# nobody on the streets in America?



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

LtBk said:


> Even larger cities like London and Manchester in the UK?


Well, London isn't really "The UK" it's an anomaly in nearly every regard. Generally one cannot make a statement about the country and include London as it is just so blindingly different to the rest of the country. So I would say no, not better than London, but Manchester could be a right blergh-hole when it comes to pedestrians and Birmingham can be a nightmare too with all the tunnels and express roads ploughing underneath other roads everywhere (Queensway for example). Oxford St was the road that stood out in Manchester most of all for me. It was the main University road, full of pedestrians, the busiest bus corridor in the city and yet very difficult to cross and with unprotected side-street entrances that didn't let pedestrians cross side street entrances well at all.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

I've always thought that as well Svart, Australian cities quite good examples in the changing attitudes towards social planning. The inner cities of Melbourne and Sydney especially are British/European with rail networks, tram networks etc. - but those suburbs that were constructed around the 1950s and onwards follow the American model. 

Thank God we (largely) kept out train lines going though. Even Perth with is incredibly car centric has a great train and bus network. 

(Of course, it's nothing compared to Europe or HIA)

Freeway construction in central areas has been largely confined to tunnels too, thank God.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

city_thing said:


> Australian cities aren't nearly as bad as American ones, Manila-X. Have you ever even been to Australia? I've noticed before you seem to think of yourself as an expert on Australia but have missed the mark.
> 
> All streets, including suburban ones, have footpaths. The city centres are generally more pedestrian friendly with every capital having pedestrianised areas. The only areas that don't accommodate pedestrians are obvious ones, like freeways.
> 
> Our streets are much friendly to walkers than American ones (I can't speak for Canada).


Visited once but only Sydney. Anyway, I was talking about *pedestrian activity*, not infrastructure or developments concerning it.

Definitely you will see busier pedestrian activity in the city unlike the suburbs as in more people walking in the streets.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

city_thing said:


> ^^ In the far outer suburbs?
> 
> I think Manila-X needs to understand that _most_ inner city areas in Australia are more geared towards public transport and walking, rather than car dominated places like Houston and Atlanta. Those cities would dream to have rail systems like Sydney or Melbourne.
> 
> The middle ring suburbs are generally well connected to public transport, though the outer suburbs are definitely car orientated.


Both Downtown Houston and Atlanta are also geared towards public transport and walking, except there is much less pedestrian activity happening in these cities.

As I mentioned earlier, Houston's underground tunnel network is a good reason why there are less pedestrian activity happening in it's downtown streets. The fact people are concentrated underground than in the surface.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Svartmetall said:


> Well, London isn't really "The UK" it's an anomaly in nearly every regard. Generally one cannot make a statement about the country and include London as it is just so blindingly different to the rest of the country. So I would say no, not better than London, but Manchester could be a right blergh-hole when it comes to pedestrians and Birmingham can be a nightmare too with all the tunnels and express roads ploughing underneath other roads everywhere (Queensway for example). Oxford St was the road that stood out in Manchester most of all for me. It was the main University road, full of pedestrians, the busiest bus corridor in the city and yet very difficult to cross and with unprotected side-street entrances that didn't let pedestrians cross side street entrances well at all.


Interesting point. I'm just generalizing, but it seems that UK cities in Northern England are suburban in densities and build forms than those in rest of the UK, and continental Europe.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Manila-X said:


> Both Downtown Houston and Atlanta are also geared towards public transport and walking, except there is much less pedestrian activity happening in these cities.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, Houston's underground tunnel network is a good reason why there are less pedestrian activity happening in it's downtown streets. The fact people are concentrated underground than in the surface.


Its not just a tunnel network, its the fact that it is much more modern/suburban than most cities. Even with a few forms of public transportation, it is still a suburban city centered around the automobile.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

CNB30 said:


> Its not just a tunnel network, its the fact that it is much more modern/suburban than most cities. Even with a few forms of public transportation, it is still a suburban city centered around the automobile.


True that both cities are centred around the automobile. But their downtown areas do not have a suburban atmosphere. These are dense downtowns with high concentrations of skyscrapers.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

Skyscrapers does not equal urban.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

soup or man said:


> Skyscrapers does not equal urban.


very true, just look at Paris or DC


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Why are people (at least those on SSC and like-minded online sites/blogs) so obsessed with what they see on streets, which ultimately are TRANSPORATION infrastructure more than anything else?

Most of people get their needs or activities happening indoors. From the overwhelming majority of jobs (who are performed indoors, from powerplant operators to hospital doctors to burger flippers) to the overwhelming majority of leisure (bars, pubs, clubs, theme parks, resorts) to the overwhelming majority of civic/religious engagements (voting, associations, church services) and, of course to virtually all housing-related activities.

So why this fixation on what happens on the small and mostly irrelevant sum of instances where someone isn't heading or coming to, from or into some building as a matter or judging whether a city is "good" or "bad"?

It seems to be a very shallow perception of what really matters to most people who are not concerned, at all, with the "street scene" or by other buzzwords in their daily lives. 

Just because a city has "desert" streets doesn't follow that people are living miserable lives automatically. Which is the case of many American cities: are they streets "dead" (as in: not having people walking in large numbers)? Yes, they might be. But its inhabitants usually have a very high standard of living, great schools, more commercial and leisure floor space per capita than any other citizen of a developed country, a wide array of business and other places they go to.

It JUST happens they don't go to those places walking or by public transportation, but I don't see how the fact someone drives to a prime-quality sushi bar surrounded by a parking lot makes the experience of Japanese fine-dining ANY different than someone who go walking from home to that same place. Or how some church (or mosque or synagogue for that matter) experience is ANY different it the temple is located in a big building near a highway exit or in the midst of downtown. 

There is an overemphasis on how people go to places they need/want to among the "planning community", a borderline creepy talk of "people watching" and other quasi-stalking concepts, and a reduction of criteria used to evaluate neighborhoods and even whole cities by silly things like "pedestrian activity", when ultimately what counts is not if someone drove, took a flight, rode a Segway or hopped on a tram to work, but how is his/her job, how much does he/she earn, how is the quality of employment in the city, how much stuff can he/she buy with wages received.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Why are people (at least those on SSC and like-minded online sites/blogs) so obsessed with what they see on streets, which ultimately are TRANSPORATION infrastructure more than anything else?


Because outside in the real world, streets are much more than exclusively transportation infrastructure. It is only you who tries to deny that based on little more than your dislike of the idea that they could serve anything else. 

The way the streets and public space are designed make a big difference for quality of life and the atmosphere of a place. Yes, a lot of people care about that, even if you do not. 



> Just because a city has "desert" streets doesn't follow that people are living miserable lives automatically.


No, but the city's atmosphere is miserable then and deserted streets are what fuel crime, not lively streets. Face it, people can meet in open urban areas, sit outside if the weather is nice in street side cafes or restaurants. The can stroll along some shopping street or night life district, and even if they just want to get somewhere, they spend considerable time on them, time spent in miserable places means a loss in quality of life.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> Because outside in the real world, streets are much more than exclusively transportation infrastructure. It is only you who tries to deny that based on little more than your dislike of the idea that they could serve anything else.
> 
> The way the streets and public space are designed make a big difference for quality of life and the atmosphere of a place. Yes, a lot of people care about that, even if you do not.
> 
> ...


if you are implying US cities aren't in the real world and don't have shopping streets, parks, cafes, or night life districts just because our infrastructure is car oriented then all of these assumptions are wrong.

I can show you the "country club plaza" in Kansas city as a vibrant shopping neighborhood, or "westport" as a vibrant nightlife area. KC is the most sprawled, car oriented city in the world and that does not make our city "miserable", in fact I think its more livable than NYC since I can actually drive to my destination in my car in 10 minutes versus walking 2 blocks in the rain to a subway then waiting 10 minutes for the train to arrive, then riding 2 trains, walking a few more blocks, taking over an hour and being miserable the whole time.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> There is an overemphasis on how people go to places they need/want to among the "planning community", a borderline creepy talk of "people watching" and other quasi-stalking concepts, and a reduction of criteria used to evaluate neighborhoods and even whole cities by silly things like "pedestrian activity", when ultimately what counts is not if someone drove, took a flight, rode a Segway or hopped on a tram to work, but how is his/her job, how much does he/she earn, how is the quality of employment in the city, how much stuff can he/she buy with wages received.


