20 ms·

I think the approach is slightly wrong in that what you seem to be doing is removing road space, rather than re-allocating it. Though you might think a 15ft wid

by awjr 11y ago

I think the approach is slightly wrong in that what you seem to be doing is removing road space, rather than re-allocating it. Though you might think a 15ft wide street is great it imposes big issues on the interaction between different types of users. You should segregate people walking, cycling and people driving. Sharing space is not a "good thing" even though it seems to be the the thing that architects seem to be advocating at the moment. I'm still not convinced that a blind person and a bus can share space. Just like the tower blocks of the 1960's, I see shared space becoming the architectural white elephant of the 2010's. What you should be considering is creating great living spaces where the road design "slows" down the speed at which cars travel through the space. Where priority is given to walking and cycling. Where each mode of transport is segregated from each other. You transform a city by persuading people that the easiest way to get around the city is not by car.

toyg 11y ago
As soon as you segregate traffic by type, you create the feeling of exclusivity that automatically entitles drivers to carelessness and higher speeds. This happens for any type of traffic: some bike lanes in London are incredibly dangerous for passers-by. In this sense, shared spaces force drivers to actually slow down and think about what they are doing. This is what even most motorists advocate, btw: less obstacles forcing cars to slow down, and more publicity of what a driver could expect from the area they are passing through. > You transform a city by persuading people that the easiest way to get around the city is not by car. You can easily do that by removing all parking space at hotspot destinations. Job done. Businesses will scream blue murder though, so you need a plan for that.
- awjr 11y ago
  I just think that mixing different modes of transport create unnecessary conflicts. Yes a person cycling can mix with people walking, but at walking pace. That isn't the desire of the person cycling and the people walking have to deal with "inconsiderate" people cycling. The blame is never placed on the urban designers who live in this idealised world where different modes of transport can mix harmoniously.
aout 11y ago
I think the author doesn't want to mix the different types of transportation. He allows them to be mixed but users won't because it's not convenient. That does not mean it is not good. In Paris we have a lot of street that are very narrow but still used by cars (not used like a highway, used when you really need to go there). From a walking Parisian point of view I can tell you that no bus can use these narrow streets but you can be sure there's a bus stop in the next avenue (which is usually close). Thus by using both big avenues (mostly used by cars and with big empty sidewalks) and small streets (full of life, shops and well, some cars) you can achieve a very good "ambiance". Bikes usually have a small lane on both sides of the road and don't really bother anyone. I can't recall the name of a famous architect who was working on street dynamics and security but it is basically the opposite of what big names did in cities built for cars like Brasilia, Washington etc... The moral being that if you concentrate people in the streets you will need a much smaller police force because you're always "close" to other people.

by awjr 11y ago

toyg 11y ago

As soon as you segregate traffic by type, you create the feeling of exclusivity that automatically entitles drivers to carelessness and higher speeds. This happens for any type of traffic: some bike lanes in London are incredibly dangerous for passers-by. In this sense, shared spaces force drivers to actually slow down and think about what they are doing. This is what even most motorists advocate, btw: less obstacles forcing cars to slow down, and more publicity of what a driver could expect from the area they are passing through. > You transform a city by persuading people that the easiest way to get around the city is not by car. You can easily do that by removing all parking space at hotspot destinations. Job done. Businesses will scream blue murder though, so you need a plan for that.

awjr 11y ago
I just think that mixing different modes of transport create unnecessary conflicts. Yes a person cycling can mix with people walking, but at walking pace. That isn't the desire of the person cycling and the people walking have to deal with "inconsiderate" people cycling. The blame is never placed on the urban designers who live in this idealised world where different modes of transport can mix harmoniously.

aout 11y ago

I think the author doesn't want to mix the different types of transportation. He allows them to be mixed but users won't because it's not convenient. That does not mean it is not good. In Paris we have a lot of street that are very narrow but still used by cars (not used like a highway, used when you really need to go there). From a walking Parisian point of view I can tell you that no bus can use these narrow streets but you can be sure there's a bus stop in the next avenue (which is usually close). Thus by using both big avenues (mostly used by cars and with big empty sidewalks) and small streets (full of life, shops and well, some cars) you can achieve a very good "ambiance". Bikes usually have a small lane on both sides of the road and don't really bother anyone. I can't recall the name of a famous architect who was working on street dynamics and security but it is basically the opposite of what big names did in cities built for cars like Brasilia, Washington etc... The moral being that if you concentrate people in the streets you will need a much smaller police force because you're always "close" to other people.