To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars(nationalgeographic.com)
nationalgeographic.com
To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/04/to-build-cities-of-the-future-stop-driving-cars
343 comments
Many cities in the OECD maybe. Lots of cities in Africa and Asia are going with the American model of car dependent sprawl and it’s completely untenable. My childhood home of Bangalore has become a nightmare.
India still invests a lot in public infrastructure. Bangalore is an exception. Mumbai, Delhi, Jaipur etc have invested a lot in urban infra especially the metro. Bangalore was just not ready for the influx of IT companies and is having serious trouble keeping up. But I love the airport buses though.
Given India’s population, landscape plus the stave vs central govt politics, its unlikely India will see major car-dependent urban sprawl like the US. Indians are preferring cars because the urban infrastructure is full. Delhi metro spans 100 km end to end and it is at near to full capacity.
Given India’s population, landscape plus the stave vs central govt politics, its unlikely India will see major car-dependent urban sprawl like the US. Indians are preferring cars because the urban infrastructure is full. Delhi metro spans 100 km end to end and it is at near to full capacity.
4 million a day is full capacity in a city of Delhi’s size? They better start building then
https://m.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/capital-chaos-delhi-...
https://m.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/capital-chaos-delhi-...
4M what? Delhi doesn't have 4M cars. It's pretty much bordering on 9M cars, 10M if you include the greater NCR area.
The closest number I can find is 31.8L daily ridership in the metro which seems reasonable. The metro had an annual ridership bordering on 1B in 2017-2018.
Given a population of 20M, the whole city doesn't travel at once.
Add on other factors like - * 30% people (kids, housewives, elders etc etc) do not have a significant commute.
* Then a significant portion of the population has a commute less than 5 kms for which taking metro makes less sense - this is evident in the gargantuan numbers of e-rickshaws, tuktuks, tempos seen on indian roads which primarily serve distances upto 5 kms and are nary unoccupied during peak times.
* Then another significant chunk has commutes smaller than 10kms. Only a small percent has any significant commute.
* Plus based on other factors I know, and which would be too tedious to link here, metro is the third most occupied transport behind buses (first) and small transport like e-rickshaws etc.
Delhi doesn't need to build more, in non-peak times you'll find plenty of space. Even in peak times, even though you'll be uncomfortable, you'll still reach your destination within 10-15 mins of what it would take in non-peak time. The current plan is well developed till 2021 and would probably serve the needs of the city with sufficient capacity, though not necessarily comfortable.
The closest number I can find is 31.8L daily ridership in the metro which seems reasonable. The metro had an annual ridership bordering on 1B in 2017-2018.
Given a population of 20M, the whole city doesn't travel at once.
Add on other factors like - * 30% people (kids, housewives, elders etc etc) do not have a significant commute.
* Then a significant portion of the population has a commute less than 5 kms for which taking metro makes less sense - this is evident in the gargantuan numbers of e-rickshaws, tuktuks, tempos seen on indian roads which primarily serve distances upto 5 kms and are nary unoccupied during peak times.
* Then another significant chunk has commutes smaller than 10kms. Only a small percent has any significant commute.
* Plus based on other factors I know, and which would be too tedious to link here, metro is the third most occupied transport behind buses (first) and small transport like e-rickshaws etc.
Delhi doesn't need to build more, in non-peak times you'll find plenty of space. Even in peak times, even though you'll be uncomfortable, you'll still reach your destination within 10-15 mins of what it would take in non-peak time. The current plan is well developed till 2021 and would probably serve the needs of the city with sufficient capacity, though not necessarily comfortable.
Yes, daily metro ridership
My anecdotal experience taking the Metro in Mumbai suggests calling it full is a criminal understatement.
Mumbai has two rail-based transports. The metro is tiny compared to the western railways network but expanding and going to cover huge swaths of the city. Though, I can totally understand about your experience with the railways. As a non-mumbaikar, those trains terrify me.
It's possible Bangalore just gave me a bad taste. I didn't find it quite so nightmarish in Delhi or Jaipur, but generally when I go to other parts of India I'm doing more touristy things so the daily headaches aren't as bad and get replaced with headaches dealing with hawkers.
Many of those places you are referring to aren't "building car dependent sprawl", they're just growing far faster than their planning/infrastructure can keep up with and slums are spreading in every direction.
They may be sprawling out (as is inherently going to happen when you build single-level unplanned structures), but they're certainly not designed for a car any more than they are for transit.
They may be sprawling out (as is inherently going to happen when you build single-level unplanned structures), but they're certainly not designed for a car any more than they are for transit.
> the US went to the other extreme and is only slowly turning around.
US car manufacturers are doubling down on large trucks and SUVs and the current administration continues to thwart progress on tackling climate change and other societal concerns. I would say the US, at least on a macro level, is still on the "other extreme" path.
US car manufacturers are doubling down on large trucks and SUVs and the current administration continues to thwart progress on tackling climate change and other societal concerns. I would say the US, at least on a macro level, is still on the "other extreme" path.
> US car manufacturers are doubling down on large trucks and SUVs
Manufacturers are building lots of SUVs because this is what people in the US prefer to buy. If manufacturers build tons of subcompacts instead they would have to drop prices and probably sell those subcompacts at a loss.
If you wanted to sell more small cars instead you should convince consumers to buy them (e.g., via end user incentives), which would make it profitable for car companies to build lots of them.
Manufacturers are building lots of SUVs because this is what people in the US prefer to buy. If manufacturers build tons of subcompacts instead they would have to drop prices and probably sell those subcompacts at a loss.
If you wanted to sell more small cars instead you should convince consumers to buy them (e.g., via end user incentives), which would make it profitable for car companies to build lots of them.
Is this really surprising? The benefits of driving a large vehicle are all internal (comfort, safety of vehicle occupants, cargo capacity, range between fueling). The costs, however, are mostly external (road maintenance, emissions, safety of non occupants, space consumed for parking).
You'd need to substantially incentivize smaller vehicles to overcome these things, but we actually incentivize larger vehicles (through looser emissions standards).
You'd need to substantially incentivize smaller vehicles to overcome these things, but we actually incentivize larger vehicles (through looser emissions standards).
I think you really touch on the core problem. All the negative externalities are eaten up by the community. The obvious solution is to stop subsidizing cars and instead start teaching the negative externalities. Ready first steps:
1. massively increase gasoline tax.
2. Get rid of all street parking.
I personally would prefer to just ban all combustion engines, but people seem to think I'm insane when I propose this.
I personally would prefer to just ban all combustion engines, but people seem to think I'm insane when I propose this.
Banning all combustion engines is too extreme, see this chart for reasoning: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/13hja01motivepowermst-141217...
The deck is stacked, though. CUV's are considered trucks for the purposes of CAFE regulation. If they were considered the cars that they really are, they would be more fuel efficient, more expensive and manufacturers would be pushing small cars a lot harder to bring those averages down.
Serious question, are you saying trucks have more lenient CAFE regulations than cars?
Yes, "passenger cars" and "light trucks" are different categories in the regulations, and have different formulas for their target fuel economy.
Yes, that's the point. It's a signal that the US, as a whole, is still very much in the mindset of building infrastructure and communities centered around the car (in fact, centered around bigger, less efficient vehicles). Sure, you have pockets that are trying to do things differently, but again, on a macro level, the US is still very much "auto oriented" and doesn't appear to be turning much around at any kind of pace of other Western countries.
I know several people who, like myself, used to drive small pickups and now drive midsize ones. We would prefer to drive small ones, but they don't make them anymore.
Among people who are willing to restore old vehicles, some small trucks are becoming classics.
Among people who are willing to restore old vehicles, some small trucks are becoming classics.
They can't sell small trucks in the US because of the Chicken Tax:
https://fee.org/articles/chicken-tax-makes-trucks-expensive-...
https://fee.org/articles/chicken-tax-makes-trucks-expensive-...
Don't pretty much all overseas car companies build vehicles for the North American market in North America these days? That would make the tariff point moot. My "Japanese" mid-sized truck that's bigger than I really need it to be was built in Mississippi.
SUVs are subsidized relative to cars which always causes inefficiency. People have complex preferences and cost is always going to be a significant component. Distort price and actions stop reflecting actual preferences.
Advertising. People buy large SUVs because of advertising, and American car companies advertise SUVs because they turn more of a profit with larger vehicles than smaller vehicles.
[deleted]
Actually its a cycle.
The cost of gas goes up, and people scramble to get more fuel efficient cars. Gas does down and they want larger utility vehicles.
Toyota made out like crazy when gas prices went through the roof in the early 2000's. They were already manufacturing the Prius and once gas prices went over $3-$4/gallon, people suddenly started buying motorcycles, started biking more and started buying Prius' in droves.
Now that gas has stabilized for the most part to around $2.20/gallon, you're seeing more people not really care either way and I have friends who have sold their Prius' to get more snow friendly vehicles like a Subaru or a Toyota AWD SUV.
Their decisions are based nothing on social concerns, it's all about how expensive it is to own the cars they currently have. Make fuel expensive and its painful to own a large SUV and they'll switch. When fuel is cheap and they're going to buy whatever suit their needs.
The cost of gas goes up, and people scramble to get more fuel efficient cars. Gas does down and they want larger utility vehicles.
Toyota made out like crazy when gas prices went through the roof in the early 2000's. They were already manufacturing the Prius and once gas prices went over $3-$4/gallon, people suddenly started buying motorcycles, started biking more and started buying Prius' in droves.
Now that gas has stabilized for the most part to around $2.20/gallon, you're seeing more people not really care either way and I have friends who have sold their Prius' to get more snow friendly vehicles like a Subaru or a Toyota AWD SUV.
Their decisions are based nothing on social concerns, it's all about how expensive it is to own the cars they currently have. Make fuel expensive and its painful to own a large SUV and they'll switch. When fuel is cheap and they're going to buy whatever suit their needs.
Yep, and in a democratic nation, anyone who tries to add high taxes causing their large cars to be much more expensive to own and operate will be voted out, so the only thing that can really stop them is when the price of fuel is forced up by sheer lack of supply.
Lack of supply is not sufficient to raise the price enough. To keep climate change below a 2 degree rise, we must leave 4/5ths of our current oil reserves in the ground. And not only that, once oil reaches ~$80 / bbl, vast amounts of tar sands become viable, increasing our oil reserves massively.
So I guess that means that they won't be stopped until some other external force I didn't account for stops them.
I'm curious to see how it plays out with the 20-somethings in the US. They've been brought up on more civic-mindedness and their trend is back to urban areas for living. They'll be a better bellweather.
I’m not sure 20-somethings are more civic minded. They voted in the last election at participation rates consistent with the last 40 years for that age group. Participation rates will probably increase as they age. Unfortunately priorities tend to change as people age too.
And they'll move out of the cities into suburbia in their 30s, as they always do.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47529562
Over the past decade, about 550,000 more Britons left London than moved to it.
This trend is not unique to London; it is seen in many big US cities, including New York, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles.
... People arrive in their 20s looking for jobs, then retreat in their 30s. Although it seems more likely they they only retreat to "commuter" distance -- in London that's about 40-60 minutes from a main rail terminal, which of course leads to increased pollution.
... The vibrancy and job opportunities offered by our biggest cities appeal to students and young professionals. This shapes these cities in terms of the shops, bars and other facilities they offer.
But among older residents, the desire for things like more space and a less urban environment grows, and many move out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47529562
Over the past decade, about 550,000 more Britons left London than moved to it.
This trend is not unique to London; it is seen in many big US cities, including New York, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles.
... People arrive in their 20s looking for jobs, then retreat in their 30s. Although it seems more likely they they only retreat to "commuter" distance -- in London that's about 40-60 minutes from a main rail terminal, which of course leads to increased pollution.
... The vibrancy and job opportunities offered by our biggest cities appeal to students and young professionals. This shapes these cities in terms of the shops, bars and other facilities they offer.
But among older residents, the desire for things like more space and a less urban environment grows, and many move out.
I live in Minneapolis and I've seen this first hand. The funny thing is all of the downtown areas have been gentrified so much, instead of attracting the young 20's tech crowd, all the new condo's they've built are priced too high for their target market so now the young kids are simply moving out the suburbs right away.
I have a few younger nephews who graduated, were all about the music scene and after a year of looking for a decent apartment in the city, just gave up and bought a house in the second ring suburbs. They still work downtown and take the train in and get on near a park and ride, but the over gentrification has soured them to living in the city. It was funny to hear them tell me the city had no character anymore. It was all geared towards rich, trust fund kids or millionaire retirees.
I have a few younger nephews who graduated, were all about the music scene and after a year of looking for a decent apartment in the city, just gave up and bought a house in the second ring suburbs. They still work downtown and take the train in and get on near a park and ride, but the over gentrification has soured them to living in the city. It was funny to hear them tell me the city had no character anymore. It was all geared towards rich, trust fund kids or millionaire retirees.
People arrive in their 20s looking for jobs,
then retreat in their 30s.
Terraced house in Hertfordshire: £380,897 [2]
The only surprising thing here is people are having to save until their 30s before buying a house.
[1] https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html [2] https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-Hertfordshire.ht...
Both are unaffordable to normal people, especially with £1500 a month rent.
But fundamentally you can't have a high density city and houses - the land value is just too high - and people don't want to bring kids up in tower blocks.
But fundamentally you can't have a high density city and houses - the land value is just too high - and people don't want to bring kids up in tower blocks.
I think it depends on your idea of suburbia. We tend to have smaller cities surrounding our major city. These smaller cities have mixed use neighborhoods - commercial and residential - and lots of multi-family homes. I grew up in such a city in a multi-family home (locally, we knew them as tenements). An article appeared recently about the trend toward purchasing multi-families again due to their cost-effectiveness. So, I'm not certain of the 30-somthings move to the burbs trend yet.
Another issue with living in urban areas, at least in the US, is education. Schools in urban areas deal with more issues around family and poverty. The school buildings themselves are often older and require more maintenance. For young parents who may love urban life, the quality of education becomes a big factor.
Schools cost far more in cities too -- higher salaries for teachers (as housing costs more), higher cost for the usage of the land, higher charges for everything from plumbers to school dinners.
The participation rate for the next election is where I hope to see a jump for that age group. The last presidential election hopefully scared them into understanding the importance of voting.
But those vehicles aren't necessarily being bought by urban consumers. Cities already have several disincentives toward large vehicle ownership.
Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and many more cities that are not New York or San Francisco are still filled with trucks and SUVs carrying no passengers and no cargo. Urban economies in the US are largely commuter-based and parking a large vehicle is not a problem for those who go back and forth between a driveway and a parking garage.
And yet not a pip when the new governor of California, Gavin Newsom announced that the high speed rail projects there will be scaled back, markedly.[1] [2] Between Los Angeles and San Francisco, no less !
Atleast not from these pro high-density living and pro urban transit folks. I don't get how you pick and choose what you'd like to criticize and what you'd like to champion on one side and what you conveniently ignore when it suits you, on the other.
I'm sure we can all agree that the LA-SF corridor could badly use a high speed rail line to alleviate the traffic on the I-5, right?
[1]
Gov. Newsom Puts Brakes On California’s High-Speed Rail Plan
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/02/12/gavin-newsom-br...
[2]
California's Newsom Scales Back Plans for High-Speed Rail Line
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-12/californi...
Atleast not from these pro high-density living and pro urban transit folks. I don't get how you pick and choose what you'd like to criticize and what you'd like to champion on one side and what you conveniently ignore when it suits you, on the other.
I'm sure we can all agree that the LA-SF corridor could badly use a high speed rail line to alleviate the traffic on the I-5, right?
[1]
Gov. Newsom Puts Brakes On California’s High-Speed Rail Plan
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/02/12/gavin-newsom-br...
[2]
California's Newsom Scales Back Plans for High-Speed Rail Line
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-12/californi...
Unfortunately, he was right here, because that project was hopelessly overpriced. Yes, we badly need HSR in America, but the prices they're talking about are completely ridiculous.
What we really need to do is just hire the Japanese to build HSR for us, because we obviously can't do it ourselves.
What we really need to do is just hire the Japanese to build HSR for us, because we obviously can't do it ourselves.
The Japanese will come here and also have to deal with the hugely inflated prices of land and material acquisition. Everyone in the path of this project or a potential vendor all up and down the line is eager to profiteer and jack up the cost no matter who is engineering it. We need to keep large government projects far away from contractors because like every large government project involved with the private sector in history, costs will rise and rise and rise until people have had enough and the project is scaled back and/or killed. Otherwise, costs will rise until they hit that point, because as a contractor for the government, you have zero incentive not to profiteer.
That rail would do little for density. It might (at a more reasonable cost) be a good thing, but density is about things close to home, high speed rail is about getting people far from home.
I don't believe there is a nefarious scheme in play.
People who live in cities don't need cars.
People who live outside cities still need cars. The manufacturers try to fill that need. The manufacturers, sellers, etc. make the economy go 'round.
It will all change if/when economic forces bring it about. Directly forcing it through politics probably isn't the right approach.
People who live in cities don't need cars.
People who live outside cities still need cars. The manufacturers try to fill that need. The manufacturers, sellers, etc. make the economy go 'round.
It will all change if/when economic forces bring it about. Directly forcing it through politics probably isn't the right approach.
> I don't believe there is a nefarious scheme in play.
There's no defensible reason why work-home-school-retail structures rural places can't nucleate closer together into walkable "main street" towns.
Much of the design of fly-over states is dictated by developers. It starts when a farmer who wants to retires sells a huge tract of land to a development company. The land eventually gets populated with a mind-numbing matrix of boring mcmansions, without regard to utilities, tax base, schooling, or distance.
People then buy into to the facade of rural living but then end up driving 10's of miles for each and every errand and activity. They even take vacations in Europe and marvel at how delightful it is to sit in a town square and be able to walk to everything. When they get back to their ex-burban strip mall hellscapes in the USA, the vast majority just fail to make the connection that it doesn't have to be that way.
It is about trade offs though. I moved from a 10 acre lot to a small city recently.
I love that my son and I went for an hour walk to a park (we passed a different park on the way because we played in that one yesterday) and back. I love that my work is only a few minutes drive away (now that the weather is warmer I need to get my bike working).
