A Low-Cost Solution to Traffic

http://www.governing.com/columns/urban-notebook/gov-traffic-housing-sun-belt.html

by jseliger • 9 years ago

289 290 9 years ago

tomcam2• 9 years ago

Low cost is not defined in this article. Absolutely no strategy is given other than "build new walkable cities someplace else", which seems hard to justify as low cost to me.

revelation• 9 years ago

Since this journal is called Governing after all I imagine it has something to do with policy.

You know, the free stuff, no parking space minimums for new developments, rezoning city areas to allow for shops, enabling actual new developments in the first place instead of NIMBYism.

chadgeidel3• 9 years ago

What is the cost to maintain/upgrade our current car-based transportation infrastructure? Streets, parking, enforcement, etc all have a cost and it's not $0 and 0 square feet.

Spooky235• 9 years ago

Not as much as civil engineering societies claim.

In my mid-sized city, roads are reasonably well maintained. The city budget is 78% police and fire salary/benefits. Less than 8% is allocated to the public works department, which includes other functions as well. State grants ranging from 1-3% provide some assistance for roads.

kashkhan2• 9 years ago

rebuilding cities with new housing is the opposite of low cost.

larrydag• 9 years ago

Exactly. That was the first thing I thought. To me a real solution is "Given what we have how can we evolve to make it better". It will be a blend of zoning, re-purposing, blending transportation systems and definitely political debate.

One study in Dallas is looking to get rid of a downtown freeway connector and use that space to build out more of the city. http://coalitionforanewdallas.org/. It is an ambitious project but is very interesting.

stale2002• 9 years ago

Not really. The price of building the house or building is a fraction of the cost of the land, in high demand areas.

It is land and zoning that makes things expensive.

Tear a building down and replace it multiple times, it doesn't matter.

kashkhan2• 9 years ago

The cost of land stays the same whether you rebuild or not.

The cost of rebuilding is the difference. 1 > 0

fangsout4• 9 years ago

I live in Austin, and the traffic is ridiculous. just this week a co-worker quit because he can't stand the traffic from Round Rock to Downtown

Cyph0n2• 9 years ago

How is the public transit in Austin?

trome3• 9 years ago

Poor, good chunks of the city have no bus access, I ended up staying in an area that was pretty dense (3 stories minimum) and Google Maps said there was no possible route via mass transit. Turns out the bus is over an hours walk away.

ng124• 9 years ago

Is it good anywhere outside of NYC?

fangsout4• 9 years ago

there is one light rail line, and it runs like once every 30 mins. I can't speak for the bus system, since it doesn't make sense for me living in North Austin. It took me 15 mins to drive to the train station, 40 mins train ride into Austin, and then 15 min walk to my office downtown. The drive into town is half that if you come in early, so I opt to drive.

trome3• 9 years ago

I was just in Austin for 2 weeks, driving in Austin during rush hour is easy compared to Seattle, San Diego or LA. Whereas going 20 miles in Seattle might take me an hour and a half in Seattle at 5pm, that same trip from South Austin to North Austin is 40 minutes.

fangsout4• 9 years ago

while I don't disagree that many cities have worse traffic, your vague example of "South Austin to North Austin" isn't very convincing. All I can say is that I live 12 miles north of my office downtown, and it routinely takes me an hour to get home.

umanwizard3• 9 years ago

If you're driving for 20 miles, you're almost certainly not "in Seattle" anymore.

jamestimmins• 9 years ago

To be fair, Round Rock is 20 miles away from downtown Austin. While growing up in Austin we didn't view Round Rock as a suburb, but as a completely separate city that happened to be fairly close by. It seems only normal that someone would want to work and live in the same city, and for that need not to be seen as a flaw in either one.

fangsout4• 9 years ago

You are right that round Rock is not Austin. The point is that the radius from the city center that is acceptable to commute from is rapidly shrinking in austin. People are flocking here and the only option is to drive on mopac or 35.

justinzollars4• 9 years ago

I will never live further than 10 minutes from work again. Traffic is such a waste of life.

DougN73• 9 years ago

I totally agree, but also recognized how amazingly lucky we are to even consider making such a commitment. Most folks don't have options like that.

seanmcdirmid• 9 years ago

Two body problems almost always mean one body has to sacrifice for the other.

ng124• 9 years ago

I think that's part of the problem though, as a consequence of car ownership we've normalized having a terrible commute. We can't build traffic-free cities if we're not committed to the idea.

justinzollars4• 9 years ago

We are the privileged few. Most people are in dire straights. So yes, I'm thankful to have that option.

zizzles• 9 years ago

"Traffic is such a waste of life"

Fully-autonomous driving can mitigate this; you will still be commuting, but with an added benefit of being hands-free (to check your e-mails, to finish up your TPS reports, to nap) for much of society this can be highly efficient if utilized correctly.

vonmoltke• 9 years ago

Do youove house every time you change jobs?

princeb• 9 years ago

maybe generalizing to my situation, but if you are in a dense city then being 10 minutes away from your job is being 10 minutes away from any job.

mark-r• 9 years ago

You are lucky to have the option to choose. Part of the problem is that as a city grows, the average distance between any two points grows while there are more people trying to commute. It becomes an N^2 problem.

As you get older too you will find that other criteria define your willingness to move when you get a new job. Don't count on being able to find your ideal job within 10 minutes of your current home.

bagacrap• 9 years ago

Well, I took a 10% pay cut (and moved house) to get a job that I could walk to in <10 minutes. I think the point of the grandparent is that proximity to the office is of greater primacy than some other traditionally valued attributes, like career prospects or pay.

justinzollars4• 9 years ago

I'm 35 and sold my house in the Bay Area because of a 1.2 hour commute. Its likely the only house I will ever be able to afford, so I'm not just an idealistic kid. I did the math and was scared that 20 days per year was spent in traffic.

