We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)(devonzuegel.com)
devonzuegel.com
We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
http://devonzuegel.com/post/we-should-be-building-cities-for-people-not-cars
335 comments
I'd share my perspective...
old cities were the best.
i visited some european cities and some middle eastern cities.
there are main roads where traffic is, and then there are streets.
Streets are NOT made of cement, softer the material the easier to walk on ... Dirt? the best.
Streets can sprawl 4 blocks in US city size.
Streets don't have any traffic, but cars can be parked here and there randomly. (car ownership is less)
What it did was that grocery, laundry, hardware store, restaurants, and pretty much everything was in walking distance... you didn't need a car. and there were no cars to get in your way.
But with 5 minutes of walking you could easily be next to highway and hail a taxi.
All that time I was there, I was like OOOMG this make soooo much sense, I dont need to drive 4 miles to some mega shopping mall to do shopping then come back find parking for 30 minutes.
Oh and nobody was fat. Since everyone did light walking daily. people were less stressed as there was culture and less stress.
I don't get why every street needs to have a freaking car in it.
from nyc btw.
old cities were the best.
i visited some european cities and some middle eastern cities.
there are main roads where traffic is, and then there are streets.
Streets are NOT made of cement, softer the material the easier to walk on ... Dirt? the best.
Streets can sprawl 4 blocks in US city size.
Streets don't have any traffic, but cars can be parked here and there randomly. (car ownership is less)
What it did was that grocery, laundry, hardware store, restaurants, and pretty much everything was in walking distance... you didn't need a car. and there were no cars to get in your way.
But with 5 minutes of walking you could easily be next to highway and hail a taxi.
All that time I was there, I was like OOOMG this make soooo much sense, I dont need to drive 4 miles to some mega shopping mall to do shopping then come back find parking for 30 minutes.
Oh and nobody was fat. Since everyone did light walking daily. people were less stressed as there was culture and less stress.
I don't get why every street needs to have a freaking car in it.
from nyc btw.
We don’t want cars, horses, trains, buses and things. They are all means to an end. The means of being able to move from place A to B quickly and in relative comfort.
People select whatever gets that means satisfied at the price they can afford. It’s a demand supply curve.
I take a bus to Seattle everyday even though it slower, but it’s way more confortable than driving. I always get a seat and I can read a book / get work done.
I wouldn’t take a crowded bus though. 545 is so crowded you can smell people’s sweat. I’d go back to driving. I love driving and bobbing my head to good music.
But most of the days, we don’t give a shit. We just want to get to work in morning and get back home in evening. We chose whatever means gets the job done!
People select whatever gets that means satisfied at the price they can afford. It’s a demand supply curve.
I take a bus to Seattle everyday even though it slower, but it’s way more confortable than driving. I always get a seat and I can read a book / get work done.
I wouldn’t take a crowded bus though. 545 is so crowded you can smell people’s sweat. I’d go back to driving. I love driving and bobbing my head to good music.
But most of the days, we don’t give a shit. We just want to get to work in morning and get back home in evening. We chose whatever means gets the job done!
I agree, but "people" should mean all people, not just the able bodied.
Cities keep on inexplicably designing these cool pedestrian only areas for the able bodied and young. There are people who can only travel limited distances, so if you set the beach front back half a mile, you've now cut it off from many older and disabled people.
What I am saying is: For the physically young and able, vehicle-less areas as great, for the elderly and or disabled, vehicles are an absolute lifeline to be able to gain access to things.
For a specific example, where I grew up the shops were pedestrianized (think outdoor mall), my mom had a stroke and struggles to walk, but can drive. The distance from a car door to a shop is a good ten minutes, so she simply doesn't go there. She goes to out-of-town supermarkets with disabled bays right near the entrance.
If the utopia this article wants comes to pass you have to design it with disabled access in mind. "Walk ten+ minutes" is a non-starter.
