# Making Streets Narrower



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

joezierer said:


> Suburbanist: If you want to live somewhere wide open with lots of space why not live in the country?
> 
> Instead you want all of us to deal with your social engineering. People don't want to live in the suburbs anymore, and you're just gonna have to deal.


People? What people? It's true that some of us prefer urban areas, but it seems like the majority of Americans prefer suburban life - since that is where majority currently lives. In almost every large city, more than half of the metro population is outside of the city limits. That doesn't necessarily mean that they live in a suburb, but for the most part they don't live in an urban area either. It's sad, but true.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

WeimieLvr said:


> . I don't think that most of us believe that every street should be narrowed and arranged with only the pedestrian in mind, but some apparently should be more pedestrian oriented with others should be more automobile oriented. There is a place for both.


I agree with balance, but what some people in this thread is advocating is making access by car to large swaths of cities purposefully difficult/slow/annoying to force them to walk or use already slow trams/buses.


----------



## Martin S (Sep 12, 2002)

I see argument for narrowing streets in order to allow better pedestrian access. However, this can't be a universal panacea. For those of us who live in more northerly climes, where the sun is lower in the sky, narrow streets, depending on their alignment, can be dark and dank.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> I agree with balance, but what some people in this thread is advocating is making access by car to large swaths of cities purposefully difficult/slow/annoying to force them to walk or use already slow trams/buses.


True...I see it as forcing drivers using particular streets as cut-throughs to use an alternate rather than causing more pedestrian-oriented areas to continue to be unsafe. That seems to be the more logical use of narrowing streets, but apparently some people would advocate doing away with cars altogether - but I guarantee you that most of them drive as much as anyone else.:lol:


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

WeimieLvr said:


> True...I see it as forcing drivers using particular streets as cut-throughs to use an alternate rather than causing more pedestrian-oriented areas to continue to be unsafe. That seems to be the more logical use of narrowing streets, but apparently some people would advocate doing away with cars altogether - but I guarantee you that most of them drive as much as anyone else.:lol:


I see two completely different scenarios:

- having pedestrianized streets in different areas fit for walking etc = ok
- "cordoning off" cars from large areas as they did in London = bad


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> I see two completely different scenarios:
> 
> - "cordoning off" cars from large areas as they did in London = bad


If you really need to you can still pay the charge to enter central London and most roads are still open to cars. However the bottom line is car travel absolutely and categorically has to be restricted in London. Just imagine all the cars from Zone 1 to Zone 6 all trying to get into central London in the morning peak. That'd be carmogeddon in the millionth order. By the time you've got in it'd be home time.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

NCT said:


> If you really need to you can still pay the charge to enter central London and most roads are still open to cars. However the bottom line is car travel absolutely and categorically has to be restricted in London. Just imagine all the cars from Zone 1 to Zone 6 all trying to get into central London in the morning peak. That'd be carmogeddon in the millionth order. By the time you've got in it'd be home time.


That wouldn't happen either.

Outside the core in London, there is a semi-decent subway network (it's crap and old, but the streets are also narrow and lack major widening as Paris and Madrid had done in late 19th century) and commuter trains. People living AND working close to fast transportation links could still use them, but if they got rid of some pedestrianized streets and carved more car lanes against sidewalks, people would have more choice, particularly those who DO NOT live near a tube station in the outskirts and have to use filthy and utter slow buses to get into a tube station.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

This thread is funny because there are "walkable" cities in Europe with multiple traffic lanes and tram tracks and people still cross those. How about NYC the densest city in the US where there are one way streets with 4 lanes going one direction or 6 lane boulevards. People manage fine in those cities so why do smaller cities that aren't as dense or have many people downtown narrowing roads? Even better is in big cities like New York the traffic controls your speed, with no traffic I've driven 30-45mph in Manhattan. However with traffic I've gone slow. Take a city by me Tampa, the downtown is dead and I can do higher speeds with no problem most of the day. 

Don't get me wrong I have no issue with widening sidewalks if its needed. But to take away traffic lanes and make the roads narrower, put twists or curves, and bumps in places where the pedestrian activity is fairly low anyways is just pointless.


