, though even if so it's not clear that removal of those subsidies would reverse the trend. Now I'm not just trying to be cynical and pro-suburb. I don't choose to live in suburbs, and yet we still do a lot of our shopping there, and I believe our and many other people's decisions are based on rational reasons. Reasons based in the-way-things-are, not the-way-things-could-be, but still rational. I lived in Chicago for a long time too, and there the suburbs were simply too far away. And a lot of things are a complete pain in the ass to do in that environment. Walking 20 minutes with your groceries in a handcart is not awesome, and most people aren't going to be very excited about that option. Not because they are unable to see the benefit, but because it's tiring and cold to walk 20 minutes with groceries, you can't get a full load, if you have a child everything is twice as hard, and if you have a baby then it's just plain shitty. I think if density and urban environments are going to take back growth from the suburbs, we need new forms to support that. The corner store won't do it. The city big box store is just aping the suburbs. But we need something new. One option frankly is many fewer stores. Amazon works great in the city. This is contrary to what many Livable Cities proponents want (local business), but personally I don't care about commerce. Commerce is a pathetic excuse for public life, and if it is automated away then so be it. I guess it's the same desire: if the old way of public life doesn't seem good enough, instead of regressing let's consider new forms.

by ianb 15y ago

enjo 15y ago

White flight and bussing issues certainly played a part. I'd argue that there were forces at work bigger than satisfaction with place. added on edit: There's lots of smaller (single-center) towns with a nice downtown, and a crappy strip area elsewhere. In those towns everyone shops in the crappy strip, because they want a nice big grocery store with good prices, and you just don't get that with a local/small grocery store. And businesses that provide real value want to build new buildings, and it's damn hard to build the right building in built-up cores. Maybe resolvable, but it's hard, and regressing to older forms won't do it. That's right, but not for the reason you state. They shop at the strip-mall because it's probably closer and more convenient to them. That's the issue. A focused, mixed use center is the ideal but it requires neighborhoods to be integrated into it. The problem with modern American planning has been a desire to strictly separate (usually by massive boulevards) uses from each other. Work pods, retail pods, and living pods are all kept strictly apart. That's when the strip mall becomes more convenient. It's easy to park and quick to get to. However, when you look at cities that do this right (Portland is my go-to example always) then it's a very different picture. They are pushing the concept of "20 minute neighborhoods" with the idea that all of the citizens within Portland will have essential living resource (Grocery Stores and the like) within a 20 minute walk of their house. They are building sidewalks and working to re-engineer neighborhoods to nicely integrate these areas into the actual fabric of the neighborhood. It's a bold plan, but it reflects what has been very successful in that city. There are neighborhoods in Portland where everyone DOES shop in the city center. Between effective transit and smart planning the relatively small city of Portland has built something really cool. They HAVE grocery stores (large format and with those reasonable prices you mention) within easy walking distance of many peoples homes. Those stores are heavily used. I think the issue with urbanism is simply that most people don't have the option. It's something we've had to rediscover and recent trends have certainly shown a movement back towards stronger mixed-use neighborhoods in the last decade.

nasmorn 15y ago
I live in Vienna right above a big supermarket. It is a nice neighbour, I couldn't think of any reason why it shouldnt be allowed in a residential zone. It is as if I had a fridge in the cellar with unlimited supplies. Only I havent because that would be a stupid waste of power.
anamax 15y ago
> However, when you look at cities that do this right (Portland is my go-to example always) then it's a very different picture. Ah yes, Portland, where diversity is the guy with a tan. Oregon exports folks who tell us how wonderful things can be, but Portland is significantly less dense than other US urban regions. > I think the issue with urbanism is simply that most people don't have the option. Of course they do - they can move to urban areas. Heck - they can even build new ones. There are plenty of places in the US where you can build whatever housing/work fantasy you'd like. If you're correct, folks will pay to live&work there. If you're not ....
ianb 15y ago
Well: figuring out cause and effect is hard. E.g.: "They shop at the strip-mall because it's probably closer and more convenient to them. That's the issue." There's more than one way to interpret that. An alternate interpretation that I will offer: the strip grocery store is cheaper and bureaucratically much easier to build (the nature of green field development), and the logistics of using that store are easier (just more space), so that big-box suburban-style stores have driven other kinds of stores out of business, and suppressed the building of new stores. Maybe that's because of subsidies and whatnot, though even if so it's not clear that removal of those subsidies would reverse the trend. Now I'm not just trying to be cynical and pro-suburb. I don't choose to live in suburbs, and yet we still do a lot of our shopping there, and I believe our and many other people's decisions are based on rational reasons. Reasons based in the-way-things-are, not the-way-things-could-be, but still rational. I lived in Chicago for a long time too, and there the suburbs were simply too far away. And a lot of things are a complete pain in the ass to do in that environment. Walking 20 minutes with your groceries in a handcart is not awesome, and most people aren't going to be very excited about that option. Not because they are unable to see the benefit, but because it's tiring and cold to walk 20 minutes with groceries, you can't get a full load, if you have a child everything is twice as hard, and if you have a baby then it's just plain shitty. I think if density and urban environments are going to take back growth from the suburbs, we need new forms to support that. The corner store won't do it. The city big box store is just aping the suburbs. But we need something new. One option frankly is many fewer stores. Amazon works great in the city. This is contrary to what many Livable Cities proponents want (local business), but personally I don't care about commerce. Commerce is a pathetic excuse for public life, and if it is automated away then so be it. I guess it's the same desire: if the old way of public life doesn't seem good enough, instead of regressing let's consider new forms.