Cities keep on inexplicably designing these cool pedestrian only areas for the able bodied and young. There are people who can only travel limited distances, so if you set the beach front back half a mile, you've now cut it off from many older and disabled people.
What I am saying is: For the physically young and able, vehicle-less areas as great, for the elderly and or disabled, vehicles are an absolute lifeline to be able to gain access to things.
For a specific example, where I grew up the shops were pedestrianized (think outdoor mall), my mom had a stroke and struggles to walk, but can drive. The distance from a car door to a shop is a good ten minutes, so she simply doesn't go there. She goes to out-of-town supermarkets with disabled bays right near the entrance.
If the utopia this article wants comes to pass you have to design it with disabled access in mind. "Walk ten+ minutes" is a non-starter.
We definitely need to transition from a car-centric to a person-centric urban landscape. Free public storage (parking) of personal property is a blight, and it's reprehensible that polluting and environmentally damaging personal vehicles are given primary consideration in hundreds of cities. I do agree that it's ethically questionable that many of the wonderful commercial districts give up 10-20% of their land to park cars for a handful of citizens. Let's get solutions in the here and now to these car-centric nightmares.
However, let's also build for technology coming down the pipeline. Urban planners today need to think about the coming tsunami of driverless vehicles, as well as the steadily increasing trends of cycling, scootering, e-bikes, and other electric last-mile solutions. These technologies may not make a huge impact like the car, but if they do, our policy-makers should be planning for these potential game-changers.
For instance, with self driving cars, we must ask what will be their effects on institutions like city buses? Does it make sense to have massive often under-utilized buses which don't drop you at your desired location, or does it make better sense to have smaller, 5-10 person self driving vans which can dynamically adjust routes, dropping off riders at much more desirable locations? What about cycling, scooters, and such - will these become increasingly popular as self driving vehicles start to penetrate? I know I'd bike a lot more places if I didn't have to deal with very unskilled and inattentive drivers all over my narrow-streeted city. Does this mean, somewhat paradoxically, that self driving vehicles will actually reduce the number of vehicle trips in a city, while increasing other modes of transit? Will self driving vehicles in non-urban settings actually increase vehicle miles traveled, as couples in expensive metropolis areas realize they can commute twice as far if they get to kick back and relax during the journey?
The implications of these technologies, and others we haven't seen yet, are potentially massive. We need to bring these transport modalities into the discussion whenever we talk about reshaping our urban landscapes.
However, let's also build for technology coming down the pipeline. Urban planners today need to think about the coming tsunami of driverless vehicles, as well as the steadily increasing trends of cycling, scootering, e-bikes, and other electric last-mile solutions. These technologies may not make a huge impact like the car, but if they do, our policy-makers should be planning for these potential game-changers.
For instance, with self driving cars, we must ask what will be their effects on institutions like city buses? Does it make sense to have massive often under-utilized buses which don't drop you at your desired location, or does it make better sense to have smaller, 5-10 person self driving vans which can dynamically adjust routes, dropping off riders at much more desirable locations? What about cycling, scooters, and such - will these become increasingly popular as self driving vehicles start to penetrate? I know I'd bike a lot more places if I didn't have to deal with very unskilled and inattentive drivers all over my narrow-streeted city. Does this mean, somewhat paradoxically, that self driving vehicles will actually reduce the number of vehicle trips in a city, while increasing other modes of transit? Will self driving vehicles in non-urban settings actually increase vehicle miles traveled, as couples in expensive metropolis areas realize they can commute twice as far if they get to kick back and relax during the journey?
The implications of these technologies, and others we haven't seen yet, are potentially massive. We need to bring these transport modalities into the discussion whenever we talk about reshaping our urban landscapes.
This is one of those scaling vs. switching cost problems. If you have a small town, then cars are a better option than transit. In a large metropolis, transit is better. The problem is that as a city scales up, each individual step results in continually adding infrastructure for cars without ever making the active decision to switch, and redesign the entire city.