It scared me to death.

greggman2• 9 years ago

Not married? No kids ? Asking your family to change schools and give up all their friends isn't something everyone has the option of doing

dikdik• 9 years ago

Make more money...

ryanobjc4• 9 years ago

The problem is zoning. If zoning didn't outlaw the type of cities they are describing, then perhaps it would happen.

This is why people are now becoming skeptical of new construction, new neighborhoods in the Bay Area. For a San Francisco example, check out the new mission bay developments. The area still feels dangerous and empty. Not enough realistic businesses - there is no legitimate reason to be on the street, other than wanting to 'hang out' in public spaces.

Once Mission Bay becomes a nightlife draw, with a mix of uses - like the Castro or Polk for example - then it will be an example of something done well. Until then, nope.

sbov2• 9 years ago

We had friends who moved to mission bay because they wanted to live in a place that wasn't built in the 20s. They moved out after a year for the reason you mentioned.

ryanobjc4• 9 years ago

Also the T is the least well served line. Shadows of racism because of where it ends up, but still.

The neighborhood ends up being filled with people rushing home after work, and since it isnt a mixed area, ie: not many families, the after-dark streets seem dangerous.

I used to live right near Laguna and Market, and the amount of how much traffic meant I always felt safe no matter the day or night. Lots of businesses open late too.

wtvanhest• 9 years ago

The key to making cities awesome for residents is to shrink the max footage any business gets on the block. Small store fronts increase variety in a given distance and allow for much shorter walking distances to far more stuff.

It also benefits the city because there are more people in general.

gorkemyurt2• 9 years ago

Yea that's why building the warriors stadium there was a great idea, it will bring the much needed foot traffic during games or concerts for more business to open up.

chrismealy3• 9 years ago

Is this sarcastic? Stadiums are dead zones. During the game everybody is in the stadium. When there's no game you have a completely empty block. Before and after games you have huge crowds coming and going.

jessriedel3• 9 years ago

Does anyone know why we never see new apartment and office building with shops on the street level? This seems like the most natural configuration for dense city, and SF has quite a bit of land specifically zoned in this way. See the orange regions here:

https://williamhe4planning.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/sf_ci...

But almost all modern buildings I've seen, both residential and commercial, have huge lobbies. This means the shops are very thinly distributed at street-level, even in downtown areas with tall skyscrapers.

chrismealy3• 9 years ago

New buildings tend to have boring street-levle commercial spaces (banks, tanning salons, etc) because the underground parking requires ramps at street level, and that makes the shops shallow. Interesting businesses generally need a fair amount of space back (like old buildings all have). Basically if you build for cars you're going to lose pedestrian amenities.

forrestthewoods• 9 years ago

That's literally the only type of building I see being built in Seattle. For both towers and 4 to 8 story compounds.

jandrewrogers• 9 years ago

Much of Seattle, and virtually all new construction for the last several years, is like this. I think it may be a requirement of the city. It is one of the reasons many people live here without a car, or own one but never use it, if they live vaguely close to the urban core. Many of the outlying neighborhoods are similar too, though not as dense.

Seattle high-rises usually have retail/restaurants on the 1st and sometimes 2nd floor; if the building is tall, there may be some commercial office space on some floors above retail; and then residential is the majority of the building above that. It means you generally don't have to walk very far for anything.

From a quality of life standpoint, I love it. I only need to drive if I am leaving the city.

crooked-v5• 9 years ago

Most of the high-density areas in Portland have a majority of buildings with ground-level retail and restaurants. With that said, most of that is buildings of 5-10 stories, though there are scattered high-rises with ground-floor retail, including a few where the inside lobby is open to the public and is effectively a small mall with convenience stores, small restaurants, etc.

dangjc6• 9 years ago

FHA and HUD loans cap the ratio of commercial to residential, and so strongly favor single use developments. Banks take their cue from this and are also less willing to lend to such projects. It's a shame because in many cities, these are the most vibrant neighborhoods that are definitely commercially viable, though maybe not as lucrative much as a mall or exclusive condo. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/2/12/roadblock-on-m...

capkutay• 9 years ago

I agree with most of your statement but only partially agree with your view on Mission Bay. As a Mission Bay resident, I think it feels sleepy and a bit sterile, it does NOT feel dangerous at all. I've been in neighborhoods that feel sketchy in SF, but Mission Bay is not one of them. Its actually the only dense, urban area of SF I can think of that's both clean and quiet.

Its still too early to tell if Mission Bay is a success or not. Most of the housing here is either still in the development pipeline[0,1,2] or just finished within the last 1-2 years. Mission Rock [1] is probably the most ambitious and likely to draw crowds. Also, the 4th street retail area is just starting to sprout up with shops. It just takes time for neighborhoods to develop.

0: http://www.onemissionbay.com/

1: http://www.missionrock.com/

2: http://www.dbarchitect.com/project_detail/161/FIVE88%20Workf...

ryanobjc4• 9 years ago

Good points, but we are still running against the age old problem of a designed environment vs a natural environment.

Perhaps an argument could be made that, this time, architects have finally gotten smart about the failures of designed spaces.

The classic critique being "Notes on a Synthesis of Form": https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674627512/ref=oh_aui_deta...

I confess to not having fully read my copy of this book yet, so I cannot offer a rousing rebuttal to a 'better designed space'.

sedachv2• 9 years ago

Not enough realistic businesses - there is no legitimate reason to be on the street, other than wanting to 'hang out' in public spaces.

What's wrong with that? "Hanging out" is what public places are for.

stfp• 9 years ago

Very much agree. Would be great to let neighborhoods or cities experiment with alternative zoning and planning policies, but sadly it seems every place is following the same templates.

Some random pointers for those interested: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://narrowstreetssf.com/

aidos2• 9 years ago

The simplest hack for the traffic issue I've heard is to just change work schedules. Either run cities in 2 general shifts, or do several days of longer hours and then take a day off.

