5 ms·

Walkable cities imply high density cities. Unfortunately, that will never happen. E.g., in the SF Bay Area NIMBYism is rampant and the density is laughable fo

Walkable cities imply high density cities. Unfortunately, that will never happen. E.g., in the SF Bay Area NIMBYism is rampant and the density is laughable for such a vital geographic area. If walkable cities are not possible in the hyper-progressive futuristic Bay Area, where is it possible in the US? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/opinion/democrats-blue-states-legislation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/opinion/democrats-blue-st...

Etheryte 4y ago
Walkable cities are already a reality in many countries in Europe. It's not rocket science and it doesn't mean you need high density. See Denmark, Netherlands etc for a few examples. Humane cities are a matter of choice, just because it doesn't exist in the US doesn't mean it's impossible.
- voidfunc 4y ago
  You need to stop playing Sim City, walkable cities are a fantasy in the US. You need broad political support to basically redesign every city outside NYC and some parts of SF, Seattle, and Boston. It will never happen.
  - munk-a 4y ago
    There is a constant stubborn push back of "it's impossible" while time after time different parts of the world have proven it is in fact possible. The biggest impediment to walkable cities in the US is the broken political system that makes bipartisan efforts exceedingly rare. If a politician of one party advocates for it everyone on the other side needs to throw out bullshit arguments as to why it's dumb.
    - bilkow 4y ago
      I'd even argue that the only reason it currently is hard to do it in many parts of the world is just because people believe it's impossible. You need general population support to make changes.
      - SyzygistSix 4y ago
        People believe it is impossible even when the evidence is right in front of them in the form of others walking and cycling. It most definitely is an issue of social will more than anything.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    It's not only been done in cities all over the world, it's very much currently in progress in many places. Seattle is expanding rail, removing single family zoning, and building higher density while expanding transit. It maybe takes a decade or two, but it's extremely doable.
    - coryrc 4y ago
      Over 80% of Seattle housing land is SFH. The "expanded rail" runs to non-walkable suburbs instead of filling out Seattle. Pretend we believed there was a climate crisis and decided to stop all cars. At our current rate of transit increase and our current population increase, I think we're at centuries before we'd even have the capacity. https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/06/01/correct-percentage-single-family-zoning-seattle/ https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/06/01/correct-percentage-si...
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        0% of Seattle is zoned exclusively single family housing. Everywhere it's legal to build more than one unit per lot. And the trains have absolutely resulted in both increased density and upzoning. Greenwood and Phinney ridge are both "suburban" but totally walkable. All we need to do is properly fund transit. It's not hard, it's just not cheap.
        coryrc 4y ago
        I would not consider something you can't sell separately (ADU) a "unit", which would make me disagree with your second sentence. The light rail doesn't go to Phinney or Greenwood, but I meant Lynnwood, Shoreline, etc stops. It's not just "not cheap", it's ruinously more costly than cars. Housing just isn't dense enough to bake it affordable.
- prottog 4y ago
  > Humane cities are a matter of choice The choice to have founded your city a thousand years before the invention of the automobile, maybe. Many European cities that were rebuilt after destruction during WW2 were built in a more automobile-centric manner, because people enjoy cars. Honestly, I would like to see someone start a new city in the US around the concept of walkability. There's so much empty land in this country, and with remote jobs there's less of a need to place a city next to existing employment centers. It would be an interesting experiment, if nothing else.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    You know that we took our cities and ripped them apart to install stroads and highways, right? That the historical model of American cities was train based, spreading radially out from a port with folks riding trains into work? And we threw that away in favor of cats relatively recently? We can choose to upzone and convert large road corridors into rail plus some road and convert some roads to bus rapid transit and some to bikes. It's an eminently solvable problem and one that has been solved over and over again in the modern era.
    - prottog 4y ago
      > We can choose to upzone You'll hear no arguments from me. Even the biggest cities in this country are laughably low density. > convert some roads to bus rapid transit and some to bikes I don't know, I used to live in one of those big cities that had an awful commute by car, with congested roads and expensive parking when you could even find one. Solo drivers still comprised the plurality of commuters, and that number only went up during my time there, despite many efforts at improving public transit. People just don't like public transit for some reason, even when the alternative is pretty shitty. I don't imagine that it's gotten any more popular in this year, with higher rates of crime and other antisocial behavior on public transit around the country. > one that has been solved over and over again in the modern era Are there really good examples of cities anywhere around the world that were previously automobile-centric that became public transit-centric?
      - 4y ago
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Walkable without density => walkable only for the rich Would love to see Europe with US levels of diversity and population still remain "walkable" without density Most European "cities" are what would be a suburb/village in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities The US has tons of walkable suburbs and villages.
labster 4y ago
Yeah, no one lives in high density cities any more, they’re too crowded.
socialismisok 4y ago
Walkable does not imply high density. I've lived in areas that are suburban + townhouses that are totally walkable. Were there some 5 over 1s in the commercial areas? Sure. Is that high density? Hardly.
SyzygistSix 4y ago
Exactly. Until people in the US develop the political will for change, technologically driven improvement in cars is the best way to reduce the damage.