I miss other things about my rural lot though. There is no space to drive my tractor collection around. I can't see anywhere near as many stars at night.
It is about trade offs, I was happy in the rural area. I'm happy in town. Some think I like to do are better/easier, some things are worse/harder.
I love that my son and I went for an hour walk to a park (we passed a different park on the way because we played in that one yesterday) and back. I love that my work is only a few minutes drive away (now that the weather is warmer I need to get my bike working).
I miss other things about my rural lot though. There is no space to drive my tractor collection around. I can't see anywhere near as many stars at night.
It is about trade offs, I was happy in the rural area. I'm happy in town. Some think I like to do are better/easier, some things are worse/harder.
> There is no space to drive my tractor collection around.
I am glad to see a comment like this on HN, despite the impression that everyone here is an SV-focused tech bro. Sometimes it feels good to read about somebody's tractors whilst I gaze out at the soybean field in my backyard. :)
I am glad to see a comment like this on HN, despite the impression that everyone here is an SV-focused tech bro. Sometimes it feels good to read about somebody's tractors whilst I gaze out at the soybean field in my backyard. :)
I understand the sentiment but in my experience there are a lot more of us out there than you might think. It's probably the very tendency that makes a humble spread in the sticks appealing that also has us mostly laying low in the comments.
This was my front porch in Ohio this morning: https://i.imgur.com/B7KSFP6.jpg
This was my front porch in Ohio this morning: https://i.imgur.com/B7KSFP6.jpg
> tech bro
this does not seem to have been said with anomosity, so I take a risk I would not take with more angry interlocutors.
tech bro is casually sexist, right? Could we avoid that, at least when talking between nice people?
this does not seem to have been said with anomosity, so I take a risk I would not take with more angry interlocutors.
tech bro is casually sexist, right? Could we avoid that, at least when talking between nice people?
> People then buy into to the facade of rural living but then end up driving 10's of miles for each and every errand and activity. They even take vacations in Europe and marvel at how delightful it is to sit in a town square and be able to walk to everything.
Most of Europe hasn't been built like this for many decades, and have been going the other way as well. You won't find many new developments in this spirit, and what already exists often isn't accessible. Being able to sit in a town square is vacation for a lot of people in Europe as well, especially if you haven't been grandfathered in.
Most of Europe hasn't been built like this for many decades, and have been going the other way as well. You won't find many new developments in this spirit, and what already exists often isn't accessible. Being able to sit in a town square is vacation for a lot of people in Europe as well, especially if you haven't been grandfathered in.
>Much of the design of fly-over states is dictated by developers.
Unnecessary bullshit. The entire part of the South Bay and nearly all of Los Angeles suffers from the same driving dependency. It has nothing to do with ignorant armchair analysis of how “the flyover states” work.
Unnecessary bullshit. The entire part of the South Bay and nearly all of Los Angeles suffers from the same driving dependency. It has nothing to do with ignorant armchair analysis of how “the flyover states” work.
Sorry, I didn't intend to be flippant about "fly-over" states.
But, yeah, the farmland-developer-mcmansion-exburban-dystopia transition is something I've seen too many times in too many places.
But, yeah, the farmland-developer-mcmansion-exburban-dystopia transition is something I've seen too many times in too many places.
I don't think too many trust the market to make their decisions for them. The purpose of politics is to represent the people and, ideally, do what is best for them. That's definitely not what the market is for!
Get involved in politics if you want to bring about change in the world because companies whose job it is to sell more cars certainly aren't going to be helping improve the environment.
Get involved in politics if you want to bring about change in the world because companies whose job it is to sell more cars certainly aren't going to be helping improve the environment.
This is the logic that produced the green new deal.
Could you expand? I'm not sure if you agree with the parent, or against the new deal.
The green new deal comes from a place completely detached from reality rather than anything remotely feasible.
Remember, the green new deal not only included destruction of all fossil fuel industries (aviation, non electric cars, trucks, trains, etc) but it also included provisions for people who weren’t willing to work (used to be in the FAQ).
It started as a plan to completely restructure the US into the most socialist country on the planet with an energy economy based on technology that doesn’t exist all in the next ten years.
Politics is not about foisting your vision onto everyone else, despite the current rhetoric in the US.
Remember, the green new deal not only included destruction of all fossil fuel industries (aviation, non electric cars, trucks, trains, etc) but it also included provisions for people who weren’t willing to work (used to be in the FAQ).
It started as a plan to completely restructure the US into the most socialist country on the planet with an energy economy based on technology that doesn’t exist all in the next ten years.
Politics is not about foisting your vision onto everyone else, despite the current rhetoric in the US.
> Politics is not about foisting your vision onto everyone else, despite the current rhetoric in the US.
The only paragraph I agree with. But I agree strongly!
Politics is about consensus and horse-trading, and they are much superior to winning and making the other side miserable (for a short while, until they get the chance to do the same)
The only paragraph I agree with. But I agree strongly!
Politics is about consensus and horse-trading, and they are much superior to winning and making the other side miserable (for a short while, until they get the chance to do the same)
So you don't think 100% from renewable energy is feasible? If not, then, shouldn't we be creating policies to preserve more fossil fuel to give us more time? It is finite, after all. What exactly is your plan?
Nuclear is the only answer that works based on existing technology. Build it, subsidize it, whatever.
It’s a trivial solution that doesn’t require a fundamental restructure of the economy. It’s just not popular with the left precisely because it is too compatible with our current economic structure.
Australia alone has enough coal under it to burn for a hundred years+. Any policy that doesn’t include nuclear for base load is a policy to burn that coal.
It’s a trivial solution that doesn’t require a fundamental restructure of the economy. It’s just not popular with the left precisely because it is too compatible with our current economic structure.
Australia alone has enough coal under it to burn for a hundred years+. Any policy that doesn’t include nuclear for base load is a policy to burn that coal.
How does anyone get that from what Bogle said?
> It will all change if/when economic forces bring it about.
I agree, but I also think political policy decisions created the rules of the market, which in the case of the US, incentivized individual car ownsership. For example, creating a highway or creating a bus only lane, are political decisions that directly affect the market forces.
I agree, but I also think political policy decisions created the rules of the market, which in the case of the US, incentivized individual car ownsership. For example, creating a highway or creating a bus only lane, are political decisions that directly affect the market forces.
>People who live outside cities still need cars. The manufacturers try to fill that need. The manufacturers, sellers, etc. make the economy go 'round.
Sometimes I wonder if it has to be that way- how much more does a light rail or bus line cost than a highway does to connect smaller towns?
Sometimes I wonder if it has to be that way- how much more does a light rail or bus line cost than a highway does to connect smaller towns?
"Smaller towns" are one thing, but there are a lot of people who live outside any city limits. You're not going to link up every rural farmhouse with busses and light rail.
Even those who do live in town are likely to have friends and relatives who don't, and they're unlikely to want to rent a vehicle every time they leave town to visit them.
Even those who do live in town are likely to have friends and relatives who don't, and they're unlikely to want to rent a vehicle every time they leave town to visit them.
Copenhagen is amazing in this regard. I'd recommend to just watch anything from Jan Gehl on Youtube if you're interested in this topic: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jan+gehl
Copenhagen traffic is a nightmare. Yes, the city is fairly bicycle friendly, but when it's faster to ride a bike 10 km to work instead of taking the subway* then there's a serious public transportation issue no matter how you put it.
* source: Living in Copenhagen for five years.
* source: Living in Copenhagen for five years.
Seconded! He has lived through the transition architecture made from just scaling things up (as engineering advanced), to scaling things up while thinking about effects on human psychology and sociology.
And for anyone paying attention, that same pattern is repeating in the Software Architecture today.
And for anyone paying attention, that same pattern is repeating in the Software Architecture today.
population: 600k
not exactly a challenge now is it. the dynamics for cities with 6 million inhabitants are on a whole different scale because while building can pack people in three dimension transit has relatively few 2d planes to be built upon.
not exactly a challenge now is it. the dynamics for cities with 6 million inhabitants are on a whole different scale because while building can pack people in three dimension transit has relatively few 2d planes to be built upon.
San Francisco at 884k isn't that far ahead of Copenhagen at 602k, but yet the difference is very clear.
yeah, nothing to do with the bay area being littered with large cities and population number being cut by municipalities. are we playing special cases here?
Vatican City with population 1000 should be Eden then.
Vatican City with population 1000 should be Eden then.
> According to OECD, the Copenhagen Metropolitan Region had close to 2.4 million inhabitants in 2005:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_metropolitan_area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_metropolitan_area
If you want to compare the metro areas, the San Francisco Bay Area has a population of 7 million. That's more than all of Denmark in a tiny fraction of the space.
The comparisons get a little stretched, given the population differences.
The comparisons get a little stretched, given the population differences.
jesus are we really comparing this
https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco+Bay+Area,+CA...
and this
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Copenhagen,+Denmark/@55.67...
(should open at the same scale)
as if they were comparable sprawl?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco+Bay+Area,+CA...
and this
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Copenhagen,+Denmark/@55.67...
(should open at the same scale)
as if they were comparable sprawl?
That is a dumb comparison, the problem we are discussing is that SF sprawl is less dense, of course it will appear huge on a map compared to denser cities.
SF metropolitan area is 4.8 million, about twice that of Copenhagen, but its sprawl looks way more than twice the size of Copenhagen sprawl.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%E2%80%93Oakland%...
SF metropolitan area is 4.8 million, about twice that of Copenhagen, but its sprawl looks way more than twice the size of Copenhagen sprawl.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%E2%80%93Oakland%...
again, caused by the close proximity of cities splitting up the metropolitan area around the bay, the actual sprawl is of those cities combined as people do commute from one another.
Wait the sprawl is caused by the car, not the other way around. People always increase their drive time, if you give them better roads they just sprawl more.
You don't need a car in NYC, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and Hong Kong, all cities with populations greater than 6 million (well Singapore is 5.6m).
I've enjoyed Christopher Alexanders' "A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction"* as an interesting series of essays about designing spaces at a human scale. Computer / programming people rave about the book's structure (as an inspiration for the GoF "Design Patterns" book), but the content is also fascinating.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language
> Not exactly rocket science.
Rocket science seems straight forward in comparison to creating attractive, rather than combative, societies. The Nordic countries had insane possibilities the 'win' the information age, but have all to a large extent been going the other way (at least in terms of outlook).
> To me it seems that the US went to the other extreme and is only slowly turning around.
I don't think the US has been going the other way, so much that it has always been combative and the way to not get exponentially exploited in such a society is to build the easiest house anywhere. (You are still paying the price of course). Now as people are moving to cities again, they are rediscovering the dysfunctional society spanning both capitalism and government.
> I remember reading "Das neue Universum"² in the early 80s where they proposed large skyscrapers connected by tubes. No cars in sight.
As I heard someone say recently most of the futuristic ideas of that era is based on the idea of free energy, but what we got instead is free information. So what we have to deal with is a lot closer to Gibson than Asimov.
Rocket science seems straight forward in comparison to creating attractive, rather than combative, societies. The Nordic countries had insane possibilities the 'win' the information age, but have all to a large extent been going the other way (at least in terms of outlook).
> To me it seems that the US went to the other extreme and is only slowly turning around.
I don't think the US has been going the other way, so much that it has always been combative and the way to not get exponentially exploited in such a society is to build the easiest house anywhere. (You are still paying the price of course). Now as people are moving to cities again, they are rediscovering the dysfunctional society spanning both capitalism and government.
> I remember reading "Das neue Universum"² in the early 80s where they proposed large skyscrapers connected by tubes. No cars in sight.
As I heard someone say recently most of the futuristic ideas of that era is based on the idea of free energy, but what we got instead is free information. So what we have to deal with is a lot closer to Gibson than Asimov.
[deleted]
Slitghly OT: These are the books of my childhood!
I really loved them. Especially these futuristic panels like in http://klausbuergle.de/buergle_verkehr1.htm .
I really loved them. Especially these futuristic panels like in http://klausbuergle.de/buergle_verkehr1.htm .
> I remember reading "Das neue Universum"² in the early 80s where they proposed large skyscrapers connected by tubes. No cars in sight.
This reminds me of the pedway scheme they tried to do in London, even going so far as to require buildings in the city to prepare for these bridge walkways between buildings. Here's a nice little documentary about it: https://vimeo.com/80787092
For anyone interested in architecture visiting the city of London, I highly recommend a visit to the barbican as well.
This reminds me of the pedway scheme they tried to do in London, even going so far as to require buildings in the city to prepare for these bridge walkways between buildings. Here's a nice little documentary about it: https://vimeo.com/80787092
For anyone interested in architecture visiting the city of London, I highly recommend a visit to the barbican as well.
We really do have to radically re-think our cities but the biggest issues aren't going to be practical but emotional. In London parents drive their children around in 4x4s, knowing that their vehicle causes the pollution that is affecting their own children's health. I'm not sure how you even start to get around that but to some extent you will never persuade everybody to reduce their damaging behaviour. You need to enable people to travel in non-damaging ways; cycling and walking primary. That should be the first priority, although fighting the ingrained car culture will be the hardest battle.
The US is an extreme precisely due to these social and emotional reasons. It's shocking to me how this article fails to mention even once that a lot of post WWII suburbanization was due to white flight. The article states:
"Millions of soldiers had come home from World War II to overcrowded, run-down cities; their new families needed a place to live."
"Overcrowded, run-down": who all of a sudden "overcrowded" these cities? What's a "run-down" area? We can win WWII but not fix a broken roof? The issue was not so much lack of affordability or too many people, what meant was cities / neighborhoods with more black people. Those highways were not built immediately post WWII, but later, to separate black neighborhoods from wealthier areas of the city, in the post-civil rights era.
Suburbanization accelerated not directly after WWII but with government-mandated busing of school-children. If you didn't want your daughter to go to school with black boys, you went to the suburbs.
Architects & urban planners played handmaiden to white flight, destroying the fabric of cities, and generally harming the environment in the process. Precisely due to their active participation in this cluster- they tend to whitewash the history, move the timelines a bit etc. hoping no one will notice.
"Millions of soldiers had come home from World War II to overcrowded, run-down cities; their new families needed a place to live."
"Overcrowded, run-down": who all of a sudden "overcrowded" these cities? What's a "run-down" area? We can win WWII but not fix a broken roof? The issue was not so much lack of affordability or too many people, what meant was cities / neighborhoods with more black people. Those highways were not built immediately post WWII, but later, to separate black neighborhoods from wealthier areas of the city, in the post-civil rights era.
Suburbanization accelerated not directly after WWII but with government-mandated busing of school-children. If you didn't want your daughter to go to school with black boys, you went to the suburbs.
Architects & urban planners played handmaiden to white flight, destroying the fabric of cities, and generally harming the environment in the process. Precisely due to their active participation in this cluster- they tend to whitewash the history, move the timelines a bit etc. hoping no one will notice.
Even more basic than that, zoning and development regulation have strongly - in many cases explicitly - racist origins. For example many the first zoning laws in SF were designed to push back against Chinese immigration.
Those same tools have been used to the same effect, and strengthened, for generations. Yet for all the calls for social justice in society now, I almost never hear people calling for the end of zoning, when it may be the greatest perpetrator and enforcer of inequality today. In the Bay Area, zoning is the saw that has cut the bottom off the economic ladder. It’s surprising to me that more people don’t understand that intuitively, but alas.
Those same tools have been used to the same effect, and strengthened, for generations. Yet for all the calls for social justice in society now, I almost never hear people calling for the end of zoning, when it may be the greatest perpetrator and enforcer of inequality today. In the Bay Area, zoning is the saw that has cut the bottom off the economic ladder. It’s surprising to me that more people don’t understand that intuitively, but alas.
It’s not entirely clear that racial animus was the primary motivating factor. Once civil rights legislation was passed to stop housing discrimination, for instance, there was also black flight, when middle-class black families also moved to the suburbs.
It’s also not clear how one is supposed to reverse the effects of white flight; when middle-class whites move into a majority-nonwhite urban area, this is usually condemned as “gentrification”.
It’s also not clear how one is supposed to reverse the effects of white flight; when middle-class whites move into a majority-nonwhite urban area, this is usually condemned as “gentrification”.
My issue is the article doesn't once mention this as factor at all. I also object that one needs racial animus to have racist policies. "I've got no animus towards blacks, I just don't want to share large chunks of civic life with them" is racist. Blacks wanted to move to the suburbs due to lack of city & civic infrastructure in black neighborhoods - as the whites fled; so did polling stations, hospitals, banks, stores, and good quality drinking water. Lending policies for mortgages were explicitly racist; and many neighborhoods tried (successfully!) to prevent black people from moving in and "ruining the suburbs too!".
Also, rewinding only a couple of decades from civil rights legislation; denying blacks the vote, school entrance and outright lynchings in the hundreds qualifies as pretty strong racial animus. It's naive to argue that the same society & people "had no racial animus in mind" when choosing where and how to live.
I've always thought of gentrification as more of an economic class issue (which so often corresponds to minority status). In Boston, a lot of poor and middle class white neighborhoods get gentrified as well - nonetheless I take your wider point that gentrification is often a positive force for urban renewal; and I agree. One counter-example: Hudson Yards is the 1% being gentrified with the 0.1%, hard to argue helps the urban fabric with its non-human scale.
Also, rewinding only a couple of decades from civil rights legislation; denying blacks the vote, school entrance and outright lynchings in the hundreds qualifies as pretty strong racial animus. It's naive to argue that the same society & people "had no racial animus in mind" when choosing where and how to live.
I've always thought of gentrification as more of an economic class issue (which so often corresponds to minority status). In Boston, a lot of poor and middle class white neighborhoods get gentrified as well - nonetheless I take your wider point that gentrification is often a positive force for urban renewal; and I agree. One counter-example: Hudson Yards is the 1% being gentrified with the 0.1%, hard to argue helps the urban fabric with its non-human scale.
