4 ms·

Is it obvious? Do the majority of the public understand the value of a well planned community or have the option to participate in one? Being walking distance t

by kaiuhl 15y ago

Is it obvious? Do the majority of the public understand the value of a well planned community or have the option to participate in one? Being walking distance to a grocery store is not the same thing as living in a transit-oriented region and living your entire life without dependence on a car. Suburbs were born from industry, not out of the realization of American's idealized community. I live in downtown Portland, OR and have done so for the last eight years without ever owning a car. I can walk or bike to literally everything in the city, or alternatively take a streetcar, light rail train, or technologically advanced bus system. There's a reason people move here – there's value in Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) that make more livable, walkable, awesome places to live your life. And because of the UGB, it's even faster to escape the city's limits and find yourself in real green space. On Tuesday after work, I drove 45 minutes (using a car-sharing program) out of the city to a national wilderness where I slept under the stars, caught a few trout, and still made it back into the city for work the next morning. Something like that might be difficult in LA or in a large suburb. As you can see, I really really disagree with you. :)

michaelchisari 15y ago
And the thing is, Portland isn't even that dense of a city. As far as urban environments go, it's hardly Blade Runner. Plenty of detached homes with yards, parks, etc. The idea that people have that we have to live like sardines in some anime-inspired megalopolis is simply inaccurate. If everyone lived in cities as dense as portland, the current human population would only be living on about 2.7% of the world's land mass. Obviously, in terms of resources, it's more complicated than that, but it's clear that sprawling out is terrible for the environment, and that for true nature-lovers, it's much more advantageous to live in a city that has no suburbs, where the world of people truly ends at the city limits.
- cpeterso 15y ago
  > If everyone lived in cities as dense as portland, the current human population would only be living on about 2.7% of the world's land mass. What is the human population's current footprint? Wikipedia says humans' average population density worldwide (excluding Antarctica and oceans) is about 50 people/km^2.
  - michaelchisari 15y ago
    If we're averaging 50 people/km^2, that puts our footprint at around 91.6%
ryanjkirk 15y ago
Portland is a poor example. I love Portland, by the way, but we're essentially talking about economics here, and Portland is skewed. In Portland, you have people that want to live this lifestyle. They don't want the burden of the car, they are environmentally conscious, they work in the city, and they don't have kids. Sure, for them, it's doable (and you sound like one of them). This isn't usually the case. Industrial areas, where many people work, aren't dense enough to support frequent bus stops, and most families would have a hard time getting kids places without being able to drive them hither and thither. I've lived in some of the densest cities in Europe, and families still had a hard time getting around without a car. At one point, I did get a car, and not having to deal with the scheduling hassles of public transportation made my life instantly easier. You have to have an enormous population density for public transportation to be a break-even affair. Your Portland public transportation isn't self-sufficient, it's a net loss, and it's subsidized by taxes. Sure, it's more efficient than cars, but it still doesn't solve all the problems that cars do, as noted above (primarily for families). By the time you get the density required for public transportation to be self-sustaining, you're looking at a cost of living that is unacceptable for most families (eg, NYC). Sure, public transportation is great for young single people. Try going to the grocery store with young kids on the bus. It's virtually impossible.
- enjo 15y ago
  Aren't roads similarly a net-loss and are 100% subsidized by taxes? Sure, public transportation is great for young single people. Try going to the grocery store with young kids on the bus. It's virtually impossible. I see it literally every day:) It hardly seems impossible.
- dalke 15y ago
  It's amazing how we had any sort of industry before the car. I live in a relatively small (500,000) city, though Sweden's second largest. One of my clients is in an industrial area. The city has extra lines for the morning and evening commute, but only about 20% of the people use them, and I think another 5% cycle. I don't know how many walk into work, but clearly over 50% do drive in. This in a city and country which is pro-mass transit, pro-bicycles and pro-high fuel tax. The turning point is often, as you say, when children are born. People do take their babies, in strollers, on the trams and busses, but it's much easier if you can leave spare diapers and such in the car and not lug them with you all day. (Your comment about taking the bus with young kids to get groceries is specious. If density is high enough then it's easy to walk to a grocery store. In town there's three grocery stores within a few blocks of me, and a corner store .. on the corner. Surely that was the same in the dense European city you lived in?) On the other hand, kids and people up to 20 ride free or at reduced price. This means greatly increased mobility for anyone over about 8 or so. I've read autobiographies of people raised in New York City during the 1950s or so, who describe the sense of freedom of being able to go to Coney Island, or Central Park. That's not possible without a car in the standard suburbia we're talking about. That said, I really don't understand why a public transportation system needs "to be a break-even affair." The road system definitely is not. Gas taxes even in Sweden isn't enough to pay for the road network, snow cleaning, and so on. Public transit should properly be seen, like the roads, as having a multiplier effect. It means you can have areas of town with higher density, which support those people and families you are talking about, which have higher numbers of clubs and restaurants and shops, and have areas for families with cars.
ars 15y ago
You can do all that because you have no kids. Add kids and you'll see why people like to live in the suburbs. Suburbs were born from families. Not industry.
- dalke 15y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. NYC was the main US harbor, steel in Pittsburgh, slaughterhouses in Chicago. All were industry close enough that people could walk or take public transit - back when cars were too expensive. But containerized shipping has replaced stevedores, and other industries have moved as well to their own areas of town. I think this move has partially been enabled by people moving to the suburbs, so that a commute into the city or a commute to somewhere else doesn't make a large difference.