When a small town grows into a medium, it makes sense to add car infrastructure rather than rebuild everything. Again when you grow from medium to large it remains cheaper to add that new interchange rather than change the fundamental structure of the city. Growing from large city to metropolis often means incorporating other cities and their car based infrastructure, and making a coordinated move to anything else is extremely difficult/expensive.
Edit: I doubt we could properly identify the "next big metropolis" early enough to put the proper infrastructure in place. Even if we could, the politics surrounding who gets the infrastructure spending would cloud the process. Neither do I think we could simply set up a new metropolis some where and "build it correctly from the start".
The best bet is to find a means of bootstrapping the conversion of existing metropolises to walkable/dense/transit oriented methods. How do we mortgage the immense future benefits to apply pressure to make changes now? Is there an achievable half step toward the goal that provides enough benefit to drive the rest of the conversion? When I'm confronted with a switching cost vs scaling cost problem in operations, I would be putting in dual use infrastructure. Maintain compatibility while removing dependency.
When a small town grows into a medium, it makes sense to add car infrastructure rather than rebuild everything. Again when you grow from medium to large it remains cheaper to add that new interchange rather than change the fundamental structure of the city. Growing from large city to metropolis often means incorporating other cities and their car based infrastructure, and making a coordinated move to anything else is extremely difficult/expensive.
Edit: I doubt we could properly identify the "next big metropolis" early enough to put the proper infrastructure in place. Even if we could, the politics surrounding who gets the infrastructure spending would cloud the process. Neither do I think we could simply set up a new metropolis some where and "build it correctly from the start".
The best bet is to find a means of bootstrapping the conversion of existing metropolises to walkable/dense/transit oriented methods. How do we mortgage the immense future benefits to apply pressure to make changes now? Is there an achievable half step toward the goal that provides enough benefit to drive the rest of the conversion? When I'm confronted with a switching cost vs scaling cost problem in operations, I would be putting in dual use infrastructure. Maintain compatibility while removing dependency.
[deleted]
If walkable cities are so great, why did we ever invent cars?
For anyone who wants to see a pragmatic way to build cities and communities, I'd highly recommend Christopher Alexander's A Pattern Language. https://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Language-Buildings-Constructi...
I do a lot of traveling for business and staying in a city like Dallas, St. Louis, or some suburbia part of the bay area is absolutely my least ideal place to stay almost always. I love that uber exists, but my favorite part about traveling is walking around and doing photography so that I'm not just sitting in a depressing hotel. If everything interesting is at least 2 miles apart, it's hard to enjoy a city. And especially in Texas cities, many times there are no sidewalks so that walking even short distances is a big pain
> Websites like Zillow and Apartments.com offer calculations for commute length and walkability to everyday destinations like grocery stores
If I'm walking to the store, do I (a) try to carry 20+ grocery bags home for my family of five or (b) make a grocery trip twice a week? I don't love either of those.
And that's only groceries, not shopping in general. My wife got a 50lb bag of fertilizer from Tractor Supply yesterday morning. How close does that store need to be for walking to make sense? At the end of my driveway?
Basically....if you have a crowded city of apartments, sure, don't do much for cars. If you have a city of single-family residences (and three quarters of Americans do live in single-family residences), it's really hard to not build for cars.
If I'm walking to the store, do I (a) try to carry 20+ grocery bags home for my family of five or (b) make a grocery trip twice a week? I don't love either of those.
And that's only groceries, not shopping in general. My wife got a 50lb bag of fertilizer from Tractor Supply yesterday morning. How close does that store need to be for walking to make sense? At the end of my driveway?
Basically....if you have a crowded city of apartments, sure, don't do much for cars. If you have a city of single-family residences (and three quarters of Americans do live in single-family residences), it's really hard to not build for cars.