I guess the racial theory is still incomplete because it doesn’t explain why the socially dominant group (whites) were the ones to move. If you take the perfectly reasonable assumption that whites had the most power in society, the obvious question is: why did they flee to the suburbs themselves rather than just forcing the black population to move out into the suburbs? The answer must be that the whites perceived the suburbs to be a more desirable place to live. From that perspective, the racial injustice wasn’t white flight, it was denying black people the freedom to move to the suburbs themselves—which is exactly what they ultimately did when given the opportunity.
I’m not trying to dismiss racism as a causative factor. I guess I’m just saying it’s like living in a sawmill, and racism is the sawdust. The sawdust causes lots of problems by itself, but it also gets all over everything else. Suburbanization was something mid-century Americans of all races desired; it just happened in a racist way.
I’m not trying to dismiss racism as a causative factor. I guess I’m just saying it’s like living in a sawmill, and racism is the sawdust. The sawdust causes lots of problems by itself, but it also gets all over everything else. Suburbanization was something mid-century Americans of all races desired; it just happened in a racist way.
You are partially correct. Only partially because it only takes a small number of actual racist to make a difference. Even if 90% of a suburb doesn't care about race, that 10% can still make a difference by making the unwanted feel unwelcome.
I don't know how to solve this.
I don't know how to solve this.
Why would not wanting to share your life with them be racist? Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. It has nothing to do with who you want and don't want to have in your neighborhood. And people should be allowed to choose whom to associate with.
Banks would send black children to the homes of white people with pamphlets saying things like "you know who is moving in," warning about an imminent decline in property values due to black people moving in. Banks would come in after the pamphlets with agents who would low ball these white-owned houses, then flip them for profit by charging black people huge prices for the very same homes. It was entirely rooted in racism, no way about it.
Imagine not wanting to have someone in your neighborhood only because that person is black, without you needing to know anything else. That sole fact of their skin color makes up your mind that you don't want them in your neighborhood, without asking if they're a good person, an honest person, a friendly person.. they're simply disqualified without you asking any additional question.
You can imagine if someone doesn't want black people in their neighborhood how they might feel about their children marrying one.
I don't know how to read people's minds, so I tend to gravitate towards a functional definition of racism which measures it based on someone's action - i.e. if someone being treated in an unfair manner based on their skin color.
You can imagine if someone doesn't want black people in their neighborhood how they might feel about their children marrying one.
I don't know how to read people's minds, so I tend to gravitate towards a functional definition of racism which measures it based on someone's action - i.e. if someone being treated in an unfair manner based on their skin color.
I don't see anything wrong with that. If I move out to a place without blacks, because it's a place without blacks and I am the one that moved, why should I have to accept them following me? That's not racism. That's wanting to be left alone. It's also not unfair. Forcing someone to move is unfair. Moving out on your own and preventing people you don't like from moving in isn't unfair.
There's also a game-theoretic stalemate that you have to break with active policy change.
To the typical mid-century white homeowner, "a black family moved into the neighborhood" wasn't the beginning and end of it. There were only two equilibria: either you live in a segregated white neighborhood or you live in a predominantly black neighborhood. (I openly admit there's nothing wrong with living in a predominantly black neighborhood, but this was probably not the most common opinion among mid-century white homeowners.)
Why? Fundamentally because there was a structural shortage of good housing for black people. If most neighborhoods don't allow black residents, having a neighborhood that does allow them causes a surge of demand. Even if you're not racist enough to move out just because a single black family moved into your neighborhood, some of your neighbors are, and many of their homes will be bought by black families, which will trigger your slightly-less racist neighbors to move out, and so forth. This was deliberately encouraged by "blockbusters", who would buy homes from white families at a discount and then price-gouge the black families who ended up moving in for a massive profit. But blockbusting only works if you have the pre-existing shortage of unsegregated housing in the first place.
You end up in a feedback loop:
(a) Moderately racist white homeowners want to keep their neighborhoods segregated because otherwise they'll live in black neighborhoods. This causes:
(b) Most neighborhoods are segregated white neighborhoods, causing a housing shortage for black families. This causes:
(c) Overwhelming surges in black demand to move into any individual neighborhood that desegregates. This causes (a).
The "solution" was to immediately, globally, across-the-board, outlaw housing discrimination so the pent up housing demand can disperse. I put "solution" in quotes because most American metro areas are still extremely segregated. They might be statistically segregated by 90/10 ratios instead of the 100/0 ratios that existed before, but people have to go significantly out of their way to completely reverse it, unless there's some other economic incentive. For example, gentrification has "desegregated" lots of majority-nonwhite urban neighborhoods through the sheer force of white hipsters wanting to move into them.
To the typical mid-century white homeowner, "a black family moved into the neighborhood" wasn't the beginning and end of it. There were only two equilibria: either you live in a segregated white neighborhood or you live in a predominantly black neighborhood. (I openly admit there's nothing wrong with living in a predominantly black neighborhood, but this was probably not the most common opinion among mid-century white homeowners.)
Why? Fundamentally because there was a structural shortage of good housing for black people. If most neighborhoods don't allow black residents, having a neighborhood that does allow them causes a surge of demand. Even if you're not racist enough to move out just because a single black family moved into your neighborhood, some of your neighbors are, and many of their homes will be bought by black families, which will trigger your slightly-less racist neighbors to move out, and so forth. This was deliberately encouraged by "blockbusters", who would buy homes from white families at a discount and then price-gouge the black families who ended up moving in for a massive profit. But blockbusting only works if you have the pre-existing shortage of unsegregated housing in the first place.
You end up in a feedback loop:
(a) Moderately racist white homeowners want to keep their neighborhoods segregated because otherwise they'll live in black neighborhoods. This causes:
(b) Most neighborhoods are segregated white neighborhoods, causing a housing shortage for black families. This causes:
(c) Overwhelming surges in black demand to move into any individual neighborhood that desegregates. This causes (a).
The "solution" was to immediately, globally, across-the-board, outlaw housing discrimination so the pent up housing demand can disperse. I put "solution" in quotes because most American metro areas are still extremely segregated. They might be statistically segregated by 90/10 ratios instead of the 100/0 ratios that existed before, but people have to go significantly out of their way to completely reverse it, unless there's some other economic incentive. For example, gentrification has "desegregated" lots of majority-nonwhite urban neighborhoods through the sheer force of white hipsters wanting to move into them.
“Racism” is an overloaded term. The idea you’re describing (racial separatism) is definitely in the general category of racism.
In fact, most racism gets expressed as racial separatism. Segregation was literally racial separatism.
One problem is that this literally turns into a question of ethnic territorialism, and can easily be extended from neighborhoods to entire states (Oregon was founded as a whites-only state) to entire countries (eg the notion of sending freed slaves back to Africa, which is how Liberia was founded).
It’s also just not that hard to express even the worst racism in mere separatist terms. In fact, that’s where most racism starts.
In fact, most racism gets expressed as racial separatism. Segregation was literally racial separatism.
One problem is that this literally turns into a question of ethnic territorialism, and can easily be extended from neighborhoods to entire states (Oregon was founded as a whites-only state) to entire countries (eg the notion of sending freed slaves back to Africa, which is how Liberia was founded).
It’s also just not that hard to express even the worst racism in mere separatist terms. In fact, that’s where most racism starts.
I recommend reading Ta-Nehisi Coates on this subject. He's done terrific work on the history of redlining, and also talks about the impact of educated, successful families moving out of historically black neighborhoods.
I'll have to check that out.
> also talks about the impact of educated, successful families moving out of historically black neighborhoods
Yeah, from what else I've read, that is one of the saddest parts of the story. Economic diversity is a hugely important part of a healthy community, and it's pretty uncommon in America.
> also talks about the impact of educated, successful families moving out of historically black neighborhoods
Yeah, from what else I've read, that is one of the saddest parts of the story. Economic diversity is a hugely important part of a healthy community, and it's pretty uncommon in America.
I thought the race to suburbia was a deliberate attempt to spread out the population in case of Soviet nukes?
Though I guess there is likely more than one cause.
Though I guess there is likely more than one cause.
That's interesting. I hadn't heard of this before. The evidence is pretty well set out in Kathleen Tobin's "The Reduction of Urban Vulnerability: Revisiting 1950s American Suburbanization as Civil Defence."
https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly10/Cold.War.Urban.Vulnera...
The vast majority of proposals are from before 1956 -- i.e. before the Soviets demonstrated their own high-yield thermonuclear weapons. The degree of decentralization required to mitigate against the multi-megaton bombs of the later 1950s would have been truly staggering.
https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly10/Cold.War.Urban.Vulnera...
The vast majority of proposals are from before 1956 -- i.e. before the Soviets demonstrated their own high-yield thermonuclear weapons. The degree of decentralization required to mitigate against the multi-megaton bombs of the later 1950s would have been truly staggering.
Also I'll tell you why sprawl exists: Sound. Whether that is a car driving by or a neighbor having a party. Some people just don't want to hear shit from you, ever. It is easier to justify making work far away from home at the expense of our kid's future air quality when in one case you hear chirping birds all day, in another you hear BUMP BUMP BUMP every 2 minutes. Sound is the number one cause of stress and people don't understand that - it's actually invisible and I wish it was taken into account more than anything on this planet.
Which is another great reason to get cars out of cities. The best time to be walking in a city is during a heavy snow storm when the cars are gone. Bikes and electric buses are fairly quiet, keep those.
Sprawl exists because its cheaper to build 100 houses on 20 acres of empty land than it is to build a 100 unit apartment in an urban environment. The only sound the developer cares about is the sound of trees being cleared for more land and the sound of someones check clearing for a new build.
Subways are underground
Is this meant to contribute in some way? I honestly have no idea what this seemingly random phrase is supposed to convey.
Urban environments can often be less noisy than suburbs next to highways/freeways; due to extensive use of subway infrastructure - which moves the associated noise underground. Also, a suburban commuter spends a lot of time in a car commuting, being subjected to the very noise the parent poster is referring to.
I think that's the more minor part of the noise that the original comment was referring to. It's much easier to insulate one's detached house from suburban noise than it is to insulate one's apartment from noisy neighbors on the other side of a shared wall. It's also my experience that those noisy neighbors are a much bigger nuisance than the traffic noise in the first place.
On a tangential note, I'd be curious to know whether you have any links to back up the claim that urban environments are often less noisy. I don't disbelieve the claim outright, but it sure doesn't match my personal experience.
On a tangential note, I'd be curious to know whether you have any links to back up the claim that urban environments are often less noisy. I don't disbelieve the claim outright, but it sure doesn't match my personal experience.
I was replying specifically to the "in another you hear BUMP BUMP BUMP every 2 minutes" comment which seems to imply that trains must be above ground. In Manhattan, NYC you can hear the subway from the street and the noise pollution is awful (eg. ear-piercing sirens and traffic noise at all times), but it's not like that everywhere else.
I'm writing this from the 11th floor apartment in an apartment town suburb 30 minutes by subway from Seoul. It is dead silent. Very little traffic, and everything is walking distance. From above ground you don't hear the subway at all. Sound insulation in this apartment is pretty good so I never hear my neighbors (actually there's only 2 apartment units on each floor).
I'm writing this from the 11th floor apartment in an apartment town suburb 30 minutes by subway from Seoul. It is dead silent. Very little traffic, and everything is walking distance. From above ground you don't hear the subway at all. Sound insulation in this apartment is pretty good so I never hear my neighbors (actually there's only 2 apartment units on each floor).
> It's shocking to me how this article fails to mention even once that a lot of post WWII suburbanization was due to white flight.
I've never really understood this explanation of suburbanization.
Suppose you're a bunch of racist white folk wanting not to live near black folk. How do suburbs get you that any better than cities? What can you do to keep a black person from moving to your neighborhood in the suburbs that you can't do to keep them from moving to your neighborhood in the city?
It seems more like two phenomena that happened to occur at the same time rather than one causing the other.
Especially when at the same time the government had an explicit policy of encouraging people to move out of the cities, to reduce the damage that would be caused by a nuclear weapon.
I've never really understood this explanation of suburbanization.
Suppose you're a bunch of racist white folk wanting not to live near black folk. How do suburbs get you that any better than cities? What can you do to keep a black person from moving to your neighborhood in the suburbs that you can't do to keep them from moving to your neighborhood in the city?
It seems more like two phenomena that happened to occur at the same time rather than one causing the other.
Especially when at the same time the government had an explicit policy of encouraging people to move out of the cities, to reduce the damage that would be caused by a nuclear weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York#Discrimina...
Levittown was a quintessential model of the suburbs, one of the first examples of the suburbs we have now. Towns like this openly segregated against blacks and minorities, a dream away from the crowded city into your all white, picket fence house.
Levittown was a quintessential model of the suburbs, one of the first examples of the suburbs we have now. Towns like this openly segregated against blacks and minorities, a dream away from the crowded city into your all white, picket fence house.
That was already happening. It was called red lining, and it meant as a bank you'd only approve loans for black families if they lived within the red line drawn by the bank on the map denoting the designated black neighborhood. Banks would also do something called blockbusting. They'd send panicked pamphlets to white people in urban neighborhoods, alerting them of black people moving into their neighborhoods and the damage that this could cause on their home value (the only asset many people had at this time).
Now suburbs were being built because in 1946, suddenly there were millions of young men with a huge government subsidy to buy a house. Banks would not approve mortgages for black people in these areas, so they became predominantly white. And as a white person you are happy to be in the suburbs where you are free of all the perceived fears from decades of racially charged propaganda, and surrounded by people who also have a white boy and a white girl, a new ford, a dog and a cat, and who go to the same protestant church. It was sold as a utopia, and in the case of Detroit, white people bought that narrative so hard the city lost 1.5m from its tax base and collapsed in fewer decades than it took to grow as a metropolis in the first place. To date, Detroit has lost over 60% of is population from its all time high in 1950.
Now suburbs were being built because in 1946, suddenly there were millions of young men with a huge government subsidy to buy a house. Banks would not approve mortgages for black people in these areas, so they became predominantly white. And as a white person you are happy to be in the suburbs where you are free of all the perceived fears from decades of racially charged propaganda, and surrounded by people who also have a white boy and a white girl, a new ford, a dog and a cat, and who go to the same protestant church. It was sold as a utopia, and in the case of Detroit, white people bought that narrative so hard the city lost 1.5m from its tax base and collapsed in fewer decades than it took to grow as a metropolis in the first place. To date, Detroit has lost over 60% of is population from its all time high in 1950.
That describes the process by which black people were excluded from a neighborhood, not the process by which the neighborhoods were chosen to be in the suburbs rather than the cities.
Having recently moved to London I am a bit shocked at how poor the cycling infrastructure is. Granted, the city was never exactly planned out, but it seems to me it wouldn’t be hard to add dedicated bike paths given the fair amount of green space. Consider richmond Park as a prime location where dedicated bike-only lanes would be a great improvement. Instead you must bike along side diesel fumes on the roads that should be removed imo.
What are the primary obstacles towards improving the cycling infrastructure here?
By the way - biking here is quite different from the US. Unlike the US, I can taste the pollution. It’s a much heavier thing. Perhaps I’m not used to it, but I often find myself holding my breath to get through fumes.
What are the primary obstacles towards improving the cycling infrastructure here?
By the way - biking here is quite different from the US. Unlike the US, I can taste the pollution. It’s a much heavier thing. Perhaps I’m not used to it, but I often find myself holding my breath to get through fumes.
It's all the diesel cars. They pump out a ton of particulate matter that you don't get from petrol.
After spending a lot of time in clean mountain air, it's gotten to the point where I can taste the fumes in the air in the United States. It's noxious. I run very early in the morning before anyone starts driving to avoid it.
After spending a lot of time in
clean mountain air
Is it for economic mobility? If that's the case shouldn't you consider taking a hit in that lone aspect, for a better quality of living? I'm sure you will be gainfully employed breathing clean, crisp mountain air provided your skills are in demand. You'll just make a little less.
As someone in a similar situation, I think you're underestimating the potential economic hit. I own a house in rural Oregon, but I also work and rent an apartment in the bay area.
First of all, my house in the clean mountain air is also at the very edge of the electric grid. I have utility-provided power and telephone, but I'm so far out that the phone company won't offer me DSL at any speed. So I'm stuck with satellite internet, which really isn't suitable for remote work.
Second, almost no one offers a flat pay-scale that ignores your home address. Incredibly, this has meant that so far renting an expensive one bedroom apartment in the bay in addition to my mortgage is a much better economic decision than finding a remote job that would let me leave the bay behind.
First of all, my house in the clean mountain air is also at the very edge of the electric grid. I have utility-provided power and telephone, but I'm so far out that the phone company won't offer me DSL at any speed. So I'm stuck with satellite internet, which really isn't suitable for remote work.
Second, almost no one offers a flat pay-scale that ignores your home address. Incredibly, this has meant that so far renting an expensive one bedroom apartment in the bay in addition to my mortgage is a much better economic decision than finding a remote job that would let me leave the bay behind.
I usually drive an hour or so to spend the weekend climbing in the cascades. But during the week, I'm stuck in the city. And no, I won't quit my job to go live in the wilderness. Not yet.
>> You need to enable people to travel in non-damaging ways; cycling and walking primary.
And EVs? It will be very hard to convince anyone to get out of their cars when those cars are, potentially, less polluting than the available public transport options.
This also isn't just about commuting and pollution. There are a multitude of cultural reasons people use cars. Security is at the top of the list, the ability to be in your own locked box. You won't get people out of their cars until they are confidant in their physical security. Those parents driving their kids to work are constantly told that their kids are in danger and it is their duty as parents to maximize their children's individualized safety over all other concerns. Breaking that mindset requires far more than explaining to them why buses might be slightly faster than cars.
And EVs? It will be very hard to convince anyone to get out of their cars when those cars are, potentially, less polluting than the available public transport options.
This also isn't just about commuting and pollution. There are a multitude of cultural reasons people use cars. Security is at the top of the list, the ability to be in your own locked box. You won't get people out of their cars until they are confidant in their physical security. Those parents driving their kids to work are constantly told that their kids are in danger and it is their duty as parents to maximize their children's individualized safety over all other concerns. Breaking that mindset requires far more than explaining to them why buses might be slightly faster than cars.
