The future is dense, walkable cities.

[dmallord]

One thing you better account for in a future filled with dense walkable cities (no cars) , is emergency preparedness / evacuation plans on a massive scale.

I suppose most future cities could be "hardened" against wildfires and Hurricanes, etc, through creative construction planning and methods, but there will still be times when an entire population (or a significant portion) of a city needs to “get out now” en masse, due to a mega fire, a monster hurricane, a Tsunami, the release of toxic chemicals from a train derailment or an accident at a chemical plant, etc, etc,

Private vehicles allow for evacuation with family, pets, important documents, and some important valuables.

I’m not sue how you would achieve an acceptable emergency evacuation without private vehicles.

Paul Simon had the solution:

The problem is all inside your head she said to me
The answer is easy if you take it logically
I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free
There must be fifty ways to leave your city

She said it's really not my habit to intrude
Furthermore, I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued
But I'll repeat myself at the risk of being crude
There must be fifty ways to leave your city
Fifty ways to leave your city

You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
...

 

[MajorRewrite]

One thing you better account for in a future filled with dense walkable cities (no cars) , is emergency preparedness / evacuation plans on a massive scale.

I suppose most future cities could be "hardened" against wildfires and Hurricanes, etc, through creative construction planning and methods, but there will still be times when an entire population (or a significant portion) of a city needs to “get out now” en masse, due to a mega fire, a monster hurricane, a Tsunami, the release of toxic chemicals from a train derailment or an accident at a chemical plant, etc, etc,

Private vehicles allow for evacuation with family, pets, important documents, and some important valuables.

I’m not sue how you would achieve an acceptable emergency evacuation without private vehicles.

1. There was a time before cars when all of these issues were handled without cars. God didn’t create cars on day 1.

2. Ask any Floridian about how well cars work when they evacuate for a hurricane. The interstate highways become parking lots.

3. Nobody is suggesting a ban on cars anyway. Individual neighborhoods can be car-free or car-light without any kind of general ban on cars.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

One thing you better account for in a future filled with dense walkable cities (no cars) , is emergency preparedness / evacuation plans on a massive scale.

I suppose most future cities could be "hardened" against wildfires and Hurricanes, etc, through creative construction planning and methods, but there will still be times when an entire population (or a significant portion) of a city needs to “get out now” en masse, due to a mega fire, a monster hurricane, a Tsunami, the release of toxic chemicals from a train derailment or an accident at a chemical plant, etc, etc,

Private vehicles allow for evacuation with family, pets, important documents, and some important valuables.

I’m not sue how you would achieve an acceptable emergency evacuation without private vehicles.

A prime test case might materialize in Solano County CA in what’s being called “California Forever.” I have no idea what the billionaires behind it have in mind with regard to transportation or many other variables but it’s an urban petri dish experiment that’s going to be interesting to follow.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

A small point:

American commute: dominated by cars
Americans still largely rely on their car to get to work and back. According to Statista’s Global Consumer Survey, 76 percent of American commuters use their own car to move between home and work, making it by far the most popular mode of transportation. Meanwhile, only 11 percent of the 5,649 respondents use public transportation while 10 percent ride their bike. As our chart shows, alternatives to the car have become more popular since 2019, but none comes close to challenging the car's status as the king of the American commute.

There are several factors contributing to the low adoption of bicycles as a means of everyday transportation: for one, Americans are used to commuting longer distances than people in most European nations, automatically ruling out the bike for many. And secondly, many major cities in the U.S. aren’t exactly bike-friendly. According to a recent study, just three American cities made it into the 50 most bicycle-friendly cities in the world, when taking into account factors such as bicycle infrastructure, safety and usage as well as things as mundane as the weather.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/commute-america-sustainability-cars/

lmfao. Did you even read and comprehend what's been posted in this thread??? No one is denying what you posted is the norm. People here are posting about changing the norm. Fuck you're dense.

 

[MajorRewrite]

I looked into the Florida lakeside burb. This is a fifty-square-mile area designed primarily as a retirement community with homes ranging from $300,000 to $3m. I noticed all the homes had two and three-car garages. The map shows a remote industrial park with various businesses - outside the burb, nothing industrial as in manufacturing - think paper pushers variety of jobs. Thus its mixed community claim for jobs.

The person I contacted said it is a private funded development started by one family, it is 30 years into the program on a 50 year project.

I suspect this model is far from the 'common man's wealth level, which is the topic of discussion here - those fifteen-minute lifestyle cities.

Clearly, it is not dystopian. But not designed for a nation of 300,000,000 folks spread out across a vast continent.