Visiting the Leonardo Da Vinci museum, I saw an exhibit where Leonardo did an urban design plan. In it, he made the street level pedestrian only. Under the street was another level for horses and wagons (cars and busses today), where each building had an underground entrance to this level through an underground garage. This seems like an elegant solution in an urban area from the man who invented the helicopter, parachute, and painted the Mona Lisa.
I'm one of those folks who would love to drop everything I have going to wander off into the desert/forest/underwater/whatever with the intention of bootstrapping a new city from scratch. The more I talk about it, I've found that there are a lot of people who would love such an adventure - if we could all just find some effort worth getting behind. It's sort of like starting a hippy commune, only with high-tech intentions. I'd rather embrace the world and one-up it than to hide away from it. I meet a lot of people who agree so I'm surprised there aren't more projects of this nature getting traction.
What I would like is an electric bike and a legal structure where I can take one on the freeway(goes at least 60mph) and in bike lanes(go slow there). Range 30mi.
Just so what we are on the same page: There are people in the cars.
I wonder if all these sour grapes about cars will simmer down if a generation comes along that can more easily afford them again.
The area I live in is pretty dense (a mixed commercial-suburbanish area in the most densely-populated state) and also very car-enabled, and it works out fine. The stores I go to are within minutes of driving for me, and work is 10-15 minutes away. I don't know the official term for such a thing, but near my apartment is what's like a micro-city that you can easily walk/bike around while car use isn't very hampered. The major grocery store's plaza gets a large parking lot and otherwise there are street parking areas. In the other direction are major high-traffic roads that connect to interstates. There are also major businesses around here with tech jobs, and they use large complexes with their own large parking lots. There's a lot I don't like about New Jersey but this kind of mixed area seems to work out really well and makes me question the necessity of block-style cities where it's just depressing concrete towers in a grid as far as the eye can see.
Maybe there are more solutions that just take some imagination to support both cars and others in increasingly-dense areas. More car bridges, extra lanes by replacing some sidewalks with sky bridges, underground tunnels, parking lots on the roofs, more reversible lanes, allow motorcycles to use shoulders. Just brainstorming here but I don't like the idea of throwing out the baby with the bathwater with cars - nothing else provides the same freedom to spontaneously go wherever you want on your own terms instead of being beholden to transit schedules or only being able to go as far as you can walk or bike.
The area I live in is pretty dense (a mixed commercial-suburbanish area in the most densely-populated state) and also very car-enabled, and it works out fine. The stores I go to are within minutes of driving for me, and work is 10-15 minutes away. I don't know the official term for such a thing, but near my apartment is what's like a micro-city that you can easily walk/bike around while car use isn't very hampered. The major grocery store's plaza gets a large parking lot and otherwise there are street parking areas. In the other direction are major high-traffic roads that connect to interstates. There are also major businesses around here with tech jobs, and they use large complexes with their own large parking lots. There's a lot I don't like about New Jersey but this kind of mixed area seems to work out really well and makes me question the necessity of block-style cities where it's just depressing concrete towers in a grid as far as the eye can see.
Maybe there are more solutions that just take some imagination to support both cars and others in increasingly-dense areas. More car bridges, extra lanes by replacing some sidewalks with sky bridges, underground tunnels, parking lots on the roofs, more reversible lanes, allow motorcycles to use shoulders. Just brainstorming here but I don't like the idea of throwing out the baby with the bathwater with cars - nothing else provides the same freedom to spontaneously go wherever you want on your own terms instead of being beholden to transit schedules or only being able to go as far as you can walk or bike.
It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". On the surface that kind of makes sense, using a large stick to strongly encourage change, but I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bit of traffic, or dropping a few bucks on an Uber/Lyft.
For example I live in a very public transit friendly city, but the buses are un-ridable most of the time due to the rampant homeless issue(and all that comes with a large homeless population) while the light rail is usually better about being a semi-safe, semi-clean environment, that just happens to be so overloaded between between 7am-9am, and 3pm-6pm, that there is almost any price I'd pay to avoid it.
