# New Urbanism - What are your thoughts?



## phattonez (Sep 14, 2006)

I've gotten into arguments with a few people about this recently. Some people see it as an infringement on their freedoms if implemented (because we should all be living in single family homes and driving to work you know hno, others seem to think that some of its recommendations (mostly traffic calming) are wonky, and others are all for it.

So what do you think of the idea? Should we be pursuing more sustainable development and walkable communities, or should we stay with the same suburban build-out model?

And, what do you think of the way new urbanism has been implemented so far?


----------



## socrates#1fan (Jul 1, 2008)

I'm all for it.
Carmel is near here and they have adopted this as well as given classical architecture a full blown revival.
They are building a dense downtown that reflects styles of the 1820s-90's(probably trying to mimick near by towns.) and have new neighborhoods that are quiet dense.
They are also interested in light rails between the growing suburb and downtown Indianapolis.


----------



## el casanovas (Jun 1, 2008)

I dunno, I like the idea of pedestrian streets, mixed use, no cars, different types of housing, people not leaving - but in practice most exemples of New Urbanism are suburbs or exurbs and act as such, so the point is moot.

I guess New Urbanism is fine if you want to build a new town that's a new centre, a new _city_, that is, but in order to achieve that you need to let go a bit on the self-containment and the "small community" plans. Also, I don't like some New Urbanist principles, like the use of traditional architecture and the clear delimitation of city centres. Maybe a more vertical version (I can't believe people say New Urbanism is too dense), with some deconstruction of city structure (subversion of centre-periphery) would be more suitable.

Also you should keep in mind that old European cities also suffer sprawl, but in a different way. People don't flee to the immediate suburbs (most of which are Pruitt-Igoe-style disasters or American suburbs with public transportation and some more life) but to the exurbs, which tends to degrade the cities. Plus if the city is touristic and people flee to the exurbs (simply because it's cheaper to live there), some old neighbourhoods (in fact, the most "traditional" of them) can turn into tourist ghettos where nearly 100% of jobs are tourist-oriented - which is a very "Old Urbanist" idea, and which means degradation will strike hard when tourism isn't so prevalent. In short, I don't understand the fixation of New Urbanists with European cities such as Paris, London or Barcelona. There's interesting stuff going on in Scandinavia, but other than that we also have our problems.

As a side note, I'm not into all that "10-minute-walk" talk. I find it kind of claustrophobia-inducing. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for pedestrian streets and I wish there were NO cars at all besides ambulances, police cars, etc., but there's no need for restrictions. It's a good idea to pack as many services and jobs as possible into any given area, but bicycles and the tube are pedestrian-friendly and eco-friendy as well, plus it's always nice to live in a diverse and big place. Otherwise life gets boring. Proof is there's lots of interrelation between small towns and even villages, while people living in a city core rarely visit the suburbs.

But I think all urbanists should keep New Urbanism in mind, especially the "pedestrian-friendly" and the "people should never leave" parts kay:


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

I think the name is misleading. It's not so much New Urbanism, it's more New Ruralism. These neighborhoods resemble villages much more than they do cities.
Having said that, I think they're definitely better than the typical suburb.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

phattonez said:


> I've gotten into arguments with a few people about this recently. Some people see it as an infringement on their freedoms if implemented (because we should all be living in single family homes and driving to work you know hno, others seem to think that some of its recommendations (mostly traffic calming) are wonky, and others are all for it.
> 
> So what do you think of the idea? Should we be pursuing more sustainable development and walkable communities, or should we stay with the same suburban build-out model?
> 
> And, what do you think of the way new urbanism has been implemented so far?


I am partially supportive of the principle goals of it, but I think it has some flaws. 

The largest problem seems to be car traffic. Some of the new urbanist approaches failed reduce car traffic in reality. 

I think the major flaw is that they have as guideline to create complete permeability. That means give pedestrians and cars (and maybe also bikes) their share, maybe with a focus on pedestrians, but grant all of them direct connections all over the cities. This effectively leads to the situation that people keep driving because its so fast. 

There exists a different concept that is not part of the idea of new urbanism. Its called "selective permeability". This concept says while pedestrians and bicycle riders should have direct connections to the center and other neighborhoods, car drivers shall not. This actually discourages people to use the car on short distances because you can take a short cut if you go or drive by bike. (People like short cuts )

That actually helps to reduce car traffic and helps especially to foster the bicycle share but also pedestrian movement.

An example of this concept is the city of Freiburg in Germany, it is the city in Germany with the most people using the bike. Of course, this entire system is backed up by a tight PT system and a traditional pedestrian center.

Another problem with new urbanism might be also the aversion to higher density concepts in opposition to the spread out garden city. But I am not too sure about that.

I don't like the limitations to small communities as well. New Urbanism should also have concepts for larger cities, other than their suburbanisation in the style of historic looking suburbs.


----------



## el casanovas (Jun 1, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> I don't like the limitations to small communities as well. New Urbanism should also have concepts for larger cities, other than their suburbanisation in the style of historic looking suburbs.


This is a big problem of New Urbanism, I agree. Supposedly, New Urbanism was conceived as a way to design _cities_ and _put an end to unsustainable suburbanisation_, but in practise it hasn't given anything but suburbs. There is a very definite New Urbanist project for what a big city should be, though. Their idea is building a very dense, American 1920's-style city centre, and surround it with progressively less dense neighbourhoods until the city dissolves into a rural area. I think there's some good aspects to this, but I'd like a city that's more mixed in density and more geared towards growth - not sprawl, but growth.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

*Here's a list of the 13 principles of New Urbanism from Wikipedia:*



> The neighborhood has a discernible center. This is often a square or a green and sometimes a busy or memorable street corner. A transit stop would be located at this center.
> Most of the dwellings are within a five-minute walk of the center, an average of roughly 1/4 mile or 1,320 feet (0.4 km).
> There are a variety of dwelling types — usually houses, rowhouses, and apartments — so that younger and older people, singles, and families, the poor, and the wealthy may find places to live.
> At the edge of the neighborhood, there are shops and offices of sufficiently varied types to supply the weekly needs of a household.
> ...


Judging strictly from these principles, I'd have to say that I'm strongly in favour of it. The descriptions above are very reliable at making an area not only sustainable but also vibrant and interesting. 

However, these suggestions seem mainly suited to more outlying residential areas - in other words, they are a replacement for the current style of low density suburbs. Most inner cities are already well designed and aren't in need of much improvement. I happen to enjoy the very grand and imposing nature of central cities, including large buildings and monuments, and wide, sweeping boulevards. I would advocate a model that includes a large central metropolis surrounded by smaller new urban towns and cities that all have rapid transit connections to the larger city at their center.


----------



## Beware (Oct 30, 2007)

* I love It! *" New Urbanism " is, simply, reinventing classic (urban) design abandoned during from the early 1960's until the mid 90's. SO many U.S. city's desperately emulated suburban design and style in desperate and failed attempts to counter urban exoduses. The end result was most (American) downtowns resembling, banal, office parks and shopping centers. 

*Many developers are still resistant because of the cost and hassle of conforming to aesthetic codes and specifications not required in, generic, subdivisions and the like. * Most Americans, however, welcome a return to attractive buildings along broad sidewalks, abundant (retail) windows at street level, concealed parking, etc. My, own, hometown is struggling with New Urbanism, but ONLY because it's another change from the status quo. However, more (local) developers are realizing that most Americans want our cities to resemble traditional city's again.... like NYC, Chicago, Boston, Etc.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

> Streets within the neighborhood form a connected network, which disperses traffic by providing a variety of pedestrian and vehicular routes to any destination.


Here is the crook. By dispersing the car traffic, the road capacitiy is even increased and every neighborhood is confronted with it. At the same time car use is not reduced as existing new urban settlements have indicated.

Vehicular traffic should be disadvantaged to pedestrian and bike lanes. 

I prefer New Urbanism a hundred times over the standard American suburb nonetheless however.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> There exists a different concept that is not part of the idea of new urbanism. Its called "selective permeability". This concept says while pedestrians and bicycle riders should have direct connections to the center and other neighborhoods, car drivers shall not. This actually discourages people to use the car on short distances because you can take a short cut if you go or drive by bike. (People like short cuts )
> 
> That actually helps to reduce car traffic and helps especially to foster the bicycle share but also pedestrian movement.


I live in such a neighborhood (Stadshagen, Zwolle, NL). This neighborhood has only 2 connections to the city, and no connections between different neighborhoods within the area, except for bicycles. It does increase cycling a bit, but not so much that it calms traffic. Now, everybody has to drive all the way around, and longer distances, and traffic is the number one thing people dislike about this neighborhood.

The problem is that these new neighborhoods attracts people which are often 2-income, 2-car, 2-kids etc househoulds. Generally the kind of people who do not use their bikes to commute. It generally does not reduce traffic the way the planners thought it would.

It's simply ideology versus reality. Urban planners in the Netherlands often loose this reality by making all kind of traffic calming plans.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chriszwolle said:


> I live in such a neighborhood (Stadshagen, Zwolle, NL). This neighborhood has only 2 connections to the city, and no connections between different neighborhoods within the area, except for bicycles. It does increase cycling a bit, but not so much that it calms traffic. Now, everybody has to drive all the way around, and longer distances, and traffic is the number one thing people dislike about this neighborhood.
> 
> The problem is that these new neighborhoods attracts people which are often 2-income, 2-car, 2-kids etc househoulds. Generally the kind of people who do not use their bikes to commute. It generally does not reduce traffic the way the planners thought it would.
> 
> It's simply ideology versus reality. Urban planners in the Netherlands often loose this reality by making all kind of traffic calming plans.


