4 ms·

if there was a dictionary of "american urbanism" they would define humans as having four wheels rather than two legs they really do act like it whenever the US

if there was a dictionary of "american urbanism" they would define humans as having four wheels rather than two legs they really do act like it whenever the USA plans a city or a neighborhood. why wouldn't everybody have a car? except we actually have plenty of reasons now that we didn't before

jncfhnb 2y ago
You’re confusing yourself with suburbs. Most American cities are highly walkable. Safety is the limiting factor.
- noodlesUK 2y ago
  Having cities arranged on grids with huge wide roads is generally a recipe for non-walkable environments. If you are having to wait ages for a light to change every time you go from one block to the next, you lose much of the efficiency of walking.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > Having cities arranged on grids with huge wide roads is generally a recipe for non-walkable environments. There's no problem with grids or wide roads as long as there is infrastructure in place for pedestrians. Bridges can allow people to cross over wide streets/traffic without having to wait for a light for example. Tunnels can be an option as well. Grids can really help a city be more walkable since it becomes dead simple to navigate and you aren't wasting time on long winding roads or labyrinthine paths which increase the distance between two points and make it easier to get lost.
    - Moldoteck 2y ago
      Grids are better than culdesac but worse than randomness for a human brain so that it would be interesting to walk there. Wide roads aren't good for walkability in any sense: even if we ignore huge noise and pollution created by lots of cars, wide roads are more dangerous to cross and since it's wide you as a pedestrian need to walk more on non pedestrian infra to get to points of interest. Walkability isn't just about being able to walk
    - jodrellblank 2y ago
      > There's no problem with grids or wide roads as long as there is infrastructure in place for pedestrians. Bridges can allow people to cross over wide streets/traffic without having to wait for a light for example. Infrastructure for pedestrians would be you cross as soon as you get there, cars wait. Bridges are not pedestrian infrastructure they’re “cars are the priority” infrastructure, “cars mustn’t be delayed or inconvenienced, pedestrians can be” infrastructure.
      - autoexec 2y ago
        I don't see a problem with bridges that allow people to access without slowing anyone down. something like https://i.redd.it/m62z7ovxkpg81.jpg https://i.redd.it/m62z7ovxkpg81.jpg or https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1230021650/photo/women-wearing-face-masks-walk-on-a-pedestrian-bridge-in.webp?s=612x612&w=gi&k=20&c=M9brmvME9H8kFoxd74c7cGm3mbAQ25eM9QDBm8KvI6w= https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1230021650/photo/women-wear... works very well without inconveniencing pedestrians who often appreciate the view
        kettlecorn 2y ago
        Those add substantial crossing time and are quite costly. None of the world's great walking cities heavily uses bridge crossings like that.
        watwut 2y ago
        If you are in hurry, you will avoid those. They add more time to your trip then one would guess intuitively. What do work for pedestrians is a network of smaller roads that you can "just" cross safely without waiting or taking detours. Basically, a few big roads you cross once in a while and the rest being smaller roads where cars are forced to go slowly.
        Moldoteck 2y ago