Certainly in London there seems to be a slip towards more of the working from home 1 day a week. It definitely feels like there are more working parents doing flexible hours out of necessity but there's a a fair amount of bias in that I've seen a lot more of that struggle from living it myself for the last 5 years.

I take the train from a commuter area and there's no real financial incentive to do 4 days commuting with 1 day off. Which I find sad - I think Train lines should _have_ to include discounted 4 day per week season tickets. Then again, I'm in a southern trains area so the trains aren't running half the time anyway....

chadgeidel3• 9 years ago

I personally would like to see a "mandatory non-car-transportation day" here in the US. Office workers and the like would have to travel to work without a car one day per week/month. Work from home, bicycle, carpool, public transportation, whatever.

mahyarm5• 9 years ago

For businesses, you start getting synchronization issues that cause inefficiencies. "Oh I can't talk to that department because they are on shift 2" and instead of a quick back and forth you get day long response times over email. Or you have to wait half a day if the shifts overlap a bit. It's like having a remote office across the world, locally.

nitrogen7• 9 years ago

Maybe a bit of advance planning instead of doing everything just-in-time would be worth the extra free time not spent in gridlock.

cbhl2• 9 years ago

I suspect the SF Bay Area is now well past the point where flexible work schedules helps with traffic. AM rush hour starts at 7am and runs through 10am; the PM rush hour starts at 3pm and runs through 7pm.

aidos2• 9 years ago

Interesting. Found a video that shows that pattern on a specific day https://youtu.be/O4Bx0ygwBxo

I still think having people coming to the office less is prettty straight-forward and would help.

jandrese• 9 years ago

I've got an incredibly cheap solution to your problem!

Step 1. Tear down your city Step 2. Rebuild a completely new city in its place.

How expensive could it be?

TulliusCicero• 9 years ago

You're in luck: cities are constantly being rebuilt as developers tear down old buildings and put up new ones. Change the zoning, and gradually the city will shift.

tajen• 9 years ago

Actually... the guy just reinvented Europe. With cities which grew organic when transportation was expensive, commercial and residential areas are close to each other. Even Sydney, Australia, is a nice city when you don't have a car, even for fathers who drop their kid at school in the morning (but Australia has other problems in terms of carbon emissions, probably coal electricity, long distances and meat).

And that's why USA dooms the Earth in terms of carbon emissions. The whole country is built with costless petroleum in mind. It doesn't require completely tearing down the cities (another comment suggested altering the zoning plans), but if there isn't a very strong change of cap in terms of city planning, it'll keep being unfathomable to get rid of your car as an American citizen.

The pollution tax (=integrating the cost of global warming in everything that's based on petroleum) is another way to solve it, but it will lead to the same result: Rearchitecting american cities.

Xyik• 9 years ago

apparently japan is really good at this.

WillPostForFood• 9 years ago

The US helped clear the cities though.

ng124• 9 years ago

Money's not the problem. In SF there's tons of developers who would jump at the chance to tear down some ugly old faux-victorians to put up a highrise. It's the social cost (zoning, community boards, parking/transit regulations) that are preventative.

pfarnsworth• 9 years ago

Maybe you might get your wish if the "Big One" hits San Francisco again. If there's enough liquifaction, then lots of areas in the Bay Area will need to be demolished and rebuilt.

tromp• 9 years ago

This site has some interesting proposals:

http://www.carfree.com/

http://www.carfree.com/intro_cfc.html

DubiousPusher• 9 years ago

I think this article misunderstands a bit about how cities grow. Any place that's now high density in a city, used to look something like a suburb. Especially in the US, every place that has a recently built 5 story midrise building probably used to be 1/4-1/3 acre lots with 2,000sqft houses on them.

Doesn't sound like a big deal but consider that land is cheap, land with buildings is not. You can find an acre around where I live for 250,000-350,000 dollars but you want to buy four neighboring houses and build density, that's going to start at 2.4 million.

And of course, you have to pay for each house what someone looking to live in it would be willing to pay. Density is only acheived when the price of density becomes worth it. If you're building a city from scratch, density is cheap but very few cities get built from scratch.

kuschku• 9 years ago

That’s not actually true, at all.

This is from a tiny village in Germany: http://newworldeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/GV-3...

This is a village in Italy: http://newworldeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/iv3....

A Swiss village: http://newworldeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/sv2....

A French village from above: http://newworldeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/egui...

Another French village from above: http://newworldeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ober...

Do you notice something?

These are tiny villages; around them for many kilometers is farmland. Yet they’re very dense.

aetherson• 9 years ago

I'd like to see a little more from new urbanists than for them to endlessly restate their thesis. Yes, okay, we've now seen the 1,000th reiteration of the idea that dense mixed use residential/commercial developments have a number of advantages.

How do we actually get there? Is "just" changing zoning actually enough? Is there a case study? Over what time-frame? With what downsides?

NIMBYism isn't a magical spell cast by Satan: it's an organic outgrowth of people's incentives. What is the way around it? I don't believe that then 1,001st reiteration of the advantages of mixed use developments is the answer. What kind of compromises work to keep NIMBYism from obstructing all of these developments?

avn2109• 9 years ago

This is not directly what you want, but a better statement of the article's fundamental claim is given here:

http://newworldeconomics.com/the-eco-metropolis/

and the other articles on that site give some ideas about how to make it work.

mistermann2• 9 years ago

Thanks for the link, good read. Good to see Mr. Kuntsler is still fighting the good fight, haven't come across him for a long time.

Now, the funny thing is that the New Suburbanists don’t hold any other urban place as an ideal either. They don’t point to a single urban place in the world and say, “yes, this is what I want.” But the fact is, the world has a good selection of functioning, enjoyable, pleasant metropolises. Tokyo is my favorite
My definition of an urban environment is one where it is easier to not own a car than to own one.

