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.
???
Most folks view cars as giving them independence. They can drive when and where they need to.
that's not car dependency. Car dependency is needing a car because it's impractical to get around day to day without them not a car gives more flexibility. For a German student (college student age) said it was almost unheard for college students in Germany to own a car; they didn't need them to get around or travel. But plenty of older Germans have them for more convenience. Not so car dependent.
New Urbanism? "Cars suck, people who drive cars suck, suburbs suck, big stores suck, no one should have more than 400 sqft or any private outdoor space. People should live in apartments on top of small retail stores where they shop and walk or take transit to their jobs."
That pretty much sums up the attitudes of the New Urbanists . Don't get me wrong - a New Urbanist development can be a nice place to live, but the same can be said for many other schools of urban planning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft
More myopia on lifestyle choices...this is when folks start saying that the "urbanistas" want people out of single family homes and living in more dense options, and then the other folks come out and deny that saying "oh no I don't have a problem with the suburbs, I just want a denser, more urban choice!" That's great, and I know quite a couple of folks on here believe that, but then when I read nonsense like this it's obvious that you couldn't care less that other folks want to have more space...you look at simply turning it into a question of quantifying efficiencies or saying that people will all totally want to live in your idea of a lofty master planned urban oasis because its so sustainable, and its efficient and just think of all the masses moving on trains and walking around and everybody need to do it for our planet..blah blah blah, enough is enough...count me out, another strike against NU as far as I'm concerned.
I'd add to your reputation if I didn't have to spread it around .
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft
First off, regarding the bolded sentence at the beginning: speak for yourself. I personally love traveling by car, as do millions of other people. Maybe not every person alive today, but a huge percentage. I would rather see the technology continue to improve with regards to the safety and efficiency of private transportation where it makes sense and public transportation where it makes sense, rather than hearing another one of these pieces that tries so hard to convince everyone that "oh cars suck man...trains are totally more efficient, faster and travel farther bro " . No thanks. Telling me that mass transit will be the savior of the day for all of our transportation needs is just plain ignorant and assumes that everyone just thinks like you and is willing to live that urban life you so desire...that New Cool Hip Efficient Sustainable Buzzword-Laden Urbanist life that everyone needs to get behind or be left in the dust. Never mind the idea of personal freedom of travel that automobiles offer, the dynamic trip abilities from any point to any point on your own schedule, your own route and in your own comfortable, personal space. Clearly when we're done with the NU plan, everyone will just live in giant high-rise clusters and only need to travel between them...kind of like taking the idea of someone living on 92nd and Amsterdam and taking the 1 train to work on 23rd and 7th every day and shoehorning that to be the way that everyone, everywhere needs to commute and travel because cars are evil!!! Once again, no thanks.
If I could give you 3 more rep points, I would. Well done .
Last edited by Patricius Maximus; 09-08-2013 at 10:08 AM..
that's not car dependency. Car dependency is needing a car because it's impractical to get around day to day without them not a car gives more flexibility. For a German student (college student age) said it was almost unheard for college students in Germany to own a car; they didn't need them to get around or travel. But plenty of older Germans have them for more convenience. Not so car dependent.
Well, hey, it was pretty unheard of for students at my college, the U of Pittsburgh, to have cars, too. Even today, Carnegie Mellon U, in the same area as Pitt, strongly discourages cars on campus.
???
Most folks view cars as giving them independence. They can drive when and where they need to.
You're confusing cars and car dependency. Two entirely different things.
1. A beer now and then - good.
2. A situation where you have to have beer all the time to function - very very bad.
The first is a drink, the second is drink dependency (alcoholism)
1. Car now and then - good.
2. A situation where you have to have a car to function, where virtually everything you need to do requires a car - very very bad.
The first is a vehicle the second is a car dependency (Sprawl America).
I recently got into a bit of a debate about New Urbanist principles in the Kansas City forum. As a result, I ended up trying my hand at a personal paraphrase of those principles. This represents about an hour's work, and not the time I would spend on a thesis, but I was curious what sort of discussion it might generate, and how other people on this forum would approach the question.
So here is New Urbanism in my own words. How would you describe it?
1. Integral Community Life: Cities and Neighborhoods should be built in such a way that meaningful interaction amongst neighbors is encouraged. This includes close build-to lines, front porches, walkability and moderate to high density, and mostly precludes wide streets, large lots, garages, rear decks, cul-de-sacs, gated entrances, separation of uses and socioeconomic segmentation
Wide streets are in the eye of the beholder. Plenty of my neighbors sit out in their front yards, porch or no. I bet a lot of these front porches are rarely used. I grew up in a house with a front porch, and we didn't use it all that much. My dad enclosed the back porch and we ate out there almost every night in the summer. Note-it was closer to the kitchen, where the food was being prepared.
Large lots are also in the eye of the beholder. Here in metro Denver, a 10,000 sf lot (~ 1/4 acre) is considered huge. Our lot is about 8000 sf and also considered large. My daughter just bought a house in the depths of the burbs with a lot of ~7000 sf.
You would be hard put to findmany(take note of that word, nei) people in the snow belt of this country who would not want a garage. That is roughly north of I-40, excluding the west coast. However, you might want one in the PNW b/c of all the rain.
