66 replies to this topic

[runawayjim]

jascowhiz0, on Aug 3 2007, 01:52 AM, said:

Ok, say new urbanism is the widespread norm.  My favorite bakery is in the next town, the doctor I like is two towns away, and I now have to drive 20+ minutes to the old suburban sprawl to get to bestbuy because the local electronics shop is more expensive due to the small amount of people it caters.  Is new urbanism really an answer?  I think we should be designing cities around a 5-10 minute car drive, not a 5-10 minute walk.

do you like urbanism or are you here just to troll the boards with messages bashing what people here are all about?  cities were never built around the car, nor should they ever be.  maybe you should consider joining suburbanplanet if you want to use your car for everything.  i don't think i've ever been to a city where no one walked and everyone drove because they were designed so things were inaccessible to those walking.

and did you ever stop and consider that the cost of gas and the wear and tear on your car is bringing up the prices of the stuff you buy at best buy to those that you could be buying at the local place?

[jascowhiz0]

runawayjim, on Aug 4 2007, 09:14 AM, said:

do you like urbanism or are you here just to troll the boards with messages bashing what people here are all about?  cities were never built around the car, nor should they ever be.  maybe you should consider joining suburbanplanet if you want to use your car for everything.  i don't think i've ever been to a city where no one walked and everyone drove because they were designed so things were inaccessible to those walking.

and did you ever stop and consider that the cost of gas and the wear and tear on your car is bringing up the prices of the stuff you buy at best buy to those that you could be buying at the local place?

  I can buy Harry Potter at Wal-Mart for 18 dollars.  Trip in miles, 2.  Wear and tear and gas total 80 cents.  Or I could walk to a local store.  Buy Harry Potter for 38 dollars.  Unless the local stores around my house are an anomaly, I would rather buy it at Wal-Mart.  

Before you start jumping onto new urbanism and all its greatness, stop and think about what it is really doing.  Removing the car (or other similar forms of transportation) is like trying to remove the internet, the world will be worse without it.  The car is a step forward because it enables us to go farther quicker and we don't have to carry anything.  The car allows us to have breathing space.  I don't know about you, but I like my useless front lawn.  It makes the neighborhood look nice.  I like my big backyard because dogs and kids can roam around without worry.  This is just a personal preference, but when you live in the South it gets hot and rains unpredictably.  I don't want to walk for 15 minutes in Southern weather.

By designing a city around a car, it allows more people to shop at one store which would allow for cheaper things.  If it wasn't true big box stores would not have destroyed local stores.  If you don't want to use cars, build a good public transportation system.  The only difference between a car and a carless city is the car city would be bigger by a factor of 10-20, but in terms of actual commute times it would be exactly the same.


  Ok, say new urbanism is built.  It takes 5-10 min walk to get to a store.  Why would I walk, when I could just get in my car and be back in 2 minutes?  Trying to remove a car will be too hard and people will drive anyway.  This then allows for, “my favorite doctor is two towns away," problem, " and driving would only take 10 minutes to get there."

New Urbanism is an interesting topic; it could work in the real world with very small populations.  The problem is once the population becomes too big New Urbanism will fail miserably.





One last note, cities weren't built around the car historically becuase the car did not exist, not becuase the car is  bad.

[Uncle Dennis]

jascowhiz0, on Aug 2 2007, 11:52 PM, said:

Ok, say new urbanism is the widespread norm.  My favorite bakery is in the next town, the doctor I like is two towns away, and I now have to drive 20+ minutes to the old suburban sprawl to get to bestbuy because the local electronics shop is more expensive due to the small amount of people it caters.  Is new urbanism really an answer?  I think we should be designing cities around a 5-10 minute car drive, not a 5-10 minute walk.

If price is the main consideration of your purchase, the heir to the Big Box store is the Internet, lower prices, delivered to your door.  

I have been carless for about 3 years.  I don't hate cars, and I am not trying to save the environment.  I live in a rapidly growning downtown, and a car is just an inconvenience!  My desire to walk has allowed me to meet and get to know many more people that when I drove.  I am a realtor, and often I need a car to take clients to potential properties.  I rent a car, always clean, always full of gas, and 100% deductable.  If my favorite bakery was 20 miles away, I would schedule trips there when I had access to a car.  I can't imaging having to go there daily.

There is no question that I am limiting my income potential by focusing on such a small area for my business, but I will probably make 3x the average income for the city I live in, and I am afforded more time for my personal life.  

On a broader scale, when I think of New Urbanism as a developmental tool, I think of it more of a way to control spending on infrastructure than anything else.  All cities have a core, and growing cities have an increased need for non urban people to get into urban areas for work, entertainment, sports, governmental needs, etc.  In these urban cores, there is a finite amount of space available to store your vehicle.  There is a finite number of interstate exit ramps that can be built to maintain traffic flow both on the interstates, and surface streets.  New roads near the core are prohibitively expensive both in dollars and political capital.  Widening existing roads has the same effect.

New Urbanism encourages reuse of existing infrastructure by increasing density.  Increased density allows for a more cost effective transit system to develop.  It is sort of like creating a macro in Excel to do repetitive tasks over and over more effectively.

