New Urbanism Essentials

[Mulefisk 15]

Originally posted by: TRNSTN 

This place is gushing with oil money, first of all to be able to build in oasis plopped in the middle of nowhere desert, that's a lot of money/ new infrastructure. It's great that it's self-sustainable, but right now that's only a 90,000 (most likely rich people) solution. What about the 6.3 billion rest of us eh? Are they going to remodel every city like that? We need to improve and revamp our current cities with the CURRENT populations, because they are what matter more, they are the majority. Brand new cities are great, but the current cities are greater, and with some larger improvements, they can be great once again.quote>

 

Great post, but I have to comment on this.

Of course, the final goal will be to revamp our current cities. Cities like Masdar are simply testing areas to showcase how technology and urbanism can be integrated. Think of it like a wind tunnel. You don't just put new plane prototypes on the runway, you test them thoroughly. The same thing is being done with environmentaly friendly cities.

To implement areas like Masdar in current city centres would be impossible because of the effects it would have on the general population if it were to fail.

[Tarkus 6,932]

You do make some good point, TRNSTN, I will admit.  With regards to ethanol, I personally think it's a bad idea as well--it actually burns considerably less efficiently than gasoline, and it's still a hydrocarbon fuel (with oxygen atoms thrown in, which is why it is less efficient), so it's still going to be producing greenhouse gases when it is burnt.  The only things it has going for it are reduction of reliance on foreign oil, and environmentally safe production.  But in the form it's often marketed in right now (E85), the fuel still is 15% gasoline.

The problem with hydrogen cars is that the automakers are more or less just using them as PR stunts.  They always use the whole "there's no infrastructure" excuse, And the Big Oil companies always have these little "hydrogen fuel" webpages as well, but again, they're just window dressing, and they pull the whole "there's no cars"  excuse.  (Admittedly, Shell actually did put their money where their mouth is in Iceland, but that's a rare case.)  If hydrogen is going to work, it's going to have to be done with new automakers and new fuel companies, who can do it cheaply and effectively. 

I will also point out that the Shell station in Iceland, as well as Honda's prototype station on their proving grounds involve on-site hydrogen production through electrolytic separation of water, and thus, there is no need to transport the fuel.

There's other options as well--compressed air cars.  Tata Motors of India is going into production of them later this year.  Again, the fuel can be generated on-site, either through a commercial fueling station, or at home (home refilling takes much longer).  The vehicles are also rather inexpensive as well, as is the commercial refueling cost.  (The article estimates the car at $12,700 and refueling at $2). 

The whole "the fuel needs to be transported by fossil-fuel-powered tankers" argument is not valid with hydrogen or compressed air fuel.

Originally posted by: TRNSTN

Anyways my point is if I can just walk to the theatre, the restaurant, the grocery store, I would choose not to have to pay for car insurance, gas, car repairs/ maintenance, changing my tires, batteries, change my windshield wiper fluid, find a parking space, pay for parking, and grow a tumor because of road rage and stupid drivers. You never get stupid walkers because we're all instinctively great walkers (based on years of experience and out innate ability to walk).

quote>

If you want to geographically limit yourself to a few city blocks, that is your choice.  I personally prefer to have options to independently move about, and I think many others feel the same.  So trying to impose it on others by "eliminating suburbia" (as screamingman wants to do) is not a viable option.  The reason why larger cities in Europe and elsewhere are more successful is because people want to live there.  Trying to guilt people into living in dense areas (which New Urbanists I've run across do non-stop) is not going to work.  Some people just prefer lower densities.