by kaiuhl 15y ago

michaelchisari 15y ago

And the thing is, Portland isn't even that dense of a city. As far as urban environments go, it's hardly Blade Runner. Plenty of detached homes with yards, parks, etc. The idea that people have that we have to live like sardines in some anime-inspired megalopolis is simply inaccurate. If everyone lived in cities as dense as portland, the current human population would only be living on about 2.7% of the world's land mass. Obviously, in terms of resources, it's more complicated than that, but it's clear that sprawling out is terrible for the environment, and that for true nature-lovers, it's much more advantageous to live in a city that has no suburbs, where the world of people truly ends at the city limits.

cpeterso 15y ago
> If everyone lived in cities as dense as portland, the current human population would only be living on about 2.7% of the world's land mass. What is the human population's current footprint? Wikipedia says humans' average population density worldwide (excluding Antarctica and oceans) is about 50 people/km^2.
- michaelchisari 15y ago
  If we're averaging 50 people/km^2, that puts our footprint at around 91.6%

ryanjkirk 15y ago

Portland is a poor example. I love Portland, by the way, but we're essentially talking about economics here, and Portland is skewed. In Portland, you have people that want to live this lifestyle. They don't want the burden of the car, they are environmentally conscious, they work in the city, and they don't have kids. Sure, for them, it's doable (and you sound like one of them). This isn't usually the case. Industrial areas, where many people work, aren't dense enough to support frequent bus stops, and most families would have a hard time getting kids places without being able to drive them hither and thither. I've lived in some of the densest cities in Europe, and families still had a hard time getting around without a car. At one point, I did get a car, and not having to deal with the scheduling hassles of public transportation made my life instantly easier. You have to have an enormous population density for public transportation to be a break-even affair. Your Portland public transportation isn't self-sufficient, it's a net loss, and it's subsidized by taxes. Sure, it's more efficient than cars, but it still doesn't solve all the problems that cars do, as noted above (primarily for families). By the time you get the density required for public transportation to be self-sustaining, you're looking at a cost of living that is unacceptable for most families (eg, NYC). Sure, public transportation is great for young single people. Try going to the grocery store with young kids on the bus. It's virtually impossible.

enjo 15y ago
Aren't roads similarly a net-loss and are 100% subsidized by taxes? Sure, public transportation is great for young single people. Try going to the grocery store with young kids on the bus. It's virtually impossible. I see it literally every day:) It hardly seems impossible.
dalke 15y ago
It's amazing how we had any sort of industry before the car. I live in a relatively small (500,000) city, though Sweden's second largest. One of my clients is in an industrial area. The city has extra lines for the morning and evening commute, but only about 20% of the people use them, and I think another 5% cycle. I don't know how many walk into work, but clearly over 50% do drive in. This in a city and country which is pro-mass transit, pro-bicycles and pro-high fuel tax. The turning point is often, as you say, when children are born. People do take their babies, in strollers, on the trams and busses, but it's much easier if you can leave spare diapers and such in the car and not lug them with you all day. (Your comment about taking the bus with young kids to get groceries is specious. If density is high enough then it's easy to walk to a grocery store. In town there's three grocery stores within a few blocks of me, and a corner store .. on the corner. Surely that was the same in the dense European city you lived in?) On the other hand, kids and people up to 20 ride free or at reduced price. This means greatly increased mobility for anyone over about 8 or so. I've read autobiographies of people raised in New York City during the 1950s or so, who describe the sense of freedom of being able to go to Coney Island, or Central Park. That's not possible without a car in the standard suburbia we're talking about. That said, I really don't understand why a public transportation system needs "to be a break-even affair." The road system definitely is not. Gas taxes even in Sweden isn't enough to pay for the road network, snow cleaning, and so on. Public transit should properly be seen, like the roads, as having a multiplier effect. It means you can have areas of town with higher density, which support those people and families you are talking about, which have higher numbers of clubs and restaurants and shops, and have areas for families with cars.

ars 15y ago

You can do all that because you have no kids. Add kids and you'll see why people like to live in the suburbs. Suburbs were born from families. Not industry.

dalke 15y ago
I was thinking the same thing. NYC was the main US harbor, steel in Pittsburgh, slaughterhouses in Chicago. All were industry close enough that people could walk or take public transit - back when cars were too expensive. But containerized shipping has replaced stevedores, and other industries have moved as well to their own areas of town. I think this move has partially been enabled by people moving to the suburbs, so that a commute into the city or a commute to somewhere else doesn't make a large difference.