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 07-26-2014, 01:38 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,037 posts, read 102,723,474 times
Reputation: 33084

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
I never said it was a model for the rest of the US. It is just one example of a place where cars are not the most convenient form of transportation. That doesn't mean anyone needs to adopt it as a model. But by the same token, I don't think people who want to use it as a model should be banned by law from doing so. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to build something with Manhattan-like density if the law is that every residential building should have at least one parking spot per person.
NYC is the ONLY city in the US where fewer than half the households have cars.
List of U.S. cities with most households without a car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one has said one spot "per person". The usual requirement is 1.5 spots per unit.

What's with the density worship anyway?

 
Old 07-26-2014, 01:47 PM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,937,953 times
Reputation: 2150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
NYC is the ONLY city in the US where fewer than half the households have cars.
List of U.S. cities with most households without a car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one has said one spot "per person". The usual requirement is 1.5 spots per unit.

What's with the density worship anyway?
So what if it is the only city like that? It is the largest ciity. It is not some minor exception to the rule. Its existence disproves the idea that cars are always inherently more convenient. That doesn't mean that everywhere or even most places should be like Manhattan.
 
Old 07-26-2014, 02:53 PM
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
45,992 posts, read 42,058,839 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
NYC is the ONLY city in the US where fewer than half the households have cars.
List of U.S. cities with most households without a car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again, no one has claimed that Manhattan is at all typical of the US. Manhattan is well below the NYC average (only 23% of households have cars)

Quote:
No one has said one spot "per person". The usual requirement is 1.5 spots per unit.

What's with the density worship anyway?
How is that density worship? Some people Manhattan-like density places. Others do not. Doesn't mean most of the country should be built like it.
 
Old 07-26-2014, 03:14 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,037 posts, read 102,723,474 times
Reputation: 33084
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Again, no one has claimed that Manhattan is at all typical of the US. Manhattan is well below the NYC average (only 23% of households have cars)



How is that density worship? Some people Manhattan-like density places. Others do not. Doesn't mean most of the country should be built like it.
1. Virtually Everyone who says "it's possible for ordinary households to easily live w/o a car" uses Manhattan or NYC as their example. As if, "if you can do it there, you can do it anywhere".

2. Here's the "density worship": "It's very difficult, if not impossible, to build something with Manhattan-like density if the law is that every residential building should have at least one parking spot per person." As if that were the desired outcome.
 
Old 07-26-2014, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,088 posts, read 16,117,190 times
Reputation: 12673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
1. Virtually Everyone who says "it's possible for ordinary households to easily live w/o a car" uses Manhattan or NYC as their example. As if, "if you can do it there, you can do it anywhere".

2. Here's the "density worship": "It's very difficult, if not impossible, to build something with Manhattan-like density if the law is that every residential building should have at least one parking spot per person." As if that were the desired outcome.
I more use it in the way of if you want to do it, go live somewhere were you can easily like NYC.
 
Old 07-26-2014, 03:21 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,037 posts, read 102,723,474 times
Reputation: 33084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
I more use it in the way of if you want to do it, go live somewhere were you can easily like NYC.
Well, that makes sense. Actually, you CAN live in Denver w/o a car if you want to/have to. About 14% of Denver residents do. But it's a lot easier with a car.
 
Old 07-26-2014, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,088 posts, read 16,117,190 times
Reputation: 12673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Well, that makes sense. Actually, you CAN live in Denver w/o a car if you want to/have to. About 14% of Denver residents do. But it's a lot easier with a car.
I did in Seattle as well. Not hard if you live and work downtown, but most of Seattle isn't downtown... plus there's all the suburbs. Definitely not the only place or that you HAVE to move to NYC, but it's by far the most common.
 
Old 07-26-2014, 03:34 PM
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
45,992 posts, read 42,058,839 times
Reputation: 14811
Your "as if" don't clearly follow, especially the first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
1. Virtually Everyone who says "it's possible for ordinary households to easily live w/o a car" uses Manhattan or NYC as their example. As if, "if you can do it there, you can do it anywhere".
How does a NYC example imply the bolded? I certainly don't mean that by using an example of NYC. What I mean is that it is certainly possible to have a place laid out in such a way where households don't need a car. Or as an objection to general statements saying families don't grocery shop on foot, etc. Note also Manhattan is only 1/6th or so of NYC, so they're rather different examples.

Anyone who posts that is aware that NYC is the most friendly place to be without a car, obviously you couldn't that anywhere as easily.

Quote:
2. Here's the "density worship": "It's very difficult, if not impossible, to build something with Manhattan-like density if the law is that every residential building should have at least one parking spot per person." As if that were the desired outcome.
There are plenty of low density suburbs built, what's wrong with a few Manhattan-like density spots being added as well? Objecting to a law that forbids that everywhere hardly sounds like density worship.

Last edited by nei; 07-26-2014 at 03:47 PM..
 
Old 07-26-2014, 03:46 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,037 posts, read 102,723,474 times
Reputation: 33084
^^NYC is the largest city in the US, population-wise. It's also one of the oldest. I know of no cities, particularly west of the Appalachian Mountains (e.g. Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland and all points west) that were ever intended to be as dense. Most midwestern cities, including Chicago, started out as agribusiness centers. LA is another outlier, but for some reason is also frequently used as an example. (An example of urban sprawl, that is.) I know enough about statistics to know that you frequently leave off the extremes. In any event, I think the statement about achieving Manhattan density is irrelevant. Not every city is trying to achieve that, or wants to do so.

As far as I am aware, all zoning decisions are local. However, it is still my personal opinion that every residential building, perhaps allowing NYC as an exception, should provide at least one parking spot per unit. Certainly in St. Paul, MN where 84% of households have cars, and Denver, with 86%.
 
Old 07-26-2014, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,088 posts, read 16,117,190 times
Reputation: 12673
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post

There are plenty of low density suburbs built, what's wrong with a few Manhattan-like density spots being added as well? Objecting to a law that forbids that everywhere hardly sounds like density worship.
It's a fictitious law though.

Seattle's downtown certainly is no Manhattan. It does not have such a thing as parking minimums. There are parking minimums in other parts of the city where Manhattan-like density would not make sense, but not in downtown.
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.


Closed Thread

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