Why the Compact City is better (suburb, schools, transportation, houses)
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.
You are correct that "most Americans have never experience car independence," but it's a bit inaccurate to say that New York City is the only car-independent place in North America.
Most American cities that had substantial development before 1920 have districts where it is indeed possible to live car-free. There's a company called Walk Score (I think it's a subsidiary of Zillow Group, which operates the biggest of the real estate search engines — and dabbled in owning homes outright for a while before cutting its losses recently) that rates locations, neighborhoods and communities based on:
for the Walk Score, the number and type of businesses and amenities located within walking distance of the residence and the ease of walking to those places
for the Bike Score, the amount of bike infrastructure available and the ease of traveling by bike around the location/neighborhood/community
for the Transit Score, the number of transit routes near a location and the frequency with which they run
Generally speaking, places that receive a score of 90 or higher in these categories are considered "paradises" for the mode in question. You will find that most core neighborhoods of cities in the Northeastern United States score 90 or better on all three metrics. And in an area that scores between 80 and 90, it is probably possible to live car-free as well, though it may take some arranging of one's life and residence.
Three cities — Philadephia, Baltimore and Washington — have sizable areas where rowhouses are the dominant house type. (In Philadelphia, rowhouses make up more than 60 percent of the housing stock, the highest percentage of any U.S. city.) The rowhouse neighborhoods in these cities are quite dense and generally have good transit service. I live in an outlying Philadelphia neighborhood that is mostly rowhouses, with semi-detached twins on some blocks, and I've been living car-free here since I moved here 38 years ago. Many other people I know in this area also do not own cars (the neighborhood is mostly lower-income but has some middle-class blocks and a pocket of affluence as well; this pocket is the one part of the neighborhood where freestanding SFRs dominate, but given where it's located, someone can even live without a car there).
One reason many residents in such neighborhoods own cars is that their places of employment are in locations much less convenient to or well-served by mass transit. In such cases, no matter how well you can live without a car in your neighborhood or community, you will need to get one to get to and from your job. I almost became one of these "forced" car owners when I was offered a position with a hardware supplier located in an otherwise undeveloped part of a suburban New Jersey county; the only reason I didn't end up buying a car was that another company in a similar line of business made me a salary offer that topped theirs, and its office was a short walk (across a golf course) from a Regional Rail station and I could reverse-commute by train from the core city neighborhood I then lived in.
Boston has some rowhouse neighborhoods, but the more common form of denser housing is the "triple-decker" — a wood-framed freestanding three-flat residence. Most of that city (as well as neighboring Cambridge and Somerville) is also walkable.
There are some other cities where houses are close enough together that the neighborhoods are walkable even though most of them are SFRs. You showed an example of one in Buffalo in your second post; many Chicago neighborhoods also consist of SFRs that are so closely spaced they come awfully damned close to being rowhouses.
As you yourself point out, it is possible to have dense walkable communities without requiring them to be as filled with high-rises as those of Manhattan. And if we didn't ditch the grid in favor of the cul-de-sac, we'd have even more of them.
It is not just the closeness of residences, but the type of housing that promotes more walkability. Detached SFRs only make up 25% of Chicago's housing, and only 31% of Buffalo's. The majority of each city's residents live in small multi-family housing of between 2 and 20 units. In Buffalo, 41% of all housing is 2-family units, with only 7% of housing of 20+ units. In both cities most neighborhoods consist of a mix of housing types. Chicago does have more large buildings/complexes, with 21% of its housing 20+ units.
The Canadian Arthur Ericksons' keynote speech (in the early sixties) stated that Vancouver, BC DIDN'T WANT to emulate the American layout. We didn't. We went "urbane" and "rurban". But we have so many Europeans who came from cities where the trains were never removed, biking to work was done by the Chairman of the Board, and so it was an easy sell.
In R. Cucamonga my HS friend can SEE her employer from her house, and has to get on a freeway, to get to another freeway, and then hit an off ramp to arrive at work. The intersections on Valley Blvd. are the size of some of our towns! No wonder everyone tries to anticipate the long stop lights. Bad idea.
And then we have Calgary, the only American city outside the continental USA. Detached housing on hills where you have six cars for five residents, and hit the highway, then a left off to a blvd. , just to get to a corner store. Then winter hits. But you HAVE to have a detached home.
And then we have Calgary, the only American city outside the continental USA. Detached housing on hills where you have six cars for five residents, and hit the highway, then a left off to a blvd. , just to get to a corner store. Then winter hits. But you HAVE to have a detached home.
And because of that, despite the highest household incomes in Canada and strong population growth, it's one of the few places left in Canada where the median household can afford the median home.
I've lived in two dense, large cities, and retired to a town of about 75K and live in a SFH development. I don't miss the noise, the pollution, the crime, the aggressive panhandlers, the expensive housing, the weirdos on public transit like the man who sat across from me on the DC Metro years ago and decided he couldn't wait to get home to masturbate, and the dirty streets. I have friendlier neighbors here than I ever did in the cities, my neighborhood is perfectly safe to walk around in even at night, it's clean, and very quiet.
The 1100 square foot house I sold in 2002 in San Francisco sold again last year for $1.6 million. There's nothing "economical" about that, and not owing a car wouldn't begin to help pay for it. I drive fewer than 6000 miles a year including a few 200-mile round trips to visit my son, and don't feel the least bit guilty about it.
Just because something makes sense in theory doesn't mean it works for everyone in practice. People have different quality of life needs.