It would be interesting to know why it works then in other towns. I mean I am no expert, but I know it works in Freiburg very well, but there are other positive examples where reality supported the theory. 

Of course, this concept alone does not solve the problems of suburbia. As far as I know is the Dutch city planning not the worst that exists in the wealthy countries, but it relies too much on suburban living concepts (spread out garden cities) imho. One single concept alone can't lead to success, the problem has to be attacked from all possible sides.

I mean the entire concept of selective permeability is pretty useless if one does not aim towards a city of short distances for example.

A propos Freiburg. They have a new city quarter named Vauban (former French controlled barracks), 5.500 inhabitants, very high percentage of families. The interesting thing is that its to a large extend car free. Half of the families there do not even own a car, not in one of the parking places outside of the quarter either. I have heard the first time about it and on first glance it looks cool.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Actually Dutch suburban city planning is still pretty dense along the larger cities. I really wouldn't call my garden very large. It's about 5 meters wide, and 10 meters deep. My parents have a somewhat larger yard, but if you really want a large yard and detached homes, you need to go to rural area's. The number of detached homes in Dutch suburbs is very low, mostly terraced housing, however maybe the insane house prices might have something to do with it. An american style home in a normal suburb would cost over a million euro's here. (1.5 million dollars).


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chriszwolle said:


> Actually Dutch suburban city planning is still pretty dense along the larger cities. I really wouldn't call my garden very large. It's about 5 meters wide, and 10 meters deep.


Well I would say thats pretty much what I would expect of a British style row house garden city. Maybe one can call those sorts of developments medium density if classical old European city quarters are considered high density. 



> My parents have a somewhat larger yard, but if you really want a large yard and detached homes, you need to go to rural area's. The number of detached homes in Dutch suburbs is very low, mostly terraced housing, however maybe the insane house prices might have something to do with it. An american style home in a normal suburb would cost over a million euro's here. (1.5 million dollars).


Positive to hear. 

But I do not quite understand, you said above that the car traffic is substantial. I thought you have generally good PT and great bike lanes which both are not empty, don't you? What mode of transport share are we talking about? (% of travels made by car, bike, per pedes etc)

Vienna for example has about 30% car, 32% PT 4% bike and the rest pedestrian. Freiburg has 30% car 28% bike, 18% PT and the rest pedestrian...


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I don't know the city figures, but the Dutch nationwide figures are:

passenger miles:
car 76%, bike 7.4%, train 7%, bus/tram/metro 3.3%, pedestrian 2,1%

commute only:
car 59%, bike 24%, PT 9.7%, pedestrian 3,3%

As you can see, some interesting figures. you can see even at the total passenger mileage, the bike wins of the train. In commuting, the bike has a high share, however, they can be combined with public transport. In lesser extend, PT can also be combined with a car. Interestingly, 10% of the cars have some sort of carpool. 

However, concerning cycling, I think we've gotten pretty much everything out of that. Newer developments are usually above the cycling treshold (5-7.5km away), and pedestrian can only be increased with a better mix of jobs and residential, however this is usually uncommon. 

The Netherlands is pretty much build in a way that only the car can offer an efficient way of transport. Coincidentally, I made a list of PT vs car for commuter towns around my city (which is a job center for a large region).


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chriszwolle said:


> I don't know the city figures, but the Dutch nationwide figures are:
> 
> passenger miles:
> car 76%, bike 7.4%, train 7%, bus/tram/metro 3.3%, pedestrian 2,1%
> ...


I don't know how the situation is in the Netherlands, but in Vienna I came to the conclusion that the car is overrated. Just one example. A group of friends wanted to get from a periphery university location to the rather central Campus where a nice Christmas market took place. I took my bike, the others went by car. By bike the distance was 4,7 km by car about 4,5km. I forgot the exact time it took by bike, but I remember my astonishment when I realized I arrived shortly before the first group that took the car.

In a rural setting I have been commuting between locations 12 km away by bike. Yes, instead of 15 min by car it takes about 35 min, and you perhaps need some commitment to do so, but it worked out real fine. I only took the car when the weather was really bad. 

Btw what does it mean that newer developments are above biking distances? Just for the way to work, or also for social activities, shopping etc?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ Work usually. But new developments need a certain size before they add a shopping district. However, Dutch new suburbs are far from their US counterparts. The problem with US suburbs is that you need the car for absolutely everything, while you can take the bike here to do some groceries, and social activities. However, the carusage of these neighborhoods is always more than projected, and public transport usage is fairly overestimated.


----------



## yin_yang (May 29, 2006)

Laissez-faire...gas prices are shifting everyone towards new urbanist practices in one way or another anyways. I really don't see why you should FORCE people to live in those communities. Well, I am speaking for Canada. Countries such as China are doing it, on the other hand.

Good idea...but it's time is still to come, definitely. How the inner city is changed by new urbanism will be quite an interesting question to come back to 20 or 30 years from now.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chriszwolle said:


> ^^ Work usually. But new developments need a certain size before they add a shopping district. However, Dutch new suburbs are far from their US counterparts. The problem with US suburbs is that you need the car for absolutely everything, while you can take the bike here to do some groceries, and social activities. However, the carusage of these neighborhoods is always more than projected, and public transport usage is fairly overestimated.


Well at least the neighborhoods are planned the way that they give people a viable alternative to the car. Thats hardly the case for many American suburbs. It would be however very interesting to see %-numbers of modal split of the means of transportation in some of the newer Dutch towns. 

Higher fuel prices will do miracles. I don't think Austria is the sole country where PT sees record numbers of customers currently.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

yin_yang said:


> Laissez-faire...gas prices are shifting everyone towards new urbanist practices in one way or another anyways. I really don't see why you should FORCE people to live in those communities. Well, I am speaking for Canada. Countries such as China are doing it, on the other hand.
> 
> Good idea...but it's time is still to come, definitely. How the inner city is changed by new urbanism will be quite an interesting question to come back to 20 or 30 years from now.


Laissez-farie is not enough. People can only choose if they have a choice. In the majority of American suburbs I doubt one can speak of a choice and no its simply not possible that over night half of the American homes are left to move to settlements that don't exist yet which give you a choice.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> Higher fuel prices will do miracles. I don't think Austria is the sole country where PT sees record numbers of customers currently.


No LA trains are also seeing record highs. However, compared to the number of car trips, it's still nothing. I don't believe higher gas prices will really changes things. If it immediatly jumps to like € 2,50 per liter, things might change, but since that's not gonna happen, people accept the higher fuel prices, and cut back on other expenses. Retail in the Netherlands is already reporting lower consumption in clothing, the same time the gas prices went up from € 1,20 to € 1,70 now.

However, it's hard to say the traffic volumes are decreasing the next 2 months, since it's summer holidays, and traffic patterns are not the same as off-season. Traffic is usually lower during the summer. 

Besides that, I don't think the commuting by car will significantly decrease. First, you'll see on that list I posted, there isn't really an alternative. Second of all, people will probably first reduce the number of social/recreational trips, like holidays, visiting grandma a 100 miles away etc. 
Cutting back on commuting means cutting back on income. It's clear public transport can never accomodate the current commuting by car, the scale difference is just simply too large. You can increase the number of trains, yes, but that ends somewhere, and increasing capacity by adding railways is extremely expensive, especially when counted per passenger mile, since the peak vs low gap will only increase, adding to the operational costs, you need more trains and personnel during a fairly short period. 

Recent surveys in the Netherlands found out people were gonna change their lifestyle if gas reaches € 3 per liter (that's almost $ 20 per gallon).


----------



## el casanovas (Jun 1, 2008)

LtBk said:


> Aren't apartments popular in Spain?


It's not like that, actually. It's true thaty most people live in apartments, and even people who flee to the exurbs (suburbanisation is not very common, but exurbanisation does exist) mostly end up living in apartments, although there's also unifamiliar houses in some (rather wealthy) areas. However, satellite towns such as the examples posted above are not very popular. Those towns were built in the 60's to accomodate rural immigrants, and some of them showcase extremely poor planning and very low quality buildings. Of course, as they have grown further this has gradually got better, and currently they aren't bad places to live in (some of them had high crime rates in the past), but they aren't very popular either. It also depends on the area. Madrid's suburbs are generally more livable than Barcelona's, for example, although obviously there's both good and bad examples. One good point in favour of Barcelona's suburbs is that despite worse public transportation, they're much more integrated with the city and DO act as peripherical neighbourhoods, while in Madrid this isn't always the case.

At any rate, those dense suburbs aren't popular at all. People from the city core who live there often do because they can't afford to live downtown, not because they really want to. Also, until recently (due to new immigrants), those suburbs have tended to lose population, at least in the Barcelona area.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Koen Acacia said:


> Those gardens really save them, they manage to make commieblocks quite appealing. Very clever project.
> 
> And yes - there is something simplistic about the theory: if you're going to summarize a continent's architectural development over half a century in thirty words or less... you're going to end up with a few generalizations here and there.
> Still, it's quite revealing that the large majority of houses that are being demolished these days _for not being up to standards anymore_, have been built in the 1960's - 70's. Almost no house from before 1900 makes it to those lists.
> Isn't that odd? Suppose that we would look at medicine, or electronics, through that same lens: "Well, they just don't operate like they did in the 19th century anymore eh?", "Of course, it's no _Victorian _cell phone, but still works quite well!".