Are you anti-social??????


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

CNB30 said:


> Are you anti-social??????


No.

But I like control of my social life. I'm pretty talkative on social functions, meetings or other official gatherings. However, I have disdain and disregard the idea that it is "nice" to meet people you don't want/need to just because you are walking on a street or waiting a tram to come. I loath this social engineering project of new urbanism that preys on my physical presence to provide, for instance, safety for others as in "if many people walk on a street, it will be perceived as safe so you must not use your car because if you do and everybody else does the street will be unsafe". I dislike the idea of planners seeing me as a "resource" to create any community or "sense of place" beyond my own world with the people I chose to be a part of, while distancing myself from everybody else


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

CNB30 said:


> very true, just look at Paris or DC


Or Dubai.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

weava said:


> if you are implying US cities aren't in the real world and don't have shopping streets, parks, cafes, or night life districts just because our infrastructure is car oriented then all of these assumptions are wrong.
> 
> I can show you the "country club plaza" in Kansas city as a vibrant shopping neighborhood, or "westport" as a vibrant nightlife area. KC is the most sprawled, car oriented city in the world and that does not make our city "miserable", in fact I think its more livable than NYC since I can actually drive to my destination in my car in 10 minutes versus walking 2 blocks in the rain to a subway then waiting 10 minutes for the train to arrive, then riding 2 trains, walking a few more blocks, taking over an hour and being miserable the whole time.


But we in the Northeastern states live longer , have less Obesity and less pollution then your car society which i find depressing... On a train I can catch up on my backed up college work or work in general or eat breakfast or sleep some more. You can't do that in your so called auto Paradise... The Northeastern states and the cities within outrank KC by a mile even bad cities like Trenton , Camden and Wilmington due their Walkablity and pedestrian busy areas. This isn't limited to the cities most towns are the same like ive said a few pages back this region is very dense , but people don't seem to mind and take advantage of transit or biking where ever its possible. For the record 2 blocks isn't that much for us New Yorkers/New Jerseyites its a drop in the bucket...now 10 blocks is a walk but most people walk an average of 5 blocks in this region to the nearest bus or rail stop...in the suburbs there are stops on major roads and in the center of town... Hence why 14.9 Million people out the 21 Million commute by Transit...that was only 7 Million back in 2000....and is expected to grow to 19.7 Million by 2030....due to expansion and Enhancement... Another 1.2 Million walk or bike to work...without using transit...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ You are ignoring weava's main point: it is so easy to drive in Kansas City that it rarely takes more than 15 minutes to get to any restaurant, entertainment venue etc. Even commutes are much shorter.

Meanwhile, no other US MSA has a commute as long as NY+add-ons in NJ, with 68 minutes average. In Kansas City MSA the average commute is 19 minutes. 



> . For the record 2 blocks isn't that much for us New Yorkers/New Jerseyites its a drop in the bucket


Except that the average "block" in Midwestern definitions, in cities with grids based on old squared-mile farm roads, is much longer than a typical Manhattan block!!!

Nexis, you are the American forumer, not me, but I dare ask: have you actually ever set foot or at least got reasonably informed about any big metro of Midwestern or Southwestern US such as Denver, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Houston, Phoenix, Oklahoma City etc? Because sometimes I think you are speaking as if US were still the 13 colonies east of the Appalachians and nothing else mattered.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

weava said:


> if you are implying US cities aren't in the real world and don't have shopping streets, parks, cafes, or night life districts just because our infrastructure is car oriented then all of these assumptions are wrong.
> 
> I can show you the "country club plaza" in Kansas city as a vibrant shopping neighborhood, or "westport" as a vibrant nightlife area. *KC is the most sprawled, car oriented city in the world* and that does not make our city "miserable", in fact I think its more livable than NYC since I can actually drive to my destination in my car in 10 minutes versus walking 2 blocks in the rain to a subway then waiting 10 minutes for the train to arrive, then riding 2 trains, walking a few more blocks, taking over an hour and being miserable the whole time.


To me it's *Jakarta*.

Kansas City may be sprawled and car centric but it's downtown area is geared towards the pedestrian though it's activity is less than that of Chicago.










That is not the case of Jakarta where even it's main central business district is still automobile oriented. Despite an extensive network of BRT and commuter rail.

Example would be Jalan Thamrin where you have skyscrapers built around it's multi lane avenue.










Though there are proper walkways within this area, there is nothing much to see when explored on foot. Though there are car free days that happen in this area usually once every month on a Sunday.

Other related,






On walking in Jakarta,

http://goseasia.about.com/b/2011/05/25/things-i-learned-in-jakarta-indonesia-ride-dont-walk.htm


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> streets, which ultimately are TRANSPORATION infrastructure more than anything else?


Why are you such a weird fella with equally weird ideas about the urban realm? Cities dont belong to the motorist.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

El_Greco said:


> Why are you such a weird fella with equally weird ideas about the urban realm? Cities dont belong to the motorist.


I didn't say streets are for transportation of cars only. But they are not "destinations", or at least they shouldn't be.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> But they are not "destinations", or at least they shouldn't be.


Why not? They always have been. The street names themselves show this.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ You are ignoring weava's main point: it is so easy to drive in Kansas City that it rarely takes more than 15 minutes to get to any restaurant, entertainment venue etc. Even commutes are much shorter.
> 
> Meanwhile, no other US MSA has a commute as long as NY+add-ons in NJ, with 68 minutes average. In Kansas City MSA the average commute is 19 minutes.
> 
> ...


I'm not ignoring anything... As for other cities , St. Louis , Salt Lake and Denver are on my list...and there all walkable with great transit and expanding systems... St. Louis has similar Railroad sprawl to this region... Salt Lake's Sprawl isn't that bad....


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ You are ignoring weava's main point: it is so easy to drive in Kansas City that it rarely takes more than 15 minutes to get to any restaurant, entertainment venue etc. Even commutes are much shorter.
> 
> Meanwhile, no other US MSA has a commute as long as NY+add-ons in NJ, with 68 minutes average. In Kansas City MSA the average commute is 19 minutes.


This. While the New Yorker says he can read on the subway. I'll sleep in an extra 45 minutes in my comfortable bed. Then get in my car where I can blast my favorite music and drive in comfort. .


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

While you're doing that, I walk.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

soup or man said:


> Or Dubai.


no....im talking about without tall buildings and a very dence urban fabric here.........the polar opposite of an office park in the middle of nowhere:lol:


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> I didn't say streets are for transportation of cars only. But they are not "destinations", or at least they shouldn't be.


BS....the street should be a place for social life and many other things...ie art and business

Dont you just love the street life going on in that picture...and the ORNAMENT is just beautiful:lol:


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ My utopia is a world where you don't have neighborhoods anymore, just clusters that you access with self-driven pods or other futuristic transportation and shuffle people to/from any building, so that the only people "walking" in the open are doing so for the lulz in a park or in a carefully planned "open mall" area, but not as in "I'm just going to take a walk and peep on neighbors".


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

CNB30 said:


> BS....the street should be a place for social life and many other things...ie art and business
> 
> Dont you just love the street life going on in that picture...and the ORNAMENT is just beautiful:lol:


That Ornament is Beautiful, now dealing with those crowds looks like a nightmare to me.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ My utopia is a world where you don't have neighborhoods anymore, just clusters that you access with self-driven pods or other futuristic transportation and shuffle people to/from any building, so that the only people "walking" in the open are doing so for the lulz in a park or in a carefully planned "open mall" area, but not as in "I'm just going to take a walk and peep on neighbors".


That sounds horribly paranoid and misanthropic.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

weava said:


> This. While the New Yorker says he can read on the subway. I'll sleep in an extra 45 minutes in my comfortable bed. Then get in my car where I can blast my favorite music and drive in comfort. .


