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.
Which only proves the rule. As neat as some of these revitalized inner cities are, they are just not geared to family raising. Two or more kids and forget it.
Well younger families are having less kids these days, so the need to have a place for several children is no longer as in high demand as before. Granted, there will always be people looking for more space and that suburban lifestyle.
News flash: NO city can entirely put pedestrians first, simply because the food and goods that such New Urbanist pedestrians consume still get shipped to the New Urbanist hipster botiques and Whole Foods and Trader Joes--by truck. This necessitates roads--roads that cars and other vehicles will use.
Before I respond to this post, I have to ask you what you think I meant by putting pedestrians first? Based on your post, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.
Which only proves the rule. As neat as some of these revitalized inner cities are, they are just not geared to family raising. Two or more kids and forget it.
Yes, but Americans are having less children nowadays regardless of whether they live in cities or elsewhere. After decades of wages decreasing relative to the cost of living, families simply cannot afford as many children. The cost of raising one child in the US is estimated at $200-300k, over 18 years, that's 11-25 K a year which is a good chunk of today's median wages. Add another child or two, and you've got a figure that's comparable with many middle class annual salaries! Of course, having less children does make living in the revitalized inner cities (or at least inner suburban areas with decent walkability and mass transit) easier.
News flash: NO city can entirely put pedestrians first, simply because the food and goods that such New Urbanist pedestrians consume still get shipped to the New Urbanist hipster botiques and Whole Foods and Trader Joes--by truck. This necessitates roads--roads that cars and other vehicles will use.
Please show us the News Flash of the guy who said that putting pedestrians first means zero roads. News Flash: the vast majority of pedestrians...are also drivers! I mean, come on, just because I happen to be walking at the time I never drive and I must not have access to a car ever???
All stop crosswalks eliminate the conflict of turning vehicles and pedestrians, and only add a few seconds to the light cycle and prevent turning vehicles from blocking the intersection as they wait for pedestrians to cross. You only need one crosswalk count down for the intersection as opposed to two changes--one in each direction. At the very least, you can give pedestrians a 5-10 second head start before the light changes for vehicles. No turn on red when the view *from the stop line* (e.g., without pulling forward in to the cross walk) is obstructed makes sense not only for pedestrian safety, but for the cross traffic too. Widening sidewalks and adding bike lanes often means making vehicle lanes more narrow, which is actually a design more consistent with the posted speed limit in many cases. Neither of these changes would prevent trucks from making their deliveries, nor would they prevent you from driving in and visiting the Whole Foods or Trader's.
All stop crosswalks eliminate the conflict of turning vehicles and pedestrians, and only add a few seconds to the light cycle and prevent turning vehicles from blocking the intersection as they wait for pedestrians to cross. You only need one crosswalk count down for the intersection as opposed to two changes--one in each direction. At the very least, you can give pedestrians a 5-10 second head start before the light changes for vehicles. No turn on red when the view *from the stop line* (e.g., without pulling forward in to the cross walk) is obstructed makes sense not only for pedestrian safety, but for the cross traffic too. Widening sidewalks and adding bike lanes often means making vehicle lanes more narrow, which is actually a design more consistent with the posted speed limit in many cases. Neither of these changes would prevent trucks from making their deliveries, nor would they prevent you from driving in and visiting the Whole Foods or Trader's.
For downtowns, honestly, metered and synchronized stoplights (for the major throughfares at least, and ideally for as many as is possible, depending upon how many east-west vs. north-south routes you can synchronize) are probably your best bet. In their absence, drivers try to sprint from light to light in the hope of catching them, rather than accepting that moving along at a 25 to 30 MPH pace is best.
But some "planners" have this perverse idea of actually un-synchronizing lights, and creating hopelessly snarled traffic, fuming drivers, and pedestrians who cross with trepidation at the very least.
Before I respond to this post, I have to ask you what you think I meant by putting pedestrians first? Based on your post, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.
--Banning cars from certain streets, without having bypass streets or adjacent streets available
--Unrealistic "road diets" that ignore long established traffic patterns
--Making streets too narrow and pretending parallel parking problems won't happen as a result
--Unsynchronizing traffic lights
Much has been written about the migration of young people to live in the cities. But what happens
when the urban young grow older and start having families? Do they start migrating back to the suburbs?