Lakewood Ranch is the name of the entire development. It’s huge and not just for rich people. It does include mansions, but also townhouses and apartments and everything in between.

There are over 2,800 businesses in Lakewood Ranch, with more than 20,000 employees. https://lakewoodranch.com/business-at-the-ranch/

New town centers like Waterside at Lakewood Ranch have been built all across the nation. They are a good way to improve a suburb. They aren’t just for rich people.

Before cars were invented, compact walkable towns and cities were all there was. They spread from sea to shining sea. Imagine that! Those places still exist, although most were messed up by tearing down a lot of buildings to create parking lots.

 

[Lazaran]

1. There was a time before cars when all of these issues were handled without cars. God didn’t create cars on day 1.

2. Ask any Floridian about how well cars work when they evacuate for a hurricane. The interstate highways become parking lots.

3. Nobody is suggesting a ban on cars anyway. Individual neighborhoods can be car-free or car-light without any kind of general ban on cars.

The combination of modern day population and climate change exacerbated weathers events (and wildfires), and changes to the landscape, make comparisons / analogies to the past fairly pointless, imho.

I’m not saying there couldn’t be a mix of solutions, but until someone figures out a way to replace the quick “pick up and go with the whole family, pets, and some valuable possessions” capabilities of mass private vehicle ownership, one of the main selling points / purposes of dense, walkable cities is going to be negated imho.

Maybe each 3-4 story apartment building with x number of residents would be required to have on site transportation capable of accommodating all residents, their pets, and some valuable possessions, and they would have to practice emergency evacuations every six months or so.

 

[MajorRewrite]

The combination of modern day population and climate change exacerbated weathers events (and wildfires), and changes to the landscape, make comparisons / analogies to the past fairly pointless, imho.

Most places in the US have never required a single mass evacuation in their entire history. It’s not an issue.

And as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, nobody is suggesting a ban of cars.

 

[Lazaran]

Most places in the US have never required a single mass evacuation in their entire history. It’s not an issue.

And as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, nobody is suggesting a ban of cars.

Sans the cost (and other) benefits of eliminating private car ownership, developing all new "dense walkable cities" would be wasteful and extravagant imho.

Ending mass private car ownership is kinda the whole point of moving to “dense, walkable cities”, no???

 

[coati]

Most Americans are energy gluttons. BSG started this thread to talk about ways to curb that gluttony in cities and in some planned communities.

Also, most Americans can't imagine life without their personal cars or trucks. Many people already gave up owning energy-expensive personal vehicles, and many more will follow suit in the future.

 

[dmallord]

Lakewood Ranch is the name of the entire development. It’s huge and not just for rich people. It does include mansions, but also townhouses and apartments and everything in between.

There are over 2,800 businesses in Lakewood Ranch, with more than 20,000 employees. https://lakewoodranch.com/business-at-the-ranch/

New town centers like Waterside at Lakewood Ranch have been built all across the nation. They are a good way to improve a suburb. They aren’t just for rich people.

Before cars were invented, compact walkable towns and cities were all there was. They spread from sea to shining sea. Imagine that! Those places still exist, although most were messed up by tearing down a lot of buildings to create parking lots.

I hear you. When I was young many of the 'old timers' lived all their lives within twenty-five miles of where they were born and rarely evey left. It had everything they needed to eat, work, and dwell in that spot. Simple lifestyles.

Reminds me of Joni Mitchell's song: Big Yellow Taxi

They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel *, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum *
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em
...

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I hear you. When I was young many of the 'old timers' lived all their lives within twenty-five miles of where they were born and rarely evey left. It had everything they needed to eat, work, and dwell in that spot. Simple lifestyles.

Reminds me of Joni Mitchell's song: Big Yellow Taxi

They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel *, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum *
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em
...

I went back to Ohio
But my city was gone
There was no train station
There was no downtown
South Howard had disappeared
All my favorite places
My city had been pulled down
Reduced to parking spaces
A, o, way to go Ohio

Well I went back to Ohio
But my family was gone
I stood on the back porch
There was nobody home
I was stunned and amazed
My childhood memories
Slowly swirled past
Like the wind through the trees
A, o, oh way to go Ohio

I went back to Ohio
But my pretty countryside
Had been paved down the middle
By a government that had no pride
The farms of Ohio
Had been replaced by shopping malls
And Muzak filled the air
From Seneca to Cuyahoga falls
Said, a, o, oh way to go Ohio

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Sans the cost (and other) benefits of eliminating private car ownership, developing all new "dense walkable cities" would be wasteful and extravagant imho.

Ending mass private car ownership is kinda the whole point of moving to “dense, walkable cities”, no???

