7 ms·

I love that this highlights an oft-missed truth about Urbanism and shifting our urban landscape: this is going to take a long time. It's going to take many deca

I love that this highlights an oft-missed truth about Urbanism and shifting our urban landscape: this is going to take a long time. It's going to take many decades, and it's going to require waiting for individual human beings to literally die before we get to start making the changes we want to make. I mean, unless we can get someone really excited about this into federal office in which case it _might_ be possible to do what we did in the US with the interstate system but in reverse, but that'd require a pretty different political landscape than the one we're in now, I suspect.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fennecfoxen 5y ago
If only our nation were able to pass some sort of "infrastructure bill". No, I mean one that actually did what it said on the tin.
- ghaff 5y ago
  It's not just (or maybe even primarily) about money. As is indicated in the first part of the OP, changing things means changing things that a lot of people are fine with, affecting many businesses, causing a lot of disruption, etc. I'd be fine with more walkable areas but it's not just about spending money.
  - danny_codes 5y ago
    IMO this is a question of ignorance. Most Americans simply don't understand that there are (far superior) alternatives to car-dependent suburbia. It's just not on their radar. Hopefully channels like "Not Just Bikes" and our own social dissemination of the walk/bike/transit oriented urban development model will allow more Americans to understand what they're missing. Once enough people in a given urban area realize what they could have, perhaps the political will to improve will materialize.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      I don't much care for suburbs and like cities only in moderation. I prefer the country within striking distance of a large city. I'm perfectly aware of what an urban environment is like--I've lived in both Cambridge and NYC--and while there are things I like about it (I'm staying in one this week) it's not something I want full-time.
      - danny_codes 5y ago
        Seeing as those are both American cities, it's not surprising you don't like it. Even our best cities are pretty disappointing when compared to what Europe and Asia have to offer.
wilkommen 5y ago
I think a true shift towards Urbanism in our cities may be only possible if there's a whole lot of money in it for somebody with political leverage. But who? I'm not sure. Real estate developers? They're already making money hand over fist building our cities in the shitty car-centric way. When the US made its shift to car-centricity with the interstate highway system, there was a ton of money in it for oil companies, and car companies. Who "wins" when we shift our building patterns towards Urbanism? Aside from everyone who gets to live there, of course. I feel like big political changes like this don't happen unless someone who stands to gain is busy lobbying to make it happen. And I don't know what, if any, entity stands to gain a lot from building pedestrian-friendly, dense, beautiful cities.
- _dain_ 5y ago
  >Who "wins" when we shift our building patterns towards Urbanism? Aside from everyone who gets to live there, of course. I feel like big political changes like this don't happen unless someone who stands to gain is busy lobbying to make it happen. And I don't know what, if any, entity stands to gain a lot from building pedestrian-friendly, dense, beautiful cities. You may be interested in a policy the UK government is considering: https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Strong-Suburbs.pdf https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Strong-Subu... The idea is to let small groups of residents (a single street) vote to loosen planning restrictions in specific ways, allowing for incremental intensification of suburbs.
  - wilkommen 5y ago
    From that proposal: "The housing crisis is often presented as a zero-sum conflict. More houses must be built to avoid rising homelessness, falling home ownership, and wider economic stagnation. But they can only be built by forcing them through against the will of local people, either by imposing high-rise on our historic centres, or by concreting over our countryside with more suburban housing estates. On this analysis, the interests of those who already own homes are fundamentally opposed to the interests of those who do not, and policy is simply a matter of choosing which interest group will triumph over the other. This analysis is profoundly mistaken. The appearance of opposed interests is the result of a defective system, which excludes existing communities from the benefits of development while imposing on them its adverse effects. If existing communities are allowed to control the form of development and to share in the benefits that it brings, they can become enthusiastic supporters." I like it. I do hope it is possible for communities to become enthusiastic supporters.
joe_the_user 5y ago
this is going to take a long time.' The present world changes fast, when it changes. When someones says "this will take decades", I usually interpret that as "this isn't happening, there's nothing making it happen, only people talking".
- jrumbut 5y ago
  The discussion is the first 20 years of the 25 year process.
peregren 5y ago