The sad part is that no matter how excessive the taxes or how limited the parking the ones to suffer first, and worst, will be the low-income families and workers. The homeless will continue to do whatever they can get away with, and those of us with higher incomes will grumble a bit and pay the taxes. The only solution I've seen that has a chance to change this is to come down hard on poor public transit behavior, perhaps by putting actual people on the buses with the specific job of cracking down on the drunk/high/piss soaked/etc types, in an effort to improve the quality of the service to the point that the middle-upper income groups uses it again.
For example I live in a very public transit friendly city, but the buses are un-ridable most of the time due to the rampant homeless issue(and all that comes with a large homeless population) while the light rail is usually better about being a semi-safe, semi-clean environment, that just happens to be so overloaded between between 7am-9am, and 3pm-6pm, that there is almost any price I'd pay to avoid it.
The sad part is that no matter how excessive the taxes or how limited the parking the ones to suffer first, and worst, will be the low-income families and workers. The homeless will continue to do whatever they can get away with, and those of us with higher incomes will grumble a bit and pay the taxes. The only solution I've seen that has a chance to change this is to come down hard on poor public transit behavior, perhaps by putting actual people on the buses with the specific job of cracking down on the drunk/high/piss soaked/etc types, in an effort to improve the quality of the service to the point that the middle-upper income groups uses it again.
A more transparent slogan would be, "Let's build cities for walking and bicycles rather than cars." Or maybe "Let's build cities for walking and subways and electric scooters." Or whatever. But whatever means of transportation you optimize for today may be inappropriate a century from now. It was horses in the not-too-distant past, and as much as I like bicycles, I can imagine a figure in which bicycles and bike lanes are obsolete too.
I'd just like one small change to cities. Sidewalk escalators/treadmill of varying speeds. It would make commutes so much easier, plus people could actually get some modicum of a workout while commuting. I mean, it worked on the Jetson's, right?
The very title is as ridiculous on its face as is the underlying idea. It suggests that the car is a being of its own that the city was built for. It doesn't occur to the author that each car has at least one person in it. Almost always that person is driving so she may interact with other people, work with other people, or transact business with other people, or he is himself driving for a business that is doing work for other people.
The city was built so people can get around and interact with others. The means by which people are doing this is cars and trucks. The city is indeed built for people, which is precisely why the city accommodates cars: they are immensely useful means of transportation. It's ridiculous to suggest the city is "built for cars" as though the car is some sort of being with wants and demands. The car is serving the people of the city.
The city was built so people can get around and interact with others. The means by which people are doing this is cars and trucks. The city is indeed built for people, which is precisely why the city accommodates cars: they are immensely useful means of transportation. It's ridiculous to suggest the city is "built for cars" as though the car is some sort of being with wants and demands. The car is serving the people of the city.
Is productivity actually going to be increased by reducing the number of cars on the road? If not, then I wouldn't count on ever seeing a serious effort towards making cities less car-centric. A politician may help bring in some bike lanes here and there, but their interest is almost entirely in keeping their job.
For example, get rid of the gas tax. Toll all state and federally funded roads. Scale the toll according to the amount of wear and tear the vehicle causes for the road. Price something in to account for emissions. Make sure the tolls are high enough to pay for the road and its ongoing maintenance. Cameras capturing license plates at intersections can keep track of everything (tolled highways near me already work this way). Bonus points if you get municipalities on board and reduce property taxes being spent on transportation.
If you started doing stuff like this, I think people's choices will start to change. When it costs $5 to drive 30 minutes in to work every day, people are going to choose to live in big houses with big lots in suburbia and drive everywhere. When they have to pay the full cost of making that drive, their preferences may start to change.
Yes, a lot of stuff would have to change to get people to agree to this sort of thing and make it work. But the author is already talking about re-making cities, so we might as well do it in a way that maximizes freedom and consumer choice... right?