It's not about building new cities. It's about retrofitting the bad old ones to be more livable. Simple things like widening sidewalks, converting parking lanes into dedicated bus or protected bike lanes, narrowing streets to make drivers slow down. LA is lucky, we still have a network of rail right-of-ways from the old Pacific Electric red cars. Newer cities built entirely around cars may need to run trolleys down main streets, but building a trolley is cheaper than widening a freeway.

Single-family suburbs are harder, but they can be rezoned for apartments and townhouses around a central walkable core. The point isn't to ban cars, but to make other ways of getting around cheaper and more convenient. And to make it so people don't need a car so much in their day-to-day lives.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Sans the cost (and other) benefits of eliminating private car ownership, developing all new "dense walkable cities" would be wasteful and extravagant imho.

Ending mass private car ownership is kinda the whole point of moving to “dense, walkable cities”, no???

No. It’s not an all-or-nothing situation.

In this thread I posted a couple of examples of new compact walkable communities that have been built. There are many other examples.

Cities around the world are improving their streetscapes to make walking and biking safer and more enjoyable.

These developments enable some people to live car-free if they want to.

The Netherlands is famous for leading the way (about 30% of them make the majority of trips by bike). Interesting YouTube video:

 

[TrailerHitch]

I'm sure these walkable, bike friendly, cities will be embraced with open arms in areas of the snow belt with 35 below zero winters.

 

[Lazaran]

It's not about building new cities. It's about retrofitting the bad old ones to be more livable. Simple things like widening sidewalks, converting parking lanes into dedicated bus or protected bike lanes, narrowing streets to make drivers slow down. LA is lucky, we still have a network of rail right-of-ways from the old Pacific Electric red cars. Newer cities built entirely around cars may need to run trolleys down main streets, but building a trolley is cheaper than widening a freeway.

Single-family suburbs are harder, but they can be rezoned for apartments and townhouses around a central walkable core. The point isn't to ban cars, but to make other ways of getting around cheaper and more convenient. And to make it so people don't need a car so much in their day-to-day lives.

Yeah, I think being specific about what the actual plan is makes wrapping one’s mind around it easier.



I can see the benefits of more “dense, walkable cities”, but I can also see some potential drawbacks / downsides.

I’m not sure if the balance tips in favor or against.

There are costs involved (in financial and natural resources and logistics) upon implementing the plan, and there are hidden costs that arise when people literally live on top of each other and also share public transportation.

I would also go back to the idea of a large number of people abandoning their private vehicles in “dense, walkable cities”, if only as a cost saving measure, which once again creates a problem in the event of an emergency evacuation situation.

I think I lean more towards future suburbs with an industrial center ringed by medical services, then educational and food services and lastly , with small footprint, super robust, energy efficient (zero energy) single family dwellings, and all commuted by no frills personal electric transportation options and ride share options.

If / when there is another pandemic with an even deadlier pathogen, I think having the diversity / isolation of transportation and living spaces would serve society well; and with individual, self sufficient zero energy single family dwellings, a tornado, fire, or some other localized destructive event wouldn’t create a cascading crisis caused by a mass of people getting displaced all at once when those localized destructive events hit multi unit dwellings.

Of course, there are downsides to being more spread out, like the increased likelihood of getting hit by a tornado, traffic, accidents, commute times, energy consumption for commuting, etc, etc, so…

 

[Chernosoth]

On the prairie, wherever the prairie happens to be with climate change, there will be fewer cities. The European habit of settled farming is a failure there, with soil erosion, depleted aquifers, and so on down the list of doing everything wrong. The economy that survives there is more likely to be herders moving with the herds, much like the Native Americans hunting bison and Central Asians on the steppe. On hoof or human foot, that life will be mostly walking. Infrastructure may be stripped and sold to neighboring regions.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Yeah, I think being specific about what the actual plan is makes wrapping one’s mind around it easier.



I can see the benefits of more “dense, walkable cities”, but I can also see some potential drawbacks / downsides.

I’m not sure if the balance tips in favor or against.

There are costs involved (in financial and natural resources and logistics) upon implementing the plan, and there are hidden costs that arise when people literally live on top of each other and also share public transportation.

I would also go back to the idea of a large number of people abandoning their private vehicles in “dense, walkable cities”, if only as a cost saving measure, which once again creates a problem in the event of an emergency evacuation situation.

I think I lean more towards future suburbs with an industrial center ringed by medical services, then educational and food services and lastly , with small footprint, super robust, energy efficient (zero energy) single family dwellings, and all commuted by no frills personal electric transportation options and ride share options.

