What we cannot comprehend is that walkable city life is aspirational; the luxury, the tactile beauty, the convenience, a sense of safety. Rather, we see parking problems, small living spaces, and waiting for busses. Or carrying groceries, like a peasant. Or the brutal concrete jungles of NYC.
Instead, the paradigm shift requires imaging the calm and splendor of walking in Bruges or Amsterdam, the quiet grandeur of Madrid or Vienna on a Sunday morning, the verdancy and fragrance of a Japanese suburb, Oxford's accessible country side, the convenience of having your kids and parents be independently mobile, ...
There are even stellar examples closer at home. Imagine Savannah, Charleston, Asheville, ... All tourist traps, and really expensive. Some people know what's up, but not enough. It will get better, as more and more people travel more.
Is it? It's not that long ago that highways were driven intentionally through Black neighborhoods [1]. What humans can do they can also undo, all it needs is politicians with guts.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-...
Good politicians are of no use to a country where half the people can vote for Trump.
Is it really possible that half the country (or more, according to latest polls) are bat crazy?
Is it possible that you are getting information from news sources and thinkers that are biased and reflect one storyline; while the other half of the country gets their facts and forms their opinions from sources that are biased the other way and reflect a different story-line?
Which makes you think they have gone off the kilter and have no logic, and makes them think the exact same thing about you.
I mostly headlines from RCP, BUT I make a point of reading both CNN and FOX, while assuming BOTH are bald faced liars. Between the two I can at least hope to get a little balance, and ferret out a few possible facts.
Any conversation is good if not done in bad faith, and I always assume good faith. Amazing what you can learn that way, and even more amazing how much progress can be made in local politics.
Someone once told me "Fight for your views, and don't back down from anyone. And always remember, you might even be correct." :D
A good politician is one who can say across the aisle, "Did you vote for Trump out of rabid-red-and-orange, or are you trying to accomplish something? Maybe there is a way to accomplish that in a way that makes us both happy."
Don't assume this is naive; I have had cause to be somewhat involved in local politics. And, sure, you need showmanship, but sincerely looking for solutions actually works.
Ok.
> Is it really possible that half the country (or more, according to latest polls) are bat crazy?
Yup.
https://www.quora.com/How-popular-was-Hitler-prior-to-WWII-A...
The thing is, everyone can judge the "facts" that these people consume and see for their own that a lot of what Fox News et al. distribute to their consumers is outright propaganda and lies. Tucker Carlson infamously got away with the excuse that a viewer should be able to recognize him "not stating actual facts" [1], even though a large part of his following seems to be either unable to or unwilling to see through the lies.
In Germany, TV and radio stations as well as newspapers are bound by the law to "independent and factual" reporting, as well as to check the stuff they broadcast if it actually is true (§6/§19 MStV [2]). Obviously, we still have issues with the tabloids sometimes stretching the truth a bit, but in general it can be said that our media follows the responsibility it has as a vital part of our democracy.
> Any conversation is good if not done in bad faith, and I always assume good faith.
While admirable, this inevitably comes crashing down hard when enemy propaganda comes into the mix - both domestic and foreign, in particular Russian. When one side is known for "assuming good faith", an enemy has it very easy to apply disinformation tactics... and for what it's worth, the West has been at war with Russia for many years now, even though many people refused to admit that.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...
[2]: https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Rec...
Russians, apparently, truly support Putin. Doesn't that make you think?
Seriously, anyone who gets their news from the media is trusting someone else's bias AND incompetence, despite us humans being extremely good at hearing only what we want to hear, and subconsciously transforming anything into whatever will support our preferred narrative.
A little work in politics and you will be shocked how far removed any given statement of a politician is from his objectives. "Lets block Russian Oil" could mean "this way we have an excuse for the high gas prices", or it could mean "this way it looks we are doing something" or it could mean "we have been on the phone with Putin, and he promised not to nuke Kiev if we give him a way to save face. This will be renegotiated soon" or many other things that involve many other countries, characters, and calculations. You can read about the sanction and jump to your preferred conclusion, or you can let the media guide you to their preferred jump, but either will guide you wrong if you think you understand the decision without all the relevant facts.
Slightly related: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/231746/
Left: CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Vox, Salon
Right: Fox, American Greatness, NY Post
Others: The Hill, NY Magazine, Intercept, WSJ, etc.