That argument that the old appartments can't fit into the modern times anymore is BS. Vienna is full of buildings from the Gründerzeit that look impressive at the otside but were built for the mass back then. The appartments were tiny and lacked nearly everything people demand today from a home.

Today a very large share of those blocks have been adopted to modern needs. In order to do so you neither need to change the outside, nor make the rooms looking modern in style. Those renovated Gründerziet buildings are nowadays very popular again and often more expensive than modern appartments in similar location. If that argument above would be true, one would have to tear down about 2/3 of the dense city districts. Obviously this is not taking place at all.



> Of course there are things that went well, and when you get down to it, "style" is just a word, but I find this quite telling: over here in The Hague, we've seen quite a few new high rises popping up near the old city centre. Here  you can see a good number of them. Now, every now and then you speak to people on the tram, in a shop or whatever, and whenever the conversation turns into one of those "modern times/the youth of today" chats, I often ask them about those towers, what they think of them. The near-universal reaction is that _those _are great, nothing wrong with _them_.
> 
> In Architecture land, that's a very controversial project, a bunch of modern highrises straight in a historical city center. These people I'm talking about, who have no problem at all with them do not like "modern buildings" at all (or at least so they say), contrary to a lot of architects. If anyone would hate this project, it should be them. So - why don't they?


Having that said I have to tell you, that those high rises at your link look world classes better than large parts of the recent highrises in Vienna. If the would be built in the 1st district in Vienna, I guess half of the city would be on the street demonstrating against them. And I would be amongst them.

There is so much space in cities. You don't have to destroy the historic heart of your city for that. It woulde a far greater win for the city to have an intact old town and a great highrise district, if you want right next to it.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

hopefully i won't be repeating any points already made in this discussion. new urbanism is a very nebulous topic. unfortunately, new urbanism is at best a very flawed solution, and many of its positive aspects have been diluted or cast aside by developers. NU also has a schism between the smart growth faction (e.g. peter calthorpe) which insists on things like public transit accessibility vs. the developer driven faction (e.g. andres duany) which justifies greenfield car-dependent yet aesthetically pleasing development.

ideally, you'd want density, public transport, and mixed usage. these three factors and some subjective aesthetic appeal generally combine to make urban areas livable. new urbanism attempts to package these things into something appealing to the historicist fashion senses of our era. unfortunately i suspect that many of NU's supporters are driven more by fashion and the opportunity to turn a fast buck than by broader concerns with sustainability. 

slartibartfas; i agree with most everything you say. 'cept seaside was the original NU development set in the middle of nowhere and is a cottage development for the rich (even though andres duany would never admit that). of course that community works, as there is literally nowhere within driving distance. there are no far off workplaces, no big box retail to lure residents away, etc. celebration is the much larger development in suburban orlando. that thing's just a hyped up suburb. while its residents can get coffee in its historicist town square, they end up driving elsewhere for work, and they go to nearby kissimmee for its big box stores.


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

Slart: let's just agree to disagree on the "modern era" buildings. It's not like they're terribly relevant to the discussion anyway.



Slartibartfas said:


> Having that said I have to tell you, that those high rises at your link look world classes better than large parts of the recent highrises in Vienna. If the would be built in the 1st district in Vienna, I guess half of the city would be on the street demonstrating against them. And I would be amongst them.
> 
> There is so much space in cities. You don't have to destroy the historic heart of your city for that. It woulde a far greater win for the city to have an intact old town and a great highrise district, if you want right next to it.


If they'd plan something like that right next to the Hofburg - call me up and I'll join the demonstration. 
In The Hague however, especially on that location, it actually fits. tbh, the picture I took was from a really crazy angle, just to show how a controversial construction right next to Old Town, if done the right way, _can _gain popular support. 

At the risk of sounding like I'm just plugging my own city, look here  for some (not really high-rise related) pictures of the city. Basically, it's an intact (well - mostly) historical center that has seen an infusion of new life due to construction that started some 15-ish years ago.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Koen Acacia said:


> Slart: let's just agree to disagree on the "modern era" buildings. It's not like they're terribly relevant to the discussion anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In Vienna the 1st district is not 100% historic either. You know bomb raids and post war "reconstruction" did their share. But while the post war buildings are not beautiful, they are at least dimensioned in way to fit in to the traditional urban fabric.

But the situation might be different to The Hague as Vienna's 1st district is Unesco world hertitage as a whole. Anyway that would lead us to far off topic. Generally I am not a militant skyscraper opponent, I just oppose sacrificing easy handedly the most precious part of a city for some contemporary projects.

Of course what is far more important to this thread is to show ways to create sustainable city designs, whatever this shall mean.


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

Him I'm back! Sorry for the delay.


Slartibartfas said:


> In Vienna the 1st district is not 100% historic either. You know bomb raids and post war "reconstruction" did their share. But while the post war buildings are not beautiful, they are at least dimensioned in way to fit in to the traditional urban fabric.
> 
> But the situation might be different to The Hague as Vienna's 1st district is Unesco world hertitage as a whole. Anyway that would lead us to far off topic. Generally I am not a militant skyscraper opponent, I just oppose sacrificing easy handedly the most precious part of a city for some contemporary projects.


True, and /agree with the "easy handedly" part.



> Of course what is far more important to this thread is to show ways to create sustainable city designs, whatever this shall mean.


Yes, I've been probing at that one for a while now, and since I didn't find anything "European" list that can be compared to that New urbanism recipe, I figured I might as well see if I could draw up such a list by myself. Of course, I don't claim in any way to be an authority or even a professional on the subject, it's just someone's opinion on what he thinks is happening at the moment.
So here goes:



Koen's Really Pretentious List Of Current Urban Trends in Europe said:


> Location: popular sites seem to be near the station and by the waterfront. Derelict neighborhoods in general, too. The type of neighborhood where, in Terry Pratchett's words, a direct impact from a meteor would count as gentrification are (obviously) targets for urban renewal projects.
> Also: a lot more focus on construction inside the city limits than in the past. Still MUCH more suburban development than I'd like, but I really think there's a lot more attention on the city itself than before. Cities are becoming more urban, too.
> 
> Usage: mix, mix, mix. Bit of a New Urbanism thing, I guess. It's all *and *houses, *and *office space *and *shops. High income *and *low income. Rental *and *sale. That post-industrial strict separation of functions has definitely gone the way of the dodo.
> ...


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^

Love your pretentious list of European urban trends. 
And I also like the trends 

What I might add: "eco"
Especially in the German speaking area "energy efficiency" is a large trend wit Passivhäuser on the break through.




In Vienna they have plans for a large new "urban" district as well. If that new district will be as successfull as eg Hammerby Sjöstad has to be seen in the next 2 decades when it is getting built. The master plan sounds interesting at least. 

Major features of the district will be a new railwaystation (S-Bahn, Subway U2 and ÖBB trains connecting nearby Bratislava) with a large square, a central lake, an urban looking ring road and a hopefully pedestrian shopping street connecting the railwaystsation with the southern new subway station.










http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q134/Slartibartfas_album/Flugfeld-Aspern2.jpg

The entire district will be located in a corner of the city that is very suburban already but via the high priority public connections it will be connected to the core of Vienna and the railwaystation of Bratislava in less than half an hour.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q134/Slartibartfas_album/FlugfeldAspern.jpg
violet: subway; blue: S-Bahn/railway; thin red: tram (the new line through the new quarter is not on the map); orange and thick red: autobahn

nightview: http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q134/Slartibartfas_album/Flugfeld-bei-Nacht.jpg?t=1216664329


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I really agree with the "mixed" idea. The problem most US cities have is that they're demographic very homogenous. In my district, it's very mixed, my block has both rented as owned homes, and in the area are also senior apartments, high income apartments, low income apartments, pedestrian-zone shopping center, high income homes, detached homes, rowhouses, 2-under-one-roofers and generally any kind of housing you can imagine. (well except the very low-income social housing and US style suburbia). 

I have to say the concept is interesting, though it still generates a lot of traffic, because they made only 2 connections to the rest of the city, those 2 connections are often jammed during rushhour. But because it's not such a long distance, most traffic jams usually only have like a 10 minute delay at worst.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chriszwolle said:


> I really agree with the "mixed" idea. The problem most US cities have is that they're demographic very homogenous. In my district, it's very mixed, my block has both rented as owned homes, and in the area are also senior apartments, high income apartments, low income apartments, pedestrian-zone shopping center, high income homes, detached homes, rowhouses, 2-under-one-roofers and generally any kind of housing you can imagine. (well except the very low-income social housing and US style suburbia).
> 
> I have to say the concept is interesting, though it still generates a lot of traffic, because they made only 2 connections to the rest of the city, those 2 connections are often jammed during rushhour. But because it's not such a long distance, most traffic jams usually only have like a 10 minute delay at worst.


The 2 connections are not there by accident. Both have two lanes in both direction, as also the ring road is. If the connections should jam, the capacity of the ring road will be at the outmost capacity as well. It doesn't make sense to have overdimensioned connections when the district can not handle such extreme traffic dimensions anyway.