        " without slowing anyone down. " - but the very first image you provided will slow down pedestrians, it's harder to cross compared to a simple direct crosswalk and it's less friendly to ppl with mobility problems. Such bridges are relatively ok to implement outside cities where you have highways/roads with cars driving high speeds but these are bad solutions inside cities where the priority belongs to pedestrians and cars must drive slower
    - noodlesUK 2y ago
      Outside my university there was a fairly fast "A" road (two lanes, high speed limit, actually much narrower than a typical American street). Rather than stop traffic, there was a bridge that crossed the road. To use the bridge you needed to climb a set of stairs. Of course, people didn't use the bridge because it was inconvenient and tiring to have to take a longer route (including stairs) rather than just walk 8-10 meters across the road. There were severe injuries or deaths every single year when students would cross the road late at night and a car would be speeding at 60+ mph. They eventually installed a puffin-style crossing, which was much better. The solution, especially in built up areas, is to keep cars from causing problems for pedestrians rather than trying to stop pedestrians from causing problems for cars. Perhaps the cars should be relegated to a tunnel so people don't have to be near them instead.
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  The fact safety is a limiting factor means those places don't have social control, meaning these are not places ppl tend to hang out in so probably not that walkable. P.s. walkable in this context doesn't mean it's just possible to walk, it means it's a nice experience to walk with nice environment/shops/othwr points of interest
- kettlecorn 2y ago
  "Highly walkable" means many people would choose to walk even if able to take a car. To be walkable a city needs to be quick to walk between destinations and pleasant to do so. Most US cities are too spaced out, require waiting at each block, or are not all that pleasant for walking.
philip1209 2y ago
I own the domain AmericanUrbanism[.]org - I've been thinking of setting up some kind of advocacy group (501c4) or even political party there focused on changing this reality. Cars made more sense in the industrial age, when people needed to commute to a factory for work. But, in the age of knowledge work and especially remote work, we aren't commuting as much. So, walkable neighborhoods become far more important and impactful.
- weweweoo 2y ago
  I think there should be just many types of neighborhoods. Those who need a car for longer distance travel should accept living further away from city center, where there's enough space for parking slots, while the rest can enjoy pedestrian-first neighbourhoods closer to services. Public transport should of course reach all areas, so that the car owners have no real need to use their car much to reach the denser areas.
  - chiggsy 2y ago
    >Those who need a car for longer distance travel should accept living further away from city center Strongly feel this acceptance will be difficult to actualize sans coercion.
    - XMPPwocky 2y ago
      How so? We've built huge amounts of infrastructure (parking being the obvious one) to explicitly enable people to have cars in city centers- stop doing that and my gut (scientific, I know!) says that'll get you most of the way there.
    - NoGravitas 2y ago
      The least coercive way to do it is probably by making areas closer to the city center worse for driving — narrow roads, no parking, etc — and better for walking and biking. Then people will naturally sort themselves based on their preferences. The problem being that establishing the needed urban environment is itself a political struggle.