Anyway, I chose not to wait for the city to be right for my view of new urbanism, but to live my view, and watch the city come to me.

UD

[runawayjim]

jascowhiz0, on Aug 5 2007, 12:23 AM, said:

I can buy Harry Potter at Wal-Mart for 18 dollars.  Trip in miles, 2.  Wear and tear and gas total 80 cents.  Or I could walk to a local store.  Buy Harry Potter for 38 dollars.  Unless the local stores around my house are an anomaly, I would rather buy it at Wal-Mart.  

Before you start jumping onto new urbanism and all its greatness, stop and think about what it is really doing.  Removing the car (or other similar forms of transportation) is like trying to remove the internet, the world will be worse without it.  The car is a step forward because it enables us to go farther quicker and we don't have to carry anything.  The car allows us to have breathing space.  I don't know about you, but I like my useless front lawn.  It makes the neighborhood look nice.  I like my big backyard because dogs and kids can roam around without worry.  This is just a personal preference, but when you live in the South it gets hot and rains unpredictably.  I don't want to walk for 15 minutes in Southern weather.

By designing a city around a car, it allows more people to shop at one store which would allow for cheaper things.  If it wasn't true big box stores would not have destroyed local stores.  If you don't want to use cars, build a good public transportation system.  The only difference between a car and a carless city is the car city would be bigger by a factor of 10-20, but in terms of actual commute times it would be exactly the same.
  Ok, say new urbanism is built.  It takes 5-10 min walk to get to a store.  Why would I walk, when I could just get in my car and be back in 2 minutes?  Trying to remove a car will be too hard and people will drive anyway.  This then allows for, “my favorite doctor is two towns away," problem, " and driving would only take 10 minutes to get there."

New Urbanism is an interesting topic; it could work in the real world with very small populations.  The problem is once the population becomes too big New Urbanism will fail miserably.
One last note, cities weren't built around the car historically becuase the car did not exist, not becuase the car is  bad.

don't walk 15 minutes, take the bus/trolley/streetcar/subway.  you left out the transit aspect of new urbanism.

you designing a city around the car leads to a much more sprawled out city.  guess what?  that's bad for the environment.  there's less open space.  your kids want a place to run around, they can do it at the park down the street.  building sprawling cities and suburbs makes for less rural areas.

new urbanism works best with large dense populations, not small populations.  look at new york.  need i say more?  it's the most densely populated city in the country.  the vast majority of people who live there don't own cars because there's no need.  while new york might be an extreme, it can work on a smaller scale, but still requires a dense population.

you mention it taking 2 minutes to drive if your neighborhood became a new urbanism area.  you forgot to add the 5 minutes it takes to drive around and around looking for parking because new urbanism doesn't allow surface lots because they're not necessary and don't belong in a city.

i'm not talking getting rid of cars, i'm talking using them only when necessary.  people use them when they're not necessary, including people who live in dense cities.

[cloudship]

Jascowhiz0 - I think there might be some confusion over New Urbanism versus Urbanism. New Urbanism is a theory of redesigning towns and suburbs with principals of Urbanism. That is, density, cohesiveness, and integration. The principles, or rather the reasons for this, lie primarily in creating a more social environment leading to safety, better involvement in the neighborhood, and less impact on the environment. The idea is to create a more pleasant and responsive place to live.

I think I understand what you are saying about the convenience of a car. And to some extent I agree - there are benefits to a car, and benefits to living in the suburb. Thus, many people seek to move there. However, there are issues with this as well. The biggest is the environmental impact - wasted space, vast paved areas leading to increased heat, temperature fluctuations, and water runoff problems, major water quality issues and water resource issues, unpleasant conditions, and major pollution hazards. In addition to environmental issues, many of our "sprawling" suburbs are subject to rising crime, lack of community involvement and identity, economic problems, as most of the money spend gets siphoned off to corporate centers halfway around the world, and major social issues as people become more defensive of their own world and have less involvement and interaction with others.

So, I think you are right about some of the issues you have brought up about wanting a nice yard, needing the convenience of a car, and your concerns about costs. However, I think you might be being a little short sighted in that you are only looking at it's immediate effects on yourself. What you are saving now is going to cost you much more in the long run -  Those big box retailers no longer can respond to local conditions and needs, thus driving up your costs and limiting your selection. Your money is not getting circulated back into the community - most of it goes somewhere else. You now have to deal with those water issues and pollution issues, and you have to deal with traffic issues and greater crime.

Ideally, there is a balance somewhere. But getting to that balance point is going to cost a little money and effort up front, and require a bit of thinking ahead. There very well may be a way to get it all, but it's going to involve some investment.

[cpuchowicz]

New Urbanism is an urban design movement that burst onto the scene in the late 1980s and early 1990s. New Urbanists aim to reform all aspects of real estate development.

[Jack_Stuart]

In my opinion the new urbanism is a very general word. On the other hand, many new styles influence on the process of urbanisation. Personally, I like these principles of the new urbanism, especially first point about the neighborhood has a discernible center. This is often a square or a green and sometimes a busy or memorable street corner. A transit stop would be located at this center. Very clever!