There's also the concept of free parking.  Charging for parking is an urban phenomenon.  I've never seen a parking meter in a suburban area before.  If things are decentralized, there's more room for parking, and thus, there's no need to charge for it.  And windshield wiper fluid is not expensive, nor does it need to be refilled that often.  If you're worried about maintenance and what not, scooters are a viable option--if you get one under 50cc, you don't even need a motorcycle endorsement (at least here in Oregon).  I have a 49cc Honda, which I ride regu

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: TarkusThe fact that New Urbanists/Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) proponents are scared of cars seems to suggest to me that this movement is wholly reactionary.  It has one foot deeply planted in Neo-Luddism.  By taking the car out of the equation, one would effectively be curtailing mobility back to 19th Century levels.  One would effectively be exclusively reliant on modes of transportation which are severely limited in where they go, and when they leave/arrive.  Again, I must ask, why?

And the fact of the matter is, alternative fuels and forms of propulsion for automobiles are in the works, which are far less damaging to the environment.  Once these technologies are implemented, there really will be no real legitimate reason to "hate" cars anymore, as many NU/TOD enthusiasts seem to do.quote>

Well, while emissions are an issue with cars, they are not the only issue. The other key issue is efficiency- both of energy, and of space. Driving by car uses far more energy per person than traveling by bus or train, no matter where that energy comes from. So even if every car on the planet used completely emission free propulsion, it would still be beneficial to have fewer of them.

And a six lane freeway can, at best, carry about 100,000 cars per day (which means about 105,000 people per day in the US, where the average car on the road has 1.05 people in it) before traffic starts becoming an issue. On the other hand, a train line can transport that many people with only two tracks- or about a third of the space.

Still, there is limited reliability to the idea of increasing efficiency by trying to make everyone travel together, since people are coming from and going to different places. And, again, a trip by car is going to be faster than a trip by train or bus, provided there's no traffic.

This is really the idea between favoring higher population density. Mass transit - which is more efficient - works a lot better in denser areas. Still, no matter how many trains or buses you have, they are never going to be more convenient to use than cars unless you start going crazy with traffic calming measures on the streets- which is detrimental since it's shifting the balance by making the most convenient method less convenient, not by making a less convenient method more convenient. People don't take kindly to being prodded into avoiding using their cars by having annoyances imposed on doing so. Traffic calming does more harm than good, and it is thus going about things the wrong way in most cases. You will get further and have things be friendlier if you reward people for using mass transit as opposed to punishing them for using cars (tax breaks for train tickets, anyone?).

Still, it may be silly to have things be car exclusive, but it's equally silly to have things be car-free. True, America is often too car-dependent, but "removing the automobile from the equation" is being overly extreme. The key is finding a proper balance between cars, pedestrians, and mass transit- and no cars is not a proper balance. Look at it this way- if you're really fat, it's unhealthy, but it's also unhealthy to be really skinny. You need some fat on you to be healthy. It's the same with America and cars. We may have a car obesity issue, but saying "remove the automobile from the equation" isn't healthy dieting- it's downright anorexic. Our dependence on cars needs to decrease, not disappear.

[screamingman12 30]

Regardless of what you use to power cars, people will still demand transit.

Why?

You can only build so much freeway, no matter where you put it. You will eventually get to the point where you will end up having a freeway proposed going through your backyard if we continue to follow the model that many suggest. At some point, people will get tired of the traffic congestion and demand a fix to it, that is what rail transit is, primarliy, a fix to the freeway problem. However, we are seeing a return in streetcars and development of sustainable cities and developments. America currently spends at lowest $500,000,000,000 on the pirvate automobile, this does not include the after-effects of the society that it has produced, such as the obesity epidemic, the healthcare crisis, and above all, Climate Change; not to mention the millions who die and are injured in car crashes.

While electric and hydrogen cars can certainly reduce oil dependance and pollution, they do nothing to shrink the status gap between the rich (consider again the cost of these things) or to lessen the socio-economic effects of auto owners versus non-owners, do nothing to halt the self-destructive cycle of freeway construction, do not lower vehicular deaths, and do not support the use of land for parks, nature conservatories, or agriculture.