Furthermore I hope you do not confuse concentrating traffic with creating traffic. The connections for cars are limited deliberately, first of all to prevent existing neighborhoods from getting rushed by traffic and secondly to make alternatives even more attractive.

According to the preliminary plan the railwaystation will be connected to the national railway (direct connection to Bratislava in less than 30 minutes), the S-Bahn, the subway line U2 (going directly to the city center), 2 tram lines and 6 bus lines. Every block will have a bus or tram station within 250 meters large parts are within 500 m of the subway stations (and those that are not are nearly all within 250 m of a tram station). The district wil host a cohesive bike network and has priority for pedestrians as well (the new district is only about 1.5 km in diameter but with a nice urban density, principally most ways within that district will be of a length that a I personally would consider perfectly walkable). The distance to those surrounding suburbs of which it should become the new center are even in there periphery mostly not further than 2 or 3 km away. Via the various lines above the district will be connected to other nearby subcenters of Vienna as well as the suburban neighborhoods will see a bus connection to that new district as well.

I think thats pretty all you can do to get people away from taking the car and thereby reduce traffic.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

> and secondly to make alternatives even more attractive.


It's pretty sad that the only way to do this is slowing down a car as much as possible in order to be slower than buses/bicycles. Besides that, the modal split effect is minimal in newer neighborhoods. Very few people actually taking the bus instead of the car for commuting. So you have traffic jams, and low PT usage for commuting, is that a good solution? I don't think so. You have to play with the odds and focus on reality rather than ideology.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chriszwolle said:


> It's pretty sad that the only way to do this is slowing down a car as much as possible in order to be slower than buses/bicycles. Besides that, the modal split effect is minimal in newer neighborhoods. Very few people actually taking the bus instead of the car for commuting. So you have traffic jams, and low PT usage for commuting, is that a good solution? I don't think so. You have to play with the odds and focus on reality rather than ideology.


Well, Vienna has a modal split of 30% car as average, that region we are talking about already included in that and only 1/3 of Vienna's inhabitants live in the inner districts ... True the share in Donaustadt which is the most suburban district of Vienna and the region we speak about here has a car share of 60%, but its quite presumptious to say that a new district like that above will have an as bad modal split. Even the more when you take into account that this region currently lacks a good direct subway connection into the center yet and not only that will be built but also tram lines will be enlarged and many buslines created or at least seriously upgraded.

That new development will create a city of short distances where none existed before, People would have to drive lots of distances below 2 km to reach a really bad modal split, when you have such great alternatives and still take the car without having good reasons, you are a highly asocial egoist anyway and a bit stupid as it really does not pay off. 


If there would be no appropriate streets I would agree with you, but there are. a four lane ring road as the district artery is not nothing (for 30.000) inhabitants. Many cities of that size in Austria have less and don't drown in traffic jams either. Furhermore the plan has flexibility for the worst case anyway. One thing has to be clear, if you want to have a walkable high quality urban area you can't have cars paradise at the same time. So no its not sad that you concentrate car traffic, it enables you to create also urban neighborhoods of high quality that are also suited perfectly for children. Thats only possible if you limit the total dominance of the car. The same for the low density neighborhoods, there are two old workng village centers there as well, it can't be the objective to drown them in traffic deliberately.


I simply don't understand how you can use your above claims like unchangeable truths. Freiburg has many newer city developments and many post war recostruction districts and also manages a modal split of 30% car.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

How's that 30% made? The share by number of trips, or by mileage? 30% is fairly low for Freiburg, because smaller cities tend to have a lower PT usage, while Vienna is a large and fairly dense city where the costs of PT is more justified than in smaller cities. 

That's why I think New Urbanism or other ways of traffic calming only works in larger cities, who can posess a large public transit system. However, that are usually only a few cities per country. I also wonder how Freiburg is doing on the budget side, a large transit system for a relatively low number of population is usually not cost-efficient.

I would like to add that I'm not against the idea of new urbanism or other traffic calming measures, however, it's important not to get your hopes up too much. It might not work as well as it seems to do in Freiburg. My experience from the Netherlands is that people take their cars anyway for longer distances. (5 - 8km+). New developments generally attracts higher income or two-income households, that have often 2 cars, and work at different locations (probably outside the city), and thus generating more traffic than expected. 

In the Netherlands, the amount of trips taken is probably the same as in America, only we drive shorter distances, resulting in a higher mileage for American commuters. I think it should be strongly encouraged to do grocery shopping by bicycle, however, let's stay realistic, a week of groceries for a family is so much, that it can only be transported by car. It's not uncommon in these newer neighborhoods to have 1 full shopping cart (sometimes you even see people with two shopping carts). You can't take that with you on a bicycle.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chriszwolle said:


> How's that 30% made? The share by number of trips, or by mileage? 30% is fairly low for Freiburg, because smaller cities tend to have a lower PT usage, while Vienna is a large and fairly dense city where the costs of PT is more justified than in smaller cities.


Freiburg never has bought into that car fanatism of the 60's. Good long term planning has shown that an alternative is possible and feasible. Which is why I don't understand your absolute claim that newer neighborhoods can't exist with low car shares. 

In regards to your question, I think its by trip at least for Vienna, but the car share is quite recognizeably decreasing.



> That's why I think New Urbanism or other ways of traffic calming only works in larger cities, who can posess a large public transit system. However, that are usually only a few cities per country. I also wonder how Freiburg is doing on the budget side, a large transit system for a relatively low number of population is usually not cost-efficient.


Freiburg has a very high share of people taking the bike, the PT is made up by about six light rail lines which have mostly a separate track and even though it is not an extremely long network a very high pecentage of the city is connected to it quite well, because of a good design. The Austrian city of Graz (somewhat the same size) has a similar popular PT system as Freiburg, due to a lower bike share and a bit lower walk share it has 47% car share. Whereas Graz wants to follow the Freiburg example now, a key in this concept are also new city developments, where you say a change is impossible.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chriszwolle said:


> I would like to add that I'm not against the idea of new urbanism or other traffic calming measures, however, it's important not to get your hopes up too much. It might not work as well as it seems to do in Freiburg. My experience from the Netherlands is that people take their cars anyway for longer distances. (5 - 8km+). New developments generally attracts higher income or two-income households, that have often 2 cars, and work at different locations (probably outside the city), and thus generating more traffic than expected.


Thats the point, in this new district in Vienna many trips are below 5 km. Also many work related ones as the residential areas are not that far of from industry and trade. Actually all trips within that new district will be below 2km more likely not above 1 km. Still there will live about 30.000 people and there will be extensive shopping opportunities leissure activiy areas, parks a lake, local playgrounds, offices etc. If you compare that to the status quo in that region its like day and night and still, the modal split should be still the same according to you? That doesn't make any sense.



> In the Netherlands, the amount of trips taken is probably the same as in America, only we drive shorter distances, resulting in a higher mileage for American commuters. I think it should be strongly encouraged to do grocery shopping by bicycle, however, let's stay realistic, a week of groceries for a family is so much, that it can only be transported by car. It's not uncommon in these newer neighborhoods to have 1 full shopping cart (sometimes you even see people with two shopping carts). You can't take that with you on a bicycle.


How can it be possible for so many people to do their (alimentary) shopping as pedestrians where I live? (at the western periphery but on the brink of the dense area) Its about habits as well. You can do all the shopping you need regularily without owning a car if the city design is good enough and dense enough, you will find a nice number of people who do not even own a car, not because they can not afford it, but because they do not want to afford it, also families. 

Furthermore another point. The new district Vabaun in Freiburg also has a high share of people with a good income where both work and have children (even though there are also not so wealthy inhabitants as well). Still 40% of them manage to live without owning a car at all.


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

Commieblocks violate these principles Commieblocks are very public transport centric but a lot of them have the problem they are built without life. Inefficient green space usage , lack of cultural activities and entertainement. I am disgusted how many commieblocks were just seen as boxes cheap and fast to build. Worst many are only slightly bigger suburbs sharing most of the suburban problems.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

dösanhoro said:


> Commieblocks violate these principles Commieblocks are very public transport centric but a lot of them have the problem they are built without life. Inefficient green space usage , lack of cultural activities and entertainement. I am disgusted how many commieblocks were just seen as boxes cheap and fast to build. Worst many are only slightly bigger suburbs sharing most of the suburban problems.


Thats true, bad design also effected man commie blocks. But luckily there exist examples where well designed complexes do not share above mentioned problems. I have posted an example from Vienna above. It is called Alterlaa and has about 10.000 inhabitants and hosts many services and also the sense of community of an own small city, moreover it also has a good PT connection via an own subway station. (If you want to kmow more about it have a look here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=22663450&postcount=36)

Its very said however that those success stories are not that common.


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> Thats true, bad design also effected man commie blocks. But luckily there exist examples where well designed complexes do not share above mentioned problems. I have posted an example from Vienna above. It is called Alterlaa and has about 10.000 inhabitants and hosts many services and also the sense of community of an own small city, moreover it also has a good PT connection via an own subway station. (If you want to kmow more about it have a look here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=22663450&postcount=36)
> 
> Its very said however that those success stories are not that common.