Etheryte 4y ago

Walkable cities are already a reality in many countries in Europe. It's not rocket science and it doesn't mean you need high density. See Denmark, Netherlands etc for a few examples. Humane cities are a matter of choice, just because it doesn't exist in the US doesn't mean it's impossible.

voidfunc 4y ago
You need to stop playing Sim City, walkable cities are a fantasy in the US. You need broad political support to basically redesign every city outside NYC and some parts of SF, Seattle, and Boston. It will never happen.
- munk-a 4y ago
  There is a constant stubborn push back of "it's impossible" while time after time different parts of the world have proven it is in fact possible. The biggest impediment to walkable cities in the US is the broken political system that makes bipartisan efforts exceedingly rare. If a politician of one party advocates for it everyone on the other side needs to throw out bullshit arguments as to why it's dumb.
  - bilkow 4y ago
    I'd even argue that the only reason it currently is hard to do it in many parts of the world is just because people believe it's impossible. You need general population support to make changes.
    - SyzygistSix 4y ago
      People believe it is impossible even when the evidence is right in front of them in the form of others walking and cycling. It most definitely is an issue of social will more than anything.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  It's not only been done in cities all over the world, it's very much currently in progress in many places. Seattle is expanding rail, removing single family zoning, and building higher density while expanding transit. It maybe takes a decade or two, but it's extremely doable.
  - coryrc 4y ago
    Over 80% of Seattle housing land is SFH. The "expanded rail" runs to non-walkable suburbs instead of filling out Seattle. Pretend we believed there was a climate crisis and decided to stop all cars. At our current rate of transit increase and our current population increase, I think we're at centuries before we'd even have the capacity. https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/06/01/correct-percentage-single-family-zoning-seattle/ https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/06/01/correct-percentage-si...
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      0% of Seattle is zoned exclusively single family housing. Everywhere it's legal to build more than one unit per lot. And the trains have absolutely resulted in both increased density and upzoning. Greenwood and Phinney ridge are both "suburban" but totally walkable. All we need to do is properly fund transit. It's not hard, it's just not cheap.
      - coryrc 4y ago
        I would not consider something you can't sell separately (ADU) a "unit", which would make me disagree with your second sentence. The light rail doesn't go to Phinney or Greenwood, but I meant Lynnwood, Shoreline, etc stops. It's not just "not cheap", it's ruinously more costly than cars. Housing just isn't dense enough to bake it affordable.
prottog 4y ago
> Humane cities are a matter of choice The choice to have founded your city a thousand years before the invention of the automobile, maybe. Many European cities that were rebuilt after destruction during WW2 were built in a more automobile-centric manner, because people enjoy cars. Honestly, I would like to see someone start a new city in the US around the concept of walkability. There's so much empty land in this country, and with remote jobs there's less of a need to place a city next to existing employment centers. It would be an interesting experiment, if nothing else.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  You know that we took our cities and ripped them apart to install stroads and highways, right? That the historical model of American cities was train based, spreading radially out from a port with folks riding trains into work? And we threw that away in favor of cats relatively recently? We can choose to upzone and convert large road corridors into rail plus some road and convert some roads to bus rapid transit and some to bikes. It's an eminently solvable problem and one that has been solved over and over again in the modern era.
  - prottog 4y ago
    > We can choose to upzone You'll hear no arguments from me. Even the biggest cities in this country are laughably low density. > convert some roads to bus rapid transit and some to bikes I don't know, I used to live in one of those big cities that had an awful commute by car, with congested roads and expensive parking when you could even find one. Solo drivers still comprised the plurality of commuters, and that number only went up during my time there, despite many efforts at improving public transit. People just don't like public transit for some reason, even when the alternative is pretty shitty. I don't imagine that it's gotten any more popular in this year, with higher rates of crime and other antisocial behavior on public transit around the country. > one that has been solved over and over again in the modern era Are there really good examples of cities anywhere around the world that were previously automobile-centric that became public transit-centric?
    - 4y ago
cscurmudgeon 4y ago
Walkable without density => walkable only for the rich Would love to see Europe with US levels of diversity and population still remain "walkable" without density Most European "cities" are what would be a suburb/village in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities The US has tons of walkable suburbs and villages.

labster 4y ago

Yeah, no one lives in high density cities any more, they’re too crowded.

socialismisok 4y ago

Walkable does not imply high density. I've lived in areas that are suburban + townhouses that are totally walkable. Were there some 5 over 1s in the commercial areas? Sure. Is that high density? Hardly.

SyzygistSix 4y ago

Exactly. Until people in the US develop the political will for change, technologically driven improvement in cars is the best way to reduce the damage.