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

Pedestrian activity is mostly low because it's forced out of some areas or there's no walkable infrastructure. You're seeing this from the wrong pov here.


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> I agree with balance, but what some people in this thread is advocating is making access by car to large swaths of cities purposefully difficult/slow/annoying to force them to walk or use already slow trams/buses.


Generally speaking what town planners want to achieve is to fluidify transport for everyone involved, not just for one mode at the expense of another. There is no such thing as completely separate categories of traveller: i.e. personal automobile, public transport and pedestrian - people will change between modes according to their needs and practicality for each trip, and the objective is for them to have those options. The more modes of transport people can use, the less each mode will face congestion and over-capacity.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> That wouldn't happen either.
> 
> Outside the core in London, there is a semi-decent subway network (it's crap and old, but the streets are also narrow and lack major widening as Paris and Madrid had done in late 19th century) and commuter trains. People living AND working close to fast transportation links could still use them, but if they got rid of some pedestrianized streets and carved more car lanes against sidewalks, people would have more choice, particularly those who DO NOT live near a tube station in the outskirts and have to use filthy and utter slow buses to get into a tube station.


It would happen, the problem with making roads bigger is that it attracts more cars, and unless the road get converted into a dual 4 lane Motorway (London Ringway plan) the roads will just get jammed and also all the roads leading to them. Outside central London, particularly in the north the roads are much larger aka North Circular. But traffic on that road is ridiculous, because the road is so big. If they got rid of it, the cars would no longer be there. Not saying its a good idea, but its what would happen.


----------



## joezierer (Jan 16, 2011)

WeimieLvr said:


> People? What people? It's true that some of us prefer urban areas, but it seems like the majority of Americans prefer suburban life - since that is where majority currently lives. In almost every large city, more than half of the metro population is outside of the city limits. That doesn't necessarily mean that they live in a suburb, but for the most part they don't live in an urban area either. It's sad, but true.


Well yeah and a lot of people are racists, that doesn't mean we should start lynching blacks again.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

poshbakerloo said:


> It would happen, the problem with making roads bigger is that it attracts more cars, and unless the road get converted into a dual 4 lane Motorway (London Ringway plan) the roads will just get jammed and also all the roads leading to them. Outside central London, particularly in the north the roads are much larger aka North Circular. But traffic on that road is ridiculous, because the road is so big. If they got rid of it, the cars would no longer be there. Not saying its a good idea, but its what would happen.


But you are ignoring a basic fact: cars do not pop up somewhere just because there are lanes available?

Doubt me? Go to a place like Detroit (with oversized boulevards and a population reduced by 60% in 40 years) or Kansas City or Omaha.

If you narrow a street, cars don't disappear, but quality of mobility suffers.

This is the same of I say: that subway lines has lots of traffic, people stand and they even queue on turnstiles. Oh, let's close that subway and all passengers will disappear!


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Street narrowing might be the only way to go for the downtown stretch of Yonge Street in Toronto. The sidewalk is already bursting at the seams and its only at the beginning of its vertical development. I wouldn't want to see car traffic eliminated or for it to become 1 way, but one lane in each direction could work.

Downtown needs to be for the people who live there, not for suburbanites that insist on bringing 3000 lbs of metal, rubber, and glass with them.


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

^ Well said, totally agree! kay:


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

isaidso said:


> Downtown needs to be for the people who live there, not for suburbanites that insist on bringing 3000 lbs of metal, rubber, and glass with them.


Medieval thinking too much, as in "let's build a wall around the city and not let people from outside come in"?

The problem with that reasoning is that is assumes "downtown life" would be able to cater to people of all trades and income, when ideally it wouldn't (downtown should either be a very rich or a very poor place, middle class often will be either priced out or creeped out - they don't want to put up with small cramped apartments that fit their budged in the first case or live among poor people dragging down the public services in the second).


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> But you are ignoring a basic fact: cars do not pop up somewhere just because there are lanes available?
> 
> Doubt me? Go to a place like Detroit (with oversized boulevards and a population reduced by 60% in 40 years) or Kansas City or Omaha.
> 
> ...