Indeed, if you cannot re-make slums and blighted areas of urban centers, how will the crime, gang, and inter-city education problems be solved? If you cannot move people back into neighborhoods, if you cannot re-develop them, how can you even begin to claim that you have a 'sound' place to live, if its core is collapsing?

At last, any dollars that the public invests into buying and maintaining cars goes to the oil and auto companies, whereas the economic stimulus of having a livable, accessible city core via mass transit get invested back into the community in the form of structured and dense growth and development.

http://www.vtpi.org/autodep.pdf
"We draw the line not against wealth, but against misconduct"-Theodore Roosavelt.

[hamsterTK 93]

The reason why larger cities in Europe and elsewhere are more successful is because people want to live there.  Trying to guilt people into living in dense areas (which New Urbanists I've run across do non-stop) is not going to work.quote>

But what if people do want to live in a place running out of room and the need to go denser happens? Suburban sprawl chokes out development potential and it's a waste of land when you have only so much to build on in a situation like that. Sure sprawl in theory would not happen then, but in practice things don't take place in a vacuum.

Also, for getting around I think it comes down to ease of access than just mode.

As I said earlier, where I am there is a commercial development literally behind the fence but you have to go a long way to get there. Even driving is awkward because I have to turn off on a busy road without a middle lane and then wait for a light. Now look at any desirable traditional neighborhood and you'll notice a lot of times access to nearby points of interest is less complicated. New Urbanism is just trying to recreate that.

Still, it may be silly to have things be car exclusive, but it's equally silly to have things be car-free. True, America is often too car-dependent, but "removing the automobile from the equation" is being overly extreme. The key is finding a proper balance between cars, pedestrians, and mass transit- and no cars is not a proper balancequote>

that's my attitude.

[Tarkus 6,932]

HamsterTK, I completely understand the ease of access thing, and definitely agree with you there.  It's a very valid criticism.  But I don't think that's an issue of density--that's just an issue of bad planning in terms of the placement of roads/pedestrian paths.  I believe the same thing can be accomplished within a very low-density environment.  And I have seen high-density environments where this is not accomplished. 

As far as my beef with Portland goes, my feelings on it are actually rather mixed.  There are parts of it that are okay, but the land use laws there (and in Oregon in general) are just plain silly, particularly with the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) concept and perhaps moreso in how it is employed.  I personally am a believer in keeping natural open space and farmland within a low-density suburban environment and not restricting such places to areas outside the UGB.  This was how the western suburbs were for many years, up until the mid-1990s. 

Since then, there's been a bunch of high-density development which has displaced farms and resulted in forests being clearcut, especially since the light rail line went in, and Metro felt the need for supposedly "transit-oriented development". 

This higher density development, while it does have easy access to the light rail, has not equated to ridership.  About 50-60% of the western part of the MAX Blue Line is very sparsely ridden, between Hillsboro and Beaverton Transit Center, despite acres upon acres of condos and townhouses being thrown up right next to the line.  And these "transit-oriented developments" were usually placed in areas not close to anything, and have often failed quite miserably at being anything other than bedroom communities (and even then, they haven't done all that well).  Some of them also fail outright, like CascadeStation near the Portland Airport, which is now the site of an IKEA, a Best Buy and other "big box" stores.

And beyond this, they also have implemented this supposed "Town Center" concept, in which they have selected certain areas, seemingly at random, for siting high-density development, regardless of whether or not the surrounding infrastructure can support it.  The Bethany area is a prime example of this--the population tripled over a 10 year period, yet few of the roads have been widened, and ODOT only just finished widening US 26 from 4 to 6 lanes in the past couple years.  And with regards to the "what about mass transit?" question, these areas also have infrequent and horribly slow bus service at best.

All Metro believes in is throwing up a bunch of high-density development and making it difficult for people to get around, and they've even said in their press materials that this is their goal, that it supposedly makes the area more "livable".  And a lot of New Urbanists consider Portland to be a "smart growth" Mecca.  Go figure.