Totally agree with this, and I simply can't understand why neighborhoods like this are so rare in North America. Tokyo, from what little time I've spent there, strikes me as a near perfect lifestyle, such a high proportion of completely walkable neighborhoods, plenty of green parks, plenty of incredible and cheap places to eat, and all connected by an efficient train system. Granted, population helps a lot in this, but it's certainly not something we could work towards in most places.

Vancouver Canada has quite a few neighborhoods that are fairly similar, but the problem with moving forward is the demand for housing is so high such that as soon as something is zoned for building towards this model, the price of the land immediately rises to the point where you practically have to be a millionaire (at least) to buy anything more than 500 square feet. Because of this, this city center is doomed as far as I can tell, but I see no reason we couldn't start building mini-self-sufficient towns like this in the suburbs with the "town centre" surrounding the train station...yet, I'd bet money that we will not for reasons unknown to me.

davidw3• 9 years ago

Is "just" changing zoning actually enough? Is there a case study?

Changing zoning and eliminating minimum parking requirements, height limitations and setbacks is a good start.

Case studies? Towns in the US before zoning, and much of modern Europe?

Politically... it's a much tougher problem. People are used to their 'burbs and feel they have a right to tell other people what to do with their own land.

Signing up for organizations like the various YIMBY groups, Strong Towns, and so on is probably a good first step.

If you don't have a local YIMBY group - make one!

mjevans2• 9 years ago

I want my car. I need my car for when I drive to places NOT in the city. Like visiting family.

Make it so I can still store my car (near) my unit. Also that there's a GOOD loading dock so I can get items to/from my unit and transport.

This might be a mega-garage at the edge of a city with moving belt people movers and giant commercial promenades that are covered indoor malls /between/ buildings.

It might just be more parking under the building out of sight.

I also NEED sufficient privacy. I don't want to hear my neighbors slamming the microwave around, food processioning, or cleaning. Nor do I want to hear that idiot above me who thuds around too much. Build it in to the fire and privacy codes that there WILL be walls of sufficient thickness.

Make that inner wall a complete full one, no plumbing or electrical/etc. That's where all of the insulation goes. That's the disconnect between units. Then /outside/ of that build the utility / facing wall that isn't for support, it's for finishing and routing of wall items.

The roof? I'm not sure how to handle that other than, maybe something similar.

Then, what I want, give me a good choice of true high-speed (Ethernet/Fiber) ISPs.

Also, what other people want. Do all of the above, but also build in PLENTY of FAMILY sized units. Units with 4+ real rooms and a common area. Also make it easier to sublet within those rooms for friends (this means the inner doors might need locks as well, and should also sound-isolate).

username223• 9 years ago

Case studies? Towns in the US before zoning, and much of modern Europe?

And Houston. There are many case studies, and they point in many directions.

emodendroket12• 9 years ago

Case studies? Towns in the US before zoning, and much of modern Europe?

Both places started from quite a different place than a modern US municipality. A little too glib an answer, I think.

galdosdi10• 9 years ago

For god's sakes, just let property owners do what they want with their property (within limits of safety). If they want to keep it empty or a small 1 family house, let them, and don't let their neighbors or city government bully them into building larger. If they want to build (or sell to someone who will build) a large apartment building, let them do that too.

You'll gradually get more density and less traffic this way over time, assuming that's what people want (and if it's not, they'll get what they want instead)

The root of the problem is the impulse to be disgusted by your neighbor's choices, and wishing to harness violent force (government rules) to force your neighbor to conform to your wishes. Enough already.

mjevans2• 9 years ago

Sure, but also TAX the property based on it's /potential/ value.

A land owner close to where the city is now shouldn't be able to squat on that land at the cost of the opportunity it can provide to the neighborhood(s) around it.

Retric• 9 years ago

There is an inherent contradiction in this idea. Part of being able to do whatever you want is setting up a homeowners association which are defeat the goal of freedom.

omegaworks3• 9 years ago

If the rest of us get burdened by the cost of providing services to said property owner in perpetuity, we do have a right to have a bit of say over what things get built. We can build win-win for the property owner and the community, it is possible to align incentives.

When you bulldoze black neighborhoods to build the expressway that serves your suburb of single family homes, that's when there is a problem.

When the tax base of poor neighborhoods subsidize the burden of infrastructure support of affluent neighborhoods, that's when there is a problem. [0]

0. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/10/poor-neighborh...

continuational• 9 years ago

The whole point of government is to ensure that your neighbors don't act like oricks. Obviously you don't want the neighbor to build something high that puts your property in permanent shadow, or otherwise ruin your property.

throwaway91111• 9 years ago

This seems like it would result in the consolidation of real estate (and therefore policy) by the wealthy.

People still live there.

hasbroslasher2• 9 years ago

Well obviously they're still "allowed" to do whatever they want - (usually) no one's forcing you to sell the quaint victorian and move into the new Gulag of an Apartment complex.

Everyone essentially agrees with you. The problem is that when ONE of these people wants to build the next Trump Tower on top of grandma's old cottage, the "live and let live" ethos goes out the window - everyone's at city council decrying mixed zoning or whatever else they think is "ruining" their neighborhood! There's a reason the term NIMBY exists, there's a reason we don't like living next to Sriracha factories or concert venues and don't just let people turn their houses into one of them at will.

We live in a society and the law is a reflection of it, especially in cities where a lot of people with different needs and desires have to get along. If you want to literally do whatever you want on your property, there's lots of places (in Alaska) that you can do that.

Hell, I actually agree with you, and that's why I'm eventually going to move somewhere where I don't get woke up by traffic every morning, where I don't get stuck in traffic, where I can play music as loud as I want, and celebrate Pagan holidays with massive bonfires until 7am. But until then, I won't live under any illusion of living in a libertarian paradise, because it's just not a viable outcome for city dwellers.

beefsack2• 9 years ago

I'd suggest living in southeast / east Asia for a while if you think anarchical development is a good idea. It all falls apart when you need to build, maintain and provide basic services (electricity, water, sewage.)