The cars don't 'vanish' but people look for the fastest, or cheapest or generally the best way to travel in and around a city. If the roads are all narrow and slow then they will take other forms of transport, leaving the car at home, or like many people in London not even bother buying a car. 

If you live in a city such a Detroit with its huge motorways and boulevard, and not much mass transit then you will drive as its the best way to get around.

All cities have the problem, how do people who live in suburbs 20 miles away get into the city centre. Will I like 13 miles outside Manchester (UK) in the outer suburban area, I take the train as I live quite close to the station and can get to the city centre in about 15-20mins. From there I either walk of take the tram. If you don't live near a station...you drive to the suburban station and do like me, take the train in. In the UK its pretty awkward to drive around city centres which is why many don't bother and which is also why UK cities seem to function fine with roads that are tiny when compared to other cities roads.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

this used to be an ugly road with bollards and fencing, and multiple crossings - a drag for cars and pedestrians alike.

Now it's a shared space - and all the safer for it. It also happens to be much more beautiful, and has done wonders
for all the businesses on the street:


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Bear in mind the average speed of cars in Central London, before the pedestrianisation, congestion charge or the road narrowing was *3-5 mph*. They found out the more car lanes they created the more traffic was attracted. Instead of easing congestion larger roads created it.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

joezierer said:


> Well yeah and a lot of people are racists, that doesn't mean we should start lynching blacks again.


I would love for you explain what racism has to do with suburban living. To even allude to any similarity is ludicrous. hno:


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> The cars don't 'vanish' but people look for the fastest, or cheapest or generally the best way to travel in and around a city. If the roads are all narrow and slow then they will take other forms of transport, leaving the car at home, or like many people in London not even bother buying a car.
> 
> If you live in a city such a Detroit with its huge motorways and boulevard, and not much mass transit then you will drive as its the best way to get around.
> 
> All cities have the problem, how do people who live in suburbs 20 miles away get into the city centre. Will I like 13 miles outside Manchester (UK) in the outer suburban area, I take the train as I live quite close to the station and can get to the city centre in about 15-20mins. From there I either walk of take the tram. If you don't live near a station...you drive to the suburban station and do like me, take the train in. In the UK its pretty awkward to drive around city centres which is why many don't bother and which is also why UK cities seem to function fine with roads that are tiny when compared to other cities roads.


I don't doubt you at all, but when I lived in London the streets in Zone 2 were jam packed for around 12 hours each day. I never had any desire to drive while I was there, but it seemed like millions of others did every day. 
Also some of the streets around Earl's Court area were so wide that I (a relatively young/in-shape person) could barely cross before the lights changed. Granted this wasn't exactly Central London, but along the boundary of it.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

isaidso said:


> Downtown needs to be for the people who live there, not for suburbanites that insist on bringing 3000 lbs of metal, rubber, and glass with them.


Wrong...if a downtown is to survive and remain vibrant it needs to be for everyone living anywhere near it. People living in the general vicinity of a downtown are often it's biggest supporters - as much so as those living there.

Look at the populations of most downtowns...they aren't big enough to totally support it without any input from others who love to be there too but don't/can't live there.


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

True, but still no one should be forced to drive into the world's densest downtowns by car.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

erbse said:


> True, but still no one should be forced to drive into the world's densest downtowns by car.


I'm not sure anyone is "forced" to drive anywhere, especially to the world's most dense downtowns. I don't understand your point.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

the spliff fairy said:


> this used to be an ugly road with bollards and fencing, and multiple crossings - a drag for cars and pedestrians alike.
> 
> Now it's a shared space - and all the safer for it. It also happens to be much more beautiful, and has done wonders
> for all the businesses on the street:


Is that Exhibition Road? Looks really nice!


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

WeimieLvr said:


> I'm not sure anyone is "forced" to drive anywhere, especially to the world's most dense downtowns. I don't understand your point.


If there's no proper public infrastructure (trams, buses, subways etc.) - then you have to drive downtown by car. As simple as that. :cripes:


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

This thread reminds me of this:


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

erbse said:


> If there's no proper public infrastructure (trams, buses, subways etc.) - then you have to drive downtown by car. As simple as that. :cripes:


It was just a strange statement to make, and now you're saying that if there is no public transportation in those cities then people are forced to drive. So which of the world's most dense downtowns have no public transportation?


