U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-18-2014, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I've seen that posted before, but how common actually is that? I assumed that would be a rather minor share.
Common enough that farflung small towns with declining population have started to boom again. Blocks upon blocks of streets were built and ready for even more housing before the recession hit and Spain's economy tanked. I mean, it's nothing like Ciudad Valdeluz or anything since it did actually exist before and wasn't a pure railroad instaburb (Valdeluz is a more reasonable 37 miles from Madrid, still significantly longer than most Americans commute).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2014, 07:50 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,514,457 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Common enough that farflung small towns with declining population have started to boom again. Blocks upon blocks of streets were built and ready for even more housing before the recession hit and Spain's economy tanked. I mean, it's nothing like Ciudad Valdeluz or anything since it did actually exist before and wasn't a pure railroad instaburb (Valdeluz is a more reasonable 37 miles from Madrid, still significantly longer than most Americans commute).
Do you have any links or anything specific about this? Though the reason why this is good compared to American cities is that it preserves the countryside, and it strengthens walkability with these thriving small towns.

The US cities often times have to rely on decentralization when which leads to traffic issues because everyone needs a car to get anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...burban-sprawl/

You can also use Google Maps to see some of the empty streets that have been laid out, street view captures some of the half completed abandoned constructions sites. It's nothing like the scale of Ciudad Valdeluz, an instant burb planned and built around the new AVE station connecting Barcelona and Madrid.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/11/n...ve-255733.html

An analog to Ciudad Valdeluz might be Mountain House. Originally envisioned as a new urbanist insta-burb, the end result is far from. Elk Grove was another new urbanist project that just didn't execute. It's a pretty nice suburb but that is all. The original concept didn't pan out.

Last edited by Malloric; 10-18-2014 at 08:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,514,457 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...burban-sprawl/

You can also use Google Maps to see some of the empty streets that have been laid out, street view captures some of the half completed abandoned constructions sites. It's nothing like the scale of Ciudad Valdeluz, an instant burb planned and built around the new AVE station connecting Barcelona and Madrid.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/11/n...ve-255733.html

An analog to Ciudad Valdeluz might be Mountain House. Originally envisioned as a new urbanist insta-burb, the end result is far from. Elk Grove was another new urbanist project that just didn't execute. It's a pretty nice suburb but that is all. The original concept didn't pan out.
Sorry about asking for specific towns when you actually mentioned specific towns...I am not familiar at all with Spain and the towns in Spain so I totally missed the name of the towns you were talking about.

I don't know the story behind the high speed rail in Spain, but it does seem odd that they choose to run it well outside of Guadalajara where a new planned town could be built. Plus with Valdeluz, it seems odd that the train station sits on the far corner of the town away from where anyone would live with a limited to no bus or rail system to make it easier for people to get to the high speed rail stop.

My guess is there was some sort of backroom deal that caused this odd line.

Not every planned community works, but that doesn't mean all planned communities don't work. The idea of high speed rail moving at 150mph makes it much easier to run rail to smaller walkable towns rather than have traffic clogged suburbs surrounding a city, it also helps by creating centralized town structures rather than decentralized suburbs.

Puetrollano, Spain seems like a decent town that is a combination of a small existing town and an expanded planned town that makes for a very walkable and easy to commute in town (at least from Google Maps.) The impressive part is this was probably a struggling small town that took over 2 hours to drive to Madrid, but with high speed rail, it only takes someone an hour to make the commute each way which definitely changes things for the town and gives them a market to advertise to and gives someone a small town feel as well as easy access to a big city for employment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2014, 12:34 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,560,099 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
However, you were discussing distance in your previous posts. It's hard to respond if you change your main point.
The main point was that cars allow a total disconnect between workplace and housing, not just in distance but location on the map--neither needs to be in any particular location, whereas in a system with rail transit the options for each are more limited with workplaces generally more centralized and housing along the transit paths. It's also more about area on a map vs. linear distance. Two dimensions, not just one.
Quote:
It might be the reverse. The western cities were rather small pre-automobile, and not that dense, so most accommodated the car rather easily. The difference in densities from streetcar-era neighborhoods and automobile-era ones are rather small in many western cities. With all the discussion of downtown leveling, while downtown Los Angeles lost residences to urban renewal, the immediate core grew at a rather fast rate something few other urban cores did anywhere else in the US at the time. In contrast, many Great Lakes / Midwestern cities suffered more severe declines in the core, with the most of the rail transit dismantled.
The immediate core of Los Angeles emptied out during the urban renewal era--there were only about 15,000 people living in downtown LA in 2000, today it's more like 45,000 and I don't think it is even approaching its pre-WWII population level yet. Western downtown cores, even the small ones, weren't as dense as eastern cities but were generally built out, and had higher population densities than they do now. The cities grew horizontally, annexing more land, often onto greenfield or recently built auto suburbs. If these small Western cities hadn't annexed land, many of them would have shrank--as San Francisco did between 1960 and 1980, albeit less than Midwestern cities, because California in general was filling up so rapidly with people moving in from those emptying Midwestern cities (I was one of those Midwesterners filling up California at the time!)