I would think so. As young people get older I think they tend to move away from the urban core to the suburbs, or to more suburb-like neighborhoods within the city. Having a high-density of people also means high-density of vehicle traffic congestion, and the noise and stress that comes with it. I got tired of living in downtown San Francisco and moved for that reason. It's not a very family-friendly environment. The urban core of SF is not a very large area, but the vehicle congestion is very bad. Despite popular perception, most of SF is actually more suburban than urban in nature. The downtown area is rather small compared to the rest of the city.
For downtowns, honestly, metered and synchronized stoplights (for the major throughfares at least, and ideally for as many as is possible, depending upon how many east-west vs. north-south routes you can synchronize) are probably your best bet. In their absence, drivers try to sprint from light to light in the hope of catching them, rather than accepting that moving along at a 25 to 30 MPH pace is best.
But some "planners" have this perverse idea of actually un-synchronizing lights, and creating hopelessly snarled traffic, fuming drivers, and pedestrians who cross with trepidation at the very least.
In downtown Portland it is impossible to drive more that 12.5mph, so all that sprinting to the next light will do is cause you to sit at a light longer. That is a technique that puts pedestrians first by slowing the driving speed down in heavy pedestrian areas.
You can actually control the speed a car moves with timed lights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
--Banning cars from certain streets, without having bypass streets or adjacent streets available
--Unrealistic "road diets" that ignore long established traffic patterns
--Making streets too narrow and pretending parallel parking problems won't happen as a result
--Unsynchronizing traffic lights
Ah, so we are talking about two different things, I was not talking about any of those things when I said putting pedestrians first.
To address you issues though, banning cars from certain streets should only be done with streets that have a high pedestrian count. Places like Time Square come to mind. This doesn't mean all vehicles are banned at all hours, it just means delivery trucks can only access those areas between certain times if their is no other way to access those places. Though having service streets do take care of this issue when those streets exist.
Road diets that I have seen have all been well planned and focus on routes that are not heavy traffic routes to begin with. Is every road diet successful? Probably not, but the ones I have experienced work very well and do not effect the driving experience. It also makes those streets safer for pedestrians as well as biking, and in some cases creates more parking.
Not sure where streets have been made too narrow that makes parallel parking an issue. If a lane is a normal width, then there is nothing that prevents someone from parallel parking unless they don't know how to do that. I have seen a lot of bad parallel parkers in my lifetime.
Synchronized traffic lights are much better for putting pedestrians first because they can be done to control the speed of traffic, as I pointed out in the first part of this post.
Future technology, crime rates, employment opportunities, etc., will all factor into where today's younger adults want to live when they get older.
Crime rates were higher at times in the past, if the rates begin to move higher again, it could reduce the popularity of city living.
The jobs of the future may not need as high a concentration of offices in downtown areas, the future may have more parcel delivery eliminating the convenience of having a lot of stores nearby.
Future trends are hard to figure out, we'll see what happens.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,480,204 times
Reputation: 12187
I'm a married Millennial that is house shopping and the possibility of kids in the next couple years is one factor. When younger I lived a variety of places: suburban apartment, house in small town, rural on 70 acres of grandparent's land, 1950s subdivision, suburban subdivision, urban neighborhoods, etc. Now looking for a home I'm looking for something less dense than the very urban places I lived but still somewhere with more character and neighborhood feel than the newer suburbs.
I don't like any traditional suburbs built after 1960. I am not spending half my freetime trying to prevent flowers the Creator made to help the animals out (suburbanites call them weeds) from growing in my yard. Or giving my neighbor dirty looks because they hang laundry out on the line. I am not owning a hideous bi level house that has a no sense layout and no exterior character.
At the same time I need somewhere on a quiet street, has some yard, and parking is decent. I'm really drawn to stuff built from the 1920s to 1950s. The newer end would be technically sprawl but the neighborhoods are still more walkable and houses have more traditional style. Also some urban homes are too large (high utility bill) or too small (700 sq feet). I want something with around 1k sq feet, if it's only a 2 br it needs to be like a large upstairs bedroom that could be divided into 2.
People brought up higher home prices in urban areas... in most of my metro the best urban areas are uber gentrified and out my our price range, we are looking at a nice urban small city just across the river where a starter home in livable condition in a safe area can be bought in the $60k's.
That way long lol... in summary I'm not seeking really urban but I'm also not giving up my disdain for newer suburbs.
Here's some Street Views of areas in consideration
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.