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Mr Bricks said:


> Is that Exhibition Road? Looks really nice!


yep, it extends for over kilometre from South Kensington tube station to Hyde Park, and past the great museums.


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

WeimieLvr said:


> It was just a strange statement to make, and now you're saying that if there is no public transportation in those cities then people are forced to drive. So which of the world's most dense downtowns have no public transportation?


No it wasn't. The given infrastructure forces you to use it, if there's no alternative.


There are a lot of dense or highly populated downtowns across the globe without efficient public infrastructure. Take a look at Mumbai or Los Angeles, for instance. Though both are improving (and have to), lately.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

erbse said:


> No it wasn't. The given infrastructure forces you to use it, if there's no alternative.
> 
> 
> There are a lot of dense or highly populated downtowns across the globe without efficient public infrastructure. Take a look at Mumbai or Los Angeles, for instance. Though both are improving (and have to), lately.


I'll give you Mumbai, but not LA. There is an extensive rail system available in LA, so no one is "forced" to drive into downtown. So one of the world's most dense cities forces people to drive...but most have very good rail service, so your statement simply is not true.

Anyway, any examples of making streets narrower?


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

WeimieLvr said:


> I'll give you Mumbai, but not LA. There is an extensive rail system available in LA, so no one is "forced" to drive into downtown. So one of the world's most dense cities forces people to drive...but most have very good rail service, so your statement simply is not true.
> 
> Anyway, any examples of making streets narrower?


Actually, Mumbai has better rail connections than LA. Its rail system is heavily used, though heavily CBD-centric. 

I wouldn't necessarily call LA's rail system "extensive" given the size of the city relative to rail transport, though. Yes, it has a rail system, but it is not accessible without using other transport to get to a station for the vast majority of those in Metropolitan LA.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

WeimieLvr said:


> Wrong...if a downtown is to survive and remain vibrant it needs to be for everyone living anywhere near it. People living in the general vicinity of a downtown are often it's biggest supporters - as much so as those living there.
> 
> Look at the populations of most downtowns...they aren't big enough to totally support it without any input from others who love to be there too but don't/can't live there.


Wrong. Atlanta may be a different story, but Toronto's downtown is accessible by bike, streetcar, subway, and regional rail. We also have a large and booming downtown population as people are finally choosing to live where they work. Our downtown population shot up 32.2% over the last 5 years and is expected to jump by a similar amount over the next 5 years.

People are not going to stop visiting downtown Toronto if they can't bring their car. If that were true, the Blue Jays would have gone bankrupt decades ago. Even workers are choosing to leave their cars at city parking lots on the outskirts of Toronto and then take the subway in to the core. 

Downtown Toronto is being re-modeled to cater to the people who actually live here. Those that want to take their cars still can, but their needs come second and they don't get to vote on this. Sidewalk widening and street narrowing is a trend here that's only going to gather steam. Suburbanites that want to take their car can sit in traffic for 3 hours each way for all I care.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

erbse said:


> ^ Well said, totally agree! kay:


It's astonishing how arrogant suburbanites are when it comes to this issue. They fully expect that city folk should have their neighbourhoods torn up/turned over to the automobile just so that they can get here quicker.


----------



## skyridgeline (Dec 7, 2008)

*Fast-paced Hong Kong!*





..


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

urbansouth said:


> As you've probably heard, most major American cities have been undertaking big initiatives to improve walkability/other types of transport.
> Most of our cities, though, have extremely wide streets compared to cities elsewhere. This is discouraging to foot traffic and really all kinds of traffic besides cars. It's great to widen sidewalks, add on-street parking, bike lines, etc, but it's still a bit of issue that the distance between two adjacent buildings is still pretty wide.


You probably don't want your streets to be as wide as those in Moscow, Beijing, or Pyongyang, for the pleasure of tanks, missiles, & other military parades. 

On the other hand, if your a struggling city in the US, & many cities are struggling, is it really worth it to spend millions, if not tends or hundreds of millions to narrow your streets? When some cities in the Middle East or Central Asia are trying to widen their alleys into streets?