An example of two current articles: I have not yet read either but would consider reading both:
- The U.S. Constitution Is Trash - Elie Mystal, The View
- A Black Guy's Defense of the Constitution - Allen West, Townhall
At any given moment you should be able to find for/against entering Ukraine, for/against Judge Brown Jackson, for/against Covid something, etc.
Corporate News Network is leftist? You have to have truly American definition of left.
Vox is a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, which is a right-of-center political operation.
The US doesn't have a left-wing with any voice or power. The overwhelming majority of the country are right-wing or far right-wing.
Yes, there is, it's just not part of the major corporate media.
The main difference in Europe, as far as I can tell, is that only well-to-do people can afford a big house with land. And in Eastern Europe or East Asia, only the rich can. The US is just more advanced this way ;)
⸻
1. Only recently did I learn that this particular tavern was established by the Capone operation and the cupola on the roof was used to keep watch for Federal agents so that the open alcohol sales taking place during prohibition could be hidden in case of a raid.
That's definitely not true. It's not the norm, but I can think of plenty of places I've lived or visited that had neighborhoods that were a mix of residential and shops.
Here's an example of an area like that in Portland: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5627602,-122.6949984,3a,75y,...
Even in places without zoning codes, you’ll find plenty of restrictions that shape what is built and what it looks like from setbacks to parking minimums.
See Houston for example https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/2020/01/09/no-zoning-in-Ho...
The mainstream culture is still overwhelmingly automobile-centric, though. Travel to your place of work, or to any particular shop/restaurant, will likely require a car.
...Somewhat related: In Houston I lived within walking distance of two grocery stores, Kroger and Fiesta. A lot of customers walked to these stores, and they'd often use the store's shopping carts to transport purchases back home. So naturally the stores were always losing carts.
Kroger solved this problem by installing an electronic geofence and a wheel lock mechanism on each shopping cart, so they couldn't leave the parking lot.
Fiesta hired a man in a pickup truck to cruise the neighborhood and bring the empty carts back. And customers cooperated by leaving the carts near the road. IIRC different Fiesta stores marked their carts with different bright neon colors, so they could be returned to the correct store if they wandered afield.
Anytime I wanted to buy more than I could carry, of course, I'd go to Fiesta. (This was years ago; it's probably all razed for condo development now.)
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities...
I agree re: retail though, in my experience there and elsewhere it’s groceries + restaurants/cafes that drive the neighborhood commercial engine, and if there’s enough then you can see traditional retail.
(Not an urbanist just a human).
Maybe you mean exurbs? I almost move to a neighborhood where each house is on about 3 acres and, yeah, there you’re not walking anywhere. The trade off is no sirens/gunfire at night nor any crime to speak of. Plus you can see the stars.
In fact, I'm trying to remember the last proposed development I saw that wasn't mixed use, unless it was a 5 minute walk from a shopping district. Well, except for the suburbs.
Yes, we're building apartment blocks with retail on the ground level.
No, we aren't re-zoning single-family home zones into something else. At least not with any regularity.
No, we aren't dropping minimum parking requirements in favor of market forces.
Yes, we still subsidize driving through "free" on-street parking.
Looking at my neighborhood, I'm about 1.5 miles from the subway and 2 miles from the closet grocer. Not bad by suburban standards, but it sure would be nice to have a market/bodega down the block. But, it can't happen because between me and the grocer is ALL residential. You couldn't buy a corner lot and build a shop if you wanted. At least not without spending mega-$$$ on buying off politicians to update planning maps.
And it doesn't take mega $$$. If your community wants a corner store you can probably get a variance. The reason people say it takes mega $$$ is because they are asking the zoning commission to do some thing unpopular, and bribes cost money. The reason you don't have a corner store is your neighbors don't want it. And who the hell are you to move in and tell them they're wrong?
There are advantages and disadvantages of being in a residential only area.
This really shouldn't be a suprise, but the "market forces" solution would involve charging for street parking. That works perfectly fine.
> The reason you don't have a corner store is your neighbors don't want it.
You're sort-of right, but the reality is that walkable & dense mixed use neighborhoods are in high demand in North America, that's why they're so filthy expensive. Ultimately, this needs to get handled by local politics. People need to be able to talk about what they want their spaces to look like and go out and vote.