Rear decks-See my comments under front porches. Why do urbanists want to force everyone out in public all the time?
There are cul-de-sacs and cul-de-sacs. Short ones, such as in my neighborhood are nice, I think. (I do not live on a cul, BTW.) They have less traffic. Kids can play more safely in the street. I don't care for the long dead end streets off main roads like you see in some eastern suburbs.
I'm not crazy about gated communities, either. I think they're pretentious.
Re: separation of uses, I suppose you mean you'd like to see the steel mill down the street, such as in the mill town where I grew up. We had steel trucks going up and down our neighborhood street. My mom used to tie my brother and I up to the front porch when we were little so we wouldn't get hit by a semi. It's also really nice to have your high school football stadium (actually a small college stadium) next to a cork works where they let off a blast of hydrogen sulfide every little bit. Do you know what that is? Do you know how it smells? One time, when I was in HS, I was selling candy for student council. I was on the "away" side when a blast went off. Someone asked me, "Does Beaver Falls always smell this bad?" I said, "No, just when you guys come to town". I was always a snarker. But yes, by all means let's go back to that. Coal mines, too, like used to be in the town where I live now.
There will always be economic separation to a degree. Smaller communities have less than cities.
2. Appropriate Density: Neighborhoods should be built in a range of densities, generally reflecting the proximity of that neighborhood to the City Center. It is wasteful for neighborhood density to fall below certain limits (the exact definition of which is debatable) unless the land is being put to productive use. The result of inappropriately low density is an inefficient use of public infrastructure (more miles of streets and utility lines per capita) and the preponderance of the residential lawn, which is one of the most environmentally wasteful entities in history, especially when maintained well.
"Appropriate" is judgmental.
3. Conservation of Resources: Cities should be built in such a way that makes efficient use of the materials required to build them. They should also avoid "sprawl" which gobbles up productive farmland at the fringe. Although urban areas often labeled as the environment's "most wanted" polluters, it is actually the converse which is true. If the population of an urban area were re-distributed into suburban or rural settings, their resource usage and pollution production would skyrocket. Human beings who are not producing food or other products from the land, are most efficient and conservative when grouped in urban settings.
We've discussed this farmland thing before. There is no shortage of cropland/farmland in the US. The main food problem we have is people eating too much food.
4. Mass-Transit: Human beings never dreamed of commandeering 3000 pounds (or more!) of steel in order to convey a single individual a handful of miles on a daily basis. Even if we had imagined the technology, we could not have imagined the hubris of a common person exercising such a wasteful habit. Technology enables us to travel farther, faster AND more efficiently than at any time in history, but these three elements are only combined in the form of mass transit. Cars, and especially the gasoline that runs them, are becoming expensive to the point of being a non-option for many members of upcoming generations, and Cities should not be designed to presume ubiquitous car ownership. Because every year that presumption becomes increasingly false.
Human beings have always dreamed of creating more efficient labor saving methods to get around. Remember the wheel? Mass transit is not right for every application. There has also always been personal transportation, be it foot, bicycle, horseback, or automobile.
5. Architecture for posterity instead of expediency: I have mostly addressed this issue in previous comments. But to put it briefly, Cities (and the buildings that comprise them) should be designed in a way that is likely to have value for many generations to come. This necessarily presumes quality construction that will withstand the elements for at least 100 years. This precludes the suburban trend of expecting buildings to last 30-50 years, and employing architectural styles which are either too faddish to be appreciated by anyone in the future, or too bland or monotonous to be appreciated by anyone, ever.
I would like to know of one building that was only designed for 30-50 years. My own house is 33 years old, and shows no signs of falling down, sorry.
6. Vibrant Street Life: The spirit of a City can be discerned from those who occupy its streets, sidewalks and public spaces. Therefore, Cities should be built to encourage positive interaction in these areas. This necessitates mixed-use development, walkability, narrow streets, wide sidewalks, close build-to lines, public art, mass transit, moderate to high density, micro retail and a diverse population mix.
Yes, no one can entertain themselves. Everyone has to be entertained by streetscapes, coffee shops, movies at 3 AM, etc. Micro-retail is so cost effective, not!
7. Beauty and Balance: In order to achieve lasting value and sustainable growth, a City should be built with classic principles of civic beauty and design balance in mind. This is true of virtually all cities which people love to visit, but for some reason we've decided it cannot be true of the cities we inhabit. This principle includes: public art, thoughtful architecture, proportionate street-walls (taking setbacks, building height and street width into account), abundant and well-designed parks and plazas, street trees and other vegetation, and locally relevant materials and styles. It precludes large or ostentatious parking lots, cookie-cutter developments, tract housing, and any project designed solely for the purpose of a quick profit.
Ever heard of the "City Beautiful" movement? Denver has some City Beautiful elements. It's not new.
8. Quality Public Space: By now this has been pretty well described in principles numbered 1-7.
But let me just add that a healthy city must view itself as a shared community, and not an agglomeration of adjacent private properties. Our modern society is the first in history to see it as the latter, and we are currently witnessing the fallout from this folly.