If the point is to have a bustling streetlife, easier to make sure your city's attracting a steady share of immigrants, hipsters, students, & others (maybe even a some homeless & occupy types) that make vibrant streetscape's happen.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

isaidso said:


> It's astonishing how arrogant suburbanites are when it comes to this issue. They fully expect that city folk should have their neighbourhoods torn up/turned over to the automobile just so that they can get here quicker.


It is equally astonishing how arrogant people who live "in the city" think of themselves of superior beings, usually trying to prevent things like new housing, office parks, shopping malls from popping out in the middle of farmland just because they can't have a subway/tram/bus taking them there and feel entitled to go anywhere without a car.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

isaidso said:


> Wrong. Atlanta may be a different story, but Toronto's downtown is accessible by bike, streetcar, subway, and regional rail. We also have a large and booming downtown population as people are finally choosing to live where they work. Our downtown population shot up 32.2% over the last 5 years and is expected to jump by a similar amount over the next 5 years.
> 
> People are not going to stop visiting downtown Toronto if they can't bring their car. If that were true, the Blue Jays would have gone bankrupt decades ago. Even workers are choosing to leave their cars at city parking lots on the outskirts of Toronto and then take the subway in to the core.
> 
> Downtown Toronto is being re-modeled to cater to the people who actually live here. Those that want to take their cars still can, but their needs come second and they don't get to vote on this. Sidewalk widening and street narrowing is a trend here that's only going to gather steam. Suburbanites that want to take their car can sit in traffic for 3 hours each way for all I care.


No, don't try to change what you said earlier about downtown only being for the residents there. Your words:



> Downtown needs to be for the people who live there


Downtowns are for the entire metro area, otherwise they cannot function properly. Ask anyone with a business there if they only want downtown residents as customers. I hope you don't believe that the retail on Yonge Street could survive without suburbanite shoppers. 

You are just completely wrong about this.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> Actually, Mumbai has better rail connections than LA. Its rail system is heavily used, though heavily CBD-centric.
> 
> I wouldn't necessarily call LA's rail system "extensive" given the size of the city relative to rail transport, though. Yes, it has a rail system, but it is not accessible without using other transport to get to a station for the vast majority of those in Metropolitan LA.



The earlier comment was that people are "forced" to drive into the world's most dense downtowns, and my contention is that it's simply not true. The most dense downtowns in the world have extensive rail systems that give people options, but erbse disagrees for some reason. :nuts:


----------



## Erthel (Apr 23, 2012)

The thing is that in most dense cities without huge and spread suburbs, like most of the european ones, you dont need to get the car at all. You have everything at hand, from groceries to work to gardens, schools, enjoyment, etc. You can go by walk or using public transport. Most of the people who need the car are the ones that use it for their job, like transportist, electricians, etc.

In urban cities, we have the downtown right at the door, or a few subway stops away. There is no real need for driving in urban cities except for going out to another town, or because you work outside of town.

So, this seems more a discussion between suburbanites&urbanites living in the same town, consisting of huge suburbs and a downtown with some living space. Well, we have different problems in high density cities, but not the "I need highways to drive from my garden house to the townhall square".


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

IrishMan2010 said:


> Underground car parks are one of the most expensive things to build in a city. Overground car parks take up a huge amount of space and are usually an eye sore. Cities are supposed to be vibrant with street life, pedestrians and public transport. The automobile is a drain on cities, and I think that if every city was plastered with public transport and wide open plazas for people to use, cities would be a better place. Don't get me wrong I love cars and I love driving but I think there is a time and place for them.


Sorry, but multistory parking houses do not require much space. And underground parking is quite manageable for new projects. In fact, I don't know any knew project in Germany that has no underground parking. Its quite the norm nowadays.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

You can build multistory garages that fit nicely in the surroundings. You only have to spend some extra money to make them as enclosed facilities (e.g., without appearing to be a deck from which noise escapes all the time. Essentially, you have to use the same ventilation/safety/surveillance systems you'd use for an underground one, minus the digging of course.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> You can build multistory garages that fit nicely in the surroundings. You only have to spend some extra money to make them as enclosed facilities (e.g., without appearing to be a deck from which noise escapes all the time. Essentially, you have to use the same ventilation/safety/surveillance systems you'd use for an underground one, minus the digging of course.