No. Car is not just the "culture", car serves our need. If you are young without kids, it may not make much difference for you to ride a car, or take a bus, or a train, subway, etc. But if you have a family, it makes a huge pain without your own vehicle.
If the city of future requires families to abandon their own vehicle, it is not the correct city of future. Just design a better one.
If the city of future requires families to abandon their own vehicle, it is not the correct city of future. Just design a better one.
Millions of people around America get their kids around the neighborhood just fine without a car. If you continue to insist that cities be designed around your limited vision, then you should be forced to pay for the full externalities of your car-centric lifestyle. The rest of us are tired of paying so you can waste our resources.
You need to cite a source for that.
Infact if anything, despite the very very recent free-range kids movement to liberate kids from the dependence on parents, its the opposite - kids get ferried everywhere, from high school sports practice sessions to neighborhood store visits.
Infact if anything, despite the very very recent free-range kids movement to liberate kids from the dependence on parents, its the opposite - kids get ferried everywhere, from high school sports practice sessions to neighborhood store visits.
How do you know they are "just fine"? How do you know their feeling? Have you asked them?
> If you are young without kids, it may not make much difference for you to ride a car, or take a bus, or a train, subway, etc.
We have a toddler and a large dog. We own two electric cargo bikes and get around perfectly well without owning a car. There's car/truck sharing and rental if I really need to transport something large and heavy (> 100kg).
> Just design a better one.
I'd very much prefer if all that parking space and all that space used by 4-lane roads would be used to make the city more dense and walkable. If I can walk to the kindergarden or school, there's no need to even take a bike, if close enough a kid can even walk on their own. The only things that makes such a thing infeasible are cars.
We have a toddler and a large dog. We own two electric cargo bikes and get around perfectly well without owning a car. There's car/truck sharing and rental if I really need to transport something large and heavy (> 100kg).
> Just design a better one.
I'd very much prefer if all that parking space and all that space used by 4-lane roads would be used to make the city more dense and walkable. If I can walk to the kindergarden or school, there's no need to even take a bike, if close enough a kid can even walk on their own. The only things that makes such a thing infeasible are cars.
Maybe you live in SF? Not every city always has good weather. Cargo bikes are useless for most cities because of weather (rain, snow, winter cold, summer hot). It's useful for fun when the weather is great, but not as a main way of transportation.
I live in Berlin. It’s been raining for a week and cold. Bikes both have a canopy, I have suitable clothing. Granted, it’s less comfortable than sitting in a car, but OTOH I don’t have to go jogging after returning from work. Worst case there’s still Bus and Subway.
Cities like Oslo and Copenhagen aren’t exactly known for good weather either, but have substantial policies around clearing bikeways from snow first, before all other roads. It’s more of an infrastructure problem than anything else: good cycling infrastructure begets cyclists. Walkable cities conjur pedestrians. Look at the Dutch, living in the land of eternal sunshine and mild temperatures.
Cities like Oslo and Copenhagen aren’t exactly known for good weather either, but have substantial policies around clearing bikeways from snow first, before all other roads. It’s more of an infrastructure problem than anything else: good cycling infrastructure begets cyclists. Walkable cities conjur pedestrians. Look at the Dutch, living in the land of eternal sunshine and mild temperatures.
I would love to be able to walk or ride my bike regularly. However, in the southeastern US it’s 80F+ (27C) with 70F+ (21C) dew point for 4 months of the year. If you travel by foot or bike, you need a shower at each destination to wash off the stench and sweat. It’s so hot here, often times your clothing becomes sweaty as soon as you step outside.
I would gladly live somewhere like Denver, Seattle, or San Francisco if money and family ties to the East coast weren’t an issue. Many of the cities with comfortable climates in the US are very expensive. The remaining, affordable cities have undesirable climates.
I would gladly live somewhere like Denver, Seattle, or San Francisco if money and family ties to the East coast weren’t an issue. Many of the cities with comfortable climates in the US are very expensive. The remaining, affordable cities have undesirable climates.
How do you explain that cargo bikes are very popular with parents in Copenhagen? It's a wet windy city.
Pain starts at the third child. Ideally families should have over nine kids each. Unfortunately, we are a dying society that on average doesn't even reach replacement level of children. If you want to think about a city of the future, it might be worth thinking about whether anybody will be around living in those cities.
Many families in European cities live just fine without a car. My family never had a car and it wasn't "a huge pain".
In which country and city have you been living as a family with children?
How many? How do you know they are "just fine"? How do you know without a car wasn't "a huge pain" to your mother when you were 2 year old?
Some things with kids are easier on the bus than on the car. For instance, you can just roll a stroller onto it, rather than dealing with the car seat dance which is so particularly annoying in the winter. And once they're past the stroller phase, the kids love not being strapped down in a 5 point harness and having a parent that can interact with them rather than concentrating on driving. And the train is cool.
But of course we do have a car, so can have the best of both worlds.
I imagine that if we didn't have a car we would be using delivery a lot more often. Hard to do a Costco run without one.
I can imagine life with kids but without a car. But of course that life would heavily rely on Lyft & taxis, so is that really car free?
But of course we do have a car, so can have the best of both worlds.
I imagine that if we didn't have a car we would be using delivery a lot more often. Hard to do a Costco run without one.
I can imagine life with kids but without a car. But of course that life would heavily rely on Lyft & taxis, so is that really car free?
Yes. We can certainly survive without a car, but that life will be different.
Uber & taxis are difficult when you have small kids, because it is much easier to have carseats installed in own car.
Also it is much much easier for a family to go out for picnic, riding bicycles, swimming, or doing all sorts of outdoor activities.
Where does the difficulty lie? I lived in SF fine with a toddler, taking public transit to local places.
1 kid who does not have his own schedule is relatively easy to manage. 5 kids who need to be in different places is more difficult.
Five kids is an edge case. Besides, it's impossible to shuttle five kids to different places simultaneously by car without five parents. Not so with good public transit.
I feel that with 5 kids special provisions and certain difficulty will be necessary no matter what. You would be moving around with all children a lot less in any case. But I don't see why it's impossible to go car free; specially considering some kids will be older than others (not 5 toddlers simultaneously).
Maybe try to have kids do stuff that are compatible with the schedule then, and not the other way round.
That's not typical though, nobody is saying that specific family can go without a car.
I know families in NYC, Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, Portland, and even Pittsburgh that do great car free! It is 100% doable, even in the US.
It's a bit more difficult in Oakland if the places you are trying to get to aren't by a BART stop. The AC transit buses are slow, dirty, sometimes dangerous, and don't have 100% coverage.
I have lived in NYC for two years with 1 small kid. I know how painful it is. Many subway stations do not have an elevator, I had to carry the baby and stroller through stairs. Even with elevator, all elevators smell extremely bad. Would you call this "just fine"?
The US currently has about 50 million households with children under 18 and over 250 million cars. There is room for an 80% drop in the number of cars without families with children going car-free.
That is demonstrably not true. All over the world, people raise families just fine without cars. As a matter of fact, I saw a truly dystopian scene of a group of children, on some school outing I assume, crossing a road at a crosswalk, all holding on to a long ribbon with two flag-waving adults (teachers?) on both end.
When I was the age of these children I was walking around and crossing the streets on my own because the city I grew up didn't have such patently idiotic things as unregulated cross-walks with 30mph speed limit. But no, we'd rather risk running over children and make them walk in a chain gang, than inconvenience the metal murder/fume box people.
Where did you get the "just fine"? You read people's mind on a mass scale, Professor X?
You see plenty of families with kids making it work on public transportation. I wouldn't have seen very much baseball growing up without the train.
You can get easily insulted for proper choices. Homophobic comments on cycling and veganism are common. I rather believe that we are doomed - that we will destroy nature sufficiently for it to stop producing enough food to sustain us as species - than that we will change.
Humans tend to make changes when there are no other options... and often, after significant damage has been done. Presumably if we "stop producing enough food to sustain us", a lot of humans would die off, but some would survive on the reduced food supply, and make changes to prevent further loss of food. Bear in mind, it's incredibly unlikely that all possible human food sources die off simultaneously.
A good example of change in behavior to ensure survival, is that major powers used to go much more openly to war for territory and resources right up until those powers got the ability to utterly destroy humanity. While there are still countries who are enemies of each other, and who fight small proxy wars and the like, nobody in their right mind would stage an invasion of another major power, likely ever again.
A good example of change in behavior to ensure survival, is that major powers used to go much more openly to war for territory and resources right up until those powers got the ability to utterly destroy humanity. While there are still countries who are enemies of each other, and who fight small proxy wars and the like, nobody in their right mind would stage an invasion of another major power, likely ever again.
> nobody in their right mind
...until you have a world leader who wonders why we can't use them if we have them.
...until you have a world leader who wonders why we can't use them if we have them.
Today's environmental causes suffer from a credibility problem imposed by the mountains of failed breathless malthusian doomsday predictions from yesterday's environmental causes. I've seen the science and believe it, but the boy who cried wolf was also correct, in the end.
Please don't be a credibility problem for tomorrow's environmental causes.
Please don't be a credibility problem for tomorrow's environmental causes.
A few decades ago there were hoards of people breathlessly demanding that something be done about the hole in the ozone layer or else we're all doomed. Then we banned CFCs and now the ozone hole is starting to heal itself.
But if we hadn't banned CFCs we would have been doomed. The ozone layer actually is really important.
Now the danger is climate change and what we need is to stop burning carbon. The lesson from past experience is not that everything will be fine if we don't do anything, it's that everything will be fine if we do what is necessary. Everything will not be fine if we don't do what is necessary.
But if we hadn't banned CFCs we would have been doomed. The ozone layer actually is really important.
Now the danger is climate change and what we need is to stop burning carbon. The lesson from past experience is not that everything will be fine if we don't do anything, it's that everything will be fine if we do what is necessary. Everything will not be fine if we don't do what is necessary.
Except for your extrapolation, that's an excellent example, and it needs to be brandied about a hell of a lot more than it is because doing so builds credibility!
My high school science teacher telling me that we were running out of oil and that gas would be $10 a gallon by the time I entered the workforce did not build credibility.
This is an iterated game. The takeaway is that it's important to be right, important to not be wrong, and important to make sure people know it, not that it's important to lie your ass off (sorry, overstate your cause) in a misguided attempt to help.
My high school science teacher telling me that we were running out of oil and that gas would be $10 a gallon by the time I entered the workforce did not build credibility.
This is an iterated game. The takeaway is that it's important to be right, important to not be wrong, and important to make sure people know it, not that it's important to lie your ass off (sorry, overstate your cause) in a misguided attempt to help.
It's not helping that politicians give lip service to an existential crisis and then bury it in the bottom half of a huge agenda. At this point I'm pretty sure I'm more worried than they are.
Often what gets overlooked is the sad state of public transit even in Tier 1 global metropolises. There are far too many annoyances and outright hazards in using public transit, for individuals much less whole families with kids to boot, to list here.
So families even in Europe are opting more and more for SUVs and larger vehicles in general -- which was a total surprise to me and caught me unawares, I have to admit.
Hygiene, safety - from both the riff naff & new developing security threats, peace of mind, convenience, dependability [1][2][3] and more rider options are all major pain points.
Unless cities opt for a class-tiered approach to public transit -- the likes of first class carriages and premium waiting rooms at transit terminals, of yore -- and make public transit safe and even enjoyable to regular people I don't see this trend reversing.
[1]
BART announces what caused massive morning power outage last weekend
https://abc7news.com/traffic/bart-announces-what-caused-mass...
[2]
Single Computer Switch Failure Triggered Saturday’s BART Shut Down
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/03/11/computer-switch...
[3]
BART still unclear on cause of service outage, waiting to hear from tech support
http://www.sfexaminer.com/bart-still-unclear-cause-service-o...
So families even in Europe are opting more and more for SUVs and larger vehicles in general -- which was a total surprise to me and caught me unawares, I have to admit.
Hygiene, safety - from both the riff naff & new developing security threats, peace of mind, convenience, dependability [1][2][3] and more rider options are all major pain points.
Unless cities opt for a class-tiered approach to public transit -- the likes of first class carriages and premium waiting rooms at transit terminals, of yore -- and make public transit safe and even enjoyable to regular people I don't see this trend reversing.
[1]
BART announces what caused massive morning power outage last weekend
https://abc7news.com/traffic/bart-announces-what-caused-mass...
[2]
Single Computer Switch Failure Triggered Saturday’s BART Shut Down
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/03/11/computer-switch...
[3]
BART still unclear on cause of service outage, waiting to hear from tech support
http://www.sfexaminer.com/bart-still-unclear-cause-service-o...
Kids is actually a tough case, especially when they're infants. You actually need to haul around a bunch of stuff to take a kid out and transit is rarely design around the needs of parents. Strollers are a pain to get into a bus or train, and often worsen crowding because they're so big. And it's just not practical to have to get car seats in and out of car-shares or cabs. Even in places with well considered transit options, like urban Japan, most people who can afford to have a car prefer to get a car.
Yes and no. I’ve raised three kids in a highly urban area with good transit. It’s a lot easier to walk than deal with car seats or strollers - though it’s slow. It’also easier to hop on the bus than load up the car, and the kids think it’s a fun adventure (seriously).
That said we do have a car and also use it a lot. I think it has a lot to do with the time sensitivity. If you want to go some place and it’s not a quick walk or a straight shot on transit, or if you are going to get groceries or other bulky stuff, then yeah the car is easier.
I think, though, the idea is if you design a place such that you don’t HAVE to have a car, then cars would be driven vastly less. For us that’s true, combined my family of five drives about 7000 miles per year, much of that on road trips from the Bay Area to Tahoe or Yosemite etc.
That said we do have a car and also use it a lot. I think it has a lot to do with the time sensitivity. If you want to go some place and it’s not a quick walk or a straight shot on transit, or if you are going to get groceries or other bulky stuff, then yeah the car is easier.
I think, though, the idea is if you design a place such that you don’t HAVE to have a car, then cars would be driven vastly less. For us that’s true, combined my family of five drives about 7000 miles per year, much of that on road trips from the Bay Area to Tahoe or Yosemite etc.
>I think, though, the idea is if you design a place such that you don’t HAVE to have a car, then cars would be driven vastly less. For us that’s true, combined my family of five drives about 7000 miles per year, much of that on road trips from the Bay Area to Tahoe or Yosemite etc.
Yeah. A lot of people fear that a transit centered city means we're gonna take ALL the cars. Realistically I think most transit/urbanist advocates are aiming for a world with 1 practical car per family rather than 1 car per driving age member of the household.
Yeah. A lot of people fear that a transit centered city means we're gonna take ALL the cars. Realistically I think most transit/urbanist advocates are aiming for a world with 1 practical car per family rather than 1 car per driving age member of the household.
I'd extend this from "kids" to "dependents". Anyone trying to move a disabled person, or simply an elderly relative, will opt for private transportation. For me it is a question of reliability. If the train is cancelled, the bus is late, or the power goes out, the private car allows a degree of privacy and safety unmatched by public transport. You think changing a kids diaper on the train is bad, try it with a 150lb wheelchair-bound adult, one who may not have the mental capacity to understand why the train has stopped.
That's one reason to gently push the others into public transport and bicycles; leaves more room for those who really need a car.
Or live in an area (design and build areas) with good childcare options within walking distance. (Where "walking distance" is up to a mile away, not what Americans have gotten used to.)
Modern car seats and LATCH anchors actually make it fairly easy to bring a child car seat with you. I agree with you though, all this stuff is bulky and adds up to a lot of baggage. It makes sense to have a car for your child. But those cars create enormous problems, and car owners should be required to pay to fix them.
Modern car seats and LATCH anchors actually make it fairly easy to bring a child car seat with you. I agree with you though, all this stuff is bulky and adds up to a lot of baggage. It makes sense to have a car for your child. But those cars create enormous problems, and car owners should be required to pay to fix them.
For nearly essential services (like child care, groceries, etc.) having a population that must go to one or a few particular establishment(s) out of geographical necessity is a recipe for rent seeking and other bad behavior.
See also: food deserts
See also: food deserts
I have 5 large child care facilities in walking distance (< 15 minutes), countless smaller ones, 4 supermarket chains within 10 minutes plus all the smaller stores and I don't even live in a particular dense area of Berlin. The denser the city gets, the more options can be made available within a certain distance.
There are at least 6 supermarkets within a mile of my apartment (in Dresden, not an incredibly dense city). That's plenty of competition in practice. And many other services like child care or health care are not an issue either since those are (mostly) paid for by the state.
Where I grew up there were three Kindergartens and two supermarkets within walking distance. A short bus ride away were many more. How many options do you think are necessary to avoid the bad behavior that you fear?
Those sound like reasonable numbers. A number of options higher than 1 within walking distance is atypical in my experience.
I'm not sure, are you saying that cars promote diversity and prevent food deserts?
I find the opposite to be true. If there are lots of people walking, there will be lots of walkable services and businesses, so you tend to have a lot of choice.
Ownership of houses is usually diverse in dense walkable cities so it's really easy to just rent space at the ground floor to start a business. If you don't like it, move across the street.
Compare this to car cities. People drive their cars to malls. Malls are very much rent seeking. I've heard that they constantly increase rents of the shops so there would be churn - new shops to "keep it interesting" for the visitors.
I find the opposite to be true. If there are lots of people walking, there will be lots of walkable services and businesses, so you tend to have a lot of choice.
Ownership of houses is usually diverse in dense walkable cities so it's really easy to just rent space at the ground floor to start a business. If you don't like it, move across the street.
Compare this to car cities. People drive their cars to malls. Malls are very much rent seeking. I've heard that they constantly increase rents of the shops so there would be churn - new shops to "keep it interesting" for the visitors.
I was once told by someone close to me that “Caring for the environment is nice and all, but we’re not going to stop living for it”.
So I am not surprised by how people are acting right now.
I live in Los Angeles; The Mecca for the automobile. Back in the early 20th century, the city was trying really hard to invest in public transportation through the use of electric street cars. Unfortunately, car manufacturers were able to weasel their way into the pockets of the city planners and put a stop to that.
We have a problem in Los Angeles. And that problem is that it's almost impossible to live close to where you work. Most white collar jobs here require an hour or longer of commuting time. Sure, it's possible to find jobs closer to your home, but when you are a professional in a specific field, your choices are restricted.
