Can the human-scaled city scale up?
#1
In the right lane
Thread Starter
Can the human-scaled city scale up?
I sometimes get caught in that "bikes would do the trick" mode.
But then I run into some fact that makes me realize how intensely difficult it is to make a city livable and workable.
I found this article on copenhagenize.com (a great blog...)...https://nextcity.org/features/view/c...e-cities-model
So even in a bicycle-oriented paradise like Copenhagen, there are big issues. How do we resolve them?
But then I run into some fact that makes me realize how intensely difficult it is to make a city livable and workable.
I found this article on copenhagenize.com (a great blog...)...https://nextcity.org/features/view/c...e-cities-model
Like both of those cities, Copenhagen also has a space problem: Hemmed in by neighboring municipalities, it is running out of room to build. If Copenhagen is going to keep growing, it’s going to have to densify.
#2
"Florida Man"
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East Florida
Posts: 1,668
Bikes: '16 Bob Jackson rando, '66 Raleigh Superbe, 80 Nishiki Maxima, 07 Gary Fisher Utopia, 09 Surly LHT
Liked 1,777 Times
in
883 Posts
It seems next to impossible to 'fix' existing cities, with the possible exception of someplace like Detroit, where you can realistically afford to demolish and rebuild large areas.
If you were making a new city, I would have a few suggestions:
Make more one way streets to save space and costs.
Design smaller yards offset by neighborhood parks. Would you give up 10 feet off your back yard in exchange for a large park nearby? Front yards, in particular, seem like wasted space in many cases--seldom used. Another ten feet there would add up quickly. Common walls between units minimizes building and heating and cooling costs, and saves a lot of space, too. Again, some would consider it a loss, but the room and money saved could easily be used to create more common green spaces and bike and pedestrian trails.
You don't have to make laws controlling people's choices, but some tax incentives could be used to push people in those directions. Larger lots create extra costs for the town or county, so pass on that cost to those who still want the big lots.
Mixing zoning spaces in a checkerboard pattern could help to minimize trip distances, which in turn could mean fewer roads and lower costs to taxpayers.
Cul de sac communities are the norm here, yet few are connected to each other. It's fine to funnel the cars back out to the main streets, but the foot and cycle traffic should be able to cross to the next neighborhood across the drainage ditch or through the wildlife area (kinda Florida specific here). In this way, you could travel across town on foot or by bike with only an occasional crossing of a busy street, ideally by over or under pass.
That's all that jumps to mind. Of course, in my ideal town, the bike paths would go through every park and connect every neighborhood, and allow access to the back side of businesses in the commercial areas. Free underpasses for everyone!
If you were making a new city, I would have a few suggestions:
Make more one way streets to save space and costs.
Design smaller yards offset by neighborhood parks. Would you give up 10 feet off your back yard in exchange for a large park nearby? Front yards, in particular, seem like wasted space in many cases--seldom used. Another ten feet there would add up quickly. Common walls between units minimizes building and heating and cooling costs, and saves a lot of space, too. Again, some would consider it a loss, but the room and money saved could easily be used to create more common green spaces and bike and pedestrian trails.
You don't have to make laws controlling people's choices, but some tax incentives could be used to push people in those directions. Larger lots create extra costs for the town or county, so pass on that cost to those who still want the big lots.
Mixing zoning spaces in a checkerboard pattern could help to minimize trip distances, which in turn could mean fewer roads and lower costs to taxpayers.
Cul de sac communities are the norm here, yet few are connected to each other. It's fine to funnel the cars back out to the main streets, but the foot and cycle traffic should be able to cross to the next neighborhood across the drainage ditch or through the wildlife area (kinda Florida specific here). In this way, you could travel across town on foot or by bike with only an occasional crossing of a busy street, ideally by over or under pass.
That's all that jumps to mind. Of course, in my ideal town, the bike paths would go through every park and connect every neighborhood, and allow access to the back side of businesses in the commercial areas. Free underpasses for everyone!
__________________
Campione Del Mondo Immaginario
Campione Del Mondo Immaginario
#3
Senior Member
Encourage neighborhoods and smaller governments within the city.