Ever heard of head phones? No problem there.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> Ever heard of head phones? No problem there.


yea, but I can't sing along.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

weava said:


> yea, but I can't sing along.


Oh boy. Most people find it sufficient to sing in the shower 
Anyway, on the bus I can read the news of the day and when I am finished I am there. Try that in your car.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ My utopia is a world where you don't have neighborhoods anymore, just clusters that you access with self-driven pods or other futuristic transportation and shuffle people to/from any building, so that the only people "walking" in the open are doing so for the lulz in a park or in a carefully planned "open mall" area, but not as in "I'm just going to take a walk and peep on neighbors".


sounds a bit isolated. id rather be around people. I f you don't want communities, well Im sry Le Craybusier, but I am very sure that most people prefer neighborhoods. Maybe you ought to live in the country if you don't like the many people, rather than coming up with plans to get rid of the urban communities which people enjoy living in.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

weava said:


> That Ornament is Beautiful, now dealing with those crowds looks like a nightmare to me.


then maybe a small town is your kind of thing


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

CNB30 said:


> then maybe a small town is your kind of thing


Nah, the average american city of a few million people is good for me. I don't want to fight crowds 24/7 but I don't mind crowds on a friday night in a bar district or a crowd around a concert venue, but having to deal with sidewalks/subway cars packed like sardines for a daily commute is not my thing, I like my personal space.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

We also have Cafe/Bar cars on certain lines so going home you can have a snack or a beer or a glass of wine.... Commuter Trains and buses here have outlets , some have wifi and they all have bathrooms.... Taking the train or the bus is very relaxed compared to driving even if you have to stand.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

LtBk said:


> Interesting point. I'm just generalizing, but it seems that UK cities in Northern England are suburban in densities and build forms than those in rest of the UK, and continental Europe.


I don't think that is the case, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle etc aren't less dense than cities like Bristol, Southampton, Cardiff etc, they are pretty much the same.....

I think Svartmetall was talking about the quality of infrastructure rather than the level of pedestrian activity. On roads such as Oxford St in Manchester there are always plenty of pedestrians.

I work in Birmingham and it's true as Svartmetall says that the inner ring road expressway does create a barrier to pedestrian movement in some directions out of the city centre. But there are also extensive pedestrianised areas throughout the centre and you can walk through a corridor of a kilometer or so which encompasses much of the retail, business district and other public spaces without having to cross even one street of traffic.

I'm not so sure London is much better in infrastructure terms, there are big and busy roads in the capital which I think are worse to cross as a pedestrian than Oxford Road in Manchester.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Jonesy55 said:


> I don't think that is the case, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle etc aren't less dense than cities like Bristol, Southampton, Cardiff etc, they are pretty much the same.....
> 
> I think Svartmetall was talking about the quality of infrastructure rather than the level of pedestrian activity. On roads such as Oxford St in Manchester there are always plenty of pedestrians.
> 
> I work in Birmingham and it's true as Svartmetall says that the inner ring road expressway does create a barrier to pedestrian movement in some directions out of the city centre. But there are also extensive pedestrianised areas throughout the centre and you can walk through a corridor of a kilometer or so which encompasses much of the retail, business district and other public spaces without having to cross even one street of traffic.


You're exactly right, as I said there are plenty of pedestrians, more that they aren't catered for particularly well once one heads away from the pedestrianised shopping streets - very modernist planning in other words. The problem with such planning is that one often needs to compensate by having larger surrounding roads to allow people to reach these pedestrian enclaves otherwise one cannot actually get there (unless using public transport and that isn't particularly as developed outside of London compared to other Euro or Asian cities). 

As I said, Oxford Road in Manchester just needs a massive, massive overhaul. It's such a pedestrian-dense area yet it suffers from poor crossings, heavy traffic and an unpleasant atmosphere. I think this has been the case for the majority of British cities I've visited. Nowhere else I've been has been quite as ubiquitous in its use of railings to prevent pedestrians from crossing except at designated points and often making them snake through the central reservation and cross in two phases just to get across one road (for example). British people often want to walk, but the cities can make it quite difficult for them to do so.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

At least in Manchester the central area (which is generally better for pedestrians than Oxford Rd ) should benefit in terms of accessibility from the big metrolink expansion which is close to opening. There is already a pretty decent suburban heavy rail network but the trams go right into the central area rather than dropping people at train stations on the edge of the city centre.

In Birmingham though the trams are not anywhere near as developed but one of the main streets cutting through the central shopping district has now been closed to traffic so that a tram extension to the main railway station at New Street can be built.


----------



## palermodude (Aug 5, 2008)

Astronaut from Mars said:


> Hi! A question for you americans. I have been on several downtown areas in major US cities: Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Charllotte, Denver etc and something weird happens: I barely see people on the streets. PS: And when there ARE some people walking in downtown areas many of them are black. [/I]


White Female Americans (WAFs) outside of the dense cities won't regularly bang you if you don't have a car. If you have a nice acceptable car that won't embarrass her in public, she might regularly bang you. If you make her walk to be part of a street scene, she won't regularly bang you, because she expects to be taken in a car. WAFs are very conformist. Their friends don't walk.

Most WAFs are not interested in walking to create a street scene, unless you've got cash to burn and take her shopping - and that is usually in a shopping mall, and you'll drive there. If she is a fatty, she will feel inadequate. She won't bang you if you make her take a bus.

White Americans Guys (WAGs) are a little more open to walking the streets/creating a street scene than the WAFs, but those raised by their mommas are either a little wussified-sin-cojones or the country urban boys (CUBs) which think it is not manly to walk.

It's really no more complicated than that. I seriously doubt these people have American Historical Cultural Values on their minds when they make these decisions.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ My utopia is a world where you don't have neighborhoods anymore, just clusters that you access with self-driven pods or other futuristic transportation and shuffle people to/from any building, so that the only people "walking" in the open are doing so for the lulz in a park or in a carefully planned "open mall" area, but not as in "I'm just going to take a walk and peep on neighbors".


Youre making the same mistake the 60s Utopian "visionaries" made - you forget that humans are not machines but imperfect, irrational and emotional creatures who enjoy socialising and doing something just for the lulz. If you would enjoy living life like a robot then thats great, but majority of us wouldnt, so dont try and impose your doomed-to-fail views on others. What we have is not perfect nor will it ever be, but thats the way we like it and theres no need to try and change it.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ I'm not saying people shouldn't walk at random, just that the spaces prone to that shouldn't be also transportation arteries of the house/store/school front. 

I'm not against the concept of "walkpaths", "trails" or even "promenades" (if not surrounder by any mixed-use area), just against the concept of "street".


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

In other words youre for regulation and extreme social engineering. Whats so wrong with street and neighbourhood anyway? Absolutely nothing, streets and neighbourhoods have always been around and they will always be around too. Your "utopian visions" have nothing to do with progress, efficiency or making life better, but everything to do with your perverse desire to impose your ideas on others. No thanks.


----------



## M.R.Victor (Sep 4, 2012)

I actually think it's quite healthy for streets to be more than urban transportation corridors, Suburbanist.

The benefit of walking through crowded streets is psychological. Humans are social creatures, and social creatures need to be socialized, despite the fact that socialization is not always pleasant. Foot traffic creates opportunities for conflict, unwanted physical proximity, exposure to unexpected things or unexpected people. It trains the mind to deal with other humans and with the things they do, and ultimately forces the individual to reflect inwards and understand his/her place within the broader human community. This needs to happen in the street precisely because the street is not your destination. The street is incidental, does not belong to you, and forces you to do things you may not otherwise want. 

Most people bring up the positives of walkable urban environments, like visual interest, lots of things to do, the chance of discovery and spontaneity, etc. Others bring up the ecological benefits of walking. On the other hand, I see you trying to extinguish the bad, throwing out all the positives so as to never deal with any of the negatives. My argument is that the bad is also useful, and to bury it in technocratic utopian dreams is to run away from reality.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

El_Greco said:


> In other words youre for regulation and extreme social engineering.