Oh, baloney!
Correction: Some of us are witnessing the fallout. Others are naively assuming that the status quo will continue onward and upward, reminding me of the attitude immediately preceding 1929’s Black Tuesday, 2000’s Dot-Com bust, or 2008’s Housing Crisis. I’ll bet those people wish they would have heeded the warnings, and I imagine something similar (but hopefully less sudden and tragic) in our suburban communities.
...their version of public space anyway - and they want people to live there. To the extent there is a public space folks want to visit - not live there. Far more important to the individual is the private space. The NU's seek to eliminate private space under the pretext of aesthetics and abstract, meaningless terms like "community" and "sustainable".
Hmmm. As opposed to seeing that with suburbs, you will more likely see the decay in the city long before that with the new urbanists' (communitarian/collectivists) dream housing "solution": condos. Look at all the condos being built in Austin. The city is where you are going to see 1. retrofits/conversions, 2. (no bailouts unless that includes public rather than private teardowns), 3. ghettoization, or 4. abandonment/salvage due to all the disposable communitarian housing otherwise known as condos.
The utopian-in-theory-dystopian-in-reality "walkable spaces" is only walkable for a few elitists who seem to expect the rest of the world to change to serve them. The store employees won't be living there and they would probably prefer not to have a "metro tax" taken out of their paycheck for the benefit of the elitists.
Wow - I'll take this a piece at a time since it's so utterly wrong in every respect.
1. New Urbanists seek to eliminate private space.
Nothing could be further from the truth. And - where in the world do you people dream this stuff up or get this from? New Urbanists are in no way, shape or form opposed to private space. New urbanists aren't concerned with that in the least. New urbanists do believe in providing a mix of housing options (choice) and are not fixated on the SFD as the be all and end all of housing options. But SFD are only a part of the housing mix that should be available to everyone and which should also include SFA homes, MF condos and apartments, accessory dwelling units, etc.
2. Meaningless terms like "community" and "sustainable". So you think community and sustainability are meaningless concepts. . .hmm. I guess we'll just have to disagree here.
3. Communitarian/collectivism? What on earth are you talking about? There is nothing, absolutely nothing about New Urbanism that is collectivist or communitarian. Political philosophies of new urbanists span from the libertarian to the social liberal and everything in between.
4. Austin - OK let's take Austin since this is a subject I know incredibly well. For starters - Austin is one of the most anti-urban cities on the planet. It does have a few pockets of urbanism here and there and a decent CBD that is about 10,000X better than it used to be but has a LONG LONG way to do before it will be truly urban. That being said - contrary to what you said there are NO new high rise condos being built in Austin right now - zip, zero, nil, nada. They simply cannot be financed in the current market. That may change in the near to mid-term because demand for urban condos is threw the roof. But right now, there are absolutely none being built and none even proposed.
That being said, there were a number of condos that were built or planned prior to 2008. Those were sold roughly for 200-300SF and now, if you can find one - will be selling for closer to 300-500 sf. Far from decaying, the urban condo market right now in Austin is incredibly robust.
Austin is in high demand generally, but there are pockets of softness where bargains can be had - where you can get a SFD on a huge lot for a fraction of what a downtown condo will cost. Want to guess where they are? Hutto, Cedar Park, Buda, Kyle. . .these are the suburbs that will be hit first and hit the hardest by decay.
The urban core of Austin will always be in high demand - the same can not be said of places like Kyle and Hutto.
5. utopian-in-theory-dystopian-in-reality - again wow. First of all, walkability is about providing wonderful public spaces that draws people in and which in turn creates value and promotes productivity. Far from utopian it is absolutely practical. Dystopian? Can you explain how a walkable street or neighborhood is dystopian. Perhaps provide some specific examples of these dystopians places that were created by walkability.
6. The store employees won't be living there. Again, you have this 180 degrees wrong. In a new urbanist model, the store employees not only will have a plethora of options of where to live affordably (maybe they could even live above the store if it weren't illegal to do so), they will be able to give up a car and live far more cheaply than they could in a car-dependent community.
So anything developed that's not typical suburbia = suburbs suck?
Of course not. But New Urbanism appears to have as one of its principles that "sprawl" (meaning suburbia) is bad. And a lot of New Urbanists want to make it go away, either by banning it or arranging things so it is much harder and/or more expensive to build and/or live in suburbia.
There are any number of problems with New Urbanist planned communities. One is they are simply not comprehensive enough and cannot be; a century ago you could build a town around a transit stop and pretty much everyone could do everything they needed either in town, and the few remaining things could be done in the city the transit led to. That's just not so any more; even if you could get everything you _needed_ within one New Urbanist planned community, people wouldn't be willing to limit themselves to that. And once outside the bubble, they have to get around... which means a car.
It depends on the project and how it is designed. I have seen plenty of failed attempts of New Urbanism, there is also plenty of successful attempts as well. There are also plenty of shopping centers that pretend to be New Urbanism but fail.
I think one of the best examples of New Urbanism is Reston, Va which basically gave a suburban county a 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.
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.
. Don't get me wrong - a New Urbanist development can be a nice place to live, but the same can be said for many other schools of urban planning.
.
