The New Urbanism

pecksniff

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Posts
22,077
Let's face it: The fact that practically everything built in America has been built around the automobile -- and around the assumption that everyone will have one -- is a problem. It is one of the biggest and least-discussed problems America has. It would be a problem even if we did not have to worry about climate change or depletion of the global petroleum supply. It's a quality-of-life thing: Living in a neighborhood where kids can't go anywhere or do anything without Mom as chauffeur, where you have to drive outside the neighborhood to get a loaf of bread, where all your neighbors are at exactly the same income level as yourself -- this does not make for good quality of life. Having a lawn is hardly an adequate tradeoff for what is lost, if you compare Levittown and its countless imitators to the prewar "streetcar suburbs" or traditional towns and cities. Strip malls are not good things and would not exist in a healthy society.

Ever see It's a Wonderful Life? George Bailey's vision of Bedford Falls transformed into Pottersville is actually unrealistically optimistic. It might be a honky-tonk town of gin mills, but it has life in the streets. In a real-life Bedford Falls, everything downtown would be boarded up and vacant by now. A situation to which George himself would have contributed, by building Bailey Acres. His own children could not have the childhood he did, as a free-range kid who could walk anywhere he wanted to go.

There is a solution -- kindasorta. The New Urbanism. A movement to build high-density, walkable-scale, mixed-used communities. Best represented at present by the Congress for the New Urbanism.

I say "kindasorta," because how can all the sprawling auto-dependent residence-only suburbs now existing possibly be retrofitted along New Urbanist lines?
 
Last edited:
Planned communities ultimately fail, for approximately the same reason that socialism fails. Central planning by an elite manager class always fails. Communities that survive grow organically. They are living organisms.

We don't have the resources to build new communities for the entire nation. We had more options decades ago. With our current and shrinking energy budget, salvage and adaptation of existing infrastructure is most of what we can do. The suburbanites will probably move back to the urban cores for a while and strip the suburbs of materials.
 
I would add a big-assed wall around those urban centers. Keep the urbanites in there so they don't irritate the rest of us. Like a zoo.
 
Planned communities ultimately fail, for approximately the same reason that socialism fails. Central planning by an elite manager class always fails. Communities that survive grow organically. They are living organisms.

Levittown didn't fail. And neither has Seaside -- anyone who bought in back in the '90s has seen his property values balloon.
 
I would add a big-assed wall around those urban centers. Keep the urbanites in there so they don't irritate the rest of us. Like a zoo.

Suburban living is doomed. As fuel prices inexorably rise, is the 'burbs that will become the new slums, the places where people live who can afford nothing better.
 
Rural is where it's at.

Urban... suburban... a distinction without a difference.
 
Suburban living is doomed. As fuel prices inexorably rise, is the 'burbs that will become the new slums, the places where people live who can afford nothing better.

The burbs ae not going away. Fuel prices are increasing, but hybrid and electric technology is becoming much more economical. The automobile gives people the freedom that public transit never will.

People want a yard for their kids to run around and men want space for their toys. You live in Florida. You know there are many of us that have a boat, but the cost of storing it at a marina is a little too much.
 
The burbs ae not going away. Fuel prices are increasing, but hybrid and electric technology is becoming much more economical. The automobile gives people the freedom that public transit never will.

It is not possible for electric vehicles to replace gasoline-powered vehicles on the scale we have been using them.
 
It is not possible for electric vehicles to replace gasoline-powered vehicles on the scale we have been using them.

That will take time, but gas milage continues to improve. The new hybrid F-150 can tow 8k lbs and still average about 20 mpg. You can't get out of single digits with the standard V8.
 
Let's face it: The fact that practically everything built in America has been built around the automobile -- and around the assumption that everyone will have one -- is a problem.

Only for those who can't afford them.

Suburban living is doomed. As fuel prices inexorably rise, is the 'burbs that will become the new slums, the places where people live who can afford nothing better.

Meanwhile back in reality, the burbs are getting more expensive.

Not because the poor are taking over. :)
 
If you think you can do it, then I would encourage you to get the funding, and build it. I sincerely wish you well.

But, if what you're really angling for is legislation that will force everyone else to play by your rules, then I oppose you.

It's more of the top down, I-know-best attitude that is killing everything. Maybe you should just let things take their course and develop on their own?
 
If you think you can do it, then I would encourage you to get the funding, and build it. I sincerely wish you well.

But, if what you're really angling for is legislation that will force everyone else to play by your rules, then I oppose you.

It's more of the top down, I-know-best attitude that is killing everything. Maybe you should just let things take their course and develop on their own?

We do not have unregulated development now. The problem is the content of most zoning codes -- New Urbanist development is illegal; they allow only for separation of residential from commercial uses.
 
We do not have unregulated development now. The problem is the content of most zoning codes -- New Urbanist development is illegal; they allow only for separation of residential from commercial uses.

So what you're saying is that Democrats are total shit at managing all these metro areas around the USA.

I agree. :D
 
We do not have unregulated development now. The problem is the content of most zoning codes -- New Urbanist development is illegal; they allow only for separation of residential from commercial uses.
Hey, I'll fight with you if you want to take down zoning laws. I'd be right beside you on that.

And, as an aside, I've been on family vacations to places where all of the restaurants and the attractions are either a short bike ride or a walk away. Loved it. I'm guessing you're going to run into some problems, but I mean it when I say that I wish you or anyone else well who wants to try it on their own.

My problem is when people suggest making the zoning codes more complicated or restrictive.
 
Hey, I'll fight with you if you want to take down zoning laws. I'd be right beside you on that.

100%.... funny thing is though when you go to places like San Francisco with that kind of talk they get all NIMBY on you. :D
 
100%.... funny thing is though when you go to places like San Francisco with that kind of talk they get all NIMBY on you. :D

Oh, you're totally right. They won't let more construction take place, and so there are the same number of houses, but more and more people wanting them. Prices go up and then people complain. Totally self inflicted wounds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPKWj9lX8Fc
 
Hey, I'll fight with you if you want to take down zoning laws. I'd be right beside you on that.

And, as an aside, I've been on family vacations to places where all of the restaurants and the attractions are either a short bike ride or a walk away. Loved it. I'm guessing you're going to run into some problems, but I mean it when I say that I wish you or anyone else well who wants to try it on their own.

My problem is when people suggest making the zoning codes more complicated or restrictive.

Well, it's not just a matter of deleting zoning codes and letting things happen. Solving these problems will require a lot of public investment in mass transit. A lot of libertarians object to that on principle (I've seen books on that), overlooking how much tax money is now spent on the automotive transportation system.

In Asphalt Nation, Jane Holtz Kay calculated the total cost of ownership of a motor vehicle (counting payments, maintenance and fuel) at $6,000/year to the owner -- plus $4,000/year to the public. And that was in 1997.
 
Those already exist. They're Sao Paulo and like cities.

New York also, but that's because finding parking for a vehicle is impossible. Other cities that have grown with zoning laws, have public transit that is goes unused because people aren't giving up the freedom that a car gives them.
 
New York also, but that's because finding parking for a vehicle is impossible. Other cities that have grown with zoning laws, have public transit that is goes unused because people aren't giving up the freedom that a car gives them.

They'll be glad of it when cars are no longer an option. And that day is coming.
 
Back
Top