You've probably misdiagnosed the root of the problem; some extended family had a shoe factory built directly next to their home and it greatly impacted their quality of life, and I don't think I'd suggest it's their fault for being unhappy about it.

edblarney5• 9 years ago

"For god's sakes, just let property owners do what they want with their property"

We need to have zoning laws.

"You'll gradually get more density and less traffic this way over time, assuming that's what people want "

Once a city has been structured, it's nary impossible to 'unstructure'.

"The root of the problem is the impulse to be disgusted by your neighbor's choices, "

We live in a community and we have no choice but to have rules & laws - they just need to be done intelligently.

Cities like Frankfurt and Munich are very close to ideal. They have 'just right' urban density, good Trams, Subways and Trains - and it works extremely well. You can get where you need to quickly, there's not a lot of traffic - and ample choice for those who want to have a 'big house' vs. 'smaller home' vs. 'urban flat'.

North Americans really screwed up - and it has a lot to do with builders, bad zoning etc.

If people were actually 'given the choice' of semi-dense urban living + easy commute to slightly more dense suburbs - they would usually take it.

In North America - people 'have less choice' and 'less options' because one of the key ingredients: public transport (i.e. trams, trains and subways) requires some degree of collective organization, as well as some foresight with respect to urban planning.

It seems a little 'anti choice' to opt for a Euro-style city, but really, there is a lot of 'choice' and the effectiveness of basic public transport is so awesome for people that I can't imagine anybody would want to opt out.

For example, I don't think anyone in all of Europe would opt for 'less' transit services, they are usually great and used heavily - and you can still drive if you want.

shados• 9 years ago

god forbid people want to sleep at night...

thevardanian• 9 years ago

Meanwhile, Japanese zoning gives much more flexibility to builders, private promoters but also school boards and the cities themselves. So the need for hyper-competent planning is much reduced, as Japanese planning departments can simply zone large higher-use zones in the center of neighborhoods, since the lower-uses are still allowed. If there is more land than needed for commercial uses in a commercial zone, for example, then you can still build residential uses there, until commercial promoters actually come to need the space and buy the buildings from current residents.

So there is a more healthier and lenient alternative to city planning which does not result in total chaos. I think many people here are stuck in between two extremes. The anarchistic what ever goes crowd that's sick and tired of the bureaucratic mess, and what we currently have. However there is I think a healthier synthesis between the two ideas that we need to really consider.

We know what the problem is, we know why there's a problem, and we even have plenty of solutions, but as has been pointed out the problem is in implementation. That's the real problem.

Here's the full post: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

lr4444lr• 9 years ago

Oh yeah? How'd you react if you scrimped up to save, and then this was built next door?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/nyregion/on-a-block-of-si...

Check out the front-side picture. What do you think would happen to resale value? If you think property owners will continue to buy houses and give up any hope of actionable damages in the race to the bottom of this tragedy of the commons, you're delusional.

bsder2• 9 years ago

For god's sakes, just let property owners do what they want with their property (within limits of safety).

Houston is the counterexample to your thesis.

dcposch• 9 years ago

If they want to keep it empty or a small 1 family house, let them, and don't let their neighbors or city government bully them into building larger

i really like this alternate universe where you have to fight govt in order to build smaller

here in the bay area it's the exact opposite. between zoning [1], height limits, Discretionary Review, CEQA and "environmental impact" reviews, it is unbelievably hard to build density here.

projects are delayed in unpredictable ways ranging from weeks to years, often while a developer pays rent and property tax on a vacant lot.

the resulting artificial scarcity inflates rents, which is great for incumbent property owners. boomers who have owned property for really long time are often essentially exempt from property tax due to Prop 13. [2]

[1] i made a map: https://dcpos.ch/yimby/zoning

[2] example: https://twitter.com/hanlonbt/status/769662484936429569

the city kinda wallows in its own bureaucracy. back in 2004, they won funding to build a rapid transit bus line on Geary St. volunteers knocked on doors, voters voted, a ballot initiative passed. just weeks ago, it passed "Environmental Impact Review".

http://sfbamo.com/news/after-13-years-geary-rapid-bus-projec...

it was stuck in EIR for 13 years.

RobertoG• 9 years ago

"You'll gradually get more density and less traffic this way over time, assuming that's what people want (and if it's not, they'll get what they want instead)"

That's not how it works. Aggregate preferences doesn't, necessarily, give you the best of worlds. All kind of local minimums and nasty equilibriums are possible.

vtlynch• 9 years ago

and wishing to harness violent force (government rules)

aaaaand I can safely ignore everything you say.

jzwinck• 9 years ago

For cities you might look to Singapore. Many people find that owning a car is not necessary when the externalities are priced in. Singapore's Certificate of Entitlement system partly rectifies this using an open auction. The current price for a 10 year registration is about 35k USD.

Some people still own cars but at least they think twice, and often share one per family. And not having so many cars per capita means non-luxury businesses must cater to public transit users.

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

ghaff13• 9 years ago

Singapore in general is probably the best example of what a wealthy urban benevolent dictatorship looks like. Their Single City Gallery (basically their urban planning museum) is a must visit for anyone interested in that sort of thing. Whether that's a desirable or practical model for a US city, I'll leave to others.

bane• 9 years ago

Simple, apply money. Ungodly amounts of money.

An example, Tyson's Corner, VA was developed over the decades as a car friendly tangle of office parks and commercial shopping. It has something like 160,000 parking spaces with a population under 20,000. The area is in the beginning of a major 40 year redevelopment plan that will cost a nontrivial percentage of a trillion dollars.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/03/29/the-audacious-plan-...

ghaff13• 9 years ago

One of the last times I was there, I remember I was staying in some hotel and could literally see the shopping center with the restaurant I was planning to eat in across the road. I had to get in my car because there was no way to safely cross the single road between where I was and where I wanted to get to.

graeme• 9 years ago

The description I heard of the Japanese zoning system seemed pretty good: zones increased in terms of noise and irritants. In, say, zone 1, you could have low rise houses, but no commercial centers. But in the commercial zone, you could have houses.