I'm talking about preferences, and what I'd build if I were a rich real estate developer with clout to build whatever I wanted to. Not that this should be the law adopted by cities. 



M.R.Victor said:


> The benefit of walking through crowded streets is psychological. Humans are social creatures, and social creatures need to be socialized, despite the fact that socialization is not always pleasant. Foot traffic creates opportunities for conflict, unwanted physical proximity, exposure to unexpected things or unexpected people. It trains the mind to deal with other humans and with the things they do, and ultimately forces the individual to reflect inwards and understand his/her place within the broader human community.


Except for a very limited number of people, everyone else already faces those interactions on their workplaces, schools, places of worship, entertainment venues, to a greater or smaller degree. There is no need for yet-another space for such interactions to occur. There is no need to that for happening exactly when you are moving yourself from home to work, church, gym, restaurant, club, somebody else's home etc. 

Modern life in industrialized countries already mean people interact with others very often. 



> The street is incidental, does not belong to you, and forces you to do things you may not otherwise want.


This goes on the book as "inconvenience" or "hassle". 



> . My argument is that the bad is also useful, and to bury it in technocratic utopian dreams is to run away from reality.


What is the benefit of meeting drifters, crazy preachers, muggers, drug users, panhandlers, people listening horrible (For your taste) music on loudspeakers etc? 

There is no benefit on that, only stress.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Hilarious. Where do you get these crazy ideas from?


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

I think he has some Extreme Anti-Social issues...which he won't admit...and I don't think hes every stepped foot in a Functioning America city.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Nexis said:


> I think he has some Extreme Anti-Social issues...which he won't admit...and I don't think hes every stepped foot in a Functioning America city.


So you strike down as "non functioning" any city north of the Potomac and East of the Appalachians? 

But even then, I've visited New York city twice, one of those times by car, other without a car. I have also lived in Laramie, WY and visited Salt Lake City and Denver from there.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Were you not afraid to run into drifters, crazy preachers, muggers, drug users, panhandlers, people listening horrible (For your taste) music on loudspeakers etc?


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> So you strike down as "non functioning" any city north of the Potomac and East of the Appalachians?
> 
> But even then, I've visited New York city twice, one of those times by car, other without a car. I have also lived in Laramie, WY and visited Salt Lake City and Denver from there.


Laramie was the site of the highly published Gay Bashing on Matthew Shepherd , Wyoming is pretty isolated and has some radical groups.. So yes its dysfunctional...in a small aspect... Salt Lake City and Denver over the past 5 years have moved away from the car and started reinvesting in there Urban cores and business corridors , I can give both cities a break along with 50 other US cities outside the Northeast who are trying and its working...people are flocking back...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Nexis said:


> Laramie was the site of the highly published Gay Bashing on Matthew Shepherd , Wyoming


Who cares?

One crime like in the 1990s make a whole university town cursed? 

Nobody in Laramie that I knew gave a damn about that (in)famous crime. Bad thing happened, but people move one.

Or else any major city would be stuck in time with their fair share of mafia-style killings, mass murders, serial killers...

But, hey, you are the one who once posted on Skybar that you wished straight people didn't exist... Bias much?


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> Who cares?
> 
> One crime like in the 1990s make a whole university town cursed?
> 
> ...


See this shows how detached from society you area , he was brutally beaten and left for dead in a field... It horrified the Nation and town they changed the laws in several states...


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

El_Greco said:


> Hilarious. Where do you get these crazy ideas from?


Failed 1950's urban planning policies.


----------



## M.R.Victor (Sep 4, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> This goes on the book as "inconvenience" or "hassle".
> 
> What is the benefit of meeting drifters, crazy preachers, muggers, drug users, panhandlers, people listening horrible (For your taste) music on loudspeakers etc?
> 
> There is no benefit on that, only stress.


I guess people pile on top of you for advocating anti-urban visions which largely panned out in fairly uninspiring ways. I won't do that, because you aren't the only person to embrace such ideas, and thus they must contain a core of relevance in what they propose. 

I will only argue that although socialization does happen in all those destinations you've listed (work, church, after-work bars, gym, etc) it generally happens in fairly "coded" and homogeneous ways. I can't fully generalize, but at work, I'm surrounded by computer programmers, and our common ground of understanding is computer programming. At church, I'd imagine I'd meet people that belong to my faith only. At bars and clubs, only people that are as young as me. See where I'm going with this? The benefit of the street is that it binds us only in the most generic way, that of being urban citizens. Since we have nothing in common, we treat that anonymity as "hassle," but it's up to the individual to see things differently. A drunk homeless guy may be an eye-sore, or an opportunity for altruism, or a reminder to be grateful for what you got, or reason to keep working hard to not get there. 

I'm not sure what country you live in and what the culture and the infrastructure is like over there, and this might explain our differences in opinion. Perhaps you haven't fully experienced the "benefits" of North American auto-topia for a prolonged time, but I can tell you that, having lived both in the United States, Canada, and Eastern Europe, walk-able wins over drive-able in my book any day.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Nexis said:


> See this shows how detached from society you area , he was brutally beaten and left for dead in a field... It horrified the Nation and town they changed the laws in several states...


This is irrelevant to my argument.

My point is: that a famous crime was committed in some city doesn't make it "non-functional" forever. Is the Bay Area non-functional because of the Zodiac serial killer, for instance?


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Your own experience with crime seems have caused you to hate cities forever.


----------



## CCs77 (Jul 30, 2008)

El_Greco said:


> In other words youre for regulation and extreme social engineering. Whats so wrong with street and neighbourhood anyway? Absolutely nothing, streets and neighbourhoods have always been around and they will always be around too. Your "utopian visions" have nothing to do with progress, efficiency or making life better, but everything to do with your perverse desire to impose your ideas on others. No thanks.


That's exactly what I think.
It is funny that mixed use areas could be considered as "social engineering" when that has been around since the first cities were founded thousands of years ago. How could a mixed used area be perceived as something imposed by a sociallist-communist-intervening-in-our-lives-big-brother-stlyle-god-saves-us-all state, when precisely there is much more intervention of the state when they *absolutely regulate* the land use, drastically separating the urban uses, *banning the people* to open a small store or a workshop in their own neighborhood. (and permiting that won't automatically lead the city to become a crowded place all over it, because there is just not enough demand to make every single street of a city like Seventh Avenue in NY, relatively quieter neighborhood will still prevail over more crowded places) Not to mention that the countries more prone to that extreme planification are or were precisely the communist countries, the ones that are accused of making "social engineering"
Promoting a mixed used area has nothing to do with limiting your freedom, on the contrary is about given you more choices. You can buy at the local stores without depending on a car, but if you still want to go to the superstore because the prices are cheaper, the products are better, you don't like the face of the owner of the nearby shop or whatever, and drive 5 miles to get there, go ahead, you still can do it, no body is banning you to do that. You could live in an apartment or still live in an house, with your own backyard, but located a few blocks away of a commercial artery, so you can still live in a quiet place and have *the option* of do some thinghs within walking distance, or take transit if you want or have to (because you can't afford a car, it is broken, your license is suspended) and *not be forced* to drive to do every single thing in your life.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Even without zoning, there is a possibility of very restrictive HOA-style covenants that ban any non-residential activity.

Wouldn't it be bad if my quiet streets is suddenly faced with an influx of people coming because my neighbor opened a cupcake store on his plot? Or, worse, opened a workshop that makes noise and attract deliveries?


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

:cripes:


----------



## CCs77 (Jul 30, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Even without zoning, there is a possibility of very restrictive HOA-style covenants that ban any non-residential activity.
> 
> Wouldn't it be bad if my quiet streets is suddenly faced with an influx of people coming because my neighbor opened a cupcake store on his plot? Or, worse, opened a workshop that makes noise and attract deliveries?