jncfhnb 2y ago

You’re confusing yourself with suburbs. Most American cities are highly walkable. Safety is the limiting factor.

noodlesUK 2y ago
Having cities arranged on grids with huge wide roads is generally a recipe for non-walkable environments. If you are having to wait ages for a light to change every time you go from one block to the next, you lose much of the efficiency of walking.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > Having cities arranged on grids with huge wide roads is generally a recipe for non-walkable environments. There's no problem with grids or wide roads as long as there is infrastructure in place for pedestrians. Bridges can allow people to cross over wide streets/traffic without having to wait for a light for example. Tunnels can be an option as well. Grids can really help a city be more walkable since it becomes dead simple to navigate and you aren't wasting time on long winding roads or labyrinthine paths which increase the distance between two points and make it easier to get lost.
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    Grids are better than culdesac but worse than randomness for a human brain so that it would be interesting to walk there. Wide roads aren't good for walkability in any sense: even if we ignore huge noise and pollution created by lots of cars, wide roads are more dangerous to cross and since it's wide you as a pedestrian need to walk more on non pedestrian infra to get to points of interest. Walkability isn't just about being able to walk
  - jodrellblank 2y ago
    > There's no problem with grids or wide roads as long as there is infrastructure in place for pedestrians. Bridges can allow people to cross over wide streets/traffic without having to wait for a light for example. Infrastructure for pedestrians would be you cross as soon as you get there, cars wait. Bridges are not pedestrian infrastructure they’re “cars are the priority” infrastructure, “cars mustn’t be delayed or inconvenienced, pedestrians can be” infrastructure.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      I don't see a problem with bridges that allow people to access without slowing anyone down. something like https://i.redd.it/m62z7ovxkpg81.jpg https://i.redd.it/m62z7ovxkpg81.jpg or https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1230021650/photo/women-wearing-face-masks-walk-on-a-pedestrian-bridge-in.webp?s=612x612&w=gi&k=20&c=M9brmvME9H8kFoxd74c7cGm3mbAQ25eM9QDBm8KvI6w= https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1230021650/photo/women-wear... works very well without inconveniencing pedestrians who often appreciate the view
      - kettlecorn 2y ago
        Those add substantial crossing time and are quite costly. None of the world's great walking cities heavily uses bridge crossings like that.
      - watwut 2y ago
        If you are in hurry, you will avoid those. They add more time to your trip then one would guess intuitively. What do work for pedestrians is a network of smaller roads that you can "just" cross safely without waiting or taking detours. Basically, a few big roads you cross once in a while and the rest being smaller roads where cars are forced to go slowly.
      - Moldoteck 2y ago
        " without slowing anyone down. " - but the very first image you provided will slow down pedestrians, it's harder to cross compared to a simple direct crosswalk and it's less friendly to ppl with mobility problems. Such bridges are relatively ok to implement outside cities where you have highways/roads with cars driving high speeds but these are bad solutions inside cities where the priority belongs to pedestrians and cars must drive slower
  - noodlesUK 2y ago
    Outside my university there was a fairly fast "A" road (two lanes, high speed limit, actually much narrower than a typical American street). Rather than stop traffic, there was a bridge that crossed the road. To use the bridge you needed to climb a set of stairs. Of course, people didn't use the bridge because it was inconvenient and tiring to have to take a longer route (including stairs) rather than just walk 8-10 meters across the road. There were severe injuries or deaths every single year when students would cross the road late at night and a car would be speeding at 60+ mph. They eventually installed a puffin-style crossing, which was much better. The solution, especially in built up areas, is to keep cars from causing problems for pedestrians rather than trying to stop pedestrians from causing problems for cars. Perhaps the cars should be relegated to a tunnel so people don't have to be near them instead.
Moldoteck 2y ago
The fact safety is a limiting factor means those places don't have social control, meaning these are not places ppl tend to hang out in so probably not that walkable. P.s. walkable in this context doesn't mean it's just possible to walk, it means it's a nice experience to walk with nice environment/shops/othwr points of interest
kettlecorn 2y ago
"Highly walkable" means many people would choose to walk even if able to take a car. To be walkable a city needs to be quick to walk between destinations and pleasant to do so. Most US cities are too spaced out, require waiting at each block, or are not all that pleasant for walking.

philip1209 2y ago

I own the domain AmericanUrbanism[.]org - I've been thinking of setting up some kind of advocacy group (501c4) or even political party there focused on changing this reality. Cars made more sense in the industrial age, when people needed to commute to a factory for work. But, in the age of knowledge work and especially remote work, we aren't commuting as much. So, walkable neighborhoods become far more important and impactful.

weweweoo 2y ago
I think there should be just many types of neighborhoods. Those who need a car for longer distance travel should accept living further away from city center, where there's enough space for parking slots, while the rest can enjoy pedestrian-first neighbourhoods closer to services. Public transport should of course reach all areas, so that the car owners have no real need to use their car much to reach the denser areas.
- chiggsy 2y ago
  >Those who need a car for longer distance travel should accept living further away from city center Strongly feel this acceptance will be difficult to actualize sans coercion.
  - XMPPwocky 2y ago
    How so? We've built huge amounts of infrastructure (parking being the obvious one) to explicitly enable people to have cars in city centers- stop doing that and my gut (scientific, I know!) says that'll get you most of the way there.
  - NoGravitas 2y ago
    The least coercive way to do it is probably by making areas closer to the city center worse for driving — narrow roads, no parking, etc — and better for walking and biking. Then people will naturally sort themselves based on their preferences. The problem being that establishing the needed urban environment is itself a political struggle.