They are hideously ugly from the outside. A pig in makeup is still a pig and no matter what facade you try to plaster on them, they still end up looking faceless and very detrimental to the area around them.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

They are never pretty, but I think I'd rather one multi-storey car park at the same height as surrounding blocks than the same number of spaces spread around multiple surface car parks.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Street parking is enough, underground parking is acceptable in the city center but we have to abandon modernist town planning once and for all.


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

^ Totally agreed.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

BringMe said:


> what's this street I mean what's located there? I can see the Colombian flag


Thats Old City Philadelphia , its a historic part of the city with narrow streets or alleyways. Most of Philly has narrow streets in general with wide boulevards handing most of traffic running north and south and a few East and West carrying Tram lines...

Various Street widths of Philly...


DSCN5622 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


DSCN5559 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


DSCN5567 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Center City - Philadelphia by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Center City - Philadelphia by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


DSCN5587 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Germantown Avenue by RoadsideOnline, on Flickr


Elfreth's Alley by t55z, on Flickr


DSCN0495 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


DSCN3068 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Girard Avenue by chrisinphilly5448, on Flickr


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

Those alleys and European-like pedestrian friendly zones are the reason I fell in love with Philly.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Philly is a great city indeed. It suffers to some extend (even though much much less than some other US cities) however as well from numerous open wounds around downtown.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Dahlis said:


> Street parking is enough, underground parking is acceptable in the city center but we have to abandon modernist town planning once and for all.


I'd actually do away with street parking in favor or multi-story under/overground parking garages.

People lurking around blocks looking for a street park, plus the time it takes to park and un-park the car, are THE major individual source of congestion in street roads of low-speed (Those not designated as thoroughfares).

The flow of traffic is greatly improved if you: (a) get rid of drivers roaming in search of a place to park on-street, (b) streamline the flow because lanes are no longer stopping while someone parallel parks.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Svartmetall said:


> They are hideously ugly from the outside. A pig in makeup is still a pig and no matter what facade you try to plaster on them, they still end up looking faceless and very detrimental to the area around them.


You can hide them behind front buildings, if a development is large enough to afford that but at the same time land is scarce enough not to warrant surface parking lots (a combination rarely seen).


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> Philly is a great city indeed. It suffers to some extend (even though much much less than some other US cities) however as well from numerous open wounds around downtown.


Those will be narrowed along the wide boulevards and protected bike lanes put in with Shielded parking and curb extensions at Intersections so people only need to cross 4 lanes instead of 6 or 8...this should be done by 2025 as part of Philly's push for more people to use biking , Transit and walking over cars. This push is more towards the suburbanites who mainly drive into the city although that will change as well due to No more Parking requirements on new buildings going up in Center City , North and West Philly which forces people to take Transit. So by 2025 Philly will look even more European....there should also be a few restored Trolleys going North and South connecting Northwest Philly to Center City and South Philly.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Nexis said:


> *which forces people to take Transit.*


And herein lies all problems... People shouldn't be "forced" to take transit, they should have the alternative of using it if they like (to save money, not drive/can't drive etc).


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> I'd actually do away with street parking in favor or multi-story under/overground parking garages.
> 
> People lurking around blocks looking for a street park, plus the time it takes to park and un-park the car, are THE major individual source of congestion in street roads of low-speed (Those not designated as thoroughfares).
> 
> The flow of traffic is greatly improved if you: (a) get rid of drivers roaming in search of a place to park on-street, (b) streamline the flow because lanes are no longer stopping while someone parallel parks.


Traffic flows slowly through cities, thats just the way it is. If we change that we have to change the cities and then they are not cities anymore. It has been tried before with disasterous results. 

There should however be rules limiting the parking time (max 3 hours during the day for example). 

If parking takes to long you can always take the underground, tram, bus, or a taxi if you live in a poorly planned area.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> And herein lies all problems... People shouldn't be "forced" to take transit, they should have the alternative of using it if they like (to save money, not drive/can't drive etc).


