5 ms·

I think colejohnson66 is referring to cities that have sprawled in an uncontrolled way. e.g. Atlanta. “Solutions” coming from dense Europe are not really soluti

I think colejohnson66 is referring to cities that have sprawled in an uncontrolled way. e.g. Atlanta. “Solutions” coming from dense Europe are not really solutions there.

javier123454321 4y ago
But they are. We have several a millenia of history on how to construct cities in a way that is scale appropriate to us as humans. We choose to ignore it, but that doesn't mean that applying the same principles, we cannot achieve the same thing in the US. The formula is simple. Build out the core of each city that compromises a metropolitan area so that it is pedestrian first. You do that by building out multi family mixed used housing in the core. Then you ensure there are a lot of buses/bike lanes/trains that get you in and out of there, rinse, repeat. It tends towards happier, healthier people that spends more. Look up the statistics on that.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  Prince Charles (I know) has a book on this topic. It is called “Harmony” and it is really, really good. https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Prince-Wales-Charles/dp/0007348037 https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Prince-Wales-Charles/dp/00073...
- whiplash451 4y ago
  If the formula was simple, it would have been applied already. Plus, you cannot “reboot” Atlanta to match your cute vision of a core city in the snap of a finger. I am not saying nothing can be done. I am saying that it is a lot harder that books and papers and studies make it seem.
  - dijit 4y ago
    > If the formula was simple, it would have been applied already. Unsure, people have really ingrained ideas about cars in the US, any attempt at discussing alternatives is met with emotional backlash and it's very difficult to talk passed this. It's actually very similar in the UK, though you can see a difference in cities with good public transport and those without, it's like we optimise for extremes in either direction. Objectively if it was a good option (not arguing that it is right now) to have a solid public transport system; people are ideologically opposed because of the belief that public transport is inconvenient, unsafe, a loss of personal freedom etc; and it's hard to argue those points because they're coming from an emotional place, thus people cycle between those issues in an attempt to deflect direct refutation over each one of the points individually.
    - whiplash451 4y ago
      I have to admit, you have a point :)
dijit 4y ago
I think it's a little bit of a myth that it's impossible to serve low density neighbourhoods with public transport; there's a fair bit of research on the subject actually. (https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density/ https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density/) it's also somewhat self-fulfilling that the "cost of sprawl" is inverted in car-based communities, as you need to fan-out your infrastructure to avoid congestions of traffic and car storage, at least at the leaf nodes (IE suburbs). Cycling infrastructure (as per Amsterdam), a healthy rail network (also NL) and a semi-competent bus and tram system are all parts of a larger picture when referencing public transport. The solutions are similar, even if they're not the same, there is a lot of research on public transportation and what makes sense where, if one only looks.
nradov 4y ago
Solutions are also complicated because "Atlanta" isn't a single city with a unified government. The greater Atlanta metropolitan region is composed of multiple separate cities plus some unincorporated county land. Residents of the suburbs and exurbs often have different priorities than residents of the urban core. So any major changes in housing and transportation policy would have to be driven at the state and federal levels. The same issue applies to most other large US cities.
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  That's true in most metro areas. You don't need state and federal mandates you need local cooperation. Los Angeles is expanding light rail at a breakneck pace. Why? Because they have one dominant transit authority and a unified plan. Compare that to the nine county Bay Area. There's nearly one transit agency for each county and a few regional agencies (BART, Caltrain) to contend with. The constant bickering and infighting is exactly why nothing gets done.

I think colejohnson66 is referring to cities that have sprawled in an uncontrolled way. e.g. Atlanta. “Solutions” coming from dense Europe are not really solutions there.

javier123454321 4y ago

But they are. We have several a millenia of history on how to construct cities in a way that is scale appropriate to us as humans. We choose to ignore it, but that doesn't mean that applying the same principles, we cannot achieve the same thing in the US. The formula is simple. Build out the core of each city that compromises a metropolitan area so that it is pedestrian first. You do that by building out multi family mixed used housing in the core. Then you ensure there are a lot of buses/bike lanes/trains that get you in and out of there, rinse, repeat. It tends towards happier, healthier people that spends more. Look up the statistics on that.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
Prince Charles (I know) has a book on this topic. It is called “Harmony” and it is really, really good. https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Prince-Wales-Charles/dp/0007348037 https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Prince-Wales-Charles/dp/00073...
whiplash451 4y ago
If the formula was simple, it would have been applied already. Plus, you cannot “reboot” Atlanta to match your cute vision of a core city in the snap of a finger. I am not saying nothing can be done. I am saying that it is a lot harder that books and papers and studies make it seem.
- dijit 4y ago
  > If the formula was simple, it would have been applied already. Unsure, people have really ingrained ideas about cars in the US, any attempt at discussing alternatives is met with emotional backlash and it's very difficult to talk passed this. It's actually very similar in the UK, though you can see a difference in cities with good public transport and those without, it's like we optimise for extremes in either direction. Objectively if it was a good option (not arguing that it is right now) to have a solid public transport system; people are ideologically opposed because of the belief that public transport is inconvenient, unsafe, a loss of personal freedom etc; and it's hard to argue those points because they're coming from an emotional place, thus people cycle between those issues in an attempt to deflect direct refutation over each one of the points individually.
  - whiplash451 4y ago
    I have to admit, you have a point :)

dijit 4y ago

I think it's a little bit of a myth that it's impossible to serve low density neighbourhoods with public transport; there's a fair bit of research on the subject actually. (https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density/ https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density/) it's also somewhat self-fulfilling that the "cost of sprawl" is inverted in car-based communities, as you need to fan-out your infrastructure to avoid congestions of traffic and car storage, at least at the leaf nodes (IE suburbs). Cycling infrastructure (as per Amsterdam), a healthy rail network (also NL) and a semi-competent bus and tram system are all parts of a larger picture when referencing public transport. The solutions are similar, even if they're not the same, there is a lot of research on public transportation and what makes sense where, if one only looks.

nradov 4y ago

Solutions are also complicated because "Atlanta" isn't a single city with a unified government. The greater Atlanta metropolitan region is composed of multiple separate cities plus some unincorporated county land. Residents of the suburbs and exurbs often have different priorities than residents of the urban core. So any major changes in housing and transportation policy would have to be driven at the state and federal levels. The same issue applies to most other large US cities.

inferiorhuman 4y ago
That's true in most metro areas. You don't need state and federal mandates you need local cooperation. Los Angeles is expanding light rail at a breakneck pace. Why? Because they have one dominant transit authority and a unified plan. Compare that to the nine county Bay Area. There's nearly one transit agency for each county and a few regional agencies (BART, Caltrain) to contend with. The constant bickering and infighting is exactly why nothing gets done.