I live in North Hollywood, which is just West of Burbank in the San Fernando Valley. It's actually miles from Hollywood despite what the name may suggest.
I work in El Segundo. Before that, I worked in Culver city.
It would take me 4 or more hours and several metro -> bus -> metro transfers to get to work without driving.
The city is working on several new Metro lines and Bus only lanes, but it doesn't solve the problem of everyone being so spread out.
We have a problem in Los Angeles. And that problem is that it's almost impossible to live close to where you work. Most white collar jobs here require an hour or longer of commuting time. Sure, it's possible to find jobs closer to your home, but when you are a professional in a specific field, your choices are restricted.
I live in North Hollywood, which is just West of Burbank in the San Fernando Valley. It's actually miles from Hollywood despite what the name may suggest.
I work in El Segundo. Before that, I worked in Culver city.
It would take me 4 or more hours and several metro -> bus -> metro transfers to get to work without driving.
The city is working on several new Metro lines and Bus only lanes, but it doesn't solve the problem of everyone being so spread out.
At least you work in a single place. I used to work in film/TV and public transport was never an option. Even if we weren't filming on location (ie at a place, not in a studio) the irregular working hours made it impossible. When designing public transport we have to remember that not everyone works 8->6 at a fixed location.
Today I have a nice government job at a fixed location (military) but still need my car. A couple times a month I get called in at strange hours (3am) and my boss doesn't want to hear "the buses aren't running yet".
Today I have a nice government job at a fixed location (military) but still need my car. A couple times a month I get called in at strange hours (3am) and my boss doesn't want to hear "the buses aren't running yet".
Getting to El Segundo is tough, and will be improved in a couple of years, but when you worked in Culver City you could have taken the red to expo line, it would be a little over an hour on that route, depending on how close you are to the stations.
Do you own your house? I'm curious because you speak as if "where you live" is an immutable fact, whereas my solution would to be to move closer to work.
For some people, moving isn't very easy. If you have kids there's the whole issue with switching schools, etc. If you tend to switch jobs frequently it may be a case of just getting settled and now you're in a new job.
Moving is also, for many people, a gigantic pain that they'd rather avoid, even if it means suffering through traffic every day.
Moving is also, for many people, a gigantic pain that they'd rather avoid, even if it means suffering through traffic every day.
The original comment says "it's almost impossible to live close to where you work". None of the things you mention come anywhere near the bar of "nearly impossible" in my book. As far as I can tell, it's completely possible.
I'm not sure these articles are good for my mental health. I live in Utah Valley, which has the worst air quality in the United States. I'm on the train right now as I type this, it takes twice as long for me to get to work this way but i'm trying to increase train usage. People here are just so invested in making their hour long commutes with their gigantic trucks. Trucks are ridiculously expensive even before you factor in the prohibitive cost of gas and maintenance for them. It still doesn't seem to dissuade anyone.
I'm considering protesting for more environmentally friendly city designs and transportation decisions. I could find an extremely congested intersection and protest by just pressing the walk sign and marching back and forth. Annoying, but probably effective at getting my message seen. I imagine that's the kind of protest that would get me arrested for being a nuisance.
I'm considering protesting for more environmentally friendly city designs and transportation decisions. I could find an extremely congested intersection and protest by just pressing the walk sign and marching back and forth. Annoying, but probably effective at getting my message seen. I imagine that's the kind of protest that would get me arrested for being a nuisance.
I am far from you but follow some of UT news and it seems like there is some appetite. It is a conservative stronghold that loves it's trucks, but people also love their children, and having the #1 worst air quality is an attention grabber. Not to mention on the bad days it is enough for parents to witness it affecting their children.
I don't know how to make it happen, and my local region has its own struggles with AQI we haven't yet solved, but it seems to me like you have reason to hope.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2019/02/27/lawmakers...
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900057070/guest-opinion-...
I don't know how to make it happen, and my local region has its own struggles with AQI we haven't yet solved, but it seems to me like you have reason to hope.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2019/02/27/lawmakers...
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900057070/guest-opinion-...
Utah Valley (and Salt Lake Valley) trap pollution. There's no getting away from that. But the worst air quality in the US? After Geneva Steel closed? Worse than, say, San Bernardino, where the wind tends to trap LA's smog? I'm kind of skeptical. (Or do you have hard data, which I admit that I don't?)
It can change depending on the season and weather, but it is seriously bad and hit #1 for a day in 2017. [1]
The geography does trap the pollution, but having refineries and mining operations just north of the city doesn't help. There are also loads of 18 wheel trucks coming through, since SLC is a bit of a hub area in terms of highways.
Despite the city being pretty walk-able with decent (by US standards) transit, lots of people have at least one large 4x4 vehicle to get up into the canyons. It hurts to see since I understand the appeal of outdoors activities, but this way of approaching them will degrade and ruin the outdoors long term.
[1] https://kutv.com/news/local/salt-lake-city-has-the-worst-air...
The geography does trap the pollution, but having refineries and mining operations just north of the city doesn't help. There are also loads of 18 wheel trucks coming through, since SLC is a bit of a hub area in terms of highways.
Despite the city being pretty walk-able with decent (by US standards) transit, lots of people have at least one large 4x4 vehicle to get up into the canyons. It hurts to see since I understand the appeal of outdoors activities, but this way of approaching them will degrade and ruin the outdoors long term.
[1] https://kutv.com/news/local/salt-lake-city-has-the-worst-air...
It's been in the news many times. I'm not sure if they have the highest average levels or the most #1 days, but they top the chart periodically through winter.
Cool little post by Mr Money Mustache about a twitter post he put out describing a future city without cars. Media picked it up as reality, pretty funny stuff.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2019/02/27/how-to-create-real...
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2019/02/27/how-to-create-real...
I see it less about eliminating cars (though that would be awesome if possible) and more about giving people alternatives (public transit, walking), which you don't have in American suburbia.
Much of the rest of the world has already figured it out. I'm in a "suburb" of Seoul right now. I can get to Gangnam in 30 minutes door to door via the subway (subway ticket is ~$2 each way). I'm a short walk (< 5 mins) to grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, etc. It's all apartments here, which is why everything is so walkable. Of course this means less space than a house, but it's quiet and there are plenty of parks/green and a big lake nearby (5-10 minute walk).
Meanwhile back at my parents' house in the suburbs of Washington DC, the closest commercial business I can walk to is a gas station 20 minutes away, next to an ugly car-ridden highway. The nearest grocery store would require crossing that wide road and walking an additional 10-15 minutes through a massive parking lot. There is no viable public transport - if I want to take the subway into DC I need to drive 15 minutes to the nearest subway station (subway ticket is ~$5-8 I believe). Although my immediate neighborhood is very nice in the sense that there are a lot of trees, there actually aren't any parks (unless you count the local elementary school) or businesses of any form, including simple convenience stores (something I noticed is commonplace in most of the rest of the world).
Everytime I'm at my parents' house I'm completely dependent on having a vehicle to do anything, and bored out of my mind within about a week because it's extraordinarily isolating. I get very little exercise because I end up just staying in my house all day because there's little to do. On the other hand I can be in "city"-like suburbs like the one I'm in now and not feel lonely even if I don't talk to anyone because I can just step outside and there are people everywhere, or go walk to one of the million coffee shops nearby that are always packed with people hanging out.
I despise American suburbs. Who decided that the "American Dream" is owning a single-family home in the suburbs? I guess I'm just not enough of a hermit to enjoy that lifestyle.
Much of the rest of the world has already figured it out. I'm in a "suburb" of Seoul right now. I can get to Gangnam in 30 minutes door to door via the subway (subway ticket is ~$2 each way). I'm a short walk (< 5 mins) to grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, etc. It's all apartments here, which is why everything is so walkable. Of course this means less space than a house, but it's quiet and there are plenty of parks/green and a big lake nearby (5-10 minute walk).
Meanwhile back at my parents' house in the suburbs of Washington DC, the closest commercial business I can walk to is a gas station 20 minutes away, next to an ugly car-ridden highway. The nearest grocery store would require crossing that wide road and walking an additional 10-15 minutes through a massive parking lot. There is no viable public transport - if I want to take the subway into DC I need to drive 15 minutes to the nearest subway station (subway ticket is ~$5-8 I believe). Although my immediate neighborhood is very nice in the sense that there are a lot of trees, there actually aren't any parks (unless you count the local elementary school) or businesses of any form, including simple convenience stores (something I noticed is commonplace in most of the rest of the world).
Everytime I'm at my parents' house I'm completely dependent on having a vehicle to do anything, and bored out of my mind within about a week because it's extraordinarily isolating. I get very little exercise because I end up just staying in my house all day because there's little to do. On the other hand I can be in "city"-like suburbs like the one I'm in now and not feel lonely even if I don't talk to anyone because I can just step outside and there are people everywhere, or go walk to one of the million coffee shops nearby that are always packed with people hanging out.
I despise American suburbs. Who decided that the "American Dream" is owning a single-family home in the suburbs? I guess I'm just not enough of a hermit to enjoy that lifestyle.
This is one of the reasons the self-driving craze in tech is so silly: We have vehicles you can commute in and not drive called public transit. Self-driving cars is desire for public transit that doesn't have your rich self sitting next to a poor person on the way to work.
Or you know people that value their time...
For me to use Public Transport here would increase my commute time to work by order of magnitude, not to mention all the places I go weekly that is not on a public transit stop or would require multiple line hops and be many times more time consuming than if I just drove directly their in my own personal vehicle
Public transport only works in area with High Population Density
For me to use Public Transport here would increase my commute time to work by order of magnitude, not to mention all the places I go weekly that is not on a public transit stop or would require multiple line hops and be many times more time consuming than if I just drove directly their in my own personal vehicle
Public transport only works in area with High Population Density
There is probably a ton of room for improvement and disruptive innovation in public transit, in terms of improving speed, available endpoints, etc.
It's true public transit will never really be valuable for extremely rural areas, but we should be working to ensure that in anywhere there's a significant quantity of people, that public transit is the cheapest and most convenient way to travel. Public transit isn't going to win by banning cars, it's going to need to win by improving lives.
It's true public transit will never really be valuable for extremely rural areas, but we should be working to ensure that in anywhere there's a significant quantity of people, that public transit is the cheapest and most convenient way to travel. Public transit isn't going to win by banning cars, it's going to need to win by improving lives.
I can't imagine how bad public transport must be to increase your commute time by an order of magnitude. I use public transport precisely because I value my time - it takes longer(around x1.5) than using a car, but that time is relaxing, can be used to read a book, listen to a podcast or just order your thoughts. Time spent in a car is stressful and requires your focus and attention.
I'm not sure what kind of population density you need to make public transport workable, but it's a blessing when you have it available. There's some sample math at the end of this article(https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density/ - technical appendix) which concludes that you don't really need that high a density(it focuses on Melbourne), as long as people actually prefer to use the public transport service over their own cars.
I'm not sure what kind of population density you need to make public transport workable, but it's a blessing when you have it available. There's some sample math at the end of this article(https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density/ - technical appendix) which concludes that you don't really need that high a density(it focuses on Melbourne), as long as people actually prefer to use the public transport service over their own cars.
Crappy public transit is pretty common in the Bay Area.
Looking at my own home in the South Bay.
My 10 mile commute takes 15 minutes driving.
By public transit, it's walk five minutes to light rail, wait ten minutes, ride 50 minutes, transfer, wait ten minutes for the next bus, ride 15 minutes, walk 10 minutes.
Admittedly, 7x isn't quite an order of magnitude, but close enough.
I really don't see anyway to get busses economical down here unless you had much more traffic and higher density.
Looking at my own home in the South Bay.
My 10 mile commute takes 15 minutes driving.
By public transit, it's walk five minutes to light rail, wait ten minutes, ride 50 minutes, transfer, wait ten minutes for the next bus, ride 15 minutes, walk 10 minutes.
Admittedly, 7x isn't quite an order of magnitude, but close enough.
I really don't see anyway to get busses economical down here unless you had much more traffic and higher density.
Not really bad public transport, but we have no traffic.
For me to go to work on the bus route I have to go pretty far away from my home to then work my way back due to the way the bus route flows.
or I can get in my car, drive to 10 mins traffic free, and be a work
Around here people use Public Transport because they have no other means of travel, not because on congestion or anything else
For me to go to work on the bus route I have to go pretty far away from my home to then work my way back due to the way the bus route flows.
or I can get in my car, drive to 10 mins traffic free, and be a work
Around here people use Public Transport because they have no other means of travel, not because on congestion or anything else
It depends on local details. In most large cities public transit assumes you live in the suburbs and work downtown. Jobs are moving to the suburbs, to get to them means a ride downtown, and then a ride back out. I know of people with a 4 mile commute who drive (why they don't bike is a good question) because they bus ride would be 3 hours each way.
As a Chicago native, I can definitely see a case for like a north-south suburban Metra line, being potentially amazing. But our rail system primarily piggybacks on freight lines which all are concerned about going to/from Chicago proper.
I don't feel buses are nearly as productive because of traffic. There are some nifty routes around Chicago where buses are allowed to drive the shoulder in traffic jams, and hence, do better than cars on travel time, but the north-south suburban expressway doesn't have that arrangement.
I don't feel buses are nearly as productive because of traffic. There are some nifty routes around Chicago where buses are allowed to drive the shoulder in traffic jams, and hence, do better than cars on travel time, but the north-south suburban expressway doesn't have that arrangement.
I think the issue is that public transportation is rarely point to point.
A point to point self-driving transportation capsule could be more efficient and be better utilized than public transportation.
Point to point is by definition wasteful. Look at how goods are moved around the globe: it's always hub and spoke because that's what works best rather than an infinite number of dedicated routes. Walk on foot, bike, skateboard, take a bird or lime to a hub and you remove a ton of engineering headaches. You could have the hub to hub route be completely isolated from traffic and pedestrians and many of the highly publicized issues with self driving cars would be eliminated with zero engineering required. But lets keep wasting time and effort figuring out how to make an uber you don't have to talk to during your ride instead.
The hub-and-spoke model is great for moving goods (and people) between cities, but you'll note that pickup and final delivery are still handled by fleets of trucks. Mass transit is well-suited for routes shared by masses of people with minimal luggage all wanting to transit on the same schedule; point-to-point transportation is needed to handle the rest.
What's really wasteful is using point-to-point transit for a task better suited for mass transit—or vice-versa.
What's really wasteful is using point-to-point transit for a task better suited for mass transit—or vice-versa.
[deleted]
Until there’s a politically viable solution to homelessness, reasonable people are going to prefer spaces with basic socioeconomic filters like “doesn’t reek of urine” and “isn’t obviously an untreated mentally ill hard drug user.”
Exposure to human feces is a legitimate factor in transportation mode choice right up there with cost and door to door time. We are all worse off for transit advocates’ side dismissals of its role.
Exposure to human feces is a legitimate factor in transportation mode choice right up there with cost and door to door time. We are all worse off for transit advocates’ side dismissals of its role.
I'd much rather have my own self-driving climate-controlled more private space filled with my own stuff than be packed into a subway or bus every day, yes.
I’d argue that cities will shrink over time. It’s going to become easier for people to live in rural areas. I don’t think there is some magic formula to manage the inevitable congestion (not just traffic).
Edit: It’d also be interesting to see the environmental impact of mega cities. And what about cities like Portland where they have put in a lot effort to plan around growth? Is it working?
Edit: It’d also be interesting to see the environmental impact of mega cities. And what about cities like Portland where they have put in a lot effort to plan around growth? Is it working?
It's not happening though.
My parents live in a beautiful part of the rural UK and have super-fast fibre to the premises internet, next day Amazon prime available, online food shopping from 4 or so supermarkets locally, etc.
Basically everything you'd think you'd need to live away from the city, but still the area is depopulating rapidly.
Younger people don't want a life of car dependancy and social isolation.
My parents live in a beautiful part of the rural UK and have super-fast fibre to the premises internet, next day Amazon prime available, online food shopping from 4 or so supermarkets locally, etc.
Basically everything you'd think you'd need to live away from the city, but still the area is depopulating rapidly.
Younger people don't want a life of car dependancy and social isolation.
> Younger people don't want a life of car dependency and social isolation.
When I moved from my families acreage that was 10 minutes out of town it wasn't because of social isolation or car dependence - it was because I couldn't get an post-secondary education in my community. Even if I hadn't gone for an education, there was a ton more employment opportunities in the urban centre. I stayed in the city because "junior software developer" is a super hard sell in a town of 2,500. Now that I've more experience I could probably swing the "work remote" thing, but it just wasn't an option starting my career.
When I moved from my families acreage that was 10 minutes out of town it wasn't because of social isolation or car dependence - it was because I couldn't get an post-secondary education in my community. Even if I hadn't gone for an education, there was a ton more employment opportunities in the urban centre. I stayed in the city because "junior software developer" is a super hard sell in a town of 2,500. Now that I've more experience I could probably swing the "work remote" thing, but it just wasn't an option starting my career.
Ah yeah I didn't mention employment which is clearly the biggest barrier at the moment to living outside urban areas, as I assumed the parent comment was suggesting remote working is what will enable moving away from big cities.
Not a "younger person" here, but I don't want a life of car dependency and social isolation either.
But small town life (ours has pop. around 5000-ish) is pretty good! We have the high street (and a modest-sized supermarket) within 10 minutes walk, a variety of community activities to be involved in, and nature (including protected reserves) pretty much on our doorstep.
And most days, the car doesn't leave the driveway. The area isn't "depopulating rapidly", like many more remote rural areas; the challenge, rather, is to manage growth such that the community is not overwhelmed by it.
But small town life (ours has pop. around 5000-ish) is pretty good! We have the high street (and a modest-sized supermarket) within 10 minutes walk, a variety of community activities to be involved in, and nature (including protected reserves) pretty much on our doorstep.
And most days, the car doesn't leave the driveway. The area isn't "depopulating rapidly", like many more remote rural areas; the challenge, rather, is to manage growth such that the community is not overwhelmed by it.
