4 ms·

I don't see how it's incompatible with walking. I see the article mentions the same: If you are walking in a modern suburb, “You’re always going out of yo

I don't see how it's incompatible with walking. I see the article mentions the same: If you are walking in a modern suburb, “You’re always going out of your way,” he says. It is not only people walking who have to take less direct routes. Buses are more effective when roads are in grids, allowing passengers to get anywhere with just one change. All that's required and normal in lots of Europe is for foot paths that cut through all of this. This means some properties won't be next to each other and instead have a public foot path in between. This also allows public transit not to have to go into the cul-de-sacs and stay on a main artery while allowing for an entire neighborhood of cul-de-sac houses to have easy access.

brewdad 4y ago
In America this is unacceptable both because suburban dwellers don't want to have people walking near their homes (invasion of privacy) and because developers would prefer to sell and build on as much land as possible. There's no money to be made on "public" land and it lowers the value of the land immediately adjacent to it.
- hgomersall 4y ago
  I'm fairly sure municipal, non-road space increases the value of land adjacent to it
  - tharkun__ 4y ago
    I think brewdad is actually right about the fact that it lowers the value directly adjacent to it. But you're also correct in that it increases the value of land close to it overall. Nobody wants to have their yard directly on the path, where people walk all the time, including with their dogs and for every so many dogs that get walked there and where the owner picks up after them, there will be one that doesn't. Even in the best neighbourhood you'll have teenagers being loud in those places at night etc. Just like everyone wants to live in close walking range to the park/playground so that the kids can easily get there by themselves i.e. that public land does increase in attractiveness to families but nobody really wants to live right next to it. Public walking and biking paths increase attractiveness to families again, because the kids don't have to bike on the road, they're on a safe path. But again, nobody really wants to live right next to it. And he's also correct in that developers won't like that and every square foot of path adds up over an entire project. However it doesn't mean that it isn't overall a good thing for many reasons. It's a give and take like many things in life but it does mean that it's a solvable problem.
    - hgomersall 4y ago
      That's definitely a hypothesis. I'd like to see what the evidence says. Certainly, all the most premium new builds around me are those that back straight onto the parkland (that often forms part of the development).
      - tharkun__ 4y ago
        Fair enough. Different people have different tolerances, preferences and let's face it: financial options. What exactly is "parkland"? I know some examples that I wouldn't mind being across from or backing onto with enough thick brush/tree border and others I would definitely avoid at much cost. When you say premium, is all of it premium? Asking because of course even in a premium only development someone will live next to public places. I definitely know how I would choose which place to buy if I could have any of them. I only have anecdata but I've lived in a few places in my life so far and I can tell you that one place for example we specifically didn't buy because it was right across from an open field park with playground, baseball field and a skate park even though it was otherwise very nice. We are still close to it but we don't hear or see it except when there's a festival and live music and such. Of course someone does live there even today and there's other much larger and more luxurious houses than I could afford right next to another playground close to me. But who knows, if I hadn't found that other place I may have opted to live with the park because it was still better than what I was trying to get away from.
- gpvos 4y ago
  You could make the roads less laughably wide.

brewdad 4y ago

In America this is unacceptable both because suburban dwellers don't want to have people walking near their homes (invasion of privacy) and because developers would prefer to sell and build on as much land as possible. There's no money to be made on "public" land and it lowers the value of the land immediately adjacent to it.

hgomersall 4y ago
I'm fairly sure municipal, non-road space increases the value of land adjacent to it
- tharkun__ 4y ago
  I think brewdad is actually right about the fact that it lowers the value directly adjacent to it. But you're also correct in that it increases the value of land close to it overall. Nobody wants to have their yard directly on the path, where people walk all the time, including with their dogs and for every so many dogs that get walked there and where the owner picks up after them, there will be one that doesn't. Even in the best neighbourhood you'll have teenagers being loud in those places at night etc. Just like everyone wants to live in close walking range to the park/playground so that the kids can easily get there by themselves i.e. that public land does increase in attractiveness to families but nobody really wants to live right next to it. Public walking and biking paths increase attractiveness to families again, because the kids don't have to bike on the road, they're on a safe path. But again, nobody really wants to live right next to it. And he's also correct in that developers won't like that and every square foot of path adds up over an entire project. However it doesn't mean that it isn't overall a good thing for many reasons. It's a give and take like many things in life but it does mean that it's a solvable problem.
  - hgomersall 4y ago
    That's definitely a hypothesis. I'd like to see what the evidence says. Certainly, all the most premium new builds around me are those that back straight onto the parkland (that often forms part of the development).
    - tharkun__ 4y ago
      Fair enough. Different people have different tolerances, preferences and let's face it: financial options. What exactly is "parkland"? I know some examples that I wouldn't mind being across from or backing onto with enough thick brush/tree border and others I would definitely avoid at much cost. When you say premium, is all of it premium? Asking because of course even in a premium only development someone will live next to public places. I definitely know how I would choose which place to buy if I could have any of them. I only have anecdata but I've lived in a few places in my life so far and I can tell you that one place for example we specifically didn't buy because it was right across from an open field park with playground, baseball field and a skate park even though it was otherwise very nice. We are still close to it but we don't hear or see it except when there's a festival and live music and such. Of course someone does live there even today and there's other much larger and more luxurious houses than I could afford right next to another playground close to me. But who knows, if I hadn't found that other place I may have opted to live with the park because it was still better than what I was trying to get away from.
gpvos 4y ago
You could make the roads less laughably wide.