OMG that's true! God forbid somebody to open a cupcake store shop and disrupt the peace and quietude of your neighborhood with such an evil enterprise! 
Oh, I can see such a disgrace coming from Brooklyn bring by _Two Broke Girls_ and all their sins...
That would certainly make your neighborhood to become a living hell!
¡Ay Ave María Purísima! (I cross myself many times)


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> Many Americans I know would disagree with you, at least about what the few favourable personally.


I don't think Americans are opposed to the concept of living in higher density, it's just not a reality for most people. The problem comes when children and families are brought into the equation. Raising children in an apartment/condo building just isn't ideal for people. The other problem is that owning property and a house is a source of pride and maturity. You aren't going to find many people who want to live their entire lives in an apartment. 

The good thing is that you can still live in affordable single family housing and remain in an urban core. The problem with that is most of our big cities have terrible school systems, crime, cultural issues, higher taxes, etc. Those are what drive people away from cities. 






> yup, the reason is that energy is unsustainibly dirt cheap in the US.
> 
> While energy prices could possibly rise fast, you can't change the urban structures overnight, that takes several decades. If you count 1 and 1 together that means the US is taking a pretty big risk here.


I think fuel efficent/electric cars are going to factor into this. The car companies aren't going to let that market die. The biggest issue for me in regards to car culture in the U.S. is that everybody drives so far. Short distance commuting in a car isn't the issue--it's those people who drive 30 miles one way. People need to start living closer to where they work. 

In many places, the urban structures are pretty intact. Americans could quickly reinvigorate our cities if there was ever a will to do so. These cities still have rail lines and wide streets that could allow for streetcars. Maybe not so quickly in the sprawling Sunbelt cities but in hollowed out cities in the Rust Belt. Some of these cities are starting to show life and attracting people again. There is alot of room for future development and many are still blank canvases. Detroit is a perfect example of that. It wouldn't take much for Detroit or these other cities to shine once again. The biggest thing stopping it are the existing residents that the suburbanites frankly don't want to live next to. This isn't so much a race thing as it is a cultural thing. People move out to the burbs' because they value good schools, their children's futures, and personal safety. A city like Detroit, currently, doesn't represent that. Successful people aren't going to want to live in cities that have 30% graduation rates and hundreds of homicides.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Eventually, when the older cities have mostly gentrified, oil gets to $10 a gallon, and new urbanism/urban expansion/infill becomes popular, are we going to see all the american streets filled with people, culture, and beautiful architecture (not suburban crapitecture).

American cities will have much lower crime, higher levels of retail, and schools will be very well. As for the american "Dream", Yards are over rated, a park will do just fine for most people, they will be able to hand out and meet with fellow neighbors. 

Even if you want some privacy outside, you could use the roof as a yard (you would have a great view). Also, Most urban row houses have a small back area about 20x20 feet large in the back for a patio, or a green spot. Lastly, most urban town homes have a small front yard, which could become a beautiful garden. 

You see, without cars, and with walk-able communities, the street and sidewalk become an available place for people to play, eliminating the need for huge over sized antisocial lawns.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

El Mariachi said:


> I don't think Americans are opposed to the concept of living in higher density, it's just not a reality for most people. The problem comes when children and families are brought into the equation. Raising children in an apartment/condo building just isn't ideal for people. The other problem is that owning property and a house is a source of pride and maturity. You aren't going to find many people who want to live their entire lives in an apartment.
> 
> The good thing is that you can still live in affordable single family housing and remain in an urban core. The problem with that is most of our big cities have terrible school systems, crime, cultural issues, higher taxes, etc. Those are what drive people away from cities.


You are probably right that a majority wants to own a property, ideally in a detached house. I think there is a growing number of people who prefer living in an apartment in an urban environment instead. 

It is right that raising children changes a lot of things, but I know very real existing and popular examples of modern and dense, central urban neighbourhoods which are very popular among young families. Maybe American cities still fail to make urban environments attractive to young families, I don't know, but if they do, its not because its not possible to create such environments.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

El Mariachi said:


> I think fuel efficent/electric cars are going to factor into this. The car companies aren't going to let that market die. The biggest issue for me in regards to car culture in the U.S. is that everybody drives so far. Short distance commuting in a car isn't the issue--it's those people who drive 30 miles one way. People need to start living closer to where they work.


Yes they do. If fuel prices would be raised slowly to lets say European levels, economy and society would have time to adapt, while the prices would take care of people living closer on average or if not at least making sure that fuel efficiency increases dramatically. 

But I disagree with you that the short ways can be ignored. To the contrary. Many of the short distances would be perfectly feasible for alternatives to motorized traffic, if the infrastructure is appropriate. 



> In many places, the urban structures are pretty intact. Americans could quickly reinvigorate our cities if there was ever a will to do so. These cities still have rail lines and wide streets that could allow for streetcars.


American cities are already reinventing themselves. Have a look at LA. They are rebuilding a rail based higher capacity PT system, reviving downtown etc. Actually they have been doing so for the 10 years or longer. And there you are with the time constraints. It takes decades, to fundamentally change the structure of cities, even China which is a master of rapid development could not do it in less than 10-20 years.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> You are probably right that a majority wants to own a property, ideally in a detached house. I think there is a growing number of people who prefer living in an apartment in an urban environment instead.
> 
> It is right that raising children changes a lot of things, but I know very real existing and popular examples of modern and dense, central urban neighbourhoods which are very popular among young families. Maybe American cities still fail to make urban environments attractive to young families, I don't know, but if they do, its not because its not possible to create such environments.


No doubt. The apartment market in the U.S. has been booming since the housing crash. Alot of that may be suburban too but the cities are seeing their share of development. I can't speak for all cities but development here in Milwaukee and others in the Midwest have been impressive. New urban neighborhoods are being created here and others are improving with multi-family housing. Most of it just in the last decade. 

As for families, nothing will change until the cities fix themselves. I don't think it's a government problem rather a cultural issue that needs to be addressed at a grassroots level. I think Americans would have no problem living in smaller urban houses or even apartments if they didn't have to live near deadbeats, criminals, drug addicts, bums, welfare queens, teen moms, juvenile delinquents, and the uneducated. I'm not saying that's all American cities offer but there is a much greater concentration of them in our large cities. It may also sound a bit cruel but that's the way many people view the urban cores. There is truth in every stereotype. Cool to visit and maybe live in when you are young---get the hell out when you are looking to settle down.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> Yes they do. If fuel prices would be raised slowly to lets say European levels, economy and society would have time to adapt, while the prices would take care of people living closer on average or if not at least making sure that fuel efficiency increases dramatically.
> 
> But I disagree with you that the short ways can be ignored. To the contrary. Many of the short distances would be perfectly feasible for alternatives to motorized traffic, if the infrastructure is appropriate.


The issue I have with that is a car is so convenient for short trips. It's not a waste of gas and it's far more comfortable than public transit. Another issue that we face is the extreme weather. In the South, it gets so uncomfortable with the humidity and heat that you almost need to drive a car with AC. Here in the Midwest, half the year the weather is awful. Freezing cold, snow, or uncomfortable conditions from November to April. I understand that crappy weather isn't unique to the U.S. but it will be difficult to get people out of their cars for that reason. I wouldn't take public transit here in the dead of winter if they paid for my fare every day. 




> American cities are already reinventing themselves. Have a look at LA. They are rebuilding a rail based higher capacity PT system, reviving downtown etc. Actually they have been doing so for the 10 years or longer. And there you are with the time constraints. It takes decades, to fundamentally change the structure of cities, even China which is a master of rapid development could not do it in less than 10-20 years.


It couldn't be done overnight but I think a change could be accomplished rather quickly. 15-20 years is rather quick in the grand scheme of things after a half century of suburbanization. The U.S. wouldn't have the sort of mass migration into cities by the millions like in China. I don't think it would be too challenging to build more, taller multi-family housing, invest in buses/streetcars, more bike lanes, and things like that if there is a will to do so. Most cities already have a groundwork laid for it and have the open space for future residental, office, and industrial development. Same applies to many suburbs. These places could densify and better connect themselves to the city.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ (May 10, 2010)

^^ I think American citites will become more urban and denser in the future. It's inevitable, especially with oil prices rising up constantly. Just a matter of time.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

El Mariachi said:


> I wouldn't take public transit here in the dead of winter if they paid for my fare every day.