Thing is, I think that Commieblock has simply become shorthand to many people for "lack of shared space, no facilities, anonymous". Bit like "Suburb", really.
In other words, the project that you're mentioning is not a commieblock, it just looks like one.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

i've been reading this thread with fascination. unfortunately much of the debate has centered around the more established, less dysfunctional european urban areas, and not the infinitely more messed up north american cities.

as it stands, NU or basically every other 'ism' should work in europe. as long as it does not fundamentally lower density, or increase car dependency, or diminish the public transport system, it should work. this isn't to diminish the efforts of european planners. rather, it's my acknowledgement that you guys across the ocean have done things properly. regarding the potential construction of modernist/high rise buildings in the old city centers; that's really more of a question of aesthetics than anything else. it's also dependent on what (if anything) these buildings will replace. of course you'd want some sort of design consistency. at the same time, an incongruous aesthetically questionable building in the city center is still better than a swath of greenfield auto-dependent single family housing. luckily europe in general does not have to deal with the demographic pressures of the american sunbelt, let alone the rapidly urbanizing cities of the rest of the world.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

particlez said:


> i've been reading this thread with fascination. unfortunately much of the debate has centered around the more established, less dysfunctional european urban areas, and not the infinitely more messed up north american cities.
> 
> as it stands, NU or basically every other 'ism' should work in europe. as long as it does not fundamentally lower density, or increase car dependency, or diminish the public transport system, it should work. this isn't to diminish the efforts of european planners. rather, it's my acknowledgement that you guys across the ocean have done things properly. regarding the potential construction of modernist/high rise buildings in the old city centers; that's really more of a question of aesthetics than anything else. it's also dependent on what (if anything) these buildings will replace. of course you'd want some sort of design consistency. at the same time, an incongruous aesthetically questionable building in the city center is still better than a swath of greenfield auto-dependent single family housing. luckily europe in general does not have to deal with the demographic pressures of the american sunbelt, let alone the rapidly urbanizing cities of the rest of the world.


Its true most European cities don't grow that much. Some face a substantial increas of inhabitants. If I don't err you can name eg Hamburg or Vienna here. Hamburg has reacted with the largest urban developmentr program in Europe (if I don't err again) that is currently in constrcuction, the Hafencity. It will be not only located directly next to the inner city of Hamburg, the aim of the project is nothing less than making it part of the inner city and by that substantially enlarging the inner city. 

Success is not guaranteed either in Europe and if we do not take care, we could end up in a situation not terribly better than in the US. My hopes are however that we take care.

Btw, I have visited a city enlargement project next to the Austrian city of Linz called "Solar City". Its principally a public housing project, something some like to call "commie blocks" perhaps. Well, if "commie blocks" would look like this everywhere, people would fight to get a place to live in them. I think the usual argument of proponents for low density car centric suburban developments have been completely destroyed by some projects in Europe over the last decade. You can also build suburbs like that Solar city with beautiful greenery, great places for childrens to play, and be taken care of and being educated, with good and attractive public transportation offers and with buildings built in low energy or even Passivhaus standard at a price that is still within the commopn frame of public housing.

If anyone is interested he can have a look at those "commie blocks" at the video at the bootom of that page: http://www.hausderzukunft.at/publikationen/film_solarcity.html


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

dösanhoro said:


> Commieblocks violate these principles Commieblocks are very public transport centric but a lot of them have the problem they are built without life. Inefficient green space usage , lack of cultural activities and entertainement. I am disgusted how many commieblocks were just seen as boxes cheap and fast to build. Worst many are only slightly bigger suburbs sharing most of the suburban problems.


When I was in Geneva a few weeks ago I was impressed with some of the residential districts. I was staying with a friend who lives in one of those typical big slab type apartment blocks with green space in between. However these green spaces were very pleasant and were used by people all the time.
I don't think the problem with this type of design is the whole concept itsself. It's that it's possible to built crap versions easily.
Also the problems with some of these typical areas is not the design but the maintenance. I think maintenance means everything, the best designed building in the world that is not maintained will become crap sooner than later.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

I strongly oppose new urbanism, without any fear of being stampet outdated or whatever. I live in a country with plenty of cheap and empty land (more or less the situation in US, appart for bigger metro areas and NYC). There's no economic reason for keep people living in packed blocks of high-hise buildings if we can offer a so much affordable space in single homes on the outskirts.

Moreover, in Brazil street violence is pretty high. There's absolute no sense thinking, at least here, that people should walk around on streets. They should got a car if they can afford one. Because we have also a lot of social tension due to income disparity, is good that we have some grade of homogeneity in diffrerent regions of each city, meaning not that much closeness between the richest and the poorest. It's not a matter of social prejudice at all, it's a matter of economic development and public security: before our version of the suburbs (gated communities with restricted acess to inhabitants and their guests with guarded single entrance for each one) spread, we used to see very few big, expensive single houses because wealth people usually preferred discretion while living so close to poor pepole that used to live in slums and other similar 'housings'.

That means our cities were not well developed to the extent they are now. Because dealing with lack of education and the folloeing income disparity is a much harder and long-term duty than improving the urban infrastructure, that was a solutiont that give us the possibility of increasing our construction industry, having shopping malls and fancy stores now, instead of waiting 20, 30 more years.

I lived in Brazil, US and Italy. I just loved the suburb concept. Fits so well on the concepct of privacy, self-guided live-decisions. Maybe most of architeture professionals love the inner city, the high-hising buildings and all, that's ok. But I really think that for the regular guy in US, the one who doesn't care of harmony and balanced vicnitiy, no other place could offer a so cheap option of having a live of his own. As a single young adult, I'd love the "vibrant" nightilife and all, but I perfectly understand how good it should be for a family to have their own garden, their own house, whithout having to deal with a strange or a neighbor everytime they want to go somewhere.

The main problem, whatsoever, is that new urbanists don't understand that there are just different needs and expectations. Suburbs can coexist with "vibrant and walkable community" - I'm sick of the overuse of that expression -. People MUST have options to choose where they want to live, and the regular folks who choose (as far as I know, more than half of US population) live within their own property should be respected as much as the "cool" young couple who choose to live in an industrial-retroffited area with oh-so-cute sushi bars and disco.

I repeat, while I have absolute nothing against sushi bars and discos - indeed, I love clubbing -, I aprreciate so much my privacy, and the right to decide when I want to walk around a bunch of strangers, and when I just want to be on a private house, without any noises come from the apartment next floor, and without having to rely on timetables of transit. What about a family so?

Other major question is that animosity towars drivers. It's easy to blame cars for all the illness of our cities, but everybody seems to forgot the huge benefits they brought. Cars made os free of the tram-dictatorship, cars favored the possibility of choosing where to live, regardless of political-oriented decisions about capacity of transit systems and so much more. As a driver, I strongly complain against beeing seen as a first-source of cute-although-inefficient transist systems. I'd agree to pay congestions charge tolls - if revenues were directed to increase car mobility, not to fund transit. I'd agree to pay carbon taxes - mostly because I drive an 100% ethanol-fueled car -. But I do not agree to fund transist systems that could not, at least, fund trough fares their regular operation expenses.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

andrelot said:


> I strongly oppose new urbanism, without any fear of being stampet outdated or whatever. I live in a country with plenty of cheap and empty land (more or less the situation in US, appart for bigger metro areas and NYC). There's no economic reason for keep people living in packed blocks of high-hise buildings if we can offer a so much affordable space in single homes on the outskirts.


And I live in a country with plenty of good beer, that does not make me want to drink 10 liters of it each day.

It's quality what people are missing today, not quantity. Just because one can spread out does not mean that its clever to do. No one talks about the need of high rises, we are talking about medium density. A density which is good enough to make a tight PT nezwork possible and a city of short distances. After all why should one need a car just to by a snack or a bottle of milk? Why should one be doomed to use a car just because you want to have a short look into your regular pub?

Medium density means in no way that it has to be inadequate for families. There are quite some new developments in Europe of medium density with the advantages of such a density that are however as well extremely children friendly as well. So why only getting half the deal in a badly planned car suburb if you can have the whole deal instead: family friendly and urban? New developments of that kind have been actually stormed by families




> Moreover, in Brazil street violence is pretty high. There's absolute no sense thinking, at least here, that people should walk around on streets.


It has been shown that violence rises especially where public life on the street breaks down and where streets get deserted. In American cities one could observe that after public life got revived in dsowntown streets also the vilence got back down to normal levels adain as well. 

They should got a car if they can afford one. Because we have also a lot of social tension due to income disparity, is good that we have some grade of homogeneity in diffrerent regions of each city, meaning not that much closeness between the richest and the poorest. It's not a matter of social prejudice at all, it's a matter of economic development and public security: before our version of the suburbs (gated communities with restricted acess to inhabitants and their guests with guarded single entrance for each one) spread, we used to see very few big, expensive single houses because wealth people usually preferred discretion while living so close to poor pepole that used to live in slums and other similar 'housings'.

That means our cities were not well developed to the extent they are now. Because dealing with lack of education and the folloeing income disparity is a much harder and long-term duty than improving the urban infrastructure, that was a solutiont that give us the possibility of increasing our construction industry, having shopping malls and fancy stores now, instead of waiting 20, 30 more years.



> But I really think that for the regular guy in US, the one who doesn't care of harmony and balanced vicnitiy, no other place could offer a so cheap option of having a live of his own. As a single young adult, I'd love the "vibrant" nightilife and all, but I perfectly understand how good it should be for a family to have their own garden, their own house, whithout having to deal with a strange or a neighbor everytime they want to go somewhere.