I used to agree that these things take a long time, but since the pandemic my local council in Ireland has acted very quickly to build excellent bike infrastructure and curtail car access to village spaces [1]. Many roads got changed to one-way, to make way for segregated bike lanes. Pre-pandemic, there was dallying for years over building this stuff, but now its there, and the world hasn't imploded for motorists, and local businesses and residents are 99% very happy. Of course when local government doesn't have the will it won't happen, but if they do, it can happen very quickly. [1] https://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/civic-amenities-urban-design/dlr-coastal-mobility-route https://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/civic-amenities-urban-design/dlr-c...
- rob74 5y ago
  Yes, the pandemic has accelerated this, but everyone involved needs to be open for the possibility from the beginning. Here in Germany when someone proposes something like this there is a storm of protest from small businesses: "what we are already on the brink of bankruptcy with everyone ordering stuff online or going to supermarkets with huge parking lots and now you want to cut us off from our customers do you want to kill us off completely?!?!" (because everyone knows real customers come in cars, pedestrians and cyclists obviously don't have the money to afford a car, so they can't afford anything else either).
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    I've written about this on a similar post previously. The town I grew up in in Germany (Lüneburg for those familiar with Germany), turned some of the central city into a pedastrian mall about 30-40 years ago. I still remember the local newspaper being full of angry letters from local businesses complaining that this would be the death of the city centre, everyone would go shopping at the big malls on the outside of town which will soon pop up etc.. In reality the exact opposite happened the city centre is packed with people, the city is immensely popular with tourists who come from all over and many of the big "shopping centres " outside of town disappeared. At the moment there are discussions on expending the pedestrian zones further and the same arguments are being made by businesses, it is as if nobody learned anything.
Ericson2314 5y ago
The US is pretty fucked, but if at the non federal level some government can start issuing a fuck ton of bonds and do interesting things, we can see more change. A basic horseshit politics in the US is to act like nothing is possible without controlling government (super-majorities if needed) at all levels. We must work around that, because it will not happen reliably. Might need states to start seceding too. ---- Also recommend reading some post-Keynesian things about big projects such as http://jwmason.org/slackwire/climate-policy-from-a-keynesian-perspective/ http://jwmason.org/slackwire/climate-policy-from-a-keynesian... The neat idea is that the extra work from rapid change makes a society richer, not poorer. (There is old "oil spills increases GDP" memes on this front.) The flip side is > Today’s neoliberal macroeconomic model depends on limiting economic growth as a way of managing distributional conflicts. I.e. the stagnation serves a purpose of making labor not too needed and thus pliant. (We get a little tighter labor markets now, and good things because of it.) The upshot is that if you can score some "against the odds" political victories doing more rapid denser develop development, you will get not only the increased "real" efficiency from better land utilization (and all the other good health, beauty, etc.) benefits, but also extra growth from the expenditures needed to retool things. Build subway, build a bunch of public housing, increase area population by a few million. This stuff is less ridiculous than it sounds.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Cultural-scale planning and prediction are hard. Things move slowly and gradually until they suddenly don't. Much of the infrastructure presently dominant in the US dates to 1960/1970, and depending on where specifically you were in the country before then, things changed in a pretty major way with the birth of the Interstate Highway System (1960s), urban flight and suburban development (1950s), WWII (1940s), the Great Depression (1930s), and the first really big mechanisation and electrification drive (1910s--1920s). Starting somewhere around 1960--1970, things levelled off. No major wars, no major economic disruptions, and for the most part no major new landscape-transforming technological inventions. (For those looking to criticise, note the key word major, which is not a synonym for any.) I'd argue that things began shifting by 2001 with 9/11, the 2007--8 global financial crisis, the 2016 election, mobile + social + algorithmic Internet hitting critical mass, and since late 2019, the COVID-19 global pandemic, now entering its third year. Climate change impacts are also likely to be felt increasingly, with Blade Runner skies over much of the West Coast of the US being one interesting sign that the future has arrived. Transformational change is a bit like going broke: it happens slowly at first, then suddenly.
asah 5y ago
3 words: Manhattan bike lanes. They're everywhere now even the bridges, the ebike messengers own the streets and slowed down the cars, Lyft bought citibike stop you don't need another app, so it's now a joy to bike NYC, even as a tourist. Really.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

fennecfoxen 5y ago

If only our nation were able to pass some sort of "infrastructure bill". No, I mean one that actually did what it said on the tin.