You get used to it. :-D

The problem with cities is "simple": schools are shit, governments are most often severely corrupted, crime sucks, traffic and parking blow, transit is absurdly underfunded with no relief in sight, ... Sure a lot of people adapt to cities in the US and live quite happily. But it's really a lifestyle change. _Every_ aspect of your life you have to change and adapt. That, and cities are _expensive_. Sure, you could be a hipster and live in some shit up-and-coming neighborhood...but most people want comfort and security. I know once my kid is a few years old I'll have to move to the suburbs (and become everthing I hate) simply because it's cheaper.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

If suburbs weren't as subsidized as they are now, they wouldn't be cheap places to live.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

El Mariachi said:


> The issue I have with that is a car is so convenient for short trips. It's not a waste of gas and it's far more comfortable than public transit.


What do you consider to be "short distance"? The point is that for short trips you have the most alternatives, also non-motorized ones. For example for buying groceries at the local supermarkekt. You can go there by car, but you don't have to. And yes, if you have feasible non-motorized alternatives but choose to use the car without very good reasons, you are wasting incredible amounts of energy compared to the alternatives. It is these small but frequent things that add to a lot of energy that could be easily saved. 

Comfort is also a subjective thing. I don't consider having a walk to the supermarket to be uncomfortable. Actually it means I have to move my ass, which is good as I tend to be lazy anyway. 



> Another issue that we face is the extreme weather. In the South, it gets so uncomfortable with the humidity and heat that you almost need to drive a car with AC. Here in the Midwest, half the year the weather is awful. Freezing cold, snow, or uncomfortable conditions from November to April. I understand that crappy weather isn't unique to the U.S. but it will be difficult to get people out of their cars for that reason. I wouldn't take public transit here in the dead of winter if they paid for my fare every day.


The only excuse IMHO is hot _and_ humid weather. Unless you are living the South, this does not affect you. 

But then, why are people moving to these places if they can't stand the climate? I don't understand why people who can't cope with the hot and nasty weather move to places with such a weather only to find themselves forced to hide inside most of the time. 

Cold weather is a lame excuse. People in Sweden are even riding their bikes in winter, they even use spike tires for their bikes for that aim. 



> Most cities already have a groundwork laid for it and have the open space for future residental, office, and industrial development. Same applies to many suburbs. These places could densify and better connect themselves to the city.


Yes I think US cities are already on the way to transform into less car dependent places again.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> Yes they do. If fuel prices would be raised slowly to lets say European levels, economy and society would have time to adapt, while the prices would take care of people living closer on average or if not at least making sure that fuel efficiency increases dramatically.
> 
> But I disagree with you that the short ways can be ignored. To the contrary. Many of the short distances would be perfectly feasible for alternatives to motorized traffic, if the infrastructure is appropriate.
> .


If gas prices rise, we will just move to natural gas or electric cars if regular gas becomes unfeasible. I drive a natural gas car at work and I see quite a few chevy volts in the area I live already. You can't take a society that has been spoiled with suburban car culture and expect them to give up that freedom willingly.

Urban areas will continue to grow and become areas that empty nesters and young professionals want to live, but adults with kids are going to always prefer the family friendly suburbs to raise their kids.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> The only excuse IMHO is hot _and_ humid weather. Unless you are living the South, this does not affect you.


While I'm totally aware of the combination of humidity, temperature and wind to determine a dew point, I think you are underestimating the weather of places like Phoenix, Albuquerque, Oklahoma City and Las Vegas. 

Phoenix has *average daily high temperatures* of 38, 39. 38 and 36 oC from June to September, monthly. Average high, not record highs (which are close to 50 oC). Under such high temperatures and average low temperatures on always above 22 during that period, you have like 4 months of what would be considered a "heat wave" by standards of Paris or Frankfurt. 

Even without humidity, it makes "street life" almost unbearable during the day. 



> But then, why are people moving to these places if they can't stand the climate? I don't understand why people who can't cope with the hot and nasty weather move to places with such a weather only to find themselves forced to hide inside most of the time.
> 
> Cold weather is a lame excuse. People in Sweden are even riding their bikes in winter, they even use spike tires for their bikes for that aim.


Sweden has milder winters than most of US, actually. It has the sea to regulate weather, not much continentality. There is no major European city on altitudes such as those of Denver or Salt Lake City as well.

===================

I think you are just ignoring not all places are easy to cope by in the open, no matter how much well designed are sidewalks or how much mixed used buildings are there. The human body is just not adapted to certain weather extremes. 

You write as if suddenly we were living back on Middle-Ages where we had no heating, forced ventilation, air conditioning etc. In many cases, the _objective_ conditions (temperature, UV rays, wind, humidity) of places like Phoenix will make it physiologically dangerous to just walk 1 mile to work or ride a bike in the middle of the afternoon! It is a freaking continental altitude desert, for sake!

Even if those cities make life outside miserable for part of the year (or most of the year in case of some places), not every place must be a pedestrian dreamland where you can walk, or bike, or stroll with infants aimlessly to be considered a nice place to live.


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

I wonder where senior citizens ( 55 and up )like to live now a days . I hear many new senior citizen like the urban lifestyle and many 55 and up communities are being created in downtown cores of some cities in high rises . It is growing population and the demand for that age group will keep riding in the next 20 to 30 years as we have an aging population . could this create a problem in the near future ?


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Northsider said:


> You get used to it. :-D
> 
> The problem with cities is "simple": schools are shit, governments are most often severely corrupted, crime sucks, traffic and parking blow, transit is absurdly underfunded with no relief in sight, ... Sure a lot of people adapt to cities in the US and live quite happily. But it's really a lifestyle change. _Every_ aspect of your life you have to change and adapt. That, and cities are _expensive_. Sure, you could be a hipster and live in some shit up-and-coming neighborhood...but most people want comfort and security. I know once my kid is a few years old I'll have to move to the suburbs (and become everthing I hate) simply because it's cheaper.


I'm not sure that it would be that much of a drastic lifestyle change. I think that in many American cities, people could still have a car oriented lifestyle and live in denser urban homes. People do it in NYC, Chicago, and all our major cities. Tokyo, Barcelona, and Manhattan would be true lifestyle changes but I doubt we would ever see our cities get that sort of density. 

The goal for American cities, first and foremost, should be turning these crappy neighborhoods into places that people want to live. They used to be and I think it can happen again. If these areas are cleaned up there will be a demand for high density housing in them. That might be a problem for the current residents but these people are collateral damage in the war against suburbia. :lol:


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> While I'm totally aware of the combination of humidity, temperature and wind to determine a dew point, I think you are underestimating the weather of places like Phoenix, Albuquerque, Oklahoma City and Las Vegas.


I was in Las Vegas during August and as far as I kow it was not an especially "cold" weather during my stay. I was not that shocked at all and thought it to be much more comfortable than the weather in Southern Texas. With appropriate city design and an adapted life style (city life focusing more around the evenings, like in Spain or Latin America) one could get along with that sort of weather quite ok most of the time. That was at least my impression. 




> Phoenix has *average daily high temperatures* of 38, 39. 38 and 36 oC from June to September, monthly. Average high, not record highs (which are close to 50 oC). Under such high temperatures and average low temperatures on always above 22 during that period, you have like 4 months of what would be considered a "heat wave" by standards of Paris or Frankfurt.
> 
> Even without humidity, it makes "street life" almost unbearable during the day.


That is a totally flawed comparison. At least in Vienna, and I guess also in Paris or Frankfurt, the heat waves usually go hand in hand with quite some humidity. That drastically increases the subjectively felt temperatures. Contrary to that the US desert towns have very dry heat. Ever experienced both things? Its like day and night. 