This will change anyway, just a matter of time. With adjusting energy prices, the city of the needless long distance will become poor luxury. 


The main problem, whatsoever, is that new urbanists don't understand that there are just different needs and expectations. Suburbs can coexist with "vibrant and walkable community" - I'm sick of the overuse of that expression -. People MUST have options to choose where they want to live, and the regular folks who choose (as far as I know, more than half of US population) live within their own property should be respected as much as the "cool" young couple who choose to live in an industrial-retroffited area with oh-so-cute sushi bars and disco.

I repeat, while I have absolute nothing against sushi bars and discos - indeed, I love clubbing -, I aprreciate so much my privacy, and the right to decide when I want to walk around a bunch of strangers, and when I just want to be on a private house, without any noises come from the apartment next floor, 



> and without having to rely on timetables of transit. What about a family so?


 Thats funny because I live in Vienna, not even in the center, but I don't need to know any timetables: In the worst case there will be a bus or tram in at least 10 min anyway, subways even rather within 6 min when I have bad luck. Families furthermore have the freedom of not having to drive their their children everywhere, because they can get there on their own. And children are a common sight in the PT system, not just on their way to school. 


> Other major question is that animosity towars drivers. It's easy to blame cars for all the illness of our cities, but everybody seems to forgot the huge benefits they brought. Cars made os free of the tram-dictatorship,


No, it has not freed the people, just transformed it into a car dictatorship in suburbs American style.




> As a driver, I strongly complain against beeing seen as a first-source of cute-although-inefficient transist systems.


Thats pure BS. The PT system in Vienna takes car for a larger share of mobility than the car, to call that inefficient is hillarious, especially as with a car based mobility concept the quality of live of the city would have already imploded. 



> I'd agree to pay congestions charge tolls - if revenues were directed to increase car mobility, not to fund transit. I'd agree to pay carbon taxes - mostly because I drive an 100% ethanol-fueled car -. But I do not agree to fund transist systems that could not, at least, fund trough fares their regular operation expenses.


So you oppose funding PT systems? Why do I have then fund the heavily state subsidized roadnetwork? If you want cost trueness, realie it first as far as it comes to the car infrastructure.

PS: I have seen both, urban and rural living and I hate it each time when I am forced to use the car when I am in the countryside. I think that the urban living is so much more convenient and of greater quality. Thats my subjective feeling.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson (Dec 2, 2003)

I oppose any force able movement of people from any point. If I wanted to live in a Stalinist regime, I would have done so.

Although people seem skeptical about allowing market forces to determine people's place of residence, it is more a certainty these days then ever before.

When someone like myself is paying now an astonishing 15% of my income on gas that is then given back to me by my employer, I can imagine how someone who does not get to post expenses must feel.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Homer J. Simpson said:


> I oppose any force able movement of people from any point. If I wanted to live in a Stalinist regime, I would have done so.
> 
> Although people seem skeptical about allowing market forces to determine people's place of residence, it is more a certainty these days then ever before.
> 
> When someone like myself is paying now an astonishing 15% of my income on gas that is then given back to me by my employer, I can imagine how someone who does not get to post expenses must feel.


So you oppose a dictatorship of the car as well, where it exists? (Ie a lack of alternatives)

Free market works often but not always well. Apart from die hard laissez faire economists thats seen that way by most experts.

For example Passivhäuser (which need about 10% of the energy an average house needs per sqm and year, and has initial costs during construction 10% higher than a standard home per sqm) make from an economic point of view totally sense. But how many Passivhäuser or similar buildings exist in the US? Where is the free market here?

PS: Isn't it funny that Communists were also large supporters of cars? Brasilia was designed by a Communist which left a clear imprint on the city, still its very much a car city with broad streets tha anything else. Your attempt to tear this discussion into a right vs left fight. fails.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson (Dec 2, 2003)

^Lol I wish I knew where you got the impression that I was making this into left versus right fight (perhaps apart from my phrase involving Stalin and the forceful movement of people "to suit the states needs" as had happened so often in soviet times, if you are unaware of this history research the history of towns/cities in Siberia). Earlier in the thread a comment was made about forcing people to move from less effectively planned communities. I was just making it clear that this was not an acceptable solution.

Please do not tell me that people who are now spending 15% or even 20% of their income on petrol alone will not begin to re-examine their options. However you may feel about market economics, this is the way things will progress. It just happens to fit that philosophy. As for your example of an energy efficient home... more often than not the experience among consumers is that the benefits stated are usually optimistic at best. That coupled with the fact that most people's greatest investment/asset is their home of which they are very likely not to gamble with uncertainty of resale or unforeseen maintenance costs. To believe so would be naive, but being a free individual you can make that choice on your own.

I have no problem with giving society a gentle nudge in the right direction. Markets are controlled largely by human factors that sometimes go against the better good. Here I support a larger levy on fuel (say an extra 10%) that should go directly into the transit systems. The United States and the world is currently in a crisis because of complete lack of oversight and self regulation of one industry. I do think though as stated before that uprooting people is insane and not the gentle nudge that I support nor do I support totally free markets.


As for Brasilia's carcentric plan, I'm sure the planners say the car as a matter of progress. I see it as a mistake and a poor investment.

I fall under no wing of politics, please do not insult myself or the forum for sidetracking the thread under the McCarthy guise of rooting out extremists.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

I've just been in Vienna two weeks ago, and had to deal with the profusion of trams sharing spaces with cars, hefty parking fees near Museum area, and german signs (this was funny), and evertything else - as in any other major European city. Though I completely respect the options people made there, I like so much Brasilia, despite have been planned by a Communist.

Indeed, Brasilia masterplan and urban design was made by an apolitical (in some way) urbanist, Lucio Costa, who passed away few years ago. The buildings themselves were planned (and have been planned up to now) by the famous Communist Oscar Niemeyer, who's alive, 101 years, and still overlooking his office that's planning the final buildings for the national mall.

Brasilia would be a good deal for new urbanists: dominated by medium-high buildings with local stores each "superblock" (something like 8-to-12 6-story buildings with groceries, restaurantes and local supermakerts), and ease acessible basic services on foot, NEVERTHELESS being one of the most easy citys to drive a car, due to it's 4 level hierarchizated street and highway plan. It's a city of extremes: easy to get the basics within walking distances, car-demanded to go to the vastly open plan centers. A little bit stalinist, by the way. Anyway, I love Brasilia for its design, and for having attracted, directrly and indirectly, more than 30 millions inhabitants to a region where once (just after WWII) there was just bushes and empty land - but that's a completely different story.

Just for closing this post, I'd like to clarify my position on transit: I do not oppose funding the basic infrastructure work on transit, provided that:

1) once completed, fare collection will be able to sustain the regular operational expenses, e.g., fuel/eletricity, security, payroll, overhead. Exclusively trough fare collection - as we drivers have to do while driving our cars and paying for insurance, fuel, maintenance. Menawhile, regular maitenance for highways and streets (by analogy, I'm not talkin about new constructions) should be done, in national level, only with money collected from gas/car/road taxes/tolls/charges. Transit systems should be granted an up to 3 years period to show themselves capable of autofinancing their operations trough fare colections, otherwhise they shoudl be shut down.

2) transit construction is funded by general revenue, not by motor taxes, fuel taxes or likewise, and so highway/street constructions.

3) transit is build in a segregated way from streets and highways, not taking any space currently used by cars - I strongly favor subway and light rail, who act as alternatives, and strongle discourage buses, who competes directly with cars

4) every single coin from fuel taxes, licensing and motor taxes collected from cars and their drives are exclusively used for improvind car infrastructure: roads, tunnels, underneath parking lots, alternative fuels. No outside money, on the other hand, would be used for these purpouses.

5) cars and transit vehicles have the same tax treatment - if trains are tax-exempet, so must be cars

In that way, riders and drivers will be treated with fairness, the latter one not financing the first ones.


----------



## el casanovas (Jun 1, 2008)

^^

Brasilia is a MODERNIST, CORBUSIERIAN city, the polar opposite of New Urbanism. Brasilia was designed to be a car-oriented city on purpose, and has all of its services separated: hotel district, institution district, superblocks separated from housing, etc. which is the LEAST New Urbanist idea in existance. I've never been there, but on paper Brasilia sounds interesting, some good, innovative aspects, some very poor planning. I do have lots of respect for it, though, and would like to visit it someday.

Also, density doesn't necessarily involve high rises or commieblocks. Any district made of mostly 4-to-10-story blocks and some lower buildings is dense enough (> 8000 h/km^2). You're also missing the point that New Urbanism explicitly involves different types of housing - single-family appartments, lofts, single-family houses, etc., but all mixed and keeping density.

Moreover: New Urbanism, deep inside, doesn't really oppose suburbs. It's just a slightly more sustainable way to build new suburbs, which happens to include some good ideas for people who want to drop the concept of "suburbia" altogehter.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

There's one basic problem: new urbanism's developments will almost certainly induce higher land prices (for the very basic microeconomic reason). Once a single-home 1000 sq. meters has to compete with same space avaiable to, say, a store with even some apartments above, only the very rich on the vicinity will be able to afford single homes.

