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.
Certainly by many Departments of Transportation. Often they build bridges with no sidewalks, or prevent access by putting guardrail around them. Private developers are no better, no sidewalk access to the outside world. They also lock stairways in high rise buildings to enforce the use of elevators.
What I see here is mostly a wallow in self-righteousness; a determination that the substantial portion of the population that has little desire for urbanization and urban planning must be compelled to participate, and pay more toward the folly.
We'll pass, thanks.
You describe yourself as a libertarian, so you should be thinking of it from that perspective.
Urbanists want the return of "Main Street". Drive through most small towns and you will see sidewalks, street-facing businesses, and a reasonable amount of density. It's an efficient style of development.
The simple fact is that this style of development is now illegal in most places. Seems to me like too much government regulation! I say eliminate some of those hurdles and let supply and demand decide what gets developed.
No, I'm not. I'm making the argument that there are plenty of unworkable and undesireable walkable neighborhoods, and definitely not joyful. Being a bit realistic here...
If there's nowhere to walk to (closed businesses, boarded up houses) then I could argue that they aren't truly walkable.
If there's nowhere to walk to (closed businesses, boarded up houses) then I could argue that they aren't truly walkable.
True, but then there are plenty of just impoverished but still walkable neighborhoods without abandonment.
You can have places where there's stuff in walking distance where it's dangerous at worst to walk around ant at least various social ills. Parts of Philly (maybe Chicago as well, even some of Boston) come to mind, and sections of NYC. The worst of NYC these days is usually not dangerous to walk around in the day (plenty of businesses open and people, and there always were there when crime was higher) but in terms of various quality of life indicators, poverty, etc. they still do quite badly, far worse than most unwalkable suburbs.
The neighborhoods of many smaller New England cities are among the most walkable outside of the Boston area. They're generally not well-off but neither abandoned.
Of course not everybody wants to live in the city center. Still, I've found that living in or near the city center in a walkable neighborhood tends to make rents much higher. My take would be that there is currently a supply and demand imbalance in many cities (SF, DC, etc): more people would like to live in these areas then can currently be housed there.
And?
Ferraris cost more than Hondas. That doesn't mean there's a supply/demand imbalance. More people would like to drive Ferraris than can drive Ferraris, but there's almost zero supply/demand imbalance unless you're talking about models like the Enzo where too few are purposely created. San Francisco currently has a supply/demand imbalance, but it won't last that long. Maybe another year before it's back to equilibrium. I don't know that DC has any imbalance. Both cities are extremely NIMBY and have policies that restrict the supply side meaning they cost more than they should, but that's isn't an imbalance in supply and demand.
The simple fact is that this style of development is now illegal in most places. Seems to me like too much government regulation! I say eliminate some of those hurdles and let supply and demand decide what gets developed.
Why not eliminate the regulations? While I'm sure that urbanist developments will appear where they are currently illegal, I'm also pretty sure that the ultimate result of laissez-faire urban planning would not be an urbanist paradise; more likely it would be a mish-mash across different cities and neighborhoods (a good thing IMO).
An escalade driver looked down upon me once as he tried to murder me with his car (I was in a crosswalk )... I mean in the literal sense, he was quite a bit higher than me
I'm guessing most of the regulations being discussed revolve around the need to provide parking. If you get rid of those regulations, you tend to have a traffic mess, with people parking wherever they can. Because, and much as some people hate to admit it, most places are still autocentric, and that isn't changing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Why not eliminate the regulations? While I'm sure that urbanist developments will appear where they are currently illegal, I'm also pretty sure that the ultimate result of laissez-faire urban planning would not be an urbanist paradise; more likely it would be a mish-mash across different cities and neighborhoods (a good thing IMO).
I've always wondered why people refuse to walk when it is clearly the most reasonable method of transport:
> One of my customers at a business I worked at in the past lived 2 blocks away. Her only car was in the shop. She refused to come to the actual business because of this. I hand-delivered some samples to her instead.
> Literally across the street from the same business was a bank, at which we did our banking, and a discount bakery. Except for my mom and I, all the workers would go through the drive-thru to cash their checks, and then return to the store.
> A girl who lived near a convenience store would jog past it, but would take her car whenever she went to it.
etc. etc. etc.
Why is this? We always talk about a need for more "walkable cities", and we assume that if only planners made it easy for pedestrians would people actually walk.
Perhaps there is a sense of shame attached to pedestrians, just as there is to bus riders. Perhaps the motivation underlying the choice of a car could be embarrassment at passerby drivers who would think that they are too poor to own cars, vagabonds, etc.
It is a walkability issue. Sometimes walkability is a cop out. I used to walk in some very dangerous places I could have easily been hit by a car, because the place didn't have sidewalks. Have to do what you have to do. Better than waiting an hour on a bus.
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.