Street parking isn't governed by market forces. At least how most people use them. I've rarely heard "market forces" used to refer to monopolies or government services that can operate with a subsidy.
I somebody who paid for his house, pays his taxes, and votes, just like everybody else. I'm well within my rights to advocate for urban planning that meets my needs and desires.
Neighborhoods aren't static and there's ample evidence that current planning models are broken.
As for parking, consumers of the parking should be paying for it directly. "Free" street parking is not free and takes up considerable space. Parking minimums for many building types require an excess of parking that leaves vast asphalt pads empty most of the time.
Parking is either on street (and therefore a subsidy to the business) or in parking lots. Either parking minimums or street parking requires vast asphalt pads empty most of the time, because you have to account for peak capacity.
Why is the county requiring more parking than the market value? The developer has no incentive to under-build parking - nobody would rent in the building if there wasn't enough parking available.
Edit - Des Moines has 19.4 parking spaces per household. Seattle has >5 per household. Other stats about parking density in the article...
https://www.fastcompany.com/90202222/heres-how-much-space-u-...
The very existence of slums/slumlords suggests that selling substandard housing to desperate people suggests both that there are people willing to accept substandard housing and that it is profitable. If it can work with rat and mold infestations, etc, it can work with an uncomfortably small amount of parking.
I have no idea what the right amount is, but I certainly don't believe your reasoning provides more information.
If resident in a certain area don't allow mixed-use areas, its because the voters in those places don't want it. If the voters in 'anytown, USA' wanted a mixed use district - they would have it. Obviously it is not what most people want.
I know I don't want it, and would vote against in it my area. Who wants to buy a house in some quiet area and then have a combo 7-11/gas station popup across the street so that some huge corporation and make just a bit more money at the expense of a nice quiet residential area being destroyed?
This assumes people participate in local politics. I would amend this to, "obviously most people don't want it enough to attend town halls and learn whose business interests is blocking progress"
So you should decide what people want, not the people that live there?
People do show up at the polls when they want something, this is not what they want, so they don't show up.
You know who wants it? huge corporations that would be more than happy to destroy quiet residential areas so they can sell $6 cups of coffee and increase the value of their stock.
Also zoning is mostly relevant when an area is newly erricted. Thus regarding
> So you should decide what people want, not the people that live there?
There is nobody yet living there.
Changing that after the fact is hard. A small corner supermarket in "suburbia" isn't sustainable as residents can't easily reach it without lots of other changes (walking/cycling infrastructure, public transport, ...) and if people have to use the car anyways the mall a mile or two further south is more attractive.
I didnt say "I" should decide, just speaking plainly that laws are written by whoever shows up, most people have higher priorities. It's a fault in democracy from my perspective, we are not all equal in the amount of free time we have. The poor are busy with survival, the rich/leisure class gets to spend all day lobbying and campaigning. Maybe with universal basic income, politics would be more representative since more people would have time to participate.
Not sure why you are assuming it won't be a 7-11 or a Starbucks or a Subway or a McDonalds - because statistically, that is what you are going to get - drive thru almost any city , and that is what you have. Hoping you get some small mom-and-pop bakery is just a fantasy. Reality says you will get big well funded chain stores that most people don't want in their neighborhoods.
Walk through European cities and Asian cities and you see a nice mix of local and yes also bigger corporation shops. But you can also find in neighborhoods of some US cities such as NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, Seattle, etc.
But I also doubt most people wouldn't want a Starbucks down the street.
Outside that, I still don't think you're most likely to get a McDonald's in the middle of a residential neighborhood: it'd most likely be a corner store, since that's what walkable areas are most full of. At least in NYC, it's uncommon to have fast food outside of a busy shopping street. The shops embedded in the middle of residential neighborhoods are largely corner stores and delis, and to a lesser extent cafes / bakeries and barber shops / hair salons.
Because it's pretty much impossible to allow business like that without also allowing the more loud and unsightly commercial activity that white collar folk get their panties in a massive knot over.
It's very hard to allow general commerce without also letting the plumber pave his back yard and use it to park his fleet of vans. Yes you can play whack-a-mole with specific requirements but anything comprehensive just approximates onerous zoning.