Social isolation is everything. In a city not only are there a lot of existing things to do, a restaurant or bar might only be around for a couple years if it's bad and the commercial space is in demand, so a new exciting thing comes to fill the space rather than a "for lease" sign for decades like you'd see in a sparse area.
Take a look at a typical suburb. Where do you even walk? Sometimes the complexes wind and wind a mile or two before you hit the exit of the suburb, a 45 mph road with no sidewalks. Then it's another 2-3 miles until you hit the strip mall, then 500yds of parking lot before you hit the door of the apple bees. There's not even any greenery to enjoy, all the woods have been clear cut for housing or agriculture; living at low density like that scars the environment for miles. I'd take dial up and packages available in 40 days to ensure I'm at a safe arms length from suburban bleakness.
Take a look at a typical suburb. Where do you even walk? Sometimes the complexes wind and wind a mile or two before you hit the exit of the suburb, a 45 mph road with no sidewalks. Then it's another 2-3 miles until you hit the strip mall, then 500yds of parking lot before you hit the door of the apple bees. There's not even any greenery to enjoy, all the woods have been clear cut for housing or agriculture; living at low density like that scars the environment for miles. I'd take dial up and packages available in 40 days to ensure I'm at a safe arms length from suburban bleakness.
It seems to be happening in Canada. The latest official population figures are, unfortunately, from way back in 2016, however at that time the numbers showed that communities with more than 100,000 people were already losing share of population. If we can use home sales data (activity and price) as a proxy for where people are living more recently, there has been a sharp decline in Canada's cities in the last year. At the same time, predominately rural areas have seen a huge spike. This suggests that the trend that was already becoming visible in 2016 has only accelerated.
It is not like whole cities have decided to leave overnight, but there is a noticeable shift going on.
It is not like whole cities have decided to leave overnight, but there is a noticeable shift going on.
I'm curious what statistics you are looking at.
I honestly would be shocked if rural regions were growing in Canada, and the stats you were looking at were more a story of urbanization taking over formerly exurban or rural small towns in a metro region. I guess the oil and gas regions might be an exception there.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271208/urbanization-in-c...
From my perspective, the Golden Horseshoe from Toronto to the Niagara region has been intensifying non-stop for decades and is unrecognizable from 30 years ago. Skyscrapers and condos in former low density suburbs inside the greenbelt, and townhouses and plazas in former farm communities outside it. It's now almost continuously developed down to Niagara Falls. You might have called them rural two decades ago but at this point they're solidly in the GTA.
I honestly would be shocked if rural regions were growing in Canada, and the stats you were looking at were more a story of urbanization taking over formerly exurban or rural small towns in a metro region. I guess the oil and gas regions might be an exception there.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271208/urbanization-in-c...
From my perspective, the Golden Horseshoe from Toronto to the Niagara region has been intensifying non-stop for decades and is unrecognizable from 30 years ago. Skyscrapers and condos in former low density suburbs inside the greenbelt, and townhouses and plazas in former farm communities outside it. It's now almost continuously developed down to Niagara Falls. You might have called them rural two decades ago but at this point they're solidly in the GTA.
> I'm curious what statistics you are looking at.
Population data is provided by the Census conducted by Statistics Canada. Housing data is from the Housing Market Stats provided by CREA.
> I honestly would be shocked if rural regions were growing in Canada
For some perspective, Canada defines urban as 1,000 or more population with a population density of 400. Everything else is rural. This may be surprising as many consider a small farming village with 1,000 people to be rural, but officially such a community can be considered urban.
All regions, including large cities and rural areas, are growing in absolute numbers. My above comment was speaking in relative terms, where population centres with more than 100,000 people now represent a smaller portion of the population than in years past.
Were we have seen the most growth is in communities with 1,000 to 29,999 people. Technically urban, but probably rural from the perspective of the comments above. Such communities are certainly not what most would call cities.
> From my perspective, the Golden Horseshoe from Toronto to the Niagara region has been intensifying non-stop for decades and is unrecognizable from 30 years ago.
I see the same thing, but I would argue that the "Rural Renaissance", as CBC put it in a recent article about this shift, is relatively recent. The early signs were only starting to become visible in 2016 data, and I would suggest that only in the last year or so that the housing data has flipped. Much of that build-out you speak of happened over the last 30 years when cities were growing by leaps and bounds.
I will reiterate that all communities types are gaining population in absolute numbers as Canada's population grows. What has changed is people are more likely to take an interest in communities that are not large cities, which is a change in behaviour to previous decades.
Population data is provided by the Census conducted by Statistics Canada. Housing data is from the Housing Market Stats provided by CREA.
> I honestly would be shocked if rural regions were growing in Canada
For some perspective, Canada defines urban as 1,000 or more population with a population density of 400. Everything else is rural. This may be surprising as many consider a small farming village with 1,000 people to be rural, but officially such a community can be considered urban.
All regions, including large cities and rural areas, are growing in absolute numbers. My above comment was speaking in relative terms, where population centres with more than 100,000 people now represent a smaller portion of the population than in years past.
Were we have seen the most growth is in communities with 1,000 to 29,999 people. Technically urban, but probably rural from the perspective of the comments above. Such communities are certainly not what most would call cities.
> From my perspective, the Golden Horseshoe from Toronto to the Niagara region has been intensifying non-stop for decades and is unrecognizable from 30 years ago.
I see the same thing, but I would argue that the "Rural Renaissance", as CBC put it in a recent article about this shift, is relatively recent. The early signs were only starting to become visible in 2016 data, and I would suggest that only in the last year or so that the housing data has flipped. Much of that build-out you speak of happened over the last 30 years when cities were growing by leaps and bounds.
I will reiterate that all communities types are gaining population in absolute numbers as Canada's population grows. What has changed is people are more likely to take an interest in communities that are not large cities, which is a change in behaviour to previous decades.
I think there's a chance that remote working might really take off. From a cost-saving perspective it makes so much sense - we already went from offices -> open plan, if we go from open plan -> remote being the new norm, suddenly there will be jobs everywhere, and that will change everything
Not every job can be remote if people need shared equipment or resources. There's a lot of intangible benefits to having everyone working nearby. I get a lot of help from people just because they are nearby and I can ask them a question about something or their advice, and I think that alone outweighs for me being able to sit on my couch in sweatpants with my laptop.
I thought the same thing when the internet was emerging but the opposite happened.
The problem with your prediction is that it will also become easier to live in cities. AV's will reduce the need in cities for land allocated to parking. I can see this first hand in my neighborhood in Queens. It's becoming far easier to live without a car and population density is increasing at a rapid rate.
The problem with your prediction is that it will also become easier to live in cities. AV's will reduce the need in cities for land allocated to parking. I can see this first hand in my neighborhood in Queens. It's becoming far easier to live without a car and population density is increasing at a rapid rate.
[deleted]
All valid points. I understand because I lived in NYC for most of my life but it’s become really congested in the past decade. Sure, there are still conveniences of living in Manhattan but some of that can now be experienced in smaller cities. My main argument is that it’s physically impossible to solve the extreme density problem. People still need to go to work during the day and eat around the same time, etc.
In NYC the extreme density is currently spreading out to Jersey, Williamsburg and Long Island city. high rises are going up in all of these areas at a rapid rate.
> People still need to go to work during the day and eat around the same time, etc.
Off the top of my head I can think of a few ways this problem is currently being solved:
1. Many restaurants are changing their business model to cater for entire companies.
2. Seamless and Square have enabled restaurants to operate with smaller storefronts or no storefronts at all. They prepare as much as possible in warehouses outside of manhattan and use their storefronts for the final assembly.
3. I recently signed up for a startup, Mealpal, which allows you to buy a preset number of meals per month and pick them up at any number of restaurants. No lines, no waiting, just walk into the restaurant and pick up your meal.
Startups have been addressing urban needs faster than rural and I don't see why that is likely to change anytime soon.
> People still need to go to work during the day and eat around the same time, etc.
Off the top of my head I can think of a few ways this problem is currently being solved:
1. Many restaurants are changing their business model to cater for entire companies.
2. Seamless and Square have enabled restaurants to operate with smaller storefronts or no storefronts at all. They prepare as much as possible in warehouses outside of manhattan and use their storefronts for the final assembly.
3. I recently signed up for a startup, Mealpal, which allows you to buy a preset number of meals per month and pick them up at any number of restaurants. No lines, no waiting, just walk into the restaurant and pick up your meal.
Startups have been addressing urban needs faster than rural and I don't see why that is likely to change anytime soon.
If our species is to survive this century we have to get out of our cars. There is no way to sustainably build billions of electric cars- we need to consider that our existing ICE fleet needs to simply be retired and not replaced. Cars are one of the ultimate symbols of the consumption that needs to end if we are to address climate change. Between the asphalt and concrete needed to build infrastructure for them to the plastics, rubber, and metals used to manufacture them cars are rolling ecological disasters.
I'd love to have a shared car pool situation with an automatic driver booked via an app that takes me door to door with say 5 minutes notice for a short trip (say upto 5 miles), and half hour notice for a longer trip (say upto 50 miles), and maybe 5 hours notice for a 500 mile trip. One that's clean, reliable, has appropiate child seats.
That's not happening in the next 20 years. My country is still going down the protectionism route when it comes to the taxi industry.
The child seats is the problem though -- as an adult in a city I can easily hail an uber or whatever to get me where I want to go. With kids in tow I'm limited to mass transit, as I can't rely on getting a cab with 2 car seats that will fit. This itself limits the amount of stuff I can take and places I can go.
Perhaps if I had no need for local trips (like yesterday when we went to a canal-side pub 4 miles away for dinner) I could live with simply renting a car for the larger trips -- but to rent a car it involves a walk to the station, an hourly train into the large town, then walk to the car rental place -- all between 8AM and 6PM, then do the reverse on monday morning to drop it off.
That's not happening in the next 20 years. My country is still going down the protectionism route when it comes to the taxi industry.
The child seats is the problem though -- as an adult in a city I can easily hail an uber or whatever to get me where I want to go. With kids in tow I'm limited to mass transit, as I can't rely on getting a cab with 2 car seats that will fit. This itself limits the amount of stuff I can take and places I can go.
Perhaps if I had no need for local trips (like yesterday when we went to a canal-side pub 4 miles away for dinner) I could live with simply renting a car for the larger trips -- but to rent a car it involves a walk to the station, an hourly train into the large town, then walk to the car rental place -- all between 8AM and 6PM, then do the reverse on monday morning to drop it off.
You can't rent an uber XL?
Not one with two car seats.
So why not buy the car seats then rent an uber XL?
Then you have to lug the car seats round with you wherever you are.
Say I want to go to London for a weekend. It's a bit too far for the kids to walk to the local station (especially if it's raining), so we drive to the mainline station, leave the car, and the car seats, in the carpark.
With a taxi I'd have to 1) Hope the seats fit in the taxi 2) Take them on the train (store them where?) 3) lug them on the tube (including a change at Green Park or Bank or somewhere) 4) Go straight to the hotel and check in
Say I want to go to London for a weekend. It's a bit too far for the kids to walk to the local station (especially if it's raining), so we drive to the mainline station, leave the car, and the car seats, in the carpark.
With a taxi I'd have to 1) Hope the seats fit in the taxi 2) Take them on the train (store them where?) 3) lug them on the tube (including a change at Green Park or Bank or somewhere) 4) Go straight to the hotel and check in
Any solution which requires people to give up convenience in the name of saving the environment is dead on arrival. This is human nature, we have never before managed to conserve our way out of a problem, we innovate our way out of it or we will die trying.
I wonder if we can get people out of cars unless cities themselves are completely redesigned. We committed ourselves to a harmful design pattern but unfortunately everyone is heavily invested in it. Need to have a city design that will work, and then draw up a series of implementation steps to move existing cities to the new design. Would require a ton of central planning/control though, doubtful we could pull it off unless things got drastically worse to motivate people.
Well said! I'm glad someone understands humanity.
Public transit generally uses all the same materials, just less of them.
Hi HN! I'm the Director of Engineering at UrbanFootprint (https://urbanfootprint.com/), one of the companies featured in the National Geographic article. Peter Calthorpe is a cofounder of the company. The El Camino corridor is highlighted at the beginning of the National Geographic article. If you want to dig into more details on that please take a look at our blog post on the topic from last year (https://urbanfootprint.com/can-one-street-solve-the-san-fran...).
At UrbanFootprint, we provide data and tools for urban planners to assess and compare the impacts of land use and transportation decisions. A basic use case is a city updating its General Plan, which would start with a forecast of how much population growth is anticipated / needs to be accommodated. A planner then needs to assess where new residents will live, work, shop, and play. Perhaps even more essential, how are people going to travel between all of these activities? Will the new growth be auto-dependent, transit-focused, walkable? Is any of the existing or planned development in hazard areas such as flood of wildfire? What are the energy and water use impacts of the plans?
We’re using Python and Postgres/PostGIS on the backend to answer these questions and a React SPA to serve it up and make it interactive in a browser. It's a lot of fun getting our hands dirty with data describing the physical world in which we live in now, in addition to modeling the future of cities.
If this type of work interests you please get in touch - email me at [email protected]. I'm always interested in hearing from folks who want to use technology to improve cities.
At UrbanFootprint, we provide data and tools for urban planners to assess and compare the impacts of land use and transportation decisions. A basic use case is a city updating its General Plan, which would start with a forecast of how much population growth is anticipated / needs to be accommodated. A planner then needs to assess where new residents will live, work, shop, and play. Perhaps even more essential, how are people going to travel between all of these activities? Will the new growth be auto-dependent, transit-focused, walkable? Is any of the existing or planned development in hazard areas such as flood of wildfire? What are the energy and water use impacts of the plans?
We’re using Python and Postgres/PostGIS on the backend to answer these questions and a React SPA to serve it up and make it interactive in a browser. It's a lot of fun getting our hands dirty with data describing the physical world in which we live in now, in addition to modeling the future of cities.
If this type of work interests you please get in touch - email me at [email protected]. I'm always interested in hearing from folks who want to use technology to improve cities.
Cars are not the cause of the issue with cities, cars are symptom of bad zoning and regulation which more times than not prevents owners of property from doing what they want.
when every new building requires effectively bring special interest groups, politicians, regulatory boards, and unions, their due is it a surprise cities are not getting better.
they are serving a politically connected elite, not the people who live there or want to live there.
when every new building requires effectively bring special interest groups, politicians, regulatory boards, and unions, their due is it a surprise cities are not getting better.
they are serving a politically connected elite, not the people who live there or want to live there.
In cites like Los Angeles, cars are part of a feedback loop which makes them both symptom and cause.
Los Angeles is low-density partly because it spends lots of land on roads and parking lots. It needs lots of roads and parking lots because everyone drives. And everyone drives because the city is low density.
Los Angeles is low-density partly because it spends lots of land on roads and parking lots. It needs lots of roads and parking lots because everyone drives. And everyone drives because the city is low density.
The solution is to bite the bullet and build the rails. They didn't build highways to already existing suburbs in the valley or where wildfires have been roasting for 100s of years; those things popped up because the land was empty and the highway made building possible. If you build the rails and zone the area by the rail for density, a developer looking to drop a 15 story apartment is going to want to put it by the rail. Even better if you nix the rule about having to build parking if they build close enough to the rail. You can't do anything without the rail being built first.
The solution to bite the bullet though is economic incentive - tax driving more, eliminate parking, etc. The pain should come first; otherwise, why would anyone (in sufficient numbers) bite the bullet?
I agree. Cars are a solution to a (set of) problem. Remove the problem(s), remove the cars.
Cars, also, not really that big of a problem in themselves. Commuting is the problem. This is a symptom of depressed wages; people are willing to spend extra time (commute) in place of extra money (rent).
Cars, also, not really that big of a problem in themselves. Commuting is the problem. This is a symptom of depressed wages; people are willing to spend extra time (commute) in place of extra money (rent).
People are willing to spend time on the car commute because zoning won't allow you a good job to exist within walking distance of a house. Shopping isn't allowed within walking distance of either of the above either. We are back to square one: zoning won't allow anything other than car oriented lifestyles.
It is a self reinforcing vicious cycle. You can break it anywhere. I recommend started with breaking zoning because it is least painful. If you eliminate cars people who currently depend on cars will be in trouble since they cannot live their life. Eliminate the need far cars is a much slower thing that won't have any noticeable affect for 20 years, but it is a much less painful transition.
It is a self reinforcing vicious cycle. You can break it anywhere. I recommend started with breaking zoning because it is least painful. If you eliminate cars people who currently depend on cars will be in trouble since they cannot live their life. Eliminate the need far cars is a much slower thing that won't have any noticeable affect for 20 years, but it is a much less painful transition.
I think the system will eventually collapse under it's own weight. When enough people have 'had enough.'
First step is to eliminate eminent domain. More infrastructure only begets more people using said infrastructure. When the many can't take from the few, they might actually have to give up some of their luxuries to have what they want (eg, a place to work).
First step is to eliminate eminent domain. More infrastructure only begets more people using said infrastructure. When the many can't take from the few, they might actually have to give up some of their luxuries to have what they want (eg, a place to work).
I'd like to offer the argument that automakers/sellers are a "special interest group" who has had an outsized impact on the shape of american cities for the past century.
Why is this the top comment? It hasn't been edited. I can't even decipher it.
> prevents owners of property from doing what they want
As someone who has, in the past, been a neighbor to an unofficial junkyard (unzoned land), and as a person who currently only has houses for neighbors (zoned) thank god people can't do whatever they want.
As someone who has, in the past, been a neighbor to an unofficial junkyard (unzoned land), and as a person who currently only has houses for neighbors (zoned) thank god people can't do whatever they want.
There’s a middle ground between living next to a landfill and living a city that has been so completely ossified by zoning that no new housing can be built.
Sure, but that middle ground is not, as the OP suggested, no zoning whatsoever.
That middle ground would be a responsive government that well represents the desires of it's citizens.
People who merely want to live somewhere don't yet have a voice in how that place is governed. This is good. Gov't should represent the interests of the citizens in it's jurisdiction.
No, it shouldn't, because then you get the problem most cities in America have: too many commuters creating too much traffic, and not enough high-density housing. SanFran is the poster child for this.
