News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:New Cities by rwhitman on Monday June 27, 2016 @03:19PM (#11988702)
I've thought about this. My thought has been, bump the street level up one story to create a pedestrian / bicycle promenade and move building entrances to the second floor. Keep the existing street below intact, with parallel parking etc. Essentially build a boardwalk above a commercial street, so that traffic can flow below. (Though for ventilation purposes, it would be best if most cars at street level were electric.)

Raising the street grade one story has been done before, when flush toilets were introduced in the late 1800's. Notably in Seattle and Chicago but in pockets other low-lying cities as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground

Re:New Cities by dhd415 on Monday June 27, 2016 @03:33PM (#11988810)
That reminds me of a 1920s drawing of the "city of the future" that had several levels of roadway with a promenade or pedestrian level on the third or fourth story: https://worldstreets.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/future-city...
Re:New Cities by hammock on Monday June 27, 2016 @03:58PM (#11988990)
Downtown Chicago comes pretty close with subway on the lowest level, trucks and commuter rail above that, and cars/pedestrians on the surface. There is also a large network of pedestrian tunnels which is useful in winter (and when coming from aforementioned commuter trains).

And until 2003, there was even an airstrip only 2mi from downtown.

Re:New Cities by rspeer on Monday June 27, 2016 @10:12PM (#11991026)
As a somewhat frequent visitor to Chicago, I like the idea of the pedestrian tunnels, but they don't seem like a practical way to get around.

They're basically the separately-operated basements of stores, hotels, and office buildings networked together. Usually one of them between you and your destination will decide to lock the doors.

I've found myself nearly under my destination, encountering a locked door, and having to backtrack and find my way out through a fitness club.

Re:New Cities by rwhitman on Monday June 27, 2016 @05:38PM (#11989723)
Montreal's Underground City is a pretty great example of how to give public pedestrian connectivity underground in winter. Well worth checking out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_City,_Montreal
Re:New Cities by rwhitman on Monday June 27, 2016 @05:18PM (#11989586)
Yea it's also a pretty common sci-fi / cyberpunk fantasy city design dating back to Fritz Lang's Metropolis, influenced by the Art Deco "city of the future" ideas like this floating around at the time.

In NYC at least the lower levels are already present. But the only part where we got the pedestrian level correct so far is the High Line... which has been hugely successful. There's really no reason these types of park-like promenades only have to be built on top of existing disused structures however. More could be built, it's just that people need to understand that there is return on investment for building an elevated pedestrian-only street level.

Re:New Cities by ghaff on Monday June 27, 2016 @06:10PM (#11989931)
Except that in most cities including New York it's going to be difficult to build something like that in the absence of an existing structure and right of way. The High Line is also in effectively a post-industrial area which is now highly gentrified but wasn't previously exactly prime real estate. And it's still not really located for day to day pedestrian movement as opposed to recreation.
Re:New Cities by rwhitman on Monday June 27, 2016 @06:38PM (#11990072)
Totally agree, it would be a political and engineering mess to try and implement on an existing busy street. The conditions were very ripe to experiment with the high line.

Not an easy thing to develop certainly, but relative to the cost and level of engineering effort needed to build new subway tunnels, I'm surprised that adding transportation improvements at street-grade and then bumping the street up one level, isn't something that ever gets considered. We could run effective BRT through Manhattan, or surface light rail to solve the crosstown transportation problem.

Imagine how much easier getting from Queens and Brooklyn to the Lincoln and Holland tunnels would be by car or bus if say 39th St, Canal St moved the pedestrians to an elevated walkway. What if Times Square's tourist bottleneck could be eliminated by raising Times Square?

Anyhow, unlikely to happen probably ever, but fun thought excercise

Re:New Cities by athenot on Monday June 27, 2016 @04:11PM (#11989095)
For an extreme (and somewhat tongue-in-cheek) version of that, see The 5th Element. Everything happens in the sky and street-level becomes this shady area filled with trash and thugs. :)
Re:New Cities by derefr on Monday June 27, 2016 @05:03PM (#11989466)
Or Star Wars' planet Coruscant, or Futurama's New New York.
Re:New Cities by mastax on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @01:06PM (#11995448)
Or Deus Ex: Human Revolution's Shanghai
Re:New Cities by rsync on Monday June 27, 2016 @11:22PM (#11991273)
"I've thought about this. My thought has been, bump the street level up one story to create a pedestrian / bicycle promenade and move building entrances to the second floor."

This (sort of) already exists in Minneapolis (and to a much smaller extent, St. Paul and Duluth) courtesy of the skyway system.[1]

It's very well done and has created a completely separate urban ecosystem overlaid on top of the existing, street level, downtown.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Skyway_System

Re:New Cities by nulltype on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @01:43AM (#11991705)
Is it all indoors or is it outside as well?
Re:New Cities by guy_c on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @12:46AM (#11991546)
Or you have hot humid cities like Fukuoka and Taipei that move a lot of the pedestrian and retail underground. I think the best solutions depend a lot on the local weather conditions.
Re:New Cities by gwbas1c on Monday June 27, 2016 @04:32PM (#11989240)
Sacramento did that because of flooding.