The future is dense, walkable cities.

[AlexBailey]

When I refer to self-supporting...i am looking at this notion of getting 90% of your services within a 15 minute walk. Not needing a car. Relying on transit. I just don't see Americans doing this...ever. Yes...we can have small conclaves of like-minded people pulling this off. But the majority of Americans don't want this. If they do ..show me the studies showing that

Why are you railing against this idea? It doesn’t require your buy-in nor anyone else’s who would not want to live there.

Many Americans find this to be a appealing choice.


Incidentally, are you just planning to leave your corpse on the beach for some morning jogger to find?

 

[Paul_Chance]

When I refer to self-supporting...i am looking at this notion of getting 90% of your services within a 15 minute walk. Not needing a car. Relying on transit. I just don't see Americans doing this...ever. Yes...we can have small conclaves of like-minded people pulling this off. But the majority of Americans don't want this. If they do ..show me the studies showing that

If you're truly interested, there is a good YouGov poll here.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45540-poll-americans-support-15-minute-neighborhood

 

[HisArpy]

Why are you railing against this idea? It doesn’t require your buy-in nor anyone else’s who would not want to live there.

Many Americans find this to be a appealing choice.


Incidentally, are you just planning to leave your corpse on the beach for some morning jogger to find?

High density urbanization actually does require the cooperation of everyone because the flow of goods and commerce defeat the principles inherent in the idea of the "walkable" or "15 minute" city.

No city of any density can support itself without cooperation of the areas outside of the city. From food to other consumer goods, those things come from outside the city.

Transporting those goods requires roads to centralized distribution networks. Which require roads to markets. All of that requires workers and no matter how "dense" the city is, local areas cannot supply enough workers to fulfill those needs or the needs of other businesses in that area.

A simple example would be 100 residents in a local "walkable" area. All 100 of them have a business which requires 3 additional workers. If all 100 are employed as business owners where do the 300 workers come from? Answer; outside the area.

It doesn't matter how large or small the area is, more workers will always be required than the area can provide.

Which means that you will always have commuters and they will be traveling from home to work and back again. Which defeats the concept.

Now let's talk about redlining against employees and workers who live outside the area...

 

[Paul_Chance]

Why are you railing against this idea? It doesn’t require your buy-in nor anyone else’s who would not want to live there.

Many Americans find this to be a appealing choice.

Incidentally, are you just planning to leave your corpse on the beach for some morning jogger to find?

Hahaha - this if off topic, but it made me remember this funny video from years ago about Joggers and Dead Bodies.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

If you're truly interested, there is a good YouGov poll here.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45540-poll-americans-support-15-minute-neighborhood

Most Americans want to live in a walkable neighborhood, but after a century of American cities subsidizing car travel, they have a hard time imagining how anything could change. They imagine their own neighborhood--only with cars taken away. Of course that won't work, because their neighborhood was built from the ground up to require car ownership. What's needed is gradually rebuilding smarter and greener.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

High density urbanization actually does require the cooperation of everyone because the flow of goods and commerce defeat the principles inherent in the idea of the "walkable" or "15 minute" city.

No city of any density can support itself without cooperation of the areas outside of the city. From food to other consumer goods, those things come from outside the city.

Transporting those goods requires roads to centralized distribution networks. Which require roads to markets. All of that requires workers and no matter how "dense" the city is, local areas cannot supply enough workers to fulfill those needs or the needs of other businesses in that area.

A simple example would be 100 residents in a local "walkable" area. All 100 of them have a business which requires 3 additional workers. If all 100 are employed as business owners where do the 300 workers come from? Answer; outside the area.

It doesn't matter how large or small the area is, more workers will always be required than the area can provide.

Which means that you will always have commuters and they will be traveling from home to work and back again. Which defeats the concept.

Now let's talk about redlining against employees and workers who live outside the area...

