The future is dense, walkable cities.

[BabyBoomer50s]

I'm not denying what she said, but pigeons wreck cities too. Lots of things wreck cities, and for the foreseeable future vehicles will still be part of cities. That doesn't mean you can't start make cities more non carbon generating friendly. The US holds the record for having the highest percentage of obese people in the world. Maybe if they walked or road bikes more, that would change.

No argument from me. I hate pigeons and like trails.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Hampstead in Montgomery, Alabama, a 416-acre new town established in 2008, offers a model for community design that promotes interaction and well-being

Formal civic institutions at Hampstead include a Montessori school, a public library, a community farm and gardens, pools, a YMCA and other wellness facilities, and a farmer’s market. The developers also launched the Hampstead Institute, a nonprofit, to oversee the farm, organize community events, and promote life-long learning for the community and wider region. The town’s informal institutions include an annual farm dinner, gatherings at town center restaurants, and other events.

Many of the aspects of daily life are designed into Hampstead. “A resident can walk a child to school, work out at the gym, grab a coffee, work at the office, stop at the library or check mail at the post office, go to the dog park, drop kids at soccer or tennis practice, pick vegetables from the farm, and meet friends for dinner,” explains the development team. These activities often have a social component. A healthy neighborhood has overlapping institutions, so a resident could know people from the school or library and also regularly meet them picking up vegetables, going to the dog park, or at one of the town’s “third places.” That’s a feature of resilient neighborhoods, explains Kaplan.

View attachment 2323183

There’s nothing dystopian about thoughtfully designed, compact, walkable new towns.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I agree with you but the OP says cars “wreck cities.”

For 100 years cities have torn down existing neighborhoods to build an expanding freeway network to move drivers between houses in suburbia and the few scraps of the urban core they leave intact. Many downtowns became bleak expanses of parking lots interspersed with high rises. As Chrisssie Hynde says: “I went back to Ohio and my city was gone.”

Maybe it would be more accurate to say “prioritizing cars over all other forms of transit wrecks cities.”

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

You use the term 'forced', where a lot of other people would instead use the term 'allowed'.

Someone can dress up any situation to make it sound nice: "Rent free, free food, no bills, work outside in the beautiful weather, all ya gotta do is obey your master and meet your cotton quota!"

The point being no matter how nice or comfortable a prison is painted in theory, it's still a prison. "Rents are lower" is just a subtle way of hinting at economic shackles and keeping the poor away from the non poor.

I'm not suggesting or implying that's your perspective or vision, but situations can be seen in different light by other people.

The important question is, are people free to not live that way, or do only the rich get have their own home, back yard, privacy, a car, etc?

In most American cities it’s very difficult to hold a job without a car. Doing simple day -to-day things like buying groceries is equally hard. People without cars are treated like second-class citizens. If you don’t want to live in a fifteen-minute city you’re free to buy a house in the countryside, but the rest of us should not be expected to subsidize your car-centric lifestyle.

 

[TastySuckToy]

In most American cities it’s very difficult to hold a job without a car. Doing simple day -to-day things like buying groceries is equally hard. People without cars are treated like second-class citizens.

Taxis and things like Uber aren't a thing is US cities?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Taxis and things like Uber aren't a thing is US cities?

Hiring a car is even more expensive than owning one. Taking taxis and Ubers aren’t a solution for people who can’t afford a car.

 

[wizzard426]

View attachment 2323196

 

[TastySuckToy]

Hiring a car is even more expensive than owning one. Taking taxis and Ubers aren’t a solution for people who can’t afford a car.

Then a good idea would be to make vehicles less expensive and easier to obtain for people.

That sounds cheaper than redesigning entire cities.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Then a good idea would be to make vehicles less expensive and easier to obtain for people.

That sounds cheaper than redesigning entire cities.

Or we could just eliminate on-street parking and convert the parking lanes to bike lanes. That’s a lot cheaper than giving everyone a car. Bike lanes everywhere are better for emergency response times too. Instead of being stuck in traffic, fire trucks take the bike lane.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Or we could just eliminate on-street parking and convert the parking lanes to bike lanes.

I think you're going to face impossible resistance trying to replace people's cars with bikes.

 

[KeithD]

I've come to look at this "walkable/bikeable city" issue from a new direction as I've aged and been disabled by spine operation issues over the past year. A pretty good percentage of folks can't walk unassisted--or very far even with assistance--and even more can't navigate their daily life using a bicycle rather than a car, without even taking weather issues into account. Anyone not taking this into account in discussions like this, I think, is just smoking impractical dreams. I highly doubt that anyone's realistic view of a city navigation future accepts a significant increase of folks--in a reality that the population is increasingly aging--who couldn't navigate the city at all in their dream scenario.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I think you're going to face impossible resistance trying to replace people's cars with bikes.