I'm not sure - you could also clarify this -whether is a strict policy of new urbanism almost ban private gardens/green areas in favor of spaces that are outside own's building property. In some Brazilian cities, it has been common in last 15 year to buil somo high-hise, let's say, 15-to-25 stories, residential only, surrounded by a green private area that is 4, 5-fold the building footprint and even more. Now, some urban planners are claiming against that kind of development on the grounds that it verticalizes the cithy while not increasing denstity.

I REALLY think that it maybe a good idea to have essential services and stores nearby, but I don't think that the aim of mixing up family-oriented houses, student-oriented complexes and young-professional lofts all in the same area is a good ideia. Some homogeneity in housing is desirable, and people just move on as they marry, get an empty nest or retire.

That's creat mobility toward and inward communities, instead of building feudalistic-like neighborhoods where people identify most with the 30-40 block raidus surrounding that with the whole city itself - we save sort of those places in some cities, and they're not good as well (example: a strong self-identified lower-mid-class born woman gets very sucessful in life and business but instead of moving away to a wealthier neighborhood just build a big, Extreme Makeover-style house among other hundreds of too much poorer ones, because she doesn't want to relocate.

Once we create more homogeneous vicinities, people will move on as a matter of life. I won't look up for a small studio for my early twenties start-carrer life on the same place where my parentes grow me up. And they won't even wonder to move to the "student district" when retire.

That doesn't mean that even me or they will have to "drive to do grocery", but it will means that urban ordinances can be adjusted accordingly: on inner-city small apartments complexes, clubs would be allowed, and noise tolerated further in the night. On family-oriented suburbs, bars and pubs could be banned. On retired-orientes communities, age-oriented activities and facilities could take place. That fits better for everyone, and doesn't not create that somewhat ruoinous feeling "I can live all my live here if I want".

I'm not telling that people should be enforced to live on that places, just saying that, basic framework provided, almost naturally people will follow up toward places that fit better their different housing-needs toward life. Of course, rich students will be able to rent single-houses for living there - if a lot of them do the same, bingo, the neighborhood changed, as a proof that city is life and changing everytime. Working class people will surely be able to rent inner-city apartments if they like, and completely agains redlining for sure, but maybe even if rent/mortgage if affordable, the commercial offer of business and facilities won't fit their needs, and they will look somewhere else.

Again, I'd like to understand why new urbanists vows for mixed-income neighborhoods as a MANDATORY prerequisite for new developments. It seems somewhat too intrusive, as it was the requirements for affordable housing being build INSIDE developments (that's for other topic).


----------



## el casanovas (Jun 1, 2008)

^^

The problem with homogeneous districts is that they're very susceptible to decay. Changes in economy, society, demographics or just fashion trends usually affect specific layers of society, which will affect the social fabric of their district and eventually turn it into a slum, a ghost town or even a tourist ghetto (a form of urban decay which causes social unrest about loss of productivity and identity; common in Europe, mainly in historic districts originally occupied by a working class which has moved to more middle-class, less "traditional" neighbourhoods), waiting for gentrification. Also, once a more functional and/or cheaper district designed for the same demographic is built people will tend to flock there, so this is not really a sensible way to design cities. In my opinion at least. Of course there will be dominant trends in every neighbourhood, and in the end shop space is rented and sold and people are free to set up whatever business they want, and certain kinds of businesses will attract more of the same kind, plus the fact that institutions such as universites usually concentrate most of their facilities on a single place will determine the kind of people who are attracted to certain districts. Mixed housing types AND free market is a good combination in this case: it avoids the problems of uniform neighbourhoods but lets each district have its personality. Kind of like European cities, really.

As for prices, I'm not so sure it works like that. In suburbs land tends to get exepensive very quickly, as low-rise housing takes up lots of space and suburbs usually aren't big municipalities. On the other hand, in metropolitan areas single-family housing IS a luxury. Objectively it's always more expensive than a tower block as a single family is paying for the same land, and public services get more expensive so taxes rise up.

The idea that urban settings are intrusive, noisy, etc. is quite weird. As long as you live on a good quality building, on a decent neighbourhood, on a city which has big enough parks and streets, you should be able to live a quiet life with no intromissions if you wish to. Plus most (all?) cities have regulations on noise levels, nightlife, etc... and if we're talking about mid-rise housing, residential mid-to-high rises tend to be very anonymous and I doubt you can hear anything from the 15th floor (or the 5th, actually.)

I dunno, maybe we come from very different cities and have a different idea of what a city is...


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Homer J. Simpson said:


> ^Lol I wish I knew where you got the impression that I was making this into left versus right fight (perhaps apart from my phrase involving Stalin and the forceful movement of people "to suit the states needs" as had happened so often in soviet times, if you are unaware of this history research the history of towns/cities in Siberia). Earlier in the thread a comment was made about forcing people to move from less effectively planned communities. I was just making it clear that this was not an acceptable solution.


Yes exactly your Stalin phrase was pretty misplaced (Stalin was bit more than just a bit authoritarian) and justified the assumption that you are trying to see it in a left vs right scheme. You would not be the first one do to so. But its good you clarified your message. I oppose steps of force as well, but I think incentives (no force) into a direction which would benefit the entire society.



> Please do not tell me that people who are now spending 15% or even 20% of their income on petrol alone will not begin to re-examine their options. However you may feel about market economics, this is the way things will progress. It just happens to fit that philosophy. As for your example of an energy efficient home... more often than not the experience among consumers is that the benefits stated are usually optimistic at best. That coupled with the fact that most people's greatest investment/asset is their home of which they are very likely not to gamble with uncertainty of resale or unforeseen maintenance costs. To believe so would be naive, but being a free individual you can make that choice on your own.


Sorry but somehow your very optimistic view about customers collides with reality. Why would so many Americans live in homes of such poor quality in terms of energy efficiency? Are they against living for all in all less money in homes of better quality? It seems they do. So where is your functioning market here? A friend of mine who moved to the US 9 years ago says also that the quality of American houses is s*** when it comes to this.

I tell you what happens, large contractors raise energy wasting homes and sell them to the people. Those customers know no better and buy them. In the meanwhile on other continents those homes would not be sellable anymore because of their poor quality.



> I have no problem with giving society a gentle nudge in the right direction. Markets are controlled largely by human factors that sometimes go against the better good. Here I support a larger levy on fuel (say an extra 10%) that should go directly into the transit systems. The United States and the world is currently in a crisis because of complete lack of oversight and self regulation of one industry. I do think though as stated before that uprooting people is insane and not the gentle nudge that I support nor do I support totally free markets.


Could it be that our positions are not that far apart from each other actually?


----------



## NYCboy1212 (Jul 30, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> Yes exactly your Stalin phrase was pretty misplaced (Stalin was bit more than just a bit authoritarian) and justified the assumption that you are trying to see it in a left vs right scheme. You would not be the first one do to so. But its good you clarified your message. I oppose steps of force as well, but I think incentives (no force) into a direction which would benefit the entire society.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hat was nine years ago and face it due to the risk of global warming major cities are becoming green. And little towns TOO

Ps to all those who go against Urbanism in areas are people who dont care for the environment and people who dont care for communities. Some major Cities like NYC have Communities in an Urban neighbor hoods and in NYC the city takes part as a community in events, in politics, environmental challenges, safety, etc and even in small things like sports, or things in the newspaper. Urbanism would also save the country tons of money. 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

andrelot said:


> I've just been in Vienna two weeks ago, and had to deal with the profusion of trams sharing spaces with cars, hefty parking fees near Museum area, and german signs (this was funny), and evertything else - as in any other major European city.


Didn't you buy a travel guide? If you did, have you read the practical tips? If so its not understandable why you entered the inner city by car, it definitely does not pay off and every guide of basic quality should tell you this. 

Get a day ticket for PT for about 5€ park your car outside of the inner city (no parking fees there if you catch a free spot or park relatively cheap in a P+R which is very comfortable in exchange). That's all you need for perfect mobility in the inner city. Whereas, if you want to see the central highlights, you can use your feet for everything. 

Most tourists do it that way, the majority of the locals as well. Of course if you insist on your car you are perfectly free to use it, but don't complain if you oppose to choose the most comfortable way of getting around.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

NYCboy1212 said:


> hat was nine years ago and face it due to the risk of global warming major cities are becoming green. And little towns TOO


Well, he moved to it 9 years ago, he is still living there and his opinion has not changed as in his city there is little reason to change it. He does not live in a large city rather a small to mid sized county capital. 

I do not neglect positive developments in the US but merely want to show that this only the very beginning. There is still a very long way to go. The average energy efficiency of buildings in the US is still getting worse if I am not misinformed.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

*The good and the evil won't work here*



NYCboy1212 said:


> Ps to all those who go against Urbanism in areas are people who dont care for the environment and people who dont care for communities. Some major Cities like NYC have Communities in an Urban neighbor hoods and in NYC the city takes part as a community in events, in politics, environmental challenges, safety, etc and even in small things like sports, or things in the newspaper. Urbanism would also save the country tons of money.
> 
> http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml


That's what I'd say remember me "all-for-the-party" ideology. Fisrt of all, exurbs and large suburban homogenous and car-oriented subdivisions ARE urban arrangements of landscape at all. At least, I understand that we can call urban every living space arragements in which areas people don't pratice economic land-based activities (oposed to a farmhouse, for instance).