That's where trains and buses come in: to transport workers between little pockets of walkability.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Most Americans want to live in a walkable neighborhood, but after a century of American cities subsidizing car travel, they have a hard time imagining how anything could change. They imagine their own neighborhood--only with cars taken away. Of course that won't work, because their neighborhood was built from the ground up to require car ownership. What's needed is gradually rebuilding smarter and greener.

Yep, most people say "I like the idea" but "how the hell do we get there from here". When the concept was first floated, a few years ago (originating in Paris), many urban centers looked at their plans and said "Hey, we're already working on getting there" and people went "oh, cool, rock on". (All my imaginary people are hipsters, I just find it more entertaining.)

 

[HisArpy]

Most Americans want to live in a walkable neighborhood, but after a century of American cities subsidizing car travel, they have a hard time imagining how anything could change. They imagine their own neighborhood--only with cars taken away. Of course that won't work, because their neighborhood was built from the ground up to require car ownership. What's needed is gradually rebuilding smarter and greener.

False.

Most Americans want to live in safe neighborhoods and apart from their neighbors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...americans-prefer-live-suburbs-instead-cities/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-pick-country-over-city-suburbs-opinion-poll/

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-...live-in-cities-more-likely-to-prefer-suburbs/

The only saving grace for your statement is that PEW found that the <30 crowd prefers city life. Which, in the population as a whole isn't "most" or even "the majority."

So you might want to rethink the way you're talking because it's not the past, present, or future.

 

[HisArpy]

That's where trains and buses come in: to transport workers between little pockets of walkability.

And of course you have an answer for those transportation deserts, right? Maybe more buses and trains? And roads to run them on? Let's not forget the engineers and drivers and support staff you're going to need either. Where are you going to get them? Even further afield? Which will require an ever increasing network needing more and more people as it expands. A need it cannot keep up with.

What you propose is a pipe dream. You won't admit it because you're not able to see the big picture. Which is fine but please stop trying to tell us that the one lone pixel you can see and understand is how the entire world works.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

And of course you have an answer for those transportation deserts, right? Maybe more buses and trains? And roads to run them on? Let's not forget the engineers and drivers and support staff you're going to need either. Where are you going to get them? Even further afield? Which will require an ever increasing network needing more and more people as it expands. A need it cannot keep up with.

What you propose is a pipe dream. You won't admit it because you're not able to see the big picture. Which is fine but please stop trying to tell us that the one lone pixel you can see and understand is how the entire world works.

What are you referring to when you say "transportation desert"?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Without petrochemical roofing materials, we will need more pitched roofs. Gambrel roofs are more work to build, but provide more living space underneath than simple gable roofs. Gambrels are commonly known in the US as barn roofs and mansards. The barn style may be preferred for heavier snow loads.

Never heard of Steel? Rubber, Clay? Sod?...( long list of roofing substances) I've told you before, you're no Plato or Aristotle, maybe a weak imitation of Diogenes. I suspect you masturbate, it's just a question of if it's in public or not....

 

[Dribble]

The Ohio State University...120,000 students when I attended. 30,000-40,000 in dorms and slum houses surrounding the university. This does not include faculty or staff...nor the medical center. It takes 40 minutes...40...to walk quickly diagonally from one corner of the university to the other. They have their own bus service...every 5 minutes every stop during main hours. Do the "loop". But it takes just as long...if not longer than walking. Just takes that long to load and unload at each stop. So you ride a bike...fucked up in snow...or rain. You had 15 minutes between classes. You planned what courses you took based on where it was and where/when your next class was.

Those that lived there...parked their vehicles in the remote West Campus lot...bus went there...no problem...roughly 25 minute ride. All first quarter freshman classes are on West Campus. Those that commuted...the 80-90000 a day...fought for parking. Fortunately, classes started at 7am...and ran to 9pm...maybe it was 10pm? Yes...there is city bus service. But you lose 2 to 3 hours. You don't have that kind of time. So you drive.

