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.
That isn't true, suburbs were created to be car dependent so that more cars could be sold. If everyone needs to drive, then everyone needs a car.
Not really. I grew up in an city and I can tell you that people still very much have and use cars in the city. It is really only maybe three types that don't own cars. Those who can't afford the car, those afraid to drive and and few people who want to live an certain ideal urban lifestyle. Typically they work downtown(where public transit is best geared to get one to) and live in an very dense part of the city are young and lack kids such that being car free or car light is much easier.
The burbs were created at an time when car ownership had long move beyond just for the rich and that changed the whole way things are organized. There was no need to walk 6 blocks to catch the street car, when you owned an car and so things like grids and sidewalks become less important and the things you can't get so easy in an city like big lawns and low traffic become more important.
Not really. I grew up in an city and I can tell you that people still very much have and use cars in the city. It is really only maybe three types that don't own cars. Those who can't afford the car, those afraid to drive and and few people who want to live an certain ideal urban lifestyle. Typically they work downtown(where public transit is best geared to get one to) and live in an very dense part of the city are young and lack kids such that being car free or car light is much easier.
The burbs were created at an time when car ownership had long move beyond just for the rich and that changed the whole way things are organized. There was no need to walk 6 blocks to catch the street car, when you owned an car and so things like grids and sidewalks become less important and the things you can't get so easy in an city like big lawns and low traffic become more important.
Again, a walkable community is about providing options which include CARS. You seem to think I am talking about being car free and I AM NOT. A car dependent community means the car is the only way to get around because walking and biking are not an option.
In a walkable community, walking, biking, transit, and CARS are ALL OPTIONS.
Not really. I grew up in an city and I can tell you that people still very much have and use cars in the city. It is really only maybe three types that don't own cars. Those who can't afford the car, those afraid to drive and and few people who want to live an certain ideal urban lifestyle. Typically they work downtown(where public transit is best geared to get one to) and live in an very dense part of the city are young and lack kids such that being car free or car light is much easier.
There are also those that think it's not worth the money in a big city, and don't really care much about lifestyle. Anyhow, needing a car and having a car are two very different things. I don't need a car myself, but it's definitely nice to have.
Businesses move in and out all the time and others take their place. If a business starts in a small downtown space and expands so much they have to move elsewhere, that's a good thing. If they realize they are the sort of business that has to have more parking and moves to a place more amenable to that transit mode, that's a good thing too--perhaps a business that doesn't consider parking such a priority can move into the vacancy they have created. One size does not fit all!
Here in Pittsburgh, some of the theoretically walkable commercial areas which have low demand still have a mix of businesses which either don't require walkability at all, such as car repair shops, offices of contractors, and business-to-business wholesale. If those areas do become more desirable, I'm sure they'll get pushed out for things like brewpubs, boutiques, and pinball arcades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
No place with a built up sizable downtown is going to be anywhere nearly as convenient to park in as a suburban shopping center. You can fill the downtown with parking lots but at some point it won't be much of a downtown anymore. You need time limits on street parking spaces so that they'll be turnover for new visitors.
This is the point I tried to make upthread. If you want to have a vibrant downtown, you have to at some point put your hands up and shrug when it comes to constrained parking. Maximum walkability basically precludes much in the way of surface parking, although it probably does allow for a handful of garages just off the main drag.
There's lots of evidence to what happened when cities attempted to compete with suburbs by offering ample parking in the CBD. The results were underwhelming to say the least. For the most part the cities who put in the most parking killed their downtowns, whereas cities which put in parking limits (like Cambridge, Massachusetts) began to recover in terms of desirability, and are considered to be great places to live today (albeit with huge "parking problems.") Of course, this could be a case of two concurrent trends (e.g., the decline in urban desirability was due to other issues, like crime, and the ample parking didn't hurt, but also didn't help). But still, there is no evidence that ample parking really works well within traditional urban commercial areas.
I'd guess Cambridge has much worse parking than Boulder and by the previous mentioned standard is "worse managed". Good luck finding any convenient parking near Harvard Square and maybe Central, and most residential side streets require a permit. The difference is most of Cambridge is pedestrian oriented while it appears only the area around downtown Boulder is, bad parking is less tolerable.
Easy parking probably is associated with a weak downtown partially because it's a sign of low demand. But a downtown surrounded by residents that all drive needs some form of parking access, maybe not so easy that you can park right next to the store but parking somewhere nearby.
"Just another conspiracy theory". I saw Elvis last night in Omaha.
Then maybe you can tell us why car dependent communities were created? Either way, it is a great way to require everyone to need a car thus means more people need to buy a car.
Both are Colorado State Highways (Colorado 7 & Colorado 157).
In mid size cities it is common for highways to be 4+ lane arterials within the built up city.
Not every city built interstates (or limited access freeways) thru the center of town in a misguided attempt at improving traffic.
If you want to have a vibrant downtown, you have to at some point put your hands up and shrug when it comes to constrained parking. Maximum walkability basically precludes much in the way of surface parking, although it probably does allow for a handful of garages just off the main drag.
There's lots of evidence to what happened when cities attempted to compete with suburbs by offering ample parking in the CBD. The results were underwhelming to say the least. For the most part the cities who put in the most parking killed their downtowns, whereas cities which put in parking limits (like Cambridge, Massachusetts) began to recover in terms of desirability, and are considered to be great places to live today (albeit with huge "parking problems.") Of course, this could be a case of two concurrent trends (e.g., the decline in urban desirability was due to other issues, like crime, and the ample parking didn't hurt, but also didn't help). But still, there is no evidence that ample parking really works well within traditional urban commercial areas.
Exactly! Those who need a parking space within a few feet of every business they visit, will generally complain about walkable business districts, while that same lack of surface parking is what makes them walkable.
You can't please all the people all the time!
Both are Colorado State Highways (Colorado 7 & Colorado 157).
In mid size cities it is common for highways to be 4+ lane arterials within the built up city.
Not every city built interstates (or limited access freeways) thru the center of town in a misguided attempt at improving traffic.
As many city streets are designated "state highways". Don't be so disingenuous. Arapahoe has a speed limit of 30 mph in that area, I believe, and Foothills' is 45, I think. No, cities didn't build interstates at all, the feds did. There is no interstate within about 15 miles or so of Boulder.
I thought you were the one who wanted to talk about "walkability" not parking. Now you're talking about driving.
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.
