5 ms·

"No city in the world will ever manage to end congestion because when traffic flows, people are drawn to their cars." - I disagree with this statement. There m

"No city in the world will ever manage to end congestion because when traffic flows, people are drawn to their cars." - I disagree with this statement. There may be something about São Paulo that makes this true, but it's not a guaranteed universal truth. Vancouver, British Columbia has taken an interesting approach - they don't run freeways into the city, and have, over the last 40 years, zoned a large stock of residential units in the downtown/west side of the city. The goal is "Live where you work." People still commute by car, and skytrain - but, in general, there is an approach to ending congestion. Affordable, high quality, inconvenient mass transit is a large factor. But, generally, just avoiding having to travel long distances to get to work is another.

potatolicious 14y ago
The most interesting thing about Vancouver (disclosure: I grew up there) is not only the willingness to build density, but also the willingness to mix zones. Downtown Vancouver is the kind of place where you can find a surprisingly even mix of residential towers sharing space with commercial office buildings. You see this pattern in places like NYC, where many neighborhoods exist that are equal parts work and live. Compare with cities like Seattle or San Francisco, where there is an almost religious adherence to geographically segregating commercial developments from residential, and you can start explaining major quality of life issues.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  San Francisco is starting to get away from this, particularly in the fringe / expansion areas of the CBD in the South of Market and Mid-Market areas. There's actually always been residential space close to downtown, but it's generally been either tremendously expensive (Telegraph Hill), or near-tenement conditions (Chinatown). Parking is extremely limited and expensive, if you do own a car. There's also an issue with out-of-town HNVIs purchasing condos in or near the CBD but spending very little time there (other major cosmopolitan metro areas have similar issues, notably London).
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Telegraph Hill is a bit of a hike from downtown, isn't it? It's tough to get a shared metric here; San Francisco is small to start with, and "downtown" San Francisco is even smaller.
    - dredmorbius 14y ago
      Well, yes, if you consider 2-4 blocks to be a hike.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Union to Geary? A mile to Embarcadero, ~mile to Transamerica Tower? I agree these are trivial distances and agree with the parent that SF has mixed commercial/residential.
    - malandrew 14y ago
      Everything in SF is trivially nearby if you go by bicycle. I myself commute from Nob Hill near the Fairmont (Clay/Mason) to where Telegraph Avenue intersects with the UC Berkeley campus. I only take the Bart from Embarcadero to West Oakland. My commute averages 40-60 minutes and the variability is 100% how long I have to wait for the train (longer wait times in the evening). If I had to commute within the 7x7 block that is SF, almost everything is within ~20 minutes of riding.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Chicago has a mix of residential and commercial as well; additionally, like NYC, Chicago has a couple very large universities that create multi-block clusters of student housing as well. We also have one of the country's better neighborhood "systems" (for lack of a better word). However, I'm not sure that I remember from my time in San Francisco that housing and offices were all that separate. I lived in SOMA for a couple years, and Noe Valley for a couple more; in SOMA, I was just a few blocks walking distance from Market & 4th-3rd. San Francisco is so small that maybe the cluster of dense offices is just a function of land scarcity.
- drone 14y ago
  You need to add a couple of other factors to mix-zoning (or no zoning) as well though. Houston, for example, is a no zoning city - you can buy a commercial warehouse and turn it into two lofts between two chemical plants if you like, and no one can stop you. (Effectively.) However, the abundance of inexpensive land means its cheaper to build "out and flat," than "in and up," and the rush inwards that has been occurring over the last handful of years (Midtown, Montrose, Heights, EaDo, etc.) has been countered by plenty of new subdivisions and an 18-lane freeway, along with plenty of 6-8 lane freeways. Then again, we have precious little public transportation, and any expansion is usually looked upon with disdain.
windsurfer 14y ago
And the cost of this, in Vancouver? Very expensive housing. People are going to pay for convenience one way or another
- rayiner 14y ago
  Obviously Vancouver isn't expensive because it's densely built. It's cheaper than it would otherwise be because it's densely built. Vancouver is expensive because land is geographically limited and it's a very attractive destination (one of the top cities in the world for QoL).
- ghshephard 14y ago
  I rented a hotel suite for $2400/month last year on Robson Street, just five blocks (or so) off of Granville. It had a separate bedroom and living room and a small kitchen - great view of the North Shore mountains. There were about 20 different restaurants within 3 blocks of the hotel. Downtown Vancouver Housing might not be cheap, but I don't think, given the quality of life, and ease of commute, that it would be considered "expensive." Another clever (and deliberate) thing that Vancouver does to control traffic, is they control the cost of parking. That makes it easy to come into the city for short trips, but expensive to commute.