ghaff 5y ago
It's not just (or maybe even primarily) about money. As is indicated in the first part of the OP, changing things means changing things that a lot of people are fine with, affecting many businesses, causing a lot of disruption, etc. I'd be fine with more walkable areas but it's not just about spending money.
- danny_codes 5y ago
  IMO this is a question of ignorance. Most Americans simply don't understand that there are (far superior) alternatives to car-dependent suburbia. It's just not on their radar. Hopefully channels like "Not Just Bikes" and our own social dissemination of the walk/bike/transit oriented urban development model will allow more Americans to understand what they're missing. Once enough people in a given urban area realize what they could have, perhaps the political will to improve will materialize.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    I don't much care for suburbs and like cities only in moderation. I prefer the country within striking distance of a large city. I'm perfectly aware of what an urban environment is like--I've lived in both Cambridge and NYC--and while there are things I like about it (I'm staying in one this week) it's not something I want full-time.
    - danny_codes 5y ago
      Seeing as those are both American cities, it's not surprising you don't like it. Even our best cities are pretty disappointing when compared to what Europe and Asia have to offer.

wilkommen 5y ago

I think a true shift towards Urbanism in our cities may be only possible if there's a whole lot of money in it for somebody with political leverage. But who? I'm not sure. Real estate developers? They're already making money hand over fist building our cities in the shitty car-centric way. When the US made its shift to car-centricity with the interstate highway system, there was a ton of money in it for oil companies, and car companies. Who "wins" when we shift our building patterns towards Urbanism? Aside from everyone who gets to live there, of course. I feel like big political changes like this don't happen unless someone who stands to gain is busy lobbying to make it happen. And I don't know what, if any, entity stands to gain a lot from building pedestrian-friendly, dense, beautiful cities.

_dain_ 5y ago
>Who "wins" when we shift our building patterns towards Urbanism? Aside from everyone who gets to live there, of course. I feel like big political changes like this don't happen unless someone who stands to gain is busy lobbying to make it happen. And I don't know what, if any, entity stands to gain a lot from building pedestrian-friendly, dense, beautiful cities. You may be interested in a policy the UK government is considering: https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Strong-Suburbs.pdf https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Strong-Subu... The idea is to let small groups of residents (a single street) vote to loosen planning restrictions in specific ways, allowing for incremental intensification of suburbs.
- wilkommen 5y ago
  From that proposal: "The housing crisis is often presented as a zero-sum conflict. More houses must be built to avoid rising homelessness, falling home ownership, and wider economic stagnation. But they can only be built by forcing them through against the will of local people, either by imposing high-rise on our historic centres, or by concreting over our countryside with more suburban housing estates. On this analysis, the interests of those who already own homes are fundamentally opposed to the interests of those who do not, and policy is simply a matter of choosing which interest group will triumph over the other. This analysis is profoundly mistaken. The appearance of opposed interests is the result of a defective system, which excludes existing communities from the benefits of development while imposing on them its adverse effects. If existing communities are allowed to control the form of development and to share in the benefits that it brings, they can become enthusiastic supporters." I like it. I do hope it is possible for communities to become enthusiastic supporters.

joe_the_user 5y ago

this is going to take a long time.' The present world changes fast, when it changes. When someones says "this will take decades", I usually interpret that as "this isn't happening, there's nothing making it happen, only people talking".

jrumbut 5y ago
The discussion is the first 20 years of the 25 year process.