If it were true that "street life" is almost unbearable. The only important thing is to have shadowed walkways. Your arguments are proven totally wrong by the fact that the Strip in Las Vegas is bustling actually, not only at night, even though its a maze for pedestrians and hardly a model case for pedestrian friendly design (in some way it is ok for promenading from one casino to another, but if you just want to get somewhere further away its a maze forcing you through all those Casinos along the way)

Downtown Las Vegas could be bustling too, if it were not largely a dead shell with nothing there. 



> Sweden has milder winters than most of US, actually. It has the sea to regulate weather, not much continentality.


No but Finland also has a lot of bike riders and when I compared weather curves of Helsinki with Chicago, Helsinki had lower min values for every month but January




> I think you are just ignoring not all places are easy to cope by in the open, no matter how much well designed are sidewalks or how much mixed used buildings are there. The human body is just not adapted to certain weather extremes.


No I am not ignoring that. And I am perfectly aware that some climates are less friendly towards outwards activity but at the same time I know that if you culturally adapt to a climate instead of pretending its not there that you can have outside activity in most parts of earth at least for some time in the year. 




> You write as if suddenly we were living back on Middle-Ages where we had no heating, forced ventilation, air conditioning etc. In many cases, the _objective_ conditions (temperature, UV rays, wind, humidity) of places like Phoenix will make it physiologically dangerous to just walk 1 mile to work or ride a bike in the middle of the afternoon! It is a freaking continental altitude desert, for sake!


I actually never understood why people choose to move to live in places like that, unless there are some hard geographic reasons, like mining etc. If energy would not be that dirt cheap these cities would not even exist as big metropoles. And when energy prices go up, which they have to at some point, these cities either manage to adapt to a less wasteful lifestyle, or if you are right and they can't, they will fail. If need be I am rather confident that ways will be found even if you pretend its impossible.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

weava said:


> If gas prices rise, we will just move to natural gas or electric cars if regular gas becomes unfeasible. I drive a natural gas car at work and I see quite a few chevy volts in the area I live already. You can't take a society that has been spoiled with suburban car culture and expect them to give up that freedom willingly.
> 
> Urban areas will continue to grow and become areas that empty nesters and young professionals want to live, but adults with kids are going to always prefer the family friendly suburbs to raise their kids.


And electricity comes from the power plug ... and if people have no bread they shall eat cake... hno:

I was talking about energy in general getting substantially more expensive. Of course prices of oil, natural gas etc are connected to each other. Suburban car culture will be carried to the grave faster than you'd expect if realities should make it unaffordable for the masses.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> What do you consider to be "short distance"? The point is that for short trips you have the most alternatives, also non-motorized ones. For example for buying groceries at the local supermarkekt. You can go there by car, but you don't have to. And yes, if you have feasible non-motorized alternatives but choose to use the car without very good reasons, you are wasting incredible amounts of energy compared to the alternatives. It is these small but frequent things that add to a lot of energy that could be easily saved.
> 
> Comfort is also a subjective thing. I don't consider having a walk to the supermarket to be uncomfortable. Actually it means I have to move my ass, which is good as I tend to be lazy anyway.


A few miles. Maybe a 15-20 minute drive. People are willing to waste energy to save time. The problem with public transit is that it will never be always there when you need it. You will need to convince people to slow their lifestyles down and walk to/wait at a transit stop. What is being forgotten is that the car is still the most advanced mode for human transportation and freedom. That is why this an uphill battle in this country. 

As for the supermarket, most people here tend to buy all their weekly groceries in one visit. That's alot of heavy bags that pretty much requires use of a car. I'm not sure how this is done in other countries. I think that people actually like walking places if they have the time but it's just so inconvenient most places. 




> The only excuse IMHO is hot _and_ humid weather. Unless you are living the South, this does not affect you.
> 
> But then, why are people moving to these places if they can't stand the climate? I don't understand why people who can't cope with the hot and nasty weather move to places with such a weather only to find themselves forced to hide inside most of the time.
> 
> Cold weather is a lame excuse. People in Sweden are even riding their bikes in winter, they even use spike tires for their bikes for that aim.


They move down there because the weather up here is so awful in the winter! It's not so much of people not being able to stand the humidity and heat, I just don't think they want to commute outside the AC bubble in it. Cities like Phoenix, Houston, and New Orleans are great much of the year but unliveable other times. 

As a person that lives in cold weather, I can tell you that it isn't a lame excuse. People aren't going to want to walk or ride a bike in temperatures that are -8C (plus windchill) at 7 AM during morning commutes. The winters are pretty nasty up here and even driving a car isn't that much of a relief until the thing warms up. Add in the ice and snow. The idea of riding a bike or waiting for a bus in that crap is just depressing. :lol:


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> And electricity comes from the power plug ... and if people have no bread they shall eat cake... hno:
> 
> I was talking about energy in general getting substantially more expensive. Of course prices of oil, natural gas etc are connected to each other. Suburban car culture will be carried to the grave faster than you'd expect if realities should make it unaffordable for the masses.


We have loads of coal, hydropower, nuclear power, and increasingly we will have more solar and wind power. Power wont be a problem for the US.


----------



## eddeux (Jun 16, 2010)

The downtowns of many American cities (especially the 100,000 - 200,000 sized ones) seem to be decayed and devoid of life depending on the time of day. Most American cities have little pedestrian traffic. Everyone is in their cars on the road blasting their air conditioners.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Phoenix is powered mostly by Hoover Dam and Glenn Canyon power plant anyway.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> You are probably right that a majority wants to own a property, ideally in a detached house. I think there is a growing number of people who prefer living in an apartment in an urban environment instead.
> 
> It is right that raising children changes a lot of things, but I know very real existing and popular examples of modern and dense, central urban neighbourhoods which are very popular among young families. Maybe American cities still fail to make urban environments attractive to young families, I don't know, but if they do, its not because its not possible to create such environments.


Alot of people in recent years in the Northeast have downsized from huge Exurb properties to smaller Urbanized Suburban lots....


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

ssiguy2 said:


> Second, race. Race has had a huge impact on American history, culture, economics, and social standing. All societies have some form of racism in their past but in the US it's influence was profound and the 2 races NEVER mixed and never lived in the same neighbourhoods...........completely different solitudes. White Americans were fine with that but obviously blacks weren't and it all boiled over in 1960s when blacks began to demand their rights and place in society. Unfortunately that resulted in urban race riots suchas in LA, Chicago, Detroit etc. This led to "white flight" to the suburbs and left the downtown cores with fewer people and much poorer ones to pay the bills. Businesses followed the money of the white to the suburbs and it became an endless cycle to where many US cities had the "doughnut" effect on urban planning. People leaving the cities and requiring cars in live in the far flung suburbs also resulted {and with bribes from the US car companies} in a deteriorization of urrban transit.
> 
> I think people over simplfy the US urban decline by simply using the car as an excuse but the US culture and values has probably more to do with it.


Excellent & too frequently overlooked realities! Its no surprise that the US cities with the highest levels of racial segregation, polarization, etc (Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc.) suffer the most in the way of dying downtowns & dead neighborhoods etc.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

El Mariachi said:


> As for families, nothing will change until the cities fix themselves. I don't think it's a government problem rather a cultural issue that needs to be addressed at a grassroots level. I think Americans would have no problem living in smaller urban houses or even apartments if they didn't have to live near deadbeats, criminals, drug addicts, bums, welfare queens, teen moms, juvenile delinquents, and the uneducated.


In the more successful US cities these demographics tend to be moving to the outer fringes. In the less successful cities their still concentrated in the cores.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> American cities are already reinventing themselves. Have a look at LA. They are rebuilding a rail based higher capacity PT system, reviving downtown etc. Actually they have been doing so for the 10 years or longer. And there you are with the time constraints. It takes decades, to fundamentally change the structure of cities, even China which is a master of rapid development could not do it in less than 10-20 years.


A large part of why cities like LA have more vitality, streetlife, & transit has been the large-scale immigration, both low & high end, over the past several decades. The rustbelt cities that by contrast are a lot emptier than what they were, are the places that didn't attract immigrants.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> Sweden has milder winters than most of US, actually. It has the sea to regulate weather, not much continentality. There is no major European city on altitudes such as those of Denver or Salt Lake City as well.