#5
What happened?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927
Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!
Liked 292 Times
in
255 Posts
I sometimes get caught in that "bikes would do the trick" mode.
But then I run into some fact that makes me realize how intensely difficult it is to make a city livable and workable.
I found this article on copenhagenize.com (a great blog...)...https://nextcity.org/features/view/c...e-cities-model
So even in a bicycle-oriented paradise like Copenhagen, there are big issues. How do we resolve them?
But then I run into some fact that makes me realize how intensely difficult it is to make a city livable and workable.
I found this article on copenhagenize.com (a great blog...)...https://nextcity.org/features/view/c...e-cities-model
So even in a bicycle-oriented paradise like Copenhagen, there are big issues. How do we resolve them?
The answer is still that you'll have to adapt and see multi-modal solutions in some cases. Perhaps you should find a way to live closer to your job and resources or find a job that support distance work like information technology based work.
Even without that, places like New York City were built of many neighborhoods once before the freeways came in and disassembling that system has been done before within the structures of modern cities. It's not impossible, although it's also not a 'no-brainer'.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
#6
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,118
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Liked 1,648 Times
in
1,110 Posts
Anyone think that "advertising" fooled the local inhabitants into giving up such "human-scaled" car free "dense" neighborhoods of NYC; not just for rich folks or upscale college grad singles and childless couples too! Lots of family living. With work and shopping so close, lots of work at home piece-work too.
Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 02-02-16 at 02:58 PM.
#8
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,118
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Liked 1,648 Times
in
1,110 Posts
@I-Like-To-Bike, great photos.. reminds me I have to check the washing machine.
#9
Senior Member
It seems next to impossible to 'fix' existing cities, with the possible exception of someplace like Detroit, where you can realistically afford to demolish and rebuild large areas.
If you were making a new city, I would have a few suggestions:
Make more one way streets to save space and costs.
Design smaller yards offset by neighborhood parks. Would you give up 10 feet off your back yard in exchange for a large park nearby? Front yards, in particular, seem like wasted space in many cases--seldom used. Another ten feet there would add up quickly. Common walls between units minimizes building and heating and cooling costs, and saves a lot of space, too. Again, some would consider it a loss, but the room and money saved could easily be used to create more common green spaces and bike and pedestrian trails.
You don't have to make laws controlling people's choices, but some tax incentives could be used to push people in those directions. Larger lots create extra costs for the town or county, so pass on that cost to those who still want the big lots.
Mixing zoning spaces in a checkerboard pattern could help to minimize trip distances, which in turn could mean fewer roads and lower costs to taxpayers.
Cul de sac communities are the norm here, yet few are connected to each other. It's fine to funnel the cars back out to the main streets, but the foot and cycle traffic should be able to cross to the next neighborhood across the drainage ditch or through the wildlife area (kinda Florida specific here). In this way, you could travel across town on foot or by bike with only an occasional crossing of a busy street, ideally by over or under pass.
That's all that jumps to mind. Of course, in my ideal town, the bike paths would go through every park and connect every neighborhood, and allow access to the back side of businesses in the commercial areas. Free underpasses for everyone!
If you were making a new city, I would have a few suggestions:
Make more one way streets to save space and costs.
Design smaller yards offset by neighborhood parks. Would you give up 10 feet off your back yard in exchange for a large park nearby? Front yards, in particular, seem like wasted space in many cases--seldom used. Another ten feet there would add up quickly. Common walls between units minimizes building and heating and cooling costs, and saves a lot of space, too. Again, some would consider it a loss, but the room and money saved could easily be used to create more common green spaces and bike and pedestrian trails.
You don't have to make laws controlling people's choices, but some tax incentives could be used to push people in those directions. Larger lots create extra costs for the town or county, so pass on that cost to those who still want the big lots.
Mixing zoning spaces in a checkerboard pattern could help to minimize trip distances, which in turn could mean fewer roads and lower costs to taxpayers.
Cul de sac communities are the norm here, yet few are connected to each other. It's fine to funnel the cars back out to the main streets, but the foot and cycle traffic should be able to cross to the next neighborhood across the drainage ditch or through the wildlife area (kinda Florida specific here). In this way, you could travel across town on foot or by bike with only an occasional crossing of a busy street, ideally by over or under pass.