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

But what if people do want to live in a place running out of room and the need to go denser happens? Suburban sprawl chokes out development potential and it's a waste of land when you have only so much to build on in a situation like that. Sure sprawl in theory would not happen then, but in practice things don't take place in a vacuum.

quote>

That is also a good point, but the fact of the matter that with technology progressing the way it is, I personally see decentralization becoming increasingly possible.  The goal really should be not to want to overcrowd any one area. 

-Tarkus

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Adding freeways does not reduce congestion, they increase traffic, which recongests them.  Building more roads enables more decentralization, which increases the number and distance of automobile trips.  If adding more freeways reduced congestion, then cities like LA would not have congestion problems.  The analogy is "fighting obesity by letting out your belt."

Even if you greened suburbia, it would still be less energy efficient than an un-green urban environment, simply by virtue of the planning (shorter and less trips).  Making the urban environment green as well makes the difference between the two even greater.

The suburbs have higher rates of depression and obesity.

The suburbs' "danger factor" is higher than the cities.  The danger factor is the chance of an upstanding citizen dying that day.  The cities have higher murder rates (almost all of which are non-random), but the suburbs have far greater deaths due to car accidents.  In actuallity, you are less likely to die in the city.

Highways destroy communities, and make them less desirable (lower values).  The highways also enable urban abandonment (by enabling suburbs).  The highways helped create blight.  Also, at least in Detroit, most of the slumlords are actually from the suburbs.

Even large roads are not good for business.  You'll find that in urban areas (areas on the tipping point), that the commercial strips on narrow streets do better than those on large streets, due to the visibility of storefronts/signs, and by being pedestrian friendly.

The real solution to reducing road congestion is reducing the length and frequency of car trips.  This can be done by putting people closer to where they need to go.  It can also be done through mass transportation, which simply takes people off the roads and into more efficient means.

Also, mass transit like light rail is better than busses, which is better than nothing (parking lots?).  Studies have shown increased levels of investment around light rail stops, and the high capital costs of light rail are indrectly paid off by the increased investment.  That is, light rail is not a money drain, it is an economic investment.  Buses do not attract similar investment because routes can be changed and stops can be removed at any time.

Mass transit also improves the mobility of the poor and the young, making them more economically productive.  There's a big chicken/egg situation with cars and jobs, and mass transit eliminates that problem.

Most people don't like highways.  They don't like driving to work, and finding a parking spot, and getting stuck in traffic, etc.  (Good spirited) people enjoy their mass transit commute.  They spend the time reading newspapers, books, using laptops, and talking with friends (yes, you will meet people on the bus/train).

The suburban model is not currently "sucsessful" because of it's spatial/social characteristics.  It's sucsessful because it's not the city.  In the past, cities were industrialized, and "undesireable" (black, immigrant, etc.) populations immigrated to them.  Sanitation, fire safety, and true overcrowding existed.  Jeffersionian and other idealized/romanticized versions of agrarian life made the suburb even more appealing.  All of this together created a really bad image for the city.  But by the time real suburbs started, these problems did not really exist like they did before (houses had indoor plumbing added by the 60s, etc.).  And the mass urban flight made problems worse, and created problems that had only been perception beforehand.

If you look at inner ring suburbs, they are falling apart.  Malls are abandoning, houses aren't being sold, etc.  Some new subdivisions are already abandoned.  But<

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Indeed, if you cannot re-make slums and blighted areas of urban centers, how will the crime, gang, and inter-city education problems be solved? If you cannot move people back into neighborhoods, if you cannot re-develop them, how can you even begin to claim that you have a 'sound' place to live, if its core is collapsing?quote>

This is starting to sound like gentrification... which most urbanites these days tend to look upon with disgust. And with good reason. Listen to what you're saying: "re-make slums and blighted areas". What do you think the people who call that slum home will think of that? They won't like it too much, since it means they'll no longer be able to afford living there and get forced to find greener (or, in this case, less green) pastures. This is the old destructive attitude of looking at slums as ugly blemishes that need to be removed as opposed to havens for the poor all over again. That "blighted urban center" is not a barren wasteland. People live there. People who would like to continue living there, who will not be able to if this "banish the blight" type model is applied. Besides, as stated- they will not just vanish into thin air. They will just go elsewhere and they will take their blight with them. Re-developing/clearing slums is treating the symptom, not the underlying cause- and thus it achieves nothing in the long run.