A better method is what they have in Japan, where local government has almost no power at all to control how land is used.
A better method is what they have in Japan, where local government has almost no power at all to control how land is used.
In Orson Welles' classic film, "The Magnficent Ambersons", one of the original inventors of the automobile predicts the changes, many negative, that the automobile will bring to civilization. Almost exactly 100 years later it sounds quite prescient:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTTF2QIHDCM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTTF2QIHDCM
This link was once on HN
The Real Reason Your City Has No Money
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...
The Real Reason Your City Has No Money
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...
Most cities don't need cars. It's already like this you don't need to go to the future.
Suburban layouts were actually the new thing that came after cities. The reason why we need cars is because of suburbia. For suburbia to function you have to live very far away from work and in very very low density neighborhoods where public transportation is virtually impossible to build. See Los Angeles.
Suburban layouts were actually the new thing that came after cities. The reason why we need cars is because of suburbia. For suburbia to function you have to live very far away from work and in very very low density neighborhoods where public transportation is virtually impossible to build. See Los Angeles.
My City is double decking highways all the while building zero new rail and or bike lanes.
They are doubling down on stupid.
They are doubling down on stupid.
They are doubling down on what a lot of their population wants. A lot of what gets left out of the discussion of cities in the US is that tons of people have no interest in public transportation due to bad experiences or preconceived notions.
People need examples of good public transportation in the US beyond NYC or Chicago because those cities come with a lot of other baggage (high taxes, high rent, high CoL in general). Without an example, it looks to a suburbanite like the trade off is they lose their yard and 75% of the square footage of their home for less flexibility and a dirty transportation experience.
These people do not marvel at the efficiency of the Yamamote line as people are shoved in by train operators during rush hour. They hug the steering wheels of their luxurious personal space SUVs.
What makes it worse is that prominent politicians in the US on the side promoting public transport don’t bother to use it when slightly inconvenient (e.g. the “scandal” of AOC using a minivan when she could have taken a subway). Even people on the “left” aren’t leading by example.
People need examples of good public transportation in the US beyond NYC or Chicago because those cities come with a lot of other baggage (high taxes, high rent, high CoL in general). Without an example, it looks to a suburbanite like the trade off is they lose their yard and 75% of the square footage of their home for less flexibility and a dirty transportation experience.
These people do not marvel at the efficiency of the Yamamote line as people are shoved in by train operators during rush hour. They hug the steering wheels of their luxurious personal space SUVs.
What makes it worse is that prominent politicians in the US on the side promoting public transport don’t bother to use it when slightly inconvenient (e.g. the “scandal” of AOC using a minivan when she could have taken a subway). Even people on the “left” aren’t leading by example.
AOC is mobbed like a celeb when in public and has received death threats online, yet you fault her for no longer taking the subway?
Regarding realistic trade-offs: I live in Seattle in a 1200 sq ft townhome. I commute 20-25 mins on public transit (where I read or otherwise zone out). For what I pay in rent, I could move to the suburbs and get a 2000 sq ft house. But that comes with a stressful 60 min commute in traffic and $15 a day for parking.
Regarding realistic trade-offs: I live in Seattle in a 1200 sq ft townhome. I commute 20-25 mins on public transit (where I read or otherwise zone out). For what I pay in rent, I could move to the suburbs and get a 2000 sq ft house. But that comes with a stressful 60 min commute in traffic and $15 a day for parking.
Funny how the loudest voices in these sorts of articles are always from places with temperate weather.
I'm loudly anti-car and I live in Scotland. Honestly, when it comes to weather most people are pathetic. A bit of cold/rain won't kill you, just need gloves and a light waterproof later.
I walked or cycled miles to school my whole life in one of the wettest areas of Europe. Parents need to toughen up, wrap their kids up, refuse to give them lifts and kick them out the door.
I walked or cycled miles to school my whole life in one of the wettest areas of Europe. Parents need to toughen up, wrap their kids up, refuse to give them lifts and kick them out the door.
10 miles? Uphill both ways?
Admittedly it can be good for a child to be self-sufficient and do their own planning.
Admittedly it can be good for a child to be self-sufficient and do their own planning.
I did 2.5 miles each way, mixture of up and downhill for school. As a late teen I cycled 10-15 miles each way up a massive hill, 2/3 times a week for amateur theatre rehearsals, on top of the walk to school/work. It was great for me. Despite eating rubbish I was in fantastic shape.
Living in Trondheim, Norway here. I commuted by bicycle through most of the winter. Took the bus otherwise.
And places that are already dramatically denser than the vast majority of the developed world.
Over the weekend I found myself looking for a place in Europe in satellite view, outside of an urban core, and I was struck by how many single-family houses there were, complete with driveways and cars. Here on HN I have been led to believe that Europe is a utopia of forward-thinking people too concerned about the environment to pollute it with a car that might also kill innocent pedestrians who just want to walk to their local grocery store.
HN readers have created a lovely bubble for themselves.
Over the weekend I found myself looking for a place in Europe in satellite view, outside of an urban core, and I was struck by how many single-family houses there were, complete with driveways and cars. Here on HN I have been led to believe that Europe is a utopia of forward-thinking people too concerned about the environment to pollute it with a car that might also kill innocent pedestrians who just want to walk to their local grocery store.
HN readers have created a lovely bubble for themselves.
By definition, places with high population-density are the places where a lot of people live. It is not a "bubble".
The bubble is here on HN where people routinely talk about America as if it is one big suburban hellhole and Europe as if it is one big metropolis paradise.
Half the people in Berlin don't own a car. 45% of the commutes in Copenhagen happen by bicycle.
Over half the people in NYC don't own a car.
You know there are cities in Europe as well, right?
Yup. They exist in America, as well.
In the midwest you still see people clad head to toe in goretex waterproof gear biking to work in a blizzard. Doesn't matter how the weather is if you've prepared for it.
As a certified goretex biker, there are a few things that are hard to prepare for. High winds and ice or slush can be downright dangerous.
I commuted by bus to downtown Grand Rapids, MI for a few years without much difficulty. Acclimation to the cold and acquisition of appropriate gear made it fairly painless. My asthma makes winter biking difficult, but I know people that do it. I've been working from home for the past eight months, and I find myself missing the commute.
Funny how cities like San Francisco have very nice weather but still rely on cars.
If you are interested in learning more about how cities are dealing with the myriad of challenges outlined in the National Geographic article, I encourage you check out UrbanFootprint (https://urbanfootprint.com/).
Building off our background as urban planners, the UrbanFootprint software platform helps communities, cities, and regions deal with the challenges that they face. We bring data, analytics, and most importantly, actionable insight to problems such as congestion, pollution, accessibility, and risks like flooding, sea level rise, and fires.
The software is used by public jurisdictions across the country, the private consultants who consult for those jurisdictions, and by others in real estate, finance, and new mobility modes.
Building off our background as urban planners, the UrbanFootprint software platform helps communities, cities, and regions deal with the challenges that they face. We bring data, analytics, and most importantly, actionable insight to problems such as congestion, pollution, accessibility, and risks like flooding, sea level rise, and fires.
The software is used by public jurisdictions across the country, the private consultants who consult for those jurisdictions, and by others in real estate, finance, and new mobility modes.
What gets me about these densification of suburban center proposals is that they don't come with racing the sprawl. If you just create more "central", well assuming some x-far-from-center contour lines distribution you might be creating more sprawl too.
We need to demolish our mistakes not just build new non-mistakes. We need fractal density so everyone gets both green space and high density very close, and reclaimed nature and super density not far away either.
Go to inwood Manhattan to feel what reclaimed natue is like.
We need to demolish our mistakes not just build new non-mistakes. We need fractal density so everyone gets both green space and high density very close, and reclaimed nature and super density not far away either.
Go to inwood Manhattan to feel what reclaimed natue is like.
I'd hate walking everywhere, having to get tiny amounts of groceries every day instead of stocking up every 2 weeks, etc. Walking/standing all day at conventions feels like death and a half a mile trip to the fast food places around here turns from 2 minutes to 10 minutes if I walk, which I tried when someone from Europe said that's walking distance. Walking such distances just makes me constantly wish I was driving or something. I find the drive thru experience really nice - bring the dog along in the passenger seat, get a burger, eat in the parking lot and give her some of the beef, whole trip takes under 10 minutes. A joy instead of a drag like walking is.
If a city of the future must abandon cars then the way I'd like it is if there were equal or less walking compared to driving. Futurama tubes would be great.
Side note: "No walking is a prescription for obesity" - exercising for weight loss has been thoroughly debunked. [1]
1: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-you-shouldn-t-exercis...
If a city of the future must abandon cars then the way I'd like it is if there were equal or less walking compared to driving. Futurama tubes would be great.
Side note: "No walking is a prescription for obesity" - exercising for weight loss has been thoroughly debunked. [1]
1: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-you-shouldn-t-exercis...
Sounds like my experience living in Houston. Of course I'd hate living here without a car, I did it for a few months and it's ridiculous. But compared to Montreal, Sydney, Toronto, or even Philadelphia (my points of reference), this is far and away the worst living experience. My commute to work is 15 minutes, which isn't too bad. It used to be a 10-minute bike ride or 20-minute walk, which was both healthier and more enjoyable, not to mention more environmentally friendly and free. I enjoyed getting groceries every few days: picking up some produce and bread on the way home from one of the dozens of businesses on the way was delightful, and meant I could always have fresh food.
Living in suburban America (it's hard to call Houston a city in the same sense as the ones I mentioned above) is emotionally draining. Yes, there are positives: good food, good beer, cheap cost of living. However, I don't feel like I'm part of a community. I feel like I live on a small island in an archipelago of disconnected islands. It feels like everybody here who hasn't lived in a walkable dense urban city doesn't know what they're missing, there are intangible psychological benefits. Of course, these are just the thoughts of an east-coaster.
Living in suburban America (it's hard to call Houston a city in the same sense as the ones I mentioned above) is emotionally draining. Yes, there are positives: good food, good beer, cheap cost of living. However, I don't feel like I'm part of a community. I feel like I live on a small island in an archipelago of disconnected islands. It feels like everybody here who hasn't lived in a walkable dense urban city doesn't know what they're missing, there are intangible psychological benefits. Of course, these are just the thoughts of an east-coaster.
Different strokes for different folks. My suburban neighborhood is very socially active, we all know each other very well. I know their kids and vice versa, etc. What I find draining is all the noise when I go downtown, and being around so many strangers. I visit friends who live in condos downtown and they don't know their shared-wall neighbors as well as I know mine in the next house over. Everyone just retreats back to their personal cave once they're done dealing with the crowds.
I'm sure my experience is partly due to my own learned preferences, as well as the specifics of my neighborhood. I know there are nice suburban and rural areas to live, and I hope that with time I develop a greater appreciation for what's here.
I lived on a college campus for two years, which I think was like a microsm of walkable city. Food, academic clubs, classes, everything in walking distance of the dorm. The social aspect didn't work out for me that great, walking was tiresome. I didn't mind eating out all the time with the meal plan but groceries would've been healthier. I really enjoyed the setting with the nice streams/ponds/wildlife but that's where it deviates from the standard city experience unless you go to a park. It was great being able to sit in the grass and watch a great blue heron catch a fish after slowly staking out the area for a while.
In comparison to my experience walking 10 minutes to my farthest class some days, I much prefer driving for 10 or even 15 minutes. I just really prefer living in a setting like the house being surrounded by forest on at least 3 sides and having enjoyable countryside drives to stores. Can't speak for everyone but I'd only tolerate living in a city for a job ot something if I didn't have to do a lot of walking/NYC-style transit (I've used the MTA subways a few times and they are efficient, but too crowded/jerky/it's stressful running around between connections)
In comparison to my experience walking 10 minutes to my farthest class some days, I much prefer driving for 10 or even 15 minutes. I just really prefer living in a setting like the house being surrounded by forest on at least 3 sides and having enjoyable countryside drives to stores. Can't speak for everyone but I'd only tolerate living in a city for a job ot something if I didn't have to do a lot of walking/NYC-style transit (I've used the MTA subways a few times and they are efficient, but too crowded/jerky/it's stressful running around between connections)
On the flip side,
I love walking. I get groceries every week. It feels good to move my body, one day I will not be able to walk, either through death or disability. I would like to enjoy it while I can. When I walk places, I have less to worry about than when I am driving. There is significantly less chance of me accidentally murdering someone or being accidentally murdered.
A 2 minute drive feels so lazy to me.
I still enjoy going out to eat. I take the dog with me, on a leash, we both get moving. Grab the food, sit outside and enjoy the people watching.
It isn't easy if you don't walk a lot but eventually you feel a sense a pride in your walking gains. Feeling comfortable enough to go on long walks is a pretty basic human desire I feel. Even if exercise for weight loss is ineffective, it is not ineffective for mood change.
moderation in all things, including moderation.
I love walking. I get groceries every week. It feels good to move my body, one day I will not be able to walk, either through death or disability. I would like to enjoy it while I can. When I walk places, I have less to worry about than when I am driving. There is significantly less chance of me accidentally murdering someone or being accidentally murdered.
A 2 minute drive feels so lazy to me.
I still enjoy going out to eat. I take the dog with me, on a leash, we both get moving. Grab the food, sit outside and enjoy the people watching.
It isn't easy if you don't walk a lot but eventually you feel a sense a pride in your walking gains. Feeling comfortable enough to go on long walks is a pretty basic human desire I feel. Even if exercise for weight loss is ineffective, it is not ineffective for mood change.
moderation in all things, including moderation.
To correct some misinformation:
Medium-intensity exercise (e.g., jogging) for weight loss has been debunked. Long-duration, low-intensity exercise (e.g., walking) or high-intensity exercise (e.g., interval sprints) will both lead to weight loss. Most people don't have time for the former (unless it's part of their lives, i.e. they walk a lot in a city), so if your goal is weight loss, skip the jogging and look at HIIT.
Personally, I live a 3 min walk from a grocery store and it's great. I stop by on my 8 min walk back from the train station (after a 17 min ride to work) a couple times a week. Many things I buy wouldn't last 2 weeks (though for things that do, I still take the occasional trip to Costco). If I lived in an area not designed for walking (like 95% of America), I'm sure I'd feel similarly to you, but I much prefer living here in Seattle (and walking) than I did living in a car-oriented city.
Medium-intensity exercise (e.g., jogging) for weight loss has been debunked. Long-duration, low-intensity exercise (e.g., walking) or high-intensity exercise (e.g., interval sprints) will both lead to weight loss. Most people don't have time for the former (unless it's part of their lives, i.e. they walk a lot in a city), so if your goal is weight loss, skip the jogging and look at HIIT.
Personally, I live a 3 min walk from a grocery store and it's great. I stop by on my 8 min walk back from the train station (after a 17 min ride to work) a couple times a week. Many things I buy wouldn't last 2 weeks (though for things that do, I still take the occasional trip to Costco). If I lived in an area not designed for walking (like 95% of America), I'm sure I'd feel similarly to you, but I much prefer living here in Seattle (and walking) than I did living in a car-oriented city.
Do you have a source for the exercise claims? That article pocket recommended me seemed to imply the contrary for walking.
I don't mind walking my dog for a while or going on trails, but walking all the time for practical reasons doesn't register as fun for me. Additionally it seems like walking on concrete/asphalt strains my feet a lot faster than dirt/grass.
I don't mind walking my dog for a while or going on trails, but walking all the time for practical reasons doesn't register as fun for me. Additionally it seems like walking on concrete/asphalt strains my feet a lot faster than dirt/grass.
I'd hate waking to Safeway every other day, but I loved doing tiny regular grocery shopping in Europe. It made it easy to always have fresh produce and spontaneously plan interesting meals.
A lot of it comes down to how the cities and grocery stores are designed.
In the US you drive to a shopping mall, navigate through a sea of parking, walk maybe 1000ft of aisles, then spend 5 minutes in the checkout process waiting, scanning, bagging, and paying.
In the European cities I've lived in and visited, mixed zoning means you're likely to have a supermarket near your house or work so doesn't take any extra time to travel to, there's no parking so you just walk in of the street, the stores are about the size of a 7-Eleven so it's fast to find what you want, then the whole checkout process is crazy efficient.
A lot of it comes down to how the cities and grocery stores are designed.
In the US you drive to a shopping mall, navigate through a sea of parking, walk maybe 1000ft of aisles, then spend 5 minutes in the checkout process waiting, scanning, bagging, and paying.
In the European cities I've lived in and visited, mixed zoning means you're likely to have a supermarket near your house or work so doesn't take any extra time to travel to, there's no parking so you just walk in of the street, the stores are about the size of a 7-Eleven so it's fast to find what you want, then the whole checkout process is crazy efficient.
Why are you assuming that a removal of cars means there will be no mechnism that would replace its functions? Many people benefit from a car's cargo potential and their need for this function wouldn't disappear with the cars. I can't say what the particular method could be, maybe medium-sized autonmous vehicles, but I would be surprised of nothing was created.
Let me guess, you can't possibly be in shape !
Not really, but I do try to use the gym at work sometimes since something is probably better than nothing. I made notable gains in cardio endurance that way.
> In the 1990s Calthorpe scored a breakthrough: He helped persuade Portland, Oregon, to build a light-rail line instead of another freeway and to cluster housing, offices, and shops around it.
Mr Calthorpe is playing simcity in Real Life, ENVY!
Mr Calthorpe is playing simcity in Real Life, ENVY!
Honestly one of the bigger potential benefits of self-driving cars would be the decreased need for parking and resulting increased density.
In addition to convenience, habit, and layout of cities and living areas, I'd say that a big push for cars is personal security.
Improving life in cities is a matter of fixing existing problems, like poor public transport and pollution from combustion engines and heating. Building a "feel good" fantasy around the hatred of cars isn't going to improve anything, it'll just replace the current best choice for individual transport with something inferior, as well as destroy the economy (which depends on roads for logistics and public services).