So the zones set an upper bound but not a lower bound.

More info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12325992

So you could start with the commercial zones and simply allow them to become mixed use. And for new developments, you could authorize mixed use cases. In a lot of areas they're currently forbidden, even with no existing residents.

averagewall2• 9 years ago

How do we get there? Hop on a plane to China. Nearly any city there is high density mixed use.

nosuchthing2• 9 years ago

Incentives for density. California has a loophole in property tax which facilitates hording and speculation (evaluation only occurs at time of purchase, not annually reevaluated), this is why there's still so many empty lots and empty buildings in metro areas.

Reevaluate property tax / land value tax each year along with sensible zoning and development permits. Attend your local town hall meetings and offer counter arguments against NIMBYs and real estate leaches.

Pxtl• 9 years ago

Pay off the neighbors. The benefits of intensification are city wide and not local, so create a local benefit.

nwah12• 9 years ago

Tax policy is key here. The most effective approach is to reduce underdevelopment of prime land, and this can be achieved through shifting taxes away from improvements and onto land value. see: Land Value Tax

edblarney5• 9 years ago

It's not taxes - it's 'zoning'.

And culture. Big suburbs = lots of traffic.

We don't need 'Hong Kong' style density ...

But 'European style' density would work fine.

There are basically 0 residential high-rises in Frankfurt (they're just banks), but they still pack a lot of people in.

And it doesn't 'feel' tight or congested.

It works.

+ Trams, Trains and Subways - it's amazing.

nwah12• 9 years ago

Tax reform, zoning reform, and light rail are not mutually exclusive ideas. The density issues we face aren't so much about too much or too little density, but uneven density.

We have urban wasteland regions, and then nearby you might see very crowded areas. Car culture and zoning play a big role in that, but land speculation ought not be underestimated. Every vacant lot or abandoned building is owned by someone. If it is left vacant, that is because the owner is choosing to keep it that way. A high tax on land value, regardless of whether it is in use, would ensure that those who aren't making use of prime locations sell it off or rent it out affordably to people who do intend to make use.

It isn't as if vacant lots provide breathing room, and make cities nice places to be. Parks do that, sure, but not vacant lots. Vacant lots just attract weeds, vermin, and used heroin needles.

I admit, my focus on tax reform is actually because it would raise wages, reduce unemployment, and improve economic efficiency... and thereby improve the rate and trajectory of social progress. But the benefit of more rational land use is a nice little bonus on top of that.

gonzo• 9 years ago

Metro Austin has 2 million people. All of them seem to be driving on Interstate 35 all the time.

Not really, no.

Author is a professor at Rice. In Houston.

thomasrognon• 9 years ago

I-35 visually looks like it's about 1/4 to 1/3 large trucks transporting goods. I've heard a lot of it is goods going to and from Mexico. I wonder if it would be just as crowded without all the trucks.

sh87• 9 years ago

I hear so much about traffic and congestion, its ill effects, disadvantages and just rants of frustration. I face and feel it everyday. So why is it not solved already ?

Here's why : 1. Traffic affects those who cannot/will not make a significant difference to the problem and 2. the ones who can make a difference don't face it/ don't consider it a top tier problem / can pay for a way around it (live closer, don't have to drive the same route each day)

You also won't hear any political/marketing campaigns about reducing traffic and congestion unless public transport becomes a private thing. I believe there's tons of money to be made here but the initial funding required is astronomical and not to mention deep connections in the public sector (licensing) required to even get this off the ground. I can imagine a decentralized mechanism to do this but there are just too many failure points in any strategy that I can think of. Not a problem that a bunch of kids could start solving in their garage you see.

I don't see this getting fixed anytime soon anywhere.

chadgeidel3• 9 years ago

Regarding #1. It has been my experience that the folks who are affected by traffic the most tend to think about it the least. When asked, they are bewildered there are even other options.

"I can't take the bus/train - it doesn't go to where I need" - start with the 5 whys and it's a pain to get even halfway to the conclusion. The car (and the supporting infrastructure!) is just assumed in most folks' minds. At least in the US.

mahyarm5• 9 years ago

What can they do personally themselves within a time span of the next few years? Pretty much nothing. So they take the car because the bus is too slow and doesn't go where they need to and living close to work might make work far for their partner or cost too much.

Spooky235• 9 years ago

I don't know why a 5 whys analysis is so hard. I loved my bus commute, but it's no longer viable. Why should I limit my options?

Why do you drive?

A: Its the most efficient way to get to work in several dimensions including time, flexibility and cost.

Why don't you get a job in walking/bus distance?

A: I'm a director on a good career path in an organization that I am happy with. Opportunities with similar pay, influence and outlook are not trivial to attain.

Why don't you move?

A: My son is established at a local school that he walks to and has friends in. Migrating around like a day laborer is a miserable existence that no professional will sign up for.

davidw3• 9 years ago

mason2402• 9 years ago

People want the personal freedom of driving cars, they want yards, and they want room. They don't want to be packed into stacked boxes.

guelo• 9 years ago

People also don't want to spend two hours a day commuting.

TillE• 9 years ago

You know suburbs are a thing which barely exist outside of America, right? It's an incredibly weird, artificial concept.

You want space, you move to the countryside. That makes sense at least.

CalRobert4• 9 years ago

I remember when I first moved to Dublin I told people that I despised suburbs. They seemed to think this was odd. It took a while to realize they thought I meant places like Rathmines (25 minute, 1 mile walk from the core of the city), and not some asphalt hellscape 30 miles away (a la Fremont, or Dublin CA for that matter).