The idea isn’t to force anybody to switch. The idea is to make it easier to live your life day-to-day without a car

 

[TastySuckToy]

The idea isn’t to force anybody to switch. The idea is to make it easier to live your life day-to-day without a car

So what happens to all the cars that were parking before?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I've come to look at this "walkable/bikeable city" issue from a new direction as I've aged and been disabled by spine operation issues over the past year. A pretty good percentage of folks can't walk unassisted--or very far even with assistance--and even more can't navigate their daily life using a bicycle rather than a car, without even taking weather issues into account. Anyone not taking this into account in discussions like this, I think, are just smoking impractical dreams.

Bike lanes can accommodate people in electric scooters as well as cyclists. Having housing close to amenities with smooth sidewalks and curb cuts also makes it easier for disabled people to live independently.

Many people as they age can’t drive because of visual or cognitive impairment. With walkable cities they can still get around by themselves.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

So what happens to all the cars that were parking before?

They can park in private lots and pay the market rate. Why should my tax dollars go to providing free parking for someone else’s car?

 

[KeithD]

Bike lanes can accommodate people in electric scooters as well as cyclists. Having housing close to amenities with smooth sidewalks and curb cuts also makes it easier for disabled people to live independently.

Many people as they age can’t drive because of visual or cognitive impairment. With walkable cities they can still get around by themselves.

I don't think you're getting the difficulty of going out under the elements in any form of disability assist other than a car (and not just cars to drive--also vehicles one can convenient get to and that will shelter them during transportation).

And again, the older you get, the more difficult it is to walk at all. In talking "walkable cities" without being more realistic is, in fact, making a growing percentage of the population just disappear in your planning.

 

[KeithD]

They can park in private lots and pay the market rate. Why should my tax dollars go to providing free parking for someone else’s car?

Because you aren't the only demographic involved in covering society's needs? And just maybe because someday you'll be old and needing the support you provided when you were younger? I could counter with why should I pay high property taxes now, with most of it going to public schools, if I don't need public schools anymore?

 

[TastySuckToy]

They can park in private lots and pay the market rate. Why should my tax dollars go to providing free parking for someone else’s car?

Then you're onboard with the idea that taxpayers should only pay for what they support and agree with?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I don't think you're getting the difficulty of going out under the elements in any form of disability assist other than a car.

And again, the older you get, the more difficult it is to walk at all. In talking "walkable cities" without being more realistic is, in fact, making a growing percentage of the population just disappear in your planning.

A walkable city isn’t a place where everyone must walk, but a city where everyone can walk. If you need to be driven to a doctor’s appointment or taken to the hospital in an ambulance it’s much better if the streets aren’t clogged with young, healthy people in cars.

 

[KeithD]

A walkable city isn’t a place where everyone must walk, but a city where everyone can walk. If you need to be driven to a doctor’s appointment or taken to the hospital in an ambulance it’s much better if the streets aren’t clogged with young, healthy people in cars.

That would be including the total population in the plans, yes. That wasn't where this thread was centering. It also slides away from your "why should I pay for something I'm not now using?" post. I guess that's a separate issue--but I think your post on that was wrongheaded.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

That would be including the total population in the plans, yes. That wasn't where this thread was centering. It also slides away from your "why should I pay for something I'm not now using?" post. I guess that's a separate issue--but I think your post on that was wrongheaded.

If I phrased it as “let’s redirect the some of subsidies we currently give to drivers to people who want more transit choices” would that be more palatable?

Cars are so ubiquitous in American society that people don’t notice how much we subsidize them.

Car-centric cities are a policy choice, and part of changing that policy is pointing out that we’re spending a lot of money to make our cities less livable.

 

[MajorRewrite]

I don't think you're getting the difficulty of going out under the elements in any form of disability assist other than a car (and not just cars to drive--also vehicles one can convenient get to and that will shelter them during transportation).

And again, the older you get, the more difficult it is to walk at all. In talking "walkable cities" without being more realistic is, in fact, making a growing percentage of the population just disappear in your planning.

Nonsense. It’s easier for a person in a wheelchair or mobility scooter to get around in a compact, walkable community than in the drive-everywhere suburbs.

 

[KeithD]

Nonsense. It’s easier for a person in a wheelchair or mobility scooter to get around in a compact, walkable community than in the drive-everywhere suburbs.

Again, I bet you haven't actually done it on a daily basis.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Again, I bet you haven't actually done it on a daily basis.

When my mother got too old to drive, she moved into a condo downtown. Mom never had great mobility (overweight, bad hip) but she loved being able to slowly make her way around downtown with a cane and later with a walker.

Being in the compact walkable downtown let her continue to be independent and self-sufficient because of the easy access to stores, restaurants, movies and events. She wished she’d moved downtown much earlier in life.

Edit: I want to add that Mom’s social life also improved after moving downtown. She met lots of people just by being out and about daily. When I was with her, I’d often be surprised by how many people knew Mom by name and would stop to chat with her. It was a real quality of life improvement.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Of course, it is ableist to insist on an environment that privileges only those who are able to drive. Only 60 percent of the American population can drive. Our automobile environments disenfranchise and endanger those who are physically unable or too young to drive, or too poor to own a car. The total number of nondrivers is expected to increase dramatically as Baby Boomers age.

Aging population needs walkable, bikeable cities

An interesting article on the need to better serve seniors when planning communities.