3 ms·

There is something in between NYC and an American-style suburb. I encourage you to take a look at Not Just Bikes [1,2]: [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW

There is something in between NYC and an American-style suburb. I encourage you to take a look at Not Just Bikes [1,2]: [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ

falcolas 5y ago
Like the Seattle area, or the SF bay? Those aren't any better, frankly. Too many people packed into small spaces. Even the precisely manicured green spaces get packed full of people, ironically looking to escape.
- benrbray 5y ago
  Seattle / SF are both still very car-centric and have pretty bad public transit. Unfortunately I don't know of any places in the United States that are representative of what I'm talking about, outside some small pockets which don't span more than a few blocks. Largely due to zoning restrictions. Not Just Bikes has some good video of places in the Netherlands and elsewhere that come close to meeting the ideal. Take a look too at maps of small/medium towns in Germany or Japan compared to USA.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    Cable cars, trams, busses, trains, taxis – if SF and Seattle have poor public transit, I've never seen a place which does then. And I say this as someone who lived in and extensively used said public transit in both cities. Let's hypothesize about a utopian city where a person's housing is, at a maximum, a quarter hour walk/bike from their job at Apple. The moment that person switches jobs to Google, however, they have to choose between moving or losing every benefit the utopian city layout has provided. Worse, their new commute would be explicitly working against the design of this hypothetical city. Workforces should not be (and are not with suburbs) tightly integrated into where they work. This is something important to consider. You can't have the same density of employers that you have today if you're also packing in the other services (residential, markets, drug stores, laundrymats, etc).

falcolas 5y ago

Like the Seattle area, or the SF bay? Those aren't any better, frankly. Too many people packed into small spaces. Even the precisely manicured green spaces get packed full of people, ironically looking to escape.

benrbray 5y ago
Seattle / SF are both still very car-centric and have pretty bad public transit. Unfortunately I don't know of any places in the United States that are representative of what I'm talking about, outside some small pockets which don't span more than a few blocks. Largely due to zoning restrictions. Not Just Bikes has some good video of places in the Netherlands and elsewhere that come close to meeting the ideal. Take a look too at maps of small/medium towns in Germany or Japan compared to USA.
- falcolas 5y ago
  Cable cars, trams, busses, trains, taxis – if SF and Seattle have poor public transit, I've never seen a place which does then. And I say this as someone who lived in and extensively used said public transit in both cities. Let's hypothesize about a utopian city where a person's housing is, at a maximum, a quarter hour walk/bike from their job at Apple. The moment that person switches jobs to Google, however, they have to choose between moving or losing every benefit the utopian city layout has provided. Worse, their new commute would be explicitly working against the design of this hypothetical city. Workforces should not be (and are not with suburbs) tightly integrated into where they work. This is something important to consider. You can't have the same density of employers that you have today if you're also packing in the other services (residential, markets, drug stores, laundrymats, etc).