They may be a different and not-so-favored (by you) form of urbanism, but still is. Those NYC comparisons (where rents per sq. ft. used to be on the folds regarded as other major metropolitan areas in US, as far as I know, not to tell about Manhatan) are, among other things, the kind of greenwashing their inhabitants could engage in order to justify themselves high housing prices. They made an option, that's completely ok, but it doesn't mean that people at Denver, Austin, Minneapolis or Las Vegas are "evil" because a large share among them do prefer bigger, detached and isolated houses.

What concerns me is that people with such feelings sometimes get into urban planning offices and impose their choices to everyone. As I've been saying, giving options to people rather than suburbs is ok (if you just don't tax suburbs to "attract" population to your brand-new "liveable, walkable and vibrant" inner-city redevelopment block). What's not ok is ruling out suburbs and the possibility of maximizing the distance you keep of neighborhoods in order to retain you privacy and well-beeing (my personal reason for like them, then I alone can decide whether and with whom to interact more closely) or whatever other reason someone could have to chose living there.

I do care, in a certain way, of environment, I drive a 100% fueled ethanol car (in Brazil, now it's even less expensive for efficiency-ajusted mileage), I changed bulbs and did other things. Just won't give up on driving my car (which I love to), and, now that some prosperity arrived in Brazil (I also spend some time in Europe once in a whle telecomuting), change my so-long expected version (and for milions of Brazilians, I can surely assure you) of American dream of living in a spacious, sky-"seeable" house with a regular car on garage because some urban planners think that it's cool to live stacked with neighborhoods "over-the-drywall". It's just a right I think I bear, because, as in US, we live in a very low population-density country (fewer than 25/sq. km). Meanwhile, I understand that people who live in Nehterlands maybe don't have such an option, or, better saying, that option maybe will cost more due to supply restrictions.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

andrelot said:


> That's what I'd say remember me "all-for-the-party" ideology. Fisrt of all, exurbs and large suburban homogenous and car-oriented subdivisions ARE urban arrangements of landscape at all. At least, I understand that we can call urban every living space arragements in which areas people don't pratice economic land-based activities (oposed to a farmhouse, for instance).
> 
> They may be a different and not-so-favored (by you) form of urbanism, but still is. Those NYC comparisons (where rents per sq. ft. used to be on the folds regarded as other major metropolitan areas in US, as far as I know, not to tell about Manhatan) are, among other things, the kind of greenwashing their inhabitants could engage in order to justify themselves high housing prices. They made an option, that's completely ok, but it doesn't mean that people at Denver, Austin, Minneapolis or Las Vegas are "evil" because a large share among them do prefer bigger, detached and isolated houses.


They are not evil but egoistic, living on the costs of others without the need to do so in order to enjoy a high quality of living, not even if this means having an own garden and a family friendly environment.

Resources are limited, and they are currently wasting the resources of their children an grand children. 



> I do care, in a certain way, of environment, I drive a 100% fueled ethanol car (in Brazil, now it's even less expensive for efficiency-ajusted mileage), I changed bulbs and did other things.


 Thats good but keep in mind that 100kW ethanol are not really that much better than 100 kW oil; 50 kW ethanol are better.

Just won't give up on driving my car (which I love to), and, now that some prosperity arrived in Brazil (I also spend some time in Europe once in a whle telecomuting), change my so-long expected version (and for milions of Brazilians, I can surely assure you) of American dream of living in a spacious, sky-"seeable" house with a regular car on garage because some urban planners think that it's cool to live stacked with neighborhoods "over-the-drywall". It's just a right I think I bear, because, as in US, we live in a very low population-density country (fewer than 25/sq. km). Meanwhile, I understand that people who live in Nehterlands maybe don't have such an option, or, better saying, that option maybe will cost more due to supply restrictions.[/QUOTE]

Again this "we have so much space to waste argument. Its like land in itself would not possess a value. If man consumes nature its better for a good reason and efficiently not wasteful because there is too much nature anyway.
Have you ever been to France? Its not like they would not have the space for suburbanisation.


----------



## NYCboy1212 (Jul 30, 2008)

andrelot said:


> What concerns me is that people with such feelings sometimes get into urban planning offices and impose their choices to everyone. As I've been saying, giving options to people rather than suburbs is ok (if you just don't tax suburbs to "attract" population to your brand-new "liveable, walkable and vibrant" inner-city redevelopment block). What's not ok is ruling out suburbs and the possibility of maximizing the distance you keep of neighborhoods in order to retain you privacy and well-beeing (my personal reason for like them, then I alone can decide whether and with whom to interact more closely) or whatever other reason someone could have to chose living there.


 But living in an apartment building is like a little private community. So are you saying theres no privacy in the city.



> I do care, in a certain way, of environment, I drive a 100% fueled ethanol car (in Brazil, now it's even less expensive for efficiency-ajusted mileage), I changed bulbs and did other things. Just won't give up on driving my car (which I love to), and, now that some prosperity arrived in Brazil (I also spend some time in Europe once in a whle telecomuting), change my so-long expected version (and for milions of Brazilians, I can surely assure you) of American dream of living in a spacious, sky-"seeable" house with a regular car on garage because some urban planners think that it's cool to live stacked with neighborhoods "over-the-drywall". It's just a right I think I bear, because, as in US, we live in a very low population-density country (fewer than 25/sq. km). Meanwhile, I understand that people who live in Nehterlands maybe don't have such an option, or, better saying, that option maybe will cost more due to supply restrictions.


 I dont know what you mean by "American dream of living in a spacious, sky-"seeable" house with a regular car on garage because some urban planners think that it's cool to live stacked with neighborhoods "over-the-drywall". especially over the dry wall.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson (Dec 2, 2003)

Slartibartfas said:


> Yes exactly your Stalin phrase was pretty misplaced (Stalin was bit more than just a bit authoritarian) and justified the assumption that you are trying to see it in a left vs right scheme. You would not be the first one do to so. But its good you clarified your message. I oppose steps of force as well, but I think incentives (no force) into a direction which would benefit the entire society.


No one would try to play down Stalin's undeniable brutality. Whenever I hear people talking about the forced relocation of a population based on race/social caste/national objectives I think of the soviet times. Very few times has there been a plan for a population to be displaced outside of war in this manner.



Slartibartfas said:


> Sorry but somehow your very optimistic view about customers collides with reality. Why would so many Americans live in homes of such poor quality in terms of energy efficiency? Are they against living for all in all less money in homes of better quality? It seems they do. So where is your functioning market here? A friend of mine who moved to the US 9 years ago says also that the quality of American houses is s*** when it comes to this.
> 
> I tell you what happens, large contractors raise energy wasting homes and sell them to the people. Those customers know no better and buy them. In the meanwhile on other continents those homes would not be sellable anymore because of their poor quality.


For resale homes the trend is indeed slower than any reasonable person may like to see including myself.

If there was more incentive to save on energy consumption, the change would be faster and to a greater magnitude. The way things stand, NG, heating oil, and even timber is still cheap enough in NA for most people to ignore upgrades to existing property. Consumers in the new homes market also fall into a pattern of expecting that the home they buy is already good enough (the codes they are build to are usuallynot good enough). Your assessment that the new homes are by and large crap is accurate as any qualitative observation could be.

Again in this case I certainly feel that a gentle nudge by government would be beneficial.

Current bottom standards of insulation are not strict enough IMO.

Building large subdivisions is waste in itself too.





Slartibartfas said:


> Could it be that our positions are not that far apart from each other actually?


Overall you are not going to get too much disagreement from me on just about all points.

To achieve change we must use all tools we have at our disposal. Government incentives/pressure, market pressures, education/enlightenment and technological innovations are tools. All are valid.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Homer J. Simpson said:


> For resale homes the trend is indeed slower than any reasonable person may like to see including myself.


Thats like with thermodynamics and kinetics, a great working thermodynamic balance is of no use if the kinetics are dead slow. 



> If there was more incentive to save on energy consumption, the change would be faster and to a greater magnitude. The way things stand, NG, heating oil, and even timber is still cheap enough in NA for most people to ignore upgrades to existing property. Consumers in the new homes market also fall into a pattern of expecting that the home they buy is already good enough (the codes they are build to are usuallynot good enough). Your assessment that the new homes are by and large crap is accurate as any qualitative observation could be.
> 
> Again in this case I certainly feel that a gentle nudge by government would be beneficial.
> 
> ...


All good points, I agree.

Btw, in Europe the "Directive on the energy performance of buildings" has been introduced not long ago. It contains a simply efficiency scheme that real estate owners can voluntarily order for their real estates and which can give a good rough idea for customers if the building is good, average or sucks like hell in terms of energy efficiency. It looks similar to the scheme used for the energy efficiency of fridges, washing machines etc.

It makes the energy question an easily accessible information for the customer. If it gets established like it is for fridges, having no such information scheme will mean in the end that the real estate looses tremendous amounts of value.

What do you think about that? Its actually a tool to help customers making a better informed decision.


----------



## Homer J. Simpson (Dec 2, 2003)

^I would support it. They have tried similar ideas here but usually only the upper echelon of professional offices/service industry has taken interest in such buildings,

In North America, the movement from inefficiency to conservation has been kept at a crawl. It will not be until we start paying similar rates as Europe does on energy before the average suburbanite begins to rethink all matters of consumption.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

Informing people is good, giving option is the right way, so people can decide how much their willing to pay for being better envionmental-friendly in their daily lives.


----------