potatolicious 14y ago

The most interesting thing about Vancouver (disclosure: I grew up there) is not only the willingness to build density, but also the willingness to mix zones. Downtown Vancouver is the kind of place where you can find a surprisingly even mix of residential towers sharing space with commercial office buildings. You see this pattern in places like NYC, where many neighborhoods exist that are equal parts work and live. Compare with cities like Seattle or San Francisco, where there is an almost religious adherence to geographically segregating commercial developments from residential, and you can start explaining major quality of life issues.

dredmorbius 14y ago
San Francisco is starting to get away from this, particularly in the fringe / expansion areas of the CBD in the South of Market and Mid-Market areas. There's actually always been residential space close to downtown, but it's generally been either tremendously expensive (Telegraph Hill), or near-tenement conditions (Chinatown). Parking is extremely limited and expensive, if you do own a car. There's also an issue with out-of-town HNVIs purchasing condos in or near the CBD but spending very little time there (other major cosmopolitan metro areas have similar issues, notably London).
- tptacek 14y ago
  Telegraph Hill is a bit of a hike from downtown, isn't it? It's tough to get a shared metric here; San Francisco is small to start with, and "downtown" San Francisco is even smaller.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    Well, yes, if you consider 2-4 blocks to be a hike.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Union to Geary? A mile to Embarcadero, ~mile to Transamerica Tower? I agree these are trivial distances and agree with the parent that SF has mixed commercial/residential.
  - malandrew 14y ago
    Everything in SF is trivially nearby if you go by bicycle. I myself commute from Nob Hill near the Fairmont (Clay/Mason) to where Telegraph Avenue intersects with the UC Berkeley campus. I only take the Bart from Embarcadero to West Oakland. My commute averages 40-60 minutes and the variability is 100% how long I have to wait for the train (longer wait times in the evening). If I had to commute within the 7x7 block that is SF, almost everything is within ~20 minutes of riding.
tptacek 14y ago
Chicago has a mix of residential and commercial as well; additionally, like NYC, Chicago has a couple very large universities that create multi-block clusters of student housing as well. We also have one of the country's better neighborhood "systems" (for lack of a better word). However, I'm not sure that I remember from my time in San Francisco that housing and offices were all that separate. I lived in SOMA for a couple years, and Noe Valley for a couple more; in SOMA, I was just a few blocks walking distance from Market & 4th-3rd. San Francisco is so small that maybe the cluster of dense offices is just a function of land scarcity.
drone 14y ago
You need to add a couple of other factors to mix-zoning (or no zoning) as well though. Houston, for example, is a no zoning city - you can buy a commercial warehouse and turn it into two lofts between two chemical plants if you like, and no one can stop you. (Effectively.) However, the abundance of inexpensive land means its cheaper to build "out and flat," than "in and up," and the rush inwards that has been occurring over the last handful of years (Midtown, Montrose, Heights, EaDo, etc.) has been countered by plenty of new subdivisions and an 18-lane freeway, along with plenty of 6-8 lane freeways. Then again, we have precious little public transportation, and any expansion is usually looked upon with disdain.

windsurfer 14y ago

And the cost of this, in Vancouver? Very expensive housing. People are going to pay for convenience one way or another

rayiner 14y ago
Obviously Vancouver isn't expensive because it's densely built. It's cheaper than it would otherwise be because it's densely built. Vancouver is expensive because land is geographically limited and it's a very attractive destination (one of the top cities in the world for QoL).
ghshephard 14y ago
I rented a hotel suite for $2400/month last year on Robson Street, just five blocks (or so) off of Granville. It had a separate bedroom and living room and a small kitchen - great view of the North Shore mountains. There were about 20 different restaurants within 3 blocks of the hotel. Downtown Vancouver Housing might not be cheap, but I don't think, given the quality of life, and ease of commute, that it would be considered "expensive." Another clever (and deliberate) thing that Vancouver does to control traffic, is they control the cost of parking. That makes it easy to come into the city for short trips, but expensive to commute.