Originally posted by: Jasoncw Adding freeways does not reduce congestion, they increase traffic, which recongests them.  Building more roads enables more decentralization, which increases the number and distance of automobile trips.  If adding more freeways reduced congestion, then cities like LA would not have congestion problems.  The analogy is "fighting obesity by letting out your belt."quote>

Induced demand- The tragedy of a highway, once built, being used as intended.

Satire aside, that is a valid argument- but only to a degree. Do you think that building rail lines doesn't enable decentralization? Besides, the whole "letting out your belt" thing is misapplied here. It's not like people are buying more cars and using them more because of a new highway. All that is is more people moving in. It's not getting fatter, it's growing, which all cities do regardless, since last I checked the population of the world is going up, not down- more people need more homes and more infrastructure.

The suburbs have higher rates of depression and obesity.quote>

I don't doubt that claim but would you mind citing a source?

The suburbs' "danger factor" is higher than the cities.  The danger factor is the chance of an upstanding citizen dying that day.  The cities have higher murder rates (almost all of which are non-random), but the suburbs have far greater deaths due to car accidents.  In actuallity, you are less likely to die in the city.quote>

Again, source please. Besides, sure you might not have as many car accidents in cities, but what about bus accidents? Train accidents? Pedestrian accidents? Any other cause of death? Look at the whole picture, not just car deaths and murders.

Highways destroy communities, and make them less desirable (lower values).  The highways also enable urban abandonment (by enabling suburbs).  The highways helped create blight.quote>

Well, that's the paradox here. Most people don't want a highway right in their backyard, but they would prefer not to be too far away from one, either. They don't want to live near one, but they want convenient access to one.

Also, mas

[Mulefisk 15]

Originally posted by: Duke87

This is starting to sound like gentrification... which most urbanites these days tend to look upon with disgust. And with good reason. Listen to what you're saying: "re-make slums and blighted areas". What do you think the people who call that slum home will think of that? They won't like it too much, since it means they'll no longer be able to afford living there and get forced to find greener (or, in this case, less green) pastures. This is the old destructive attitude of looking at slums as ugly blemishes that need to be removed as opposed to havens for the poor all over again. That "blighted urban center" is not a barren wasteland. People live there. People who would like to continue living there, who will not be able to if this "banish the blight" type model is applied. Besides, as stated- they will not just vanish into thin air. They will just go elsewhere and they will take their blight with them. Re-developing/clearing slums is treating the symptom, not the underlying cause- and thus it achieves nothing in the long run.

quote>

If we were to stop gentrification completely, the urban centres of the US would never see any kind of redevelopment. If the urban centres aren't redeveloped to allow for a new demographic of inhabintants to move in, you are left with 2 alternatives. 

1. People keep living in suburbs and the suburbs expand.

2. New cities are established, and old city centres are abandoned completely, and left to poor people. Buildings dilapitate, businesses move out, and their situation becomes even worse.

You're right, the key to eradicating ghettoes is doing away with the cause, poverty. However, getting rid of poverty is an immense project that will take years to accomplish. 

It's really a loose-loose situation. If ghettoes are knocked down or redeveloped, the poor suffer. If suburbanism is allowed to continue, the environment suffers. Which is more important?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Mulefisk It's really a loose-loose situation. If ghettoes are knocked down or redeveloped, the poor suffer. If suburbanism is allowed to continue, the environment suffers. Which is more important?quote>

"loose-loose"?  Are you suggesting it needs a lot of tightening?