So it's not so much that it was easier to adapt western cities to the automobile as the cities themselves grew outwards along automobile-centric paths instead of older pedestrian or railroad paths--except the very largest cities, but even then auto-centric areas grew away from the transit areas, as in the spokes-and-hub model mentioned above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2014, 08:09 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
^^I fail to see the difference between commuting a far distance by train and commuting a far distance by car.

I don't see how housing is (much) more limited with railroad commuting. Even in the pre-auto era, people could take a bus to the train. You have to go back to the steam-engine era for your statement to be true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2014, 08:27 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I don't see how housing is (much) more limited with railroad commuting. Even in the pre-auto era, people could take a bus to the train. You have to go back to the steam-engine era for your statement to be true.
And people still do take a bus to a train. But the spots near a train station have easier commute trips, transfers take time. If you look at maps of the larger cities built around rail, say in 1940 or so, the outer development followed rail lines while the in between areas were rather lightly developed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2014, 10:48 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,560,099 times
Reputation: 4048
I'm talking about pre-automobile suburbs, so I think it's pretty safe to assume I'm talking about the pre-automobile era, or, if you prefer, the steam era (let's say 1830s to about 1920s.) And during that era, a "bus" referred to a horse-drawn omnibus (unless we're talking about London's steam omnibuses, which were very rare and still not very fast) which you generally didn't find in places like railroad suburbs. Their speed was limited to about 3-5 mph, not much faster than walking, and their use was far from universal. So, no, generally if you lived in a railroad or streetcar suburb during that era, there wasn't a bus, and even if there was, it didn't go particularly far or particularly fast. And even if there was, you were still limited by the omnibus route.

There were no internal-combustion "buses" before the automobile era. The first gasoline-powered bus showed up in the 1890s (years after the first automobile), and it was basically a little stagecoach with an engine instead of a team. The gasoline-powered bus emerged after the gasoline-powered car, and both depended on hard-surfaced roads to become efficient transportation. So if we're talking about an era where gasoline-powered buses could carry people from train stations to local stops, by definition we're talking about the automobile era--roughly the 1920s forward. (Although note that this was not an abrupt, sudden transition--it was gradual, not sudden, taking decades.) Prior to that era, if a stop on a railroad line was busy enough to require local passenger service, it would have had a streetcar (horse or electric powered.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2014, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
^^I fail to see the difference between commuting a far distance by train and commuting a far distance by car.

I don't see how housing is (much) more limited with railroad commuting. Even in the pre-auto era, people could take a bus to the train. You have to go back to the steam-engine era for your statement to be true.
The difference is that transit is really expensive to build and operate so you can't really viably build a network that's robust enough to cover the entire area. Instead you get a spokes of the wheel effect. People can only be totally disconnected if they live along those spokes. If you're pro-transit and anti-car like wburg is, then you say that these people aren't totally disconnected becasue they're still connected by the being limited to living in the spoke arrangement. With the car, the entire area becomes open. But again, if you're anti-car being connected to your workplace by car is "totally disconnected" whereas being connected to your work place by transit is like totally spiritual connected or something.

Don't worry, it doesn't make any sense to anybody else either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2014, 11:39 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
I'm talking about pre-automobile suburbs, so I think it's pretty safe to assume I'm talking about the pre-automobile era, or, if you prefer, the steam era (let's say 1830s to about 1920s.) And during that era, a "bus" referred to a horse-drawn omnibus (unless we're talking about London's steam omnibuses, which were very rare and still not very fast) which you generally didn't find in places like railroad suburbs. Their speed was limited to about 3-5 mph, not much faster than walking, and their use was far from universal. So, no, generally if you lived in a railroad or streetcar suburb during that era, there wasn't a bus, and even if there was, it didn't go particularly far or particularly fast. And even if there was, you were still limited by the omnibus route.

There were no internal-combustion "buses" before the automobile era. The first gasoline-powered bus showed up in the 1890s (years after the first automobile), and it was basically a little stagecoach with an engine instead of a team. The gasoline-powered bus emerged after the gasoline-powered car, and both depended on hard-surfaced roads to become efficient transportation. So if we're talking about an era where gasoline-powered buses could carry people from train stations to local stops, by definition we're talking about the automobile era--roughly the 1920s forward. (Although note that this was not an abrupt, sudden transition--it was gradual, not sudden, taking decades.) Prior to that era, if a stop on a railroad line was busy enough to require local passenger service, it would have had a streetcar (horse or electric powered.)
In 1830, 91.2% of the population lived in rural areas (defined by the Census Bureau as <2500 people). 1920 was the tipping point, when the population shifted ever so slightly from rural to urban, 48.8% lived in rural areas that year. So it's clear not too many people were hopping on trains of any kind to jobs in "the city". Most of these people were actually earning their living "by the sweat of their brow", e.g. in farming. What's changed is the type of jobs we do.
https://www.census.gov/population/ce...ta/table-4.pdf

You like to think in cataclysmic terms, e.g. "They stretched the distance to work--highways and the automobile shattered it." That simply is not true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top