The biggest reason to use transit in a city is to save time. Not money. Driving isnt and can never be a transport solution for a major city.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Dahlis said:


> Traffic flows slowly through cities


We live in 21st Century, not 18th. *Speed* should be maximized for all modes, from pedestrians to cars including trains, subways etc. Speed is the motto of modern life, for everything (from financial transactions to communication). Except for safety, everything else should be sacrificed for speed of each category and mode of transportation. Including scale, coziness, "welcome feeling design" and anything else.

Everybody should move as fast as possible but, in other to achieve that, maximum ROW segregation is needed. Small things sometimes, like fences along the curbside (even small ones 1,20 - 1,50m high) preventing pedestrians from crossing the streets outside designated crossings with traffic lights, segregated bike paths where the bicycles don't share space with pedestrians or motorized vehicles so they can push at full speed, and plenty of pedestrian walkways, escalators, and what else to streamline the flow of people walking as fast as they can without being interrupted by things like people window-shopping, vendors, interference with bikes, cars, trams etc.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> We live in 21st Century, not 18th. *Speed* should be maximized for all modes, from pedestrians to cars including trains, subways etc. Speed is the motto of modern life, for everything (from financial transactions to communication). Except for safety, everything else should be sacrificed for speed of each category and mode of transportation. Including scale, coziness, "welcome feeling design" and anything else.
> 
> Everybody should move as fast as possible but, in other to achieve that, maximum ROW segregation is needed. Small things sometimes, like fences along the curbside (even small ones 1,20 - 1,50m high) preventing pedestrians from crossing the streets outside designated crossings with traffic lights, segregated bike paths where the bicycles don't share space with pedestrians or motorized vehicles so they can push at full speed, and plenty of pedestrian walkways, escalators, and what else to streamline the flow of people walking as fast as they can without being interrupted by things like people window-shopping, vendors, interference with bikes, cars, trams etc.


Eh... NO.

We dont need higher speeds on the city streets we need shorter distances. If the shop is across the street instead of 2 km away you are almost there already and speed is unimportant.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> And herein lies all problems... People shouldn't be "forced" to take transit, they should have the alternative of using it if they like (to save money, not drive/can't drive etc).


"Car friendly" development forces people to take the car. It is an illusion to believe you can have the perfectly car friendly, pedestrian friendly and transit friendly place at once. One has to set priorities and either way you'll influence how people will choose. Call that forcing them or whatever you like.

Regarding your speed dogma, it reminds at the phrase: "There is no place to go, but at least I'd be there in half the time". The sterile, cold, and simply depressing speed hell you envision as utopia would be such an unwelcoming place.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Nexis said:


> Those will be narrowed along the wide boulevards and protected bike lanes put in with Shielded parking and curb extensions at Intersections so people only need to cross 4 lanes instead of 6 or 8...this should be done by 2025 as part of Philly's push for more people to use biking , Transit and walking over cars. This push is more towards the suburbanites who mainly drive into the city although that will change as well due to No more Parking requirements on new buildings going up in Center City , North and West Philly which forces people to take Transit. So by 2025 Philly will look even more European....there should also be a few restored Trolleys going North and South connecting Northwest Philly to Center City and South Philly.


Actually I was thinking more about the surface parking and empty lots within downtown that you see in various corners in between. But its great if the major streets are made more pedestrian friendly as you say. 

The parking in Philly appeared to me pretty expensive as it is already, compared to other US cities. But of course, I'll be the last to object to getting rid of the outdated parking requirements. Let the market decide how much parking they need or if they do so at all.


----------



## tradephoric (Jan 27, 2012)

> Actually I was thinking more about the surface parking and empty lots within downtown that you see in various corners in between.


Not sure if anyone has seen the thread on Skyscraper Page about parking lots within major cities. It's interesting to compare the parking lot areas within major cities.

Detroit:









Philly:









Midtown Manhattan:









Downtown Manhattan:









Houston (no map, just a picture):









Boston:









Pittsburgh:









Cleveland:









Washington DC:









Portland:









Denver:


----------