That's all that jumps to mind. Of course, in my ideal town, the bike paths would go through every park and connect every neighborhood, and allow access to the back side of businesses in the commercial areas. Free underpasses for everyone!
#10
Senior Member
If one looks at the space given over to cars and car storage, there's a lot of room to add density in American cities if we simply take some of that space away. I was amazed to see developments go in back in the '90s that allotted over half the space to cars. In my opinion, such an allocation is simply insane.
Of course, if we densify without taking steps to reduce car numbers, we are going to see an unrideable environment. I have seen locales that doubled the number of residences and saw an increase of 1.95 in car traffic volume. That's a recipe for zero bikes, which is the opposite of a sustainable built environment.
Of course, if we densify without taking steps to reduce car numbers, we are going to see an unrideable environment. I have seen locales that doubled the number of residences and saw an increase of 1.95 in car traffic volume. That's a recipe for zero bikes, which is the opposite of a sustainable built environment.
#11
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,118
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Liked 1,648 Times
in
1,110 Posts
"We simply take it away"; eh" Care to expand on who is "we" and a proposed plan for simply taking away from others whatever "we" want in order to create a lot of room to add density for "us"?
#12
Senior Member
I want to live in a dense environment. There's culture, there are other people, there are more parks than I can count, walking is a great way to get around, etc. I could go on for a long time but I won't bore you.
Anyway until people stop enjoying sex, "stop growing" isn't really an option anyone can plan on.
Anyway until people stop enjoying sex, "stop growing" isn't really an option anyone can plan on.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seville, Spain
Posts: 4,403
Bikes: Brompton M6R, mountain bikes, Circe Omnis+ tandem
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
5 Posts
Is birth control not an option in your area?
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
10 Posts
I agree! And so do millions of people all around the world who live in big cities. Don't be fooled by those who post from the middle of some cornfield and would have you believe that cosmopolitan folks are dying to join them; the fact of the matter is that Millennials Prefer Cities to Suburbs and Subways to Driveways.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
10 Posts
Maybe, maybe not, but an agrarian society built around small dispersed communities would be more sustainable in the long run. Large, densely populated cities that can't sustain themselves are the root of all the issues.
#20
Disco Infiltrator
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 13,508
Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Tilt, Samba tandem
Liked 2,150 Times
in
1,402 Posts
Can you ride your bike in the arcology?
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17
Genesis 49:16-17
#23
Senior Member
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
It may or may not seem obvious but at some point as population increases you only need have three choices, build up, build down or build out. Humans are not like compressed gas that can be forced into a smaller area with more pressure. As in the OPs example to keep the space between people like it is you have to make a choice when you run out of room. At some point as you add people you go from dense living to prison like living. Some of us simply are not comfortable with living in constant contact with others.
The he extream to dense living is just outside of Nirobi Kenya Kibera. I have been there and touching walls and even common roofs do not make for cultured living.
When I was young my dad moved us to Seattle and I started to warm to a more compact life than we had in Bellview with our large home and big yards. Until I got married and we started thinking about children and healthy babies. My wife and I read just about everything but we knew instinctively urban living was more polluted living. Today we have studies to back up that claim.
Indoor Environmental Differences between Inner City and Suburban Homes of Children with Asthma
The he extream to dense living is just outside of Nirobi Kenya Kibera. I have been there and touching walls and even common roofs do not make for cultured living.
When I was young my dad moved us to Seattle and I started to warm to a more compact life than we had in Bellview with our large home and big yards. Until I got married and we started thinking about children and healthy babies. My wife and I read just about everything but we knew instinctively urban living was more polluted living. Today we have studies to back up that claim.
Indoor Environmental Differences between Inner City and Suburban Homes of Children with Asthma
#25
Senior Member
How many times have people argued that we can't have significant amounts of walking and cycling in our cities like what exists in Europe simply because our cities were largely built out with cars in mind and thus have very wide right-of-ways? This can change. I'm not saying we have anywhere near the political will to do so (yet), just that the space is there when we are ready to use it more productively.