Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On what exotic distant world do such marvelous wondrous things take place? Is it in this universe?
Sure there are walkable suburbs. They are generally older, streetcar suburbs that were never annexed. There are some modern ones, but those, I believe are referred to as new urbanist communities.
Then you need to read more on the neuroscience of how the brain works. People, including smart people, are really lousy at figuring out what they really want, and especially why they want what they want. It's one reason why in terms of social planning it's more important to study behaviors than stated desires.
So then they need an urban planner, who is also really lousy at figuring out what they really want, and especially why they want what they want, to do their thinking for them? I don't think so!
I'm not opposed to urban planning. But I will say, this reminds me of the fashion designers telling us what clothing we should like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
Is this a joke? Renewable oil? Walkable suburbs?
On what exotic distant world do such marvelous wondrous things take place? Is it in this universe?
I live in a walkable suburb. I grew up in one, as well.
Even with a hypothetical situation, if one is familiar with the area one can have a good idea what would happen. From my experience, I think the effects I gave are reasonable. As I said multiple times, also if it is clear the area has little extra room, adding more surface parking will involve demolishing parts of the current neighborhood. That's not too hard to figure out and requires little guesswork.
Deterring people with medical issues is definitely a downside, perhaps handicap stickers area a partial solution. For everyone else, most can walk 5-10 minutes.
For myself, I'm much more attracted to going to a place where I can park my car leave it, walk around in the area rather than drive everywhere from spot to spot. In fact, I avoid the latter places unless I really need to go there.
At the extremes of density when transit is very comprehensive and walkability is high, cities often find parking a detriment. Much of Manhattan is under a stringent parking maximum, partly to comply with the Clean Air Act in hope the parking maximum results in less driving. Briefly in the 60s before the parking max, New York considered the refer: requiring a minimum parking for office buildings in Manhattan, but it was rejected as being too disruptive to the urban fabric. DC has a parking maximum in parts for similar reasons. London has parking maximums and taxes parking in part of the city
Well, my condition wasn't bad enough for a handicapped sticker. Most cities have some places that wouldn't hurt to be torn down, old vacant buildings that are falling apart, etc. There are also underground parking garages. Our town built one under the library.
Sure there are walkable suburbs. They are generally older, streetcar suburbs that were never annexed. There are some modern ones, but those, I believe are referred to as new urbanist communities.
Not all walkable suburbs are old streetcar suburbs. Not all new urbanist communities are suburban, nor are a lot of them particularly walkable.
Not all walkable suburbs are old streetcar suburbs. Not all new urbanist communities are suburban, nor are a lot of them particularly walkable.
I never said all walkable suburbs were old streetcar suburbs. I agree that all new urbanist communities aren't suburbs. But, all new suburbs that are walkable would be referred to as new urbanist. Suburbs that aren't old or new, but are walkable, are either in the Denver metro, () or were small towns that became a suburb.
I never said all walkable suburbs were old streetcar suburbs. I agree that all new urbanist communities aren't suburbs. But, all new suburbs that are walkable would be referred to as new urbanist. Suburbs that aren't old or new, but are walkable, are either in the Denver metro, () or were small towns that became a suburb.
That is untrue! First of all, there's not much being built these days in this area due to the recession. I don't really know of any new suburbs being "created" around here since Highlands Ranch back in 1981. It has grown over the years, but it's been around a while. Ditto Superior, which started booming in the mid-80s. (Was originally a small town.) Secondly, these areas and others like them are not "New Urbanist".
So then they need an urban planner, who is also really lousy at figuring out what they really want, and especially why they want what they want, to do their thinking for them? I don't think so!
I think most people on this forum argue for the type of urban form that they most prefer to live in often taste reasons as much as for practicality.
Quote:
Most cities have some places that wouldn't hurt to be torn down, old vacant buildings that are falling apart, etc. There are also underground parking garages. Our town built one under the library.
I can't think of any place that would merit being torn down in my city. And anyway if there's worth being torn down, one could replace it with another building. But my city doesn't have that much parking scarcity, one may not be able to park right in front of where one wants to go but usually pretty close. There are two parking garages that don't charge much a short walk from most of the town center.
The downtown of the suburb I grew up in (downtown was quite a bit larger than what Louisville appears) just had surface lots placed again placed slightly away and behind most of the stores, so they didn't interfere with walking around. Worked ok except on weekend nights.
In any dense city, parking takes up room that could be used for something else. Portland had lots of surface parking in its downtown, many of it replaced by new building. The city center feels bigger, more attractive and vibrant with the new infill. Boston doesn't have much parking in the city center and it does fine. I was surprised how much parking Seattle had in its downtown, was a nice downtown but felt like it would have felt better and more cohesive if some of the parking was replaced.
That is untrue! First of all, there's not much being built these days in this area due to the recession. I don't really know of any new suburbs being "created" around here since Highlands Ranch back in 1981. It has grown over the years, but it's been around a while. Ditto Superior, which started booming in the mid-80s. (Was originally a small town.) Secondly, these areas and others like them are not "New Urbanist".
First of all, I was being somewhat cheeky with my last two posts. But, can you show me a suburb/development built within the last 15 years that is truly walkable, (meaning more than just having sidewalks that lead to a park, a school, or a library) that wouldn't be considered new urbanist?
First of all, I was being somewhat cheeky with my last two posts. But, can you show me a suburb/development built within the last 15 years that is truly walkable, (meaning more than just having sidewalks that lead to a park, a school, or a library) that wouldn't be considered new urbanist?
As I said, I don't know of any "new" suburbs like that. Period.
What is wrong, pray tell, with being able to walk to the park, the school, or the library?
BTW, the following cities, from my certain knowledge of having lived there/visited extensively have at least some "walkable' suburbs:
(In geographical order, east to west):
Pittsburgh
DC
Chicago
Minneapolis
Omaha
Denver
So then they need an urban planner, who is also really lousy at figuring out what they really want, and especially why they want what they want, to do their thinking for them? I don't think so!
Oddly enough, it's generally easier for humans to interpret the motivations of others than ourselves. Plus urban planners don't study psychology, they study land usage, and look at what has worked and what hasn't in different cities. If all that was needed for urban design was to take a poll of what residents wanted, why would urban planners be needed at all?
That said, I understand your point. Incredibly costly mistakes were made during the mid 20th century when really bad ideas about urban structure came to the fore. It would be nice to think we've learned from them, but it's entirely possible that something as city-wrecking as "urban renewal" will be chanced upon again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) or were small towns that became a suburb.