Anyway, it's not like it's one or the other. We don't need to choose between destroying ghettos and building more suburbs. There's a false dichotomy there. How about building new dense urban areas where you're not kicking poor people out of their homes in doing so? There are plenty of neighborhoods in or near cities which are already rather upscale but which are full of lowrises. How about building them up, instead? Or what about where you already have thriving business districts that aren't dilapidated? Just build out and up on them! Let the slums be.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

I don't have a source for the danger factor, since they were told to me through lectures.  Once by Jonathan Rose on Feb 8th 2008 and once by Douglas Kelbaugh, I believe on December 8th 2007.  I believe that Doug Kelbaugh also mentioned the depression/obesity bit, but I don't remember. 

I'm pretty sure that the danger factor also included other forms of death, from health issues and whatnot.

But trains derailing or crashing are not common at all.  And car/pedestrian train accidents are more likely to occur in suburbs, because in cities rails are usually grade separated.  And I don't think it's hard for anyone who's been in a city to believe that pedestrians get ran over more often in the suburbs.

Rail lines also enable suburbs.  Some of the earliest suburbs were streetcar suburbs, where developers built a suburb, and built a rail line so that they could get to the city.  And I think that if you extended light rail lines the way they do highways, it would also probably increase congestion on the light rail lines.  Like I said before, I think that congestion can be reduced by reducing the length and frequency of trips.

Successful light rail systems have been built in areas with surprisingly low densities.  The density argument only works in the most undense of suburbs.  If Atlanta can get mass transit working, anyone can.

People would turn their nose at the thought of riding a bus, but they still don't actually like their commute.  It's a constant game of trying to beat rush hour, or getting ahead of the other cars, getting frusterated at traffic jams, etc.  I think most people can easily relate to the traffic part in Office Space.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: Duke87

True, but light rail is not a cure-all magic bullet. It won't work in every situation. If you have an area that's not densely populated enough, there'll be no demand and no one will ride it. But if you have an area that's too densely populated, it'll get in the way unless you can completely segregate it from cars and pedestrians- which means elevating it or tunneling it, no at grade crossings with anything- at which point you might as well just build a normal subway. It's called "light rail" for a reason. It's, well, like rail, only lighter. Some situations can't be supported by it and call for full fledged heavy rail (Manhattan....). Yes, subways would more expensive. But there are times where they would also actually work- whereas light rail simply won't cut it. Trying to support such cases with light rail is like trying to support a skyscraper with twigs. It's insufficient and won't cut it. Let's do the job right as opposed to doing it cheap, eh?quote>

Light rail and streetcars are not meant to replace or divert subway or HRT alignments, they are meant to be substitutes/supplements for existing bus service. A subway or an el may still need constructing, and I don't debate that, but LRT is meant to serve as a midpoint between the high and low ends of the spectrum, being used in areas too dense for bus service, but not requiring a subway, as well as acting as an advancement over basic bus service in urban centers.

On what are you basing this statement that most people don't like highways?  In my experience, there are a lot of people who would say quite the opposite- who would completely turn their nose up at the idea of taking a bus or train and insist on nothing less than their cars. Besides, it isn't highways people have a problem with, it's being stuck in traffic on them. If you eliminate the traffic jams, that's not a problem. Trouble is, eliminating those jams is easier said than done- especially if you're talking about building more highways. Adding mass transit is easier to push through, but it still only improves the situation, it doesn't make the traffic vanish.quote>

This is why you build transit, to tell the people who want to glue themselves to their SUVs to shove it. It's not the fact that people don't like freeways, but the fact that sometimes they are the only realistic method of transportation available. All too often a city government will make the mistake of looking at a freeway and saying "well, people use it, so we can't get them to change", whereas, in fact, the majority of people will change if given the opportunity.