The University has everything you need. Restaurants, grocery stores, books stores, bars, movies, concerts. You wanted it...you could find in on High Street. It was fun....for a single person. And some of the best food imaginable.

Now...women really didn't live in the district surrounding the university. Too many rapes. Too many assaults. Just the facts of life. So if they did...they had to arrange to walk with people. Once on Campus...they were safe.

But what work was there for these 30-40,000? Minimum wage service jobs. So if you didn't have funding...what a shit place to be.

Communities must be balanced. You want 40,000 living is a 15 minute area...then you need work for those people. Not minimum wage shit. Real work.

Ohio State had their shit together. After a football game...150-200,000 people were gone in under 30 minutes. There are lessons that can be learned from there. The University of Wisconsin is huge too. As is Michigan. Because of the University...the cities surrounding the university tend to very progressive in terms of commuting options...but still way lacking. Who has that kind of time? If you work 8 hours...add an hour ride...maybe 2...each way. Then you got to do shopping? And service isn't 24/7. These are facts.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

What are you referring to when you say "transportation desert"?

That space between his ears, and behind his eyeballs....

 

[AlexBailey]

False.

Most Americans want to live in safe neighborhoods and apart from their neighbors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...americans-prefer-live-suburbs-instead-cities/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-pick-country-over-city-suburbs-opinion-poll/

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-...live-in-cities-more-likely-to-prefer-suburbs/

The only saving grace for your statement is that PEW found that the <30 crowd prefers city life. Which, in the population as a whole isn't "most" or even "the majority."

So you might want to rethink the way you're talking because it's not the past, present, or future.

Did you notice that all of those polls were taken during the pandemic?

 

[AlexBailey]

High density urbanization actually does require the cooperation of everyone because the flow of goods and commerce defeat the principles inherent in the idea of the "walkable" or "15 minute" city.

No city of any density can support itself without cooperation of the areas outside of the city. From food to other consumer goods, those things come from outside the city.

Transporting those goods requires roads to centralized distribution networks. Which require roads to markets. All of that requires workers and no matter how "dense" the city is, local areas cannot supply enough workers to fulfill those needs or the needs of other businesses in that area.

A simple example would be 100 residents in a local "walkable" area. All 100 of them have a business which requires 3 additional workers. If all 100 are employed as business owners where do the 300 workers come from? Answer; outside the area.

It doesn't matter how large or small the area is, more workers will always be required than the area can provide.

Which means that you will always have commuters and they will be traveling from home to work and back again. Which defeats the concept.

Now let's talk about redlining against employees and workers who live outside the area...

Why are you projecting that there would only be 100 residents in a 15 minute area?
I live in one that has more than 8k and most are in single family dwellings.

Why are you projecting that 100 out of 100 would be business owners?

How does it make sense that what you’re saying is true of any model no mater the size?

Some people will likely still commute out of the area, how does that “defeat the concept”?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Some people will likely still commute out of the area, how does that “defeat the concept”?

It doesn't defeat the concept, but it's HisArpy. It's against his own agenda, that is all that matters to him!

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Why are you projecting that there would only be 100 residents in a 15 minute area?
I live in one that has more than 8k and most are in single family dwellings.

Why are you projecting that 100 out of 100 would be business owners?

How does it make sense that what you’re saying is true of any model no mater the size?

Some people will likely still commute out of the area, how does that “defeat the concept”?

I just checked Santa Monica in Google Maps. From the center of the city you can walk or cycle everywhere within the city limits in 10 minutes … including the train station where you can catch a train and be in downtown LA in 45 minutes (and that's at rush hour. In a car it would take hours).

Santa Monica has a population of 90,000.