II2II2• 9 years ago

There is no need to sacrifice owning a home with a yard or the ability to own a car. It is possible increase the population density in many suburbs through more effective land use, making more modes of transportation feasible.

Once those other modes of transportation become feasible, the myth of the personal freedom of driving may actually be true. Driving out of necessity is not freedom. It is a burden. It forces people to work more to purchase, insure, maintain, and fuel a vehicle. It forces people to work more to pay the taxes necessary to build and maintain more roads as well as higher capacity roads. It forces people to work more to pay higher taxes because the land lost to roads, whether it is paved over or serves as a buffer, does not generate property tax revenue. In cases where there is no business or residential frontage on a road, people are paying more taxes to build yet more roads to provide access the adjoining land. And even after you have considered how people are slaves to their jobs because of the expenses incurred by automobile centric cities, they are slaves to their vehicle because other modes of transportation are not viable.

Personal freedom comes from choice. Many of our cities are not designed with that choice in mind.

intrasight• 9 years ago

So true. And I hope that comes to pass.

mason2402• 9 years ago

"Freedom is slavery" Very Orwellian.

jclardy• 9 years ago

It is interesting to me that you (and many others) associate cars with freedom. I think in a way it is ingrained into American culture (at least for people that grew up in the suburbs or further out) - getting your drivers license is a rite of passage here. Up until that point you have to rely on your parents to get anywhere, because the only place you can walk to other houses in your neighborhood.

I grew up in the suburbs and moved to the inner city when I had the choice. I own a car, but I find it hard to imagine not having so much walkability. To me that is more freeing than having to drive 20 minutes to get anywhere. If I want outdoor space I can walk to a park, or drive to the countryside.

crooked-v5• 9 years ago

Personally, I hate doing yardwork, I like being able to walk to most things and only rarely having to drive, and I'm quite happy with my "stacked box".

dangjc6• 9 years ago

Cars are not freedom when you can't drive, ie anyone younger than 16, anyone too old to drive, anyone disabled. Being stuck in bumper to bumper traffic is not freedom. Especially compared to commuting on a train where you can read or get some work done.

_m8fo• 9 years ago

Isn't the low cost solution just to ban cars or tax them ridiculously and install a network of buses, instead? Cars have terrible density, in theory and in practice.

CalRobert4• 9 years ago

Well, we could at _least_ stop massively subsidizing them. I mean, all these people complaining about how the train never pays for itself don't seem to mind all that tax money dumped in to asphalt.

brudgers• 9 years ago

'Building Cities' is a non-trivial activity that occurs on a time scale such that by the time it's substantially implemented driving won't mean what it means today. Suburbia is not so much a response to poor planning as a reaction to the mechanization of agriculture that sparked a demographic shift from rural to 'urban' living.

Mechanization meant that a minimal family farms became approximately an order of magnitude larger (from 1/4 section of 160 acres to a couple of sections and >1000 acres). Along with all those farmers the shopkeepers had to find someplace in the city too. Automobiles encouraged the migration by making it easier to relocate off the farm.

Cities had not planned for that influx. Or for cars. Moreover, cities were increasingly discouraging tenements...with sound scientific reasoning. The suburbs were about the only quick fix. Cities take a long time and a lot of money to build. It also costs more in political capital and financial capital than building roads...multiple jurisdictions will float bonds for transportation infrastructure versus multiple private interests that must agree for many modestly scaled real-estate development projects...https://nypost.com/2014/09/19/nyc-church-bags-71m-for-air-ov...

In the past couple of years, I've started thinking about real-estate in terms of monopolies. Locations are not fungible and control of a parcel is an absolute but localized monopoly. What suburbia does is disrupt (or maybe bypass do to the locality) entrenched monopolies. Forty minute commutes are somewhat fungible. Boxes made of ticky-tacky are also somewhat fungible. Chain retail is very much fungible.

omegaworks3• 9 years ago

The expressway + car infrastructure to support suburban development was not cheap. It was in no ways organic. It was supported by the FHA's race-based redlining policies and banks that gave loans in the post-war era to white GIs to build homes in white-only suburbs.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-18/site/ct-per-fl...

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

Moreover, cities were increasingly discouraging tenements...with sound scientific reasoning.

Please cite said "scientific" reasoning.

Spooky235• 9 years ago

That's a tail wagging the dog issue.

Cars revolutionized society in a lot of ways. They're cheap and opened up possibilities that were unthinkable beforehand. Greenfield building is cheaper and easier than retrofitting, and since real estate cartels typically dominate urban real estate, city life is always more expensive than the bigger, nicer and more stable suburban home.

A lot of things happened in the postwar era beyond redlining. The poor Italians, Irish, Jews and Polish who lived in the tenements started making more money and slighter better opportunity. Jim Crow sparked a great migration of blacks from the south northward. Government thought that bulldozing tenements would fix problems.

BoysenberryPi• 9 years ago

Places that don't require driving more often than not have high cost of living.

greggman2• 9 years ago

The average commute in Tokyo is 80 minutes on an extremely packed and uncomfortable train with lots of sick and often smelly people. Urban density is not in and of itself a solution traffic

mac01021• 9 years ago

Building cities doesn't sound low cost to me.

edblarney5• 9 years ago

Yeah, it's called 'Europe' or 'Asia'.

Cities built before cars.

The 1970's idealists in 'Urban Planning' are the one's who created our 'new urban utopias' built around cars ...

austinjp4• 9 years ago

US-centric commute conversations always seem to revolve around the primacy of the car. So, USA people reading this... Where are you, and could you commute by cycle or public transport instead of by car? What prevents you doing this?

khm• 9 years ago

I am three miles from my office. There is a lovely river trail running from my back yard to my office building. There is regular bus service from my front yard to my office building.