What utter nonsense. I've lived my whole life in Helsinki which has a similar climate to Stockholm (both being on roughly the same latitude and close to the sea). There is nothing mild about our winters with temperatures of -20 not being anything rare at all. Add to that the icy sea breeze and you get the idea. North of Stockholm/Helsinki it gets even colder. Places like Skåne are a bit "warmer", however, most Europeans would still consider the climate there cold.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ I was comparing Sweden to, say, North Dakota, Montana or Minnesota.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Suburbanist said:


> Phoenix is powered mostly by Hoover Dam and Glenn Canyon power plant anyway.


Soon to become obsolete. Lake Mead that powers Hoover Dam has fallen to 59% its normal level at a time when demand is multiplying. Soon energy and water will have to be imported, at great cost. What they need is to invest in solar power, as for water, it's still going to be inhibitively expensive. If things don't change the sunbelt may change to a rustbelt at some time in the future as the attraction of living there literally evaporates.

Solar power + water conservation culture could future-proof these cities. I notice many Phoenix suburbs are converting to having local plants (yucca, cacti and shrub) as gardens, rather than the ubiquitous well watered lawn.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

irrigated agriculture in NEvada and Arizona uses far more water than all its urban areas. 

I think xeriscaping is catching up anyway. Dry lawns can look nice.

You still need water for pools and golf courses anwyay.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

weava said:


> We have loads of coal, hydropower, nuclear power, and increasingly we will have more solar and wind power. Power wont be a problem for the US.


Your living in denial. While I am not saying that we will face outright power shortage, the point is that energy will get more expensive if we have to switch to alternatives. Even oil itself is getting more expensive as the most accessible reservoirs are running out of supply and increasingly more challenging supplies have to be tapped. 

Power will be a major issue of the 21st century, sooner or later.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> I was comparing Sweden to, say, North Dakota, Montana or Minnesota.


So we have someone with hands on experience who says you are wrong and we have climate data that says you are wrong (telling that Helsinki is colder on average in winter than Illinois, except for January). What more does it need?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> Power will be a major issue of the 21st century, sooner or later.


Which will make people get over nuclear hysteria and accept the idea of building more and many nuclear powerplants reasonable removed from most inhabited ideas with modern standards of safety


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Mr Bricks said:


> What utter nonsense. I've lived my whole life in Helsinki which has a similar climate to Stockholm (both being on roughly the same latitude and close to the sea). There is nothing mild about our winters with temperatures of -20 not being anything rare at all. Add to that the icy sea breeze and you get the idea. North of Stockholm/Helsinki it gets even colder. Places like Skåne are a bit "warmer", however, most Europeans would still consider the climate there cold.


29.7F average in Helsinki in Jan compared to 31F in Chicago. Not _much_ difference...and Chicago certainly isn't the most brutal in the US for winters. We also get wind chills well below zero Fahrenheit. Considering Helsinki is at the same latitude as northern Canada...it's _very _mild.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Which will make people get over nuclear hysteria and accept the idea of building more and many nuclear powerplants reasonable removed from most inhabited ideas with modern standards of safety


Real life cycle costs of nuclear power are higher than for many alternative forms of energy and substantially higher than for energy based on cheap oil that is already running out now (leaving only more expensive oil etc at our disposal). 

Nuclear power, no matter how you think about it, won't resolve the problem of certain energy cost increases in the future. What it might do is to resolve parts of the potential lack of energy supply. That means it will be substantially more expensive but at least it could help to prevent serious shortages.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Northsider said:


> 29.7F average in Helsinki in Jan compared to 31F in Chicago. Not _much_ difference...and Chicago certainly isn't the most brutal in the US for winters. We also get wind chills well below zero Fahrenheit. Considering Helsinki is at the same latitude as northern Canada...it's _very _mild.


The point was not to say that Helsinki is so extreme but that most American cities are not substantially worse.

PS: You know how 0°F are defined? What a crazy unit system ...


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

Nobody on the streets in America? 

Come to New York.

... but yes, unfortunately the CBDs of many cities in the U.S. are pedestrian wastelands.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> I was comparing Sweden to, say, North Dakota, Montana or Minnesota.


No you said: "Sweden has milder winters than most of US" which isn't true. And using the term "mild" is a bit misleading.



Northsider said:


> 29.7F average in Helsinki in Jan compared to 31F in Chicago. Not much difference...and Chicago certainly isn't the most brutal in the US for winters. We also get wind chills well below zero Fahrenheit. Considering Helsinki is at the same latitude as northern Canada...it's very mild.


Ever heard of the Gulf Stream?


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Mr Bricks said:


> Ever heard of the Gulf Stream?


Yes, thanks for stating the obvious and adding to my point. To add to that, plenty of US cities get _way_ more snow than Helsinki...Chicago being one of them (28in vs 38 in).


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Northsider said:


> Yes, thanks for stating the obvious and adding to my point. To add to that, plenty of US cities get _way_ more snow than Helsinki...Chicago being one of them (28in vs 38 in).


If it is so obivous then why do you compare Helsinki to northern Canada??

We get plenty of snow in Helsinki thank you. Even too much sometimes. But as I said, Helsinki is on the south coast, it get's colder further north.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Mr Bricks said:


> If it is so obivous then why do you compare Helsinki to northern Canada??


Because Helsinki is relatively mild for such a latitude. *It's comparable to most northern cities in the US. *



> But as I said, Helsinki is on the south coast, it get's colder further north.


Yes, but nobody lives up there... The vast majority of the population live to the south.


----------



## Otto Racecar (Jan 13, 2011)

bayviews said:


> Excellent & too frequently overlooked realities! Its no surprise that the US cities with the highest levels of racial segregation, polarization, etc (Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc.) suffer the most in the way of dying downtowns & dead neighborhoods etc.


High levels of racial segregation in cleveland ?? and I was just in cleveland this past weekend and their downtown and surrounding neighborhoods(ohio city,tremont,little italy) are highly walkable and were very active when I was there. 

Look, everyone has made fair points and there is alot of truth in what people are saying but there is no way to compare most american cities to european cities based on the simple fact that the us cities are often times hundreds of years newer then their counterparts. I mean LA was barely over 100,000 residents in 1900,houston 44,000 residents in 1900,dallas 42,000 residents in 1900,phoenix 65,000 residents in 1940,and the list goes on and on. A large majority of US cities grew very rapidly during the time of the automobile and thus are more car centric. This doesn't mean there aren't examples of nice walkable neighborhoods in most us cities. What it does mean is that they often times aren't in the central business district. I've been to many places in europe and south america and see many similarities between old us cities such as boston,new york,philadelphia, etc. and walkable foreign cities.

Keep in mind that up until the 1950's it was normal for most cities in the US to have fairly densely populated downtowns with streetcars,rail, etc.. Even small rural towns had rail lines that connected to other towns. This was the rule not the exception. Large portions of these neighborhoods were demolished to make way for massive highway systems. Streetcars and rail became obsolete in all but the largest of cities in the US. Although there is much to detest about what was considered urban renewal at this time, it should be pointed out in fairness that the highway systems helped create a large economic boon for the country and was considered very forward thinking at the time.

Fortunately over the years, a large amount of cities in the US have attempted to reverse the damage and created good public transit systems and an environment that stresses growth in the urban core. People in the US do like the idea of being able to walk to stores, work, etc.. and it is being demonstrated by population shifts back to urban environments as well as the tendancy for many outer ring suburbs to try to emulate that environment to keep residents from leaving.There are still several obstacles that stand in the way of getting to a place in which all US cities have strong urban cores with vibrant neighborhoods etc.. including lack of nationwide connecting public transit(america's really big and cars allow people to get to their buddies house in a random small town that a train doesn't go to), the expense of housing in nice urban areas(it's often cheaper in the burbs for more space), and lack of educational options for kids in the core(varies by city but often seems like the reason people move to the burbs). Its definitely not as simple as "Americans like space and are lazy and don't want to walk."


----------