If / when there is another pandemic with an even deadlier pathogen, I think having the diversity / isolation of transportation and living spaces would serve society well; and with individual, self sufficient zero energy single family dwellings, a tornado, fire, or some other localized destructive event wouldn’t create a cascading crisis caused by a mass of people getting displaced all at once when those localized destructive events hit multi unit dwellings.

Of course, there are downsides to being more spread out, like the increased likelihood of getting hit by a tornado, traffic, accidents, commute times, energy consumption for commuting, etc, etc, so…

I think imposing the constraint that the people in a 15-minute city have to be able to evacuate is unreasonable. You can’t do that with car-based towns RIGHT NOW. The road network quickly becomes overwhelmed, and when people start abandoning their cars to flee on foot the chaos becomes worse.

That’s what happened when small town of Paradise tried to evacuate by car ahead of the Camp Fire in 2018.

 

[Chernosoth]

I'm sure these walkable, bike friendly, cities will be embraced with open arms in areas of the snow belt with 35 below zero winters.

That cold, but in a yurt, tipi, or wigwam, with cowchips for fuel, not a city home with central heating.

 

[Lazaran]

I think imposing the constraint that the people in a 15-minute city have to be able to evacuate is unreasonable. You can’t do that with car-based towns RIGHT NOW. The road network quickly becomes overwhelmed, and when people start abandoning their cars to flee on foot the chaos becomes worse.

That’s what happened when small town of Paradise tried to evacuate by car ahead of the Camp Fire in 2018.

Yes, I’m sure there are situations where it wouldn’t help one way or the other, but, in general, when an evacuation is ordered with a reasonable amount of notice, and people have their own vehicles, an evacuation can happen pretty efficiently and effectively.

I do have greater concerns about concentrating people together for the other reasons I mentioned, and about implementing any city planning that involves abandoning established infrastructure and developing new: Transitioning to some new community paradigm in a country as large and varied (terrain, climate, attitudes, finances, resources, workforces, etc) would likely come with unforeseen challenges and costs.

I guess what I’m saying, is that I don’t think the foreseeable future is dense, walkable cities;, other than some scattered, well planned developments in locations where they make sense. For there to be wholesale adoption of the concept, a seismic shift in society would likely have to occur. (Climate change may force dense, walkable cities into existence.)

JMTCW

 

[MajorRewrite]

I'm sure these walkable, bike friendly, cities will be embraced with open arms in areas of the snow belt with 35 below zero winters.

The Scandinavian countries definitely do embrace walkable, bike-friendly, compact towns and cities. They’re the world leaders in developing them.

And even if you don’t want to bike or walk in winter, why would that preclude you from building streets that are safe and comfortable for biking and walking the rest of the year?

Minneapolis says hi!

https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/how-minneapolis-became-a-top-u.s.-bike-city

 

[MajorRewrite]

Drexel Town Square — a new town center built in a suburban area outside of Milwaukee. A place that gets cold. Imagine that.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I'm sure these walkable, bike friendly, cities will be embraced with open arms in areas of the snow belt with 35 below zero winters.

Yes, they are. I'm in a snowbelt, and -45 is not uncommon. I am stunned by people out biking in -30, but there they are....

 

[MajorRewrite]

… implementing any city planning that involves abandoning established infrastructure and developing new: Transitioning to some new community paradigm in a country as large and varied (terrain, climate, attitudes, finances, resources, workforces, etc) would likely come with unforeseen challenges and costs.

New neighborhoods are continually built all across the country. Currently most of those are unwalkable, unbikeable suburban sprawl. But some have good sidewalks, good bike paths separated from traffic, and some even include new town centers. More of the new development could include the good stuff if it was mandated.

 

[TrailerHitch]

The Scandinavian countries definitely do embrace walkable, bike-friendly, compact towns and cities. They’re the world leaders in developing them.

And even if you don’t want to bike or walk in winter, why would that preclude you from building streets that are safe and comfortable for biking and walking the rest of the year?

Minneapolis says hi!

https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/how-minneapolis-became-a-top-u.s.-bike-city

Believe whatever you like.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

New neighborhoods are continually built all across the country. Currently most of those are unwalkable, unbikeable suburban sprawl. But some have good sidewalks, good bike paths separated from traffic, and some even include new town centers. More of the new development could include the good stuff if it was mandated.

Consider what’s happening in LA right now. There are lots of high-density areas where you don’t need a car—Beverly Hills, Hollywood, Culver City, Santa Monica—stitch them together with train lines and bike paths, and support developing other pockets of walkability between them, and in a few decades you’ve turned LA into a 15-minute city without rebuilding it from scratch.