peregren 5y ago

I used to agree that these things take a long time, but since the pandemic my local council in Ireland has acted very quickly to build excellent bike infrastructure and curtail car access to village spaces [1]. Many roads got changed to one-way, to make way for segregated bike lanes. Pre-pandemic, there was dallying for years over building this stuff, but now its there, and the world hasn't imploded for motorists, and local businesses and residents are 99% very happy. Of course when local government doesn't have the will it won't happen, but if they do, it can happen very quickly. [1] https://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/civic-amenities-urban-design/dlr-coastal-mobility-route https://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/civic-amenities-urban-design/dlr-c...

rob74 5y ago
Yes, the pandemic has accelerated this, but everyone involved needs to be open for the possibility from the beginning. Here in Germany when someone proposes something like this there is a storm of protest from small businesses: "what we are already on the brink of bankruptcy with everyone ordering stuff online or going to supermarkets with huge parking lots and now you want to cut us off from our customers do you want to kill us off completely?!?!" (because everyone knows real customers come in cars, pedestrians and cyclists obviously don't have the money to afford a car, so they can't afford anything else either).
- cycomanic 5y ago
  I've written about this on a similar post previously. The town I grew up in in Germany (Lüneburg for those familiar with Germany), turned some of the central city into a pedastrian mall about 30-40 years ago. I still remember the local newspaper being full of angry letters from local businesses complaining that this would be the death of the city centre, everyone would go shopping at the big malls on the outside of town which will soon pop up etc.. In reality the exact opposite happened the city centre is packed with people, the city is immensely popular with tourists who come from all over and many of the big "shopping centres " outside of town disappeared. At the moment there are discussions on expending the pedestrian zones further and the same arguments are being made by businesses, it is as if nobody learned anything.

Ericson2314 5y ago

The US is pretty fucked, but if at the non federal level some government can start issuing a fuck ton of bonds and do interesting things, we can see more change. A basic horseshit politics in the US is to act like nothing is possible without controlling government (super-majorities if needed) at all levels. We must work around that, because it will not happen reliably. Might need states to start seceding too. ---- Also recommend reading some post-Keynesian things about big projects such as http://jwmason.org/slackwire/climate-policy-from-a-keynesian-perspective/ http://jwmason.org/slackwire/climate-policy-from-a-keynesian... The neat idea is that the extra work from rapid change makes a society richer, not poorer. (There is old "oil spills increases GDP" memes on this front.) The flip side is > Today’s neoliberal macroeconomic model depends on limiting economic growth as a way of managing distributional conflicts. I.e. the stagnation serves a purpose of making labor not too needed and thus pliant. (We get a little tighter labor markets now, and good things because of it.) The upshot is that if you can score some "against the odds" political victories doing more rapid denser develop development, you will get not only the increased "real" efficiency from better land utilization (and all the other good health, beauty, etc.) benefits, but also extra growth from the expenditures needed to retool things. Build subway, build a bunch of public housing, increase area population by a few million. This stuff is less ridiculous than it sounds.

dredmorbius 5y ago

Cultural-scale planning and prediction are hard. Things move slowly and gradually until they suddenly don't. Much of the infrastructure presently dominant in the US dates to 1960/1970, and depending on where specifically you were in the country before then, things changed in a pretty major way with the birth of the Interstate Highway System (1960s), urban flight and suburban development (1950s), WWII (1940s), the Great Depression (1930s), and the first really big mechanisation and electrification drive (1910s--1920s). Starting somewhere around 1960--1970, things levelled off. No major wars, no major economic disruptions, and for the most part no major new landscape-transforming technological inventions. (For those looking to criticise, note the key word major, which is not a synonym for any.) I'd argue that things began shifting by 2001 with 9/11, the 2007--8 global financial crisis, the 2016 election, mobile + social + algorithmic Internet hitting critical mass, and since late 2019, the COVID-19 global pandemic, now entering its third year. Climate change impacts are also likely to be felt increasingly, with Blade Runner skies over much of the West Coast of the US being one interesting sign that the future has arrived. Transformational change is a bit like going broke: it happens slowly at first, then suddenly.

asah 5y ago

3 words: Manhattan bike lanes. They're everywhere now even the bridges, the ebike messengers own the streets and slowed down the cars, Lyft bought citibike stop you don't need another app, so it's now a joy to bike NYC, even as a tourist. Really.