The future is dense, walkable cities.

[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…

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Believe whatever you like.

Believe whatever you like.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Believe whatever you like.

Hitch, why do you have an issue with facts? Just because you disagree, doesn't make you right.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Believe whatever you like.

I do, having spent the vast majority of my life in the upper midwest, until leaving the shit of 5 to 7 month winters for the glory of maybe 2 weeks of cold and most years almost no snow, for Tennessee. When it gets to the minus 20's and 30's with wind chills to 50 below most people do not walk anywhere, let alone bike. Only the most hardy, or insane, snowmobilers or ice fisherman come out on days like that. Hell the schools even close now when it gets to 20 below. So while this idea may work in places like California, I'm not sure the cold belt is a good candidate for it.

 

[MajorRewrite]

I do, having spent the vast majority of my life in the upper midwest, until leaving the shit of 5 to 7 month winters for the glory of maybe 2 weeks of cold and most years almost no snow, for Tennessee. When it gets to the minus 20's and 30's with wind chills to 50 below most people do not walk anywhere, let alone bike. Only the most hardy, or insane, snowmobilers or ice fisherman come out on days like that. Hell the schools even close now when it gets to 20 below. So while this idea may work in places like California, I'm not sure the cold belt is a good candidate for it.

So it gets cold. What about the rest of the year?

As I posted above, Minneapolis is one of the US’ best cycling cities.

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

 

[TrailerHitch]

So it gets cold. What about the rest of the year?

As I posted above, Minneapolis is one of the US’ best cycling cities.

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

Yay for Minneapolis...

So what about the rest of the year. Do you suggest people that people that don't want to walk, or bike, 15 minutes to the grocery store, or anywhere else for that matter, in sub zero weather hibernate? Or become snow birds and leave for warmer climates in the winter? Seriously what's your answer?

 

[HisArpy]

Yay for Minneapolis...

So what about the rest of the year. Do you suggest people that people that don't want to walk, or bike, 15 minutes to the grocery store, or anywhere else for that matter, in sub zero weather hibernate? Or become snow birds and leave for warmer climates in the winter? Seriously what's your answer?

They have no real answer because, like most of their ideas, this one doesn't encompass all the possible variables and situations.

Instead what they'll do is grant "exceptions" for special situations (ambulances/fire/police/etc) Exceptions which always seem to fall in favor of those with wealth and power and which ALWAYS funnel the money and services upward to a chosen few.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Yay for Minneapolis...

So what about the rest of the year. Do you suggest people that people that don't want to walk, or bike, 15 minutes to the grocery store, or anywhere else for that matter, in sub zero weather hibernate? Or become snow birds and leave for warmer climates in the winter? Seriously what's your answer?

Who said anything about banning cars? Nobody.

I’m in favor of streets that are safe for walking and biking. It’s a simple concept.

Do you hate all forms of physical exercise, or just walking and biking?