I've lived in two dense, large cities, and retired to a town of about 75K and live in a SFH development. I don't miss the noise, the pollution, the crime, the aggressive panhandlers, the expensive housing, the weirdos on public transit like the man who sat across from me on the DC Metro years ago and decided he couldn't wait to get home to masturbate, and the dirty streets. I have friendlier neighbors here than I ever did in the cities, my neighborhood is perfectly safe to walk around in even at night, it's clean, and very quiet.
The 1100 square foot house I sold in 2002 in San Francisco sold again last year for $1.6 million. There's nothing "economical" about that, and not owing a car wouldn't begin to help pay for it. I drive fewer than 6000 miles a year including a few 200-mile round trips to visit my son, and don't feel the least bit guilty about it.
Just because something makes sense in theory doesn't mean it works for everyone in practice. People have different quality of life needs.
Where as I miss the east coast where everything I need was in a 4 block radius, and a tank of gas lasted almost 3 weeks because everything was not so spread out, or not being stranded if my car broke down because the buses and trains ran most of the night, I still live in a major city now but it's a major city in Texas so everything is spaced out so a tank of gas may last one week if I'm careful because they don't have businesses where people actually live, on the east coast my street was house, house, coffee shop, house house, bar, house, house, deli, house, house, Bar, house, bakery, house, diner, garage, house, convenience store, house, bar, house, Grocery store, and most of the housed were 2 or 3 family units with a few 6 family units. and most streets and side streets around me had the same setup or similar.
I've lived in two dense, large cities, and retired to a town of about 75K and live in a SFH development. I don't miss the noise, the pollution, the crime, the aggressive panhandlers, the expensive housing, the weirdos on public transit like the man who sat across from me on the DC Metro years ago and decided he couldn't wait to get home to masturbate, and the dirty streets. I have friendlier neighbors here than I ever did in the cities, my neighborhood is perfectly safe to walk around in even at night, it's clean, and very quiet.
This seems to be a social issue of certain societies, not an issue of compact cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukiyo-e
The 1100 square foot house I sold in 2002 in San Francisco sold again last year for $1.6 million. There's nothing "economical" about that, and not owing a car wouldn't begin to help pay for it. I drive fewer than 6000 miles a year including a few 200-mile round trips to visit my son, and don't feel the least bit guilty about it.
This is due to other reasons, not related to the compact city, i.e. zoning laws, geographical limitations, geographic economic inequality etc. Not every compact city is as expensive as SF. The concept of a compact city itself makes housing more affordable. Housing would be even more expensive, if SF would be less compact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukiyo-e
Just because something makes sense in theory doesn't mean it works for everyone in practice. People have different quality of life needs.
I once found a wonderful clean and rather compact city to live in years ago. It is a very walkable and transit oriented city, where bikes are also a main source of transportation. A city I loved to call home as it met all my needs.
The city is Portland, OR. Unfortunately it was taken over by Radicals, homeless and druggies. That compact city fell into chaos and is now a dump and a National disgrace. I left at retirement time because of how bad things became in the area. I've never really found another compact city in the USA, that was as nice as Portland once was. It's a shame when you find one of these compact cities, where your needs are being met. Then it's allowed to basically become unlivable in many ways, and you know you have to leave.
I once found a wonderful clean and rather compact city to live in years ago. It is a very walkable and transit oriented city, where bikes are also a main source of transportation. A city I loved to call home as it met all my needs.
The city is Portland, OR. Unfortunately it was taken over by Radicals, homeless and druggies. That compact city fell into chaos and is now a dump and a National disgrace. I left at retirement time because of how bad things became in the area. I've never really found another compact city in the USA, that was as nice as Portland once was. It's a shame when you find one of these compact cities, where your needs are being met. Then it's allowed to basically become unlivable in many ways, and you know you have to leave.
What changed in Portland, to make it so different?
"Homeless/druggies & radicals" need a place too. How did they "collect" there?
Last edited by NORTY FLATZ; 11-29-2021 at 03:55 PM..
The city is Portland, OR. Unfortunately it was taken over by Radicals, homeless and druggies.
My wife is a native and her parents will be moving when they retire.
It's not up to planners and bureaucrats to decide what kind of city is best, it's up to people. I used to like living in DC in a dense neighborhood, but there's no way now you could pay me to live in San Francisco. I don't want to share walls or step outside into needles and human poop.
In America, there's freedom of choice. Some people want suburban Dallas sprawl, others want Midtown Manhattan, the two can co-exist, I don't see why people should be forced into one or the other.
My wife is a native and her parents will be moving when they retire.
It's not up to planners and bureaucrats to decide what kind of city is best, it's up to people. I used to like living in DC in a dense neighborhood, but there's no way now you could pay me to live in San Francisco. I don't want to share walls or step outside into needles and human poop.
In America, there's freedom of choice. Some people want suburban Dallas sprawl, others want Midtown Manhattan, the two can co-exist, I don't see why people should be forced into one or the other.
There is no freedom of choice in America, because planners and bureaucrats already have decided what kind of city is best and they decided it was sprawl. 75% of residential urban land in America is zoned for low density single family housing. The compact city is mostly illegal in America.
Sprawl is economically and ecologically disastrous. Planners and bureaucrats should forbid it, because society as a whole bears the consequences. The freedom of the individual always has an impact on the freedom of society as a whole. Selfish thinking doesn't get us any further. But for now it would be enough if we ended the anti compact city policies (i.e. minimum parking requirements, minimum setback requirements etc).
In addition, it should be noted that America, while large, is largely uninhabitable. The population is growing, but the available land is not. So sooner or later there will have to be more compact cities due to natural constraints. Otherwise the housing crisis will only intensify.
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.