Santa Monica is ahead of the curve, but there are lots of other neighborhoods in LA that are ripe for this kind of mobility--Westwood, Culver City, Beverly Hills, Inglewood …

 

[TrailerHitch]

It really really is this simple. Communities that build a certain way will attract like-minded people over time. But how do we make existing cities self supporting? You can't. Not within my lifetime...not within my kids lifetime...not within my grandkids lifetime. Hell...we can't even give Flint Michigan safe water

No city will ever be self supporting because they have no capability to produce food at a sufficient level to feed thousands, let alone millions. The rural farmer will still and always be the life blood of America's food supply.

 

[TrailerHitch]

The days of self-supporting are long gone. Whether you're urban, suburban, ex-urban, or rural these days, you're part of a complex web of interlocking and mutually supporting systems. Look no further than these wonderful machines (computers, tablets, and cell phones) that we're communicating on to see an example.

Everyone wants to live off the land. LOL - here's a tip, anyone who actually makes the decision to go live off the land (and off the grid) probably isn't participating in online forums.

It is entirely possible to live off the grid, in fact I know people in my area that do. No power from the grid at all. The greatest issue is those on the grid can't imagine life without electricity from he grid, without the internet, without running water, without, without, without...all the luxuries we have come to expect as everyday necessities.

 

[AlexBailey]

It is entirely possible to live off the grid, in fact I know people in my area that do. No power from the grid at all. The greatest issue is those on the grid can't imagine life without electricity from he grid, without the internet, without running water, without, without, without...all the luxuries we have come to expect as everyday necessities.

You can have all of those things off-grid, but you become your own utilities -
* electricity
* propane
* firewood
* water
* secptic
* road/driveway maintenance
* trees, grass, fire mitigation
* digital media
* trash and recycling
* vehicle related expenses

Or you could have a cottage or apartment and lots of public spaces and businesses within your neighborhood with all of that stuff taken care of by other people in your community as part of their work.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Give them cheap housing and a small stipend to live on.

You do know that some of our urban street dwellers are there by choice and not by circumstance, right?

They won't even check into the Sally...

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The days of self-supporting are long gone. Whether you're urban, suburban, ex-urban, or rural these days, you're part of a complex web of interlocking and mutually supporting systems. Look no further than these wonderful machines (computers, tablets, and cell phones) that we're communicating on to see an example.

Everyone wants to live off the land. LOL - here's a tip, anyone who actually makes the decision to go live off the land (and off the grid) probably isn't participating in online forums.

I meet the definition of what people would call "off grid", and I'm on the forums.

But that is a statement that I am not connected to the electrical grid. Not a statement that I am disconnected from all the benefits of a modern society.

Yes I have all the modern household appliances, Hybrid vehicles, ect that can be found anywhere else where the grid exists. For the most part my food comes from a grocery store, even though we do hobby farm.

Could we live off the land. Well for a while sure, but then so too could city dwellers. It would take a week or two until the stores were pillaged of supply's, assuming a complete breakdown of society happened. So the city folks could hang on a while. The people like me, maybe a month, before I'd need to go looking for supply's, but by then I am sure a ton of city folk would have already been out and about doing the same.

But after that point we'd all be pretty much in the same boat, except my lights would still be on. The city folks, not so likely...lol

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It is entirely possible to live off the grid, in fact I know people in my area that do. No power from the grid at all. The greatest issue is those on the grid can't imagine life without electricity from he grid, without the internet, without running water, without, without, without...all the luxuries we have come to expect as everyday necessities.

You can also be off grid and "have" all those "luxuries".

 

[Dribble]

https://eig.org/city-population-2023/#:~:text=A narrow majority (52) of,2022, a 12.8 percent decline.

 

[LLCox]

You can have all of those things off-grid, but you become your own utilities -
* electricity
* propane
* firewood
* water
* secptic
* road/driveway maintenance
* trees, grass, fire mitigation
* digital media
* trash and recycling
* vehicle related expenses

Or you could have a cottage or apartment and lots of public spaces and businesses within your neighborhood with all of that stuff taken care of by other people in your community as part of their work.

No thank you, I'll stay back in the woods with my well and wood stove and ZERO neighbors I can see or hear their toilets flush.