> Building a "feel good" fantasy around the hatred of cars isn't going to improve anything
The alternative is the status quo of the past half century where we pay lip service to city livability then expand our automobile-dependent suburban sprawl outward while adding one bus line that runs once an hour until it's cut for low ridership
Defeating the status quo always takes a motivated group, and hatred of cars is a good motivator as any. Cars shouldn't be outright banned, but they should be the most expensive and inconvenient option for commuters (which implies building transit infrastructure)
The alternative is the status quo of the past half century where we pay lip service to city livability then expand our automobile-dependent suburban sprawl outward while adding one bus line that runs once an hour until it's cut for low ridership
Defeating the status quo always takes a motivated group, and hatred of cars is a good motivator as any. Cars shouldn't be outright banned, but they should be the most expensive and inconvenient option for commuters (which implies building transit infrastructure)
> The alternative is the status quo of the past half century
There are many alternatives. You can even go live in car-free areas right now and have been able to do so for decades, e.g. the island Hydra in Greece.
> Defeating the status quo always takes a motivated group, and hatred of cars is a good motivator as any.
I happen to like the status quo and don't want a loud minority to "defeat" it based on their hatred.
There are many alternatives. You can even go live in car-free areas right now and have been able to do so for decades, e.g. the island Hydra in Greece.
> Defeating the status quo always takes a motivated group, and hatred of cars is a good motivator as any.
I happen to like the status quo and don't want a loud minority to "defeat" it based on their hatred.
Ah, "you could move to Greece." Practical suggestion for improving the life of the average Atlanta resident!
More practical than changing Atlanta to some imaginary car-free utopia. But perhaps the advantages of living in a car-free city aren't that great after all?
Atlanta is already changing to a "car-free utopia" that you're dismissing. Many neighborhoods around Midtown, Inman Park, and several MARTA stations are both more walkable and in enormously higher demand than 20 years ago.
Or the pros/cons don't stack up to a net difference that is big enough to be worth relocating over.
The point is: for some reason these cities don't suddenly become so liveable that they're a huge success, neither economically nor as a destination for tourism or retirement. Perhaps those who have discovered their love for this fantasy haven't really thought about all the consequences.
>I happen to like the status quo and don't want a loud minority to "defeat" it based on their hatred.
This is certainly a valid opinion. I'm simply saying, some of us really like having viable transit options, which is opposing the status quo. To oppose the status quo we must be motivated. One motivation is to hate all the externalities of a car-dependent society.
This is certainly a valid opinion. I'm simply saying, some of us really like having viable transit options, which is opposing the status quo. To oppose the status quo we must be motivated. One motivation is to hate all the externalities of a car-dependent society.
I wish my city was capable of fixing problems, instead they have a knack for making things worse.
Right now I take a bus to a transit centre, then another bus to work. This works well for me.
There is a new LRT (Light Rail Transit) line under construction with a station in walking distance from my house. The LRT line will go to downtown, but not to my work. So I will take a train downtown, then a bus or another train to work.
This all sounds good, except for three problems:
1. Based on information from the City, the train will actually be slower than the express buses that it is replacing. It also doesn't go to the same places which means that some trips that can be done by one bus will require transfers. I expect that with the slower train and worse transfers, it will take about 15 minutes longer to get to work.
2. The city is revamping all the bus routes to fit in with the new train line. Unfortunately the revamp is scheduled to go in "mid-2020" whereas the train is scheduled to start operating in "December 2020". Everything they've shown about the new bus schedule shows no routes from my transit centre to downtown and they haven't said that they will keep the current routes until the train is operating.
3. The city has a very poor track record when it comes to LRT projects. The last line they built was supposed to open in spring 2014, but didn't open until September 2015 and even then was operating in a degraded capacity. Problems with the signalling system are so bad that the city is STILL trying to get it working today. The latest news out of the new LRT project is that they are delayed - nobody is saying by how long but one city Councillor is estimating that they are at least a year behind.
If the new bus routes go in and they don't maintain service between my area and downtown, it's quite likely that I will need to start driving again. I don't want to do this, but I'm not going to spend two hours for a trip that was previously 45 minutes either.
Right now I take a bus to a transit centre, then another bus to work. This works well for me.
There is a new LRT (Light Rail Transit) line under construction with a station in walking distance from my house. The LRT line will go to downtown, but not to my work. So I will take a train downtown, then a bus or another train to work.
This all sounds good, except for three problems:
1. Based on information from the City, the train will actually be slower than the express buses that it is replacing. It also doesn't go to the same places which means that some trips that can be done by one bus will require transfers. I expect that with the slower train and worse transfers, it will take about 15 minutes longer to get to work.
2. The city is revamping all the bus routes to fit in with the new train line. Unfortunately the revamp is scheduled to go in "mid-2020" whereas the train is scheduled to start operating in "December 2020". Everything they've shown about the new bus schedule shows no routes from my transit centre to downtown and they haven't said that they will keep the current routes until the train is operating.
3. The city has a very poor track record when it comes to LRT projects. The last line they built was supposed to open in spring 2014, but didn't open until September 2015 and even then was operating in a degraded capacity. Problems with the signalling system are so bad that the city is STILL trying to get it working today. The latest news out of the new LRT project is that they are delayed - nobody is saying by how long but one city Councillor is estimating that they are at least a year behind.
If the new bus routes go in and they don't maintain service between my area and downtown, it's quite likely that I will need to start driving again. I don't want to do this, but I'm not going to spend two hours for a trip that was previously 45 minutes either.
What about moving ?
Moving requires a significant amount of effort, time, and money. It's not something I would do lightly.
Once the new LRT line is up and running I'll adapt to the differences. Yes, it will be worse than what's currently here, but adapting to it won't present nearly the same hardship that moving would.
It's the unknown time between the bus routes changing and the LRT line opening that I'm most concerned about. If this is just a three-month gap, I can deal with driving for that period. If, like other LRT projects, this three-month gap turns into a year and a half then I'll have to think about other options.
Hopefully the city will do a phased implementation where they implement the new bus routes but keep the express routes that are being replaced by the LRT until the LRT is ready. This seems like the obvious solution, but for some reason the city is keeping quiet on what they're doing for that interim period.
Once the new LRT line is up and running I'll adapt to the differences. Yes, it will be worse than what's currently here, but adapting to it won't present nearly the same hardship that moving would.
It's the unknown time between the bus routes changing and the LRT line opening that I'm most concerned about. If this is just a three-month gap, I can deal with driving for that period. If, like other LRT projects, this three-month gap turns into a year and a half then I'll have to think about other options.
Hopefully the city will do a phased implementation where they implement the new bus routes but keep the express routes that are being replaced by the LRT until the LRT is ready. This seems like the obvious solution, but for some reason the city is keeping quiet on what they're doing for that interim period.
But moving (to diminish commute, that is) awards a significant amount of free time, money and comfort.
It's rather bad for the user to have such big routes changes with no visibility though... And makes moving a gamble
It's rather bad for the user to have such big routes changes with no visibility though... And makes moving a gamble
I don't think its a hatred of cars. Its just cars are so entrenched in western cultures that its easy to overlook all the problems.
All those things you cited are all exacerbated by the car. Electric cars will solve the pollution issue, but they are still cars, with all the issues they bring.
All those things you cited are all exacerbated by the car. Electric cars will solve the pollution issue, but they are still cars, with all the issues they bring.
> I don't think its a hatred of cars. Its just cars are so entrenched in western cultures that its easy to overlook all the problems.
They are entrenched for a reason: because they are extremely useful. Without cars and the individual transport methods they superseded, many of our cities wouldn't even exist.
What this and many other articles do, is to decide first what the problem should be and then build a case around it to show it in a bad light. That's not how you improve life in cities, it's just how you get rid of cars and with them all the benefits you've overlooked. Proof: you can get all the benefits of cars without the drawbacks by putting all the infrastructure for cars underground and using EV. None of these "visionaries" consider that, because they hate cars.
They are entrenched for a reason: because they are extremely useful. Without cars and the individual transport methods they superseded, many of our cities wouldn't even exist.
What this and many other articles do, is to decide first what the problem should be and then build a case around it to show it in a bad light. That's not how you improve life in cities, it's just how you get rid of cars and with them all the benefits you've overlooked. Proof: you can get all the benefits of cars without the drawbacks by putting all the infrastructure for cars underground and using EV. None of these "visionaries" consider that, because they hate cars.
I don't think there are any cities that wouldn't exist without cars, the shape of cities would change yes, but that is one of the problems of cars.
Cars are useful yes, doesn't mean we shouldn't question them. Just like we should question trains, bikes etc.
Re putting cars underground. Yes you could, are you going to support the taxes to pay for it?
"What this and many other articles do, is to decide first what the problem should be and then build a case around it to show it in a bad light."
Why don't you decide on the merits of the argument rather than perceived motivation?
Cars are useful yes, doesn't mean we shouldn't question them. Just like we should question trains, bikes etc.
Re putting cars underground. Yes you could, are you going to support the taxes to pay for it?
"What this and many other articles do, is to decide first what the problem should be and then build a case around it to show it in a bad light."
Why don't you decide on the merits of the argument rather than perceived motivation?
Even with all their problems, they are still the best and often only solution. They move on your schedule, they stop on your schedule, they make it easy to move more stuff than you can otherwise carry from your house to wherever you want to move it. And their cheaper than public transport, too.
Agreed.
You can make other options less bad in this regard though. And do things to reduce the problems.
You assertion on public transport costs is heavily dependent on unstated assumptions though.
You can make other options less bad in this regard though. And do things to reduce the problems.
You assertion on public transport costs is heavily dependent on unstated assumptions though.
those utopia still haven't solve some basic problems: if one looks for work accessible to his housing without cars and relying only to transit, he'll be disadvantaged on the marked compared to one with a car that can choose his working environment freely.
"but one can just relocate near the new job!" - yes, if you are a single income family, otherwise the partner has to change job too (and even then changing school to children mid year isn't optimal)
and the dual applies: want to grow your family? you cannot switch home freely, you're limited to pick those on some transit to both the couple existing jobs.
"but one can just relocate near the new job!" - yes, if you are a single income family, otherwise the partner has to change job too (and even then changing school to children mid year isn't optimal)
and the dual applies: want to grow your family? you cannot switch home freely, you're limited to pick those on some transit to both the couple existing jobs.
I didn't mention utopia.
I did say "Its just cars are so entrenched in western cultures that its easy to overlook all the problems" Eg in a society dominated by cars, there are going to be people without cars that can't easily get to work. You didn't have that problem pre car, and no one complains about not being able to get to work easily because they don't have a helicopter. Cars create sprawl, and create a situation where you need a car.
I did say "Its just cars are so entrenched in western cultures that its easy to overlook all the problems" Eg in a society dominated by cars, there are going to be people without cars that can't easily get to work. You didn't have that problem pre car, and no one complains about not being able to get to work easily because they don't have a helicopter. Cars create sprawl, and create a situation where you need a car.
> in a society dominated by cars, there are going to be people without cars that can't easily get to work. You didn't have that problem pre car,
"pre car" people would walk or ride horses/bicycles for hours to work. You can still do that now, or go faster by bus.
> Cars create sprawl,
Growing cities create sprawl. Necessary infrastructure for large cities (yes, you need fire trucks, garbage trucks, buses) as well as parking space for convenient door-to-door transport slightly increases it.
"pre car" people would walk or ride horses/bicycles for hours to work. You can still do that now, or go faster by bus.
> Cars create sprawl,
Growing cities create sprawl. Necessary infrastructure for large cities (yes, you need fire trucks, garbage trucks, buses) as well as parking space for convenient door-to-door transport slightly increases it.
You'll find that commuting time has stayed fairly stable, we just travel further now.
Poor policies and the car create sprawl, not growth. Visit a city that developed pre car, no sprawl. New York was designed with massively wide streets, space for all the things you cite and didn't suffer from sprawl.
"parking space for convenient door-to-door transport slightly increases it." Slightly? I can't think of any shop with dedicated parking where the shop is bigger than the car park. Then think of all the houses with a driveway that you pass on the way to work. Each drive is an extra 8ft of frontage, that's an extra 8ft road to be built, and that you need to drive back and forth every day, and that's just the ones you can see.
Poor policies and the car create sprawl, not growth. Visit a city that developed pre car, no sprawl. New York was designed with massively wide streets, space for all the things you cite and didn't suffer from sprawl.
"parking space for convenient door-to-door transport slightly increases it." Slightly? I can't think of any shop with dedicated parking where the shop is bigger than the car park. Then think of all the houses with a driveway that you pass on the way to work. Each drive is an extra 8ft of frontage, that's an extra 8ft road to be built, and that you need to drive back and forth every day, and that's just the ones you can see.
I find the assertion that NYC didn't sprawl somewhat odd. Weren't all the city's parks on the frontier of the city when Olmstead laid them out? (and, in the process, invented the "parking space")
"Slightly? I can't think of any shop with dedicated parking where the shop is bigger than the car park."
WalMart? Home Depot? Kroger? IKEA? I can show google maps if desired, but that's definitely not uncommon in the U.S.
That extra 8ft of frontage is also extra backyard, which many people enjoy. I don't think people choose to live so far apart because they have cars, they live so far apart because they want to, and the car makes it possible. I suspect many would love to live even further apart if they could.
"Slightly? I can't think of any shop with dedicated parking where the shop is bigger than the car park."
WalMart? Home Depot? Kroger? IKEA? I can show google maps if desired, but that's definitely not uncommon in the U.S.
That extra 8ft of frontage is also extra backyard, which many people enjoy. I don't think people choose to live so far apart because they have cars, they live so far apart because they want to, and the car makes it possible. I suspect many would love to live even further apart if they could.
Just look at a map with satellite view of any sprawling area. You will notice a ton of wasted space, mostly due to parking lots, and empty space between the businesses and and the houses. It gets worse you farther you go out from the city center.
I do not hate cars; what I hate is the fact that America is built around the car, not a person. For significant portions of the American population, you must have access to car to survive. That is the problem that I hate, not the simple existence of a car
Why in the world is this being downvoted? Lack of good public transit alternatives to car ownership is a serious problem in many cities.
Eventually, cars will become a shared resource right? If cars can drive on their own then you could rent your car out while you're at work to lyft or uber. Eventually wouldn't most people do this? Eventually, wouldn't there be a multitude of cars roaming the city? Why would you need to own one?
I live in a fairly walkable city but it still seems odd to me that people hold such a personal connection to their cars.
I live in a fairly walkable city but it still seems odd to me that people hold such a personal connection to their cars.
Well, I also use my car as a giant man-purse. Furthermore, sometimes you want to travel out of the beaten path and it's possible that the only way you can get there is with your own car.
> they’d no longer segregate rich from poor
Should people who want to spend more on housing be automatically labeled “rich”?
Should people who want to spend more on housing be automatically labeled “rich”?
Should people who can't afford housing be automatically labelled "poor"? It's certainly one indicator.
Not segrating people improves the world. Segragating them introduces division, self-evidentially. Something to be avoided, then, and worked against.
Planners will try to mix properties in a new development, if the local politics is to provide for everyone fairly.
Not segrating people improves the world. Segragating them introduces division, self-evidentially. Something to be avoided, then, and worked against.
Planners will try to mix properties in a new development, if the local politics is to provide for everyone fairly.
I didn’t think about segregation on planning phase, thanks for the insight.
Answering your question: yes, I believe not being able to afford housing categorizes a person as poor.
“Provide everyone fairly” is a touchy subject and depends on how limited do you want your goverment to be. I’d rather choose where to live myself, based on my own means.
Answering your question: yes, I believe not being able to afford housing categorizes a person as poor.
“Provide everyone fairly” is a touchy subject and depends on how limited do you want your goverment to be. I’d rather choose where to live myself, based on my own means.
You cannot mix a new development like that. Building a house is expensive, so only the rich and upper middle class can afford it. The poor always have and always will live in the houses the above lived in some years back and left for something newer.
What planners need to do it make sure that when the rich vacate the neighborhood they left behind is good. Part of that is making sure that some of the rich decide to rebuild their current house instead of leaving thus mixing the neighborhood a bit.
Cities are a long games. The "ideal" state you plan today to build tomorrow is not the end state. That means your plans need to account for change. New development will be old in 20 years, what then?
What planners need to do it make sure that when the rich vacate the neighborhood they left behind is good. Part of that is making sure that some of the rich decide to rebuild their current house instead of leaving thus mixing the neighborhood a bit.
Cities are a long games. The "ideal" state you plan today to build tomorrow is not the end state. That means your plans need to account for change. New development will be old in 20 years, what then?
House price in many places is not linked to age so much - houses don't depreciate like cars - as location. Terrible houses and tiny flats in desirable places sell for huge sums.
"Mixed Income Housing" is becoming more and more prevalent, it decreases segregation by forcing proportions of new development to include low income housing.
Possibly your statement: "You cannot mix a new development like that. Building a house is expensive, so only the rich and upper middle class can afford it. The poor always have and always will live in the houses the above lived in some years back and left for something newer." could be a bit of an absolute.
Possibly your statement: "You cannot mix a new development like that. Building a house is expensive, so only the rich and upper middle class can afford it. The poor always have and always will live in the houses the above lived in some years back and left for something newer." could be a bit of an absolute.
One of two things are happening: either the mixed income is richer and middle class - as I already said; or the rich are paying extra for their house to subsidies the house of the poor. Probably a mixture of each.
It is difficult to enforce this without politicians ignoring the will of the people. Which in turn tends to keep them from being reelected.
That's generally how it works, yes, you have more money you're seen as rich, especially nowadays when housing is so expensive compared to one's average income.
We need to expand the remote work force and create AR devices that can replace mobile phones to make collaborative sustainable living a reality.
Obviously.
I hate cities and love driving my truck, take that old boy in mud and have something I enjoy in life. There is plenty of these stories.
Will one give up himself to go on as husk.
Will one give up himself to go on as husk.
I remember reading "Das neue Universum"² in the early 80s where they proposed large skyscrapers connected by tubes. No cars in sight.
Oh and don't miss "Das Neue Universum Volume 84 (1967)": http://klausbuergle.de/buergle_verkehr1.htm -
Click on the bottom left image - looks a lot like Hyperloop, doesn't it? The text even mentions that the tubes contain a vacuum!
--
² https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Neue_Universum