I drive a motorcycle to work because I damn well feel like it. Unless the weather is bad -- then I drive a car.

austinjp4• 9 years ago

Would you consider cycling, even say 1 day per week? Sounds like it would be straightforward and enjoyable.

maxsilver• 9 years ago

Where are you, and could you commute by cycle or public transport instead of by car? What prevents you doing this?

I'm in Michigan's second largest city. Technically I could commute via bicycle or public transit. Practically speaking though, almost no one ever actually does either of those.

Public transit is old diesel buses (exclusively), which run on poorly spaced and poorly timed routes, do not run reliably, and require long distances to walk to/from the bus stops. Walking 15-20 minutes just to get to a bus stop sucks, waiting another 15-20 minutes for the bus to arrive also sucks. They keep the buses reasonably clean, but a common subset of typical passengers are often...not. So having to deal with lice or bed bugs is not uncommon, which really sucks.

Bicycling is fine if the weather is nice, but for about 7+ months of each year, the weather prevents it. (It was 15 degrees below freezing this morning, for instance). It also sucks to arrive all sweaty to work.

Time is also a big factor. A public transit commute would take me about 110 minutes daily (if I time it perfectly, it's 150 minutes daily if I don't). A bicycle commute would take about 60 minutes daily. Driving takes just 20 minutes daily, in any weather.

The car is also flexible. I can leave to run errands and grab a meal during my lunch break no problem. If I took the bus, by the time I walked to the bus stop I'd have to immediately turn around and start walking back.

As an added bonus, my car is an EV that is effectively silent and produces zero emissions and zero exhaust (the electricity it uses is from 100% renewable sources too) where as public transit buses spews an awful lot of diesel exhaust. It gives me a crazy amount of freedom, with no additional harm to the environment.

austinjp4• 9 years ago

Yep, car freedom is a powerful thing.

EVs are not completely harmless in my understanding, even if powered by renewable energy. There's the production impact, for starters. But of course you're right, it's a far better option than outdated diesel transportation.

Arriving sweaty at work is soluble. Wear cycling kit, take work attire in a panier. Your workplace may have showers. Failing that, wet-wipes work wonders :)

Anyway, thanks for your detailed reply. I cycle in temperatures just below zero but -15 daily would indeed be hard.

ghaff13• 9 years ago

Most US tech jobs are not in cities. They're in an industrial park somewhere. When I go into the office I'm probably about as typical as it gets. 25 top 30 minute car commute from an exurb to an office in another exurb/suburb closer to the city, but still pretty far out. No public transit options.

It's a very recent phenomenon that Boston/Cambridge have a lot of tech jobs in the city proper. As recently as 20 years or so ago, the remaining companies were still moving out.

austinjp4• 9 years ago

Thanks for these replies, an interesting insight.

Shivetya• 9 years ago

Well one thing people always love to overlook. Married couples just might not have employers with sites near each other, employers can also move, and you can change jobs.

most people just cannot pick up and move to make it easier to get there. all the solutions usually involve telling people where to live and how which is completely the opposite our society wants.

I am still waiting for a viable arcology to be built, might take a big religious group to do it but I doubt technologist ever will except off planet

rojobuffalo• 9 years ago

Relevant TED talk "4 ways to make a city more walkable": https://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_4_ways_to_make_a_city_m...

dangjc6• 9 years ago

I'm very much looking forward to self driving cars to save us. It's hard for public transit to cover enough of a city, but we can easily build trunk lines or commuter lines and have self driving cars carry people the last mile. Public transit could then focus its limited dollars on rail for the most heavily trafficked corridors. No more slow and infrequent public buses. This would also encourage density around stations, while allowing those who want their back yards to live further out.

jellicle• 9 years ago

Why wouldn't the people in their self-driving cars just.... drive to their destination?

dangjc6• 9 years ago

Traffic (along those trunk routes). Cost (some say Uber's price would drop by 2/3 with self driving, but for a long commute, a $3 train ticket is probably still cheaper). Self driving cars would be great though if your route is not a standard suburb to downtown route.

mentos• 9 years ago

I think the best solution to traffic is remote working!

keepkalm• 9 years ago

Really need to talk about why people choose to live where they do, and usually the answer is school districts. It's difficult to say exactly what kind of living environment families in the USA would choose if public schools in urban areas were better choices compared to suburban schools.

known• 9 years ago

One SSN = One Car

This will reduce air pollution;

randyrand2• 9 years ago

Ya, screw all those people that drive multiple cars at the same time /s

njharman• 9 years ago

TIL that building cities is cheaper than building roads!

randyrand2• 9 years ago

"Low cost" means building entire cities from scratch. hmmmm.

jgord• 9 years ago

The _real_ problem is psychological - "managers" feel the need to control "workers" by physical monitoring.

I suspect 80% of all office work could be done remotely.

We need a cute psychological trick like "daylight saving time", to give people permission to break convention and do things like work remotely and work in offset shifts [ so as to spread out rush hour peaks ].

emodendroket12• 9 years ago

I think you're in the wrong thread.

visarga• 9 years ago

The "Low-Cost Solution" is merely "building cities". Well, that was cheap!

jsilence• 9 years ago

The book "A pattern language" by Christopher Alexander might give some good ideas to achieve this.

keyle• 9 years ago

This article, all respects to the writer, brings no solution what so ever but to cram more people in smaller places.

Instead we should be talking about effective decentralisation of work places, with more satellite offices and/or effective tele-presence and remote work.

agumonkey• 9 years ago

Makes me think we should design cities as kd-trees networks.

transfire• 9 years ago

Government needs to reduce property taxes and find ways to lower cost of construction of building mix-use towers. While they don't need to go quite this far, something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimizu_Mega-City_Pyramid is the direction they need to move in.

ensiferum• 9 years ago

Here in Europe we have this amazing thing called public transportation with dense high capacity high frequency trains, trams, busses and metros. Works great!

A Low-Cost Solution to Traffic

Related Stories