let's give you the opportunity to explain to us why people not being able to walk through neighborhoods is a good thing. Let's say you had a child and that child lived one house behind you and to the right. You did not get along with your neighbors so your child physically can't walk through your neighbors privately fenced in yards resulting in a scenario where the *only* way to get from A to B is to go all the way around, a mile long trip. In many places, all the way around consists of going *more* than a mile. How in *any way* does that make any sense? Also I have family that lives in suburbia and they had this exact issue so my hypothetical isn't even a hypothetical it's a reality.
wow. an extreme example. everyone sees what a mess liberal progressive db have done to sf and portland with all the homeless. we dont want that. we dont want drug addicts living in our alley ways etc.
I'm laughing. Genuinely. It's not an extreme example when it's a *common* example. As an fyi, I personally grew up in an older suburbs. Not one of these deranged modern ones. We had an alleyway on a smaller property. I promise you, having people wander through our alleys did not harm us. We didn't even know they were there because *why would we*? It also meant that when we visited our neighbors we didn't have to go *all the way around the block*. The homeless aren't your problem you just are scared of strangers.
Also, this might be insane to you, but at the end of the day not *everyone* wants to live in those kind of hellish suburbs, so why is it the only option? By saying *I* don't want this so *no one* can have this is some of the stupidest most selfish shit. Go live in your suburbia. But by screaming how it's unsafe for everyone is completely ignoring a very separate vocal group that absolutely wants that. You're welcome to your suburban landscape but don't tell us that our urban landscape should be the only option because it's fucking selfish. You sound like a bratty child "mine me"
And a final note. The homeless problem is a government issue that is solvable by this scary little thing called *socialism*. Helping people rather than punishing them for struggling. And you know what the easiest way to do that is? Affordable housing. *Urban development*. Not your snakelike suburban fantasy.
no one wants homeless living in an alley behind their house. people see the progressive liberal policies in sf and portland. no one wants that. exagerating claims of 2 mile connected cul-de-sacs isnt going to have the impact you think its going to have.
I knew coming into this it would be a brick wall conversation. No one is saying that San Francisco or Portland is doing it perfectly but those issues are generally exasperated by the shitty treatment of the homeless population. A problem that isn't resolved by ignoring it, which is what San Francisco infamously does. Creating suburban hellscapes isn't the answer, urban affordable housing developments are, but you completely ignored my last message so it's going to get ignored again. Homeless populations are perpetuated and worsened by the government's unwillingness to fund social programs. Something that is infamously worse in "conservative policies". Just because you don't see your homeless population doesn't mean they magically cease to exist. The idea that you think that just not having them near you is better than them not existing is selfish and dark. Humans should be way fucking better than that.
If you disagree with points made here, you could just offer a counterpoint of substance instead of regurgating Fox News talking points and scare tactics. I suspect you have no argument to make, though.
there is something called easement in real estate. there isn’t necessarily need for draconian imminent domain. what the municipality can do is buy an easement right on a property rather than the property itself; this can be a sliver of 4m wide land at the side of the property that the easement contract allows the municipality to pave over and illuminate and fence.
they exist in many subdivisions but are usually too few.
admittedly an easement like this is less appealing to the typical homeowner than the easements that public utilities buy. but i don’t believe the preemptive fear of upsetting residents should cloud the judgement of a town council on this. all it takes is one owner to agree and bam you get a connection; and it’s a private deal. Others on the street may object but it’s not really any of their business and they will live with the consequences peacefully afterwards.
Like a lot of things in politics, this improvement requires political courage to implement, but it is not some insurmountable goal because of laws and regulations. The laws are flexible here. It’s a purely political topic.
It's too late for that. Places that basically don't have eminent domain, like Tokyo, have certainly reaped rewards for their restraint. Places that have already abused eminent domain have already opened Pandora's Box.
My city is mostly suburbia, and has those in most neighborhoods. Makes it a much shorter walk to the arterial stroads where shops and transit mostly are.
Making connections! Cut an opening through the cul de sac so that pedestrians and cyclists do not have to walk all the way around using the infrastructure that was only designed for automobiles.
Add pockets of desirable uses like commercial uses and services. Not necessarily those heavier foot heavy places like a mall with a movie theater but consider professional services whether it be an office, dentist, hair stylist/barber, grocery store, etc.
Once those are in ensure that those connections mentioned earlier are in and that there's pedestrian oriented infrastructure retrofitted to connect the suburbs to these pockets. Yes, many suburbs can be retrofitted - many of those vehicle traffic lanes are 12 feet wide and can surely be reduced to add pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure. The challenge is all the terrible vehicle drivers who don't want to be inconvenienced or have reduced speed limits on the streets.
Walkable cities/towns need a decent amount of density first, so that the distance between homes and desirable places is short enough that walking becomes a more realistic alternative (to driving).
I think loosening up zoning laws would help in that regard.
They have terrible parking regulations, which mitigate much of the benefits of loose zoning laws.
“By far the worst offender is Houston’s simply godawful parking regulations. These regulations force enormous amounts of parking to be built compared to the number of buildings. For example, Houston requires there to be 1.333 off-street parking spaces for every single one-bedroom apartment, a truly ridiculous number. For office buildings, 2.5 parking spaces are required per every 1000 square feet of office space.
Some other highlights of this section of the code include:
2.2 parking spaces per hospital bed
1 parking space per every 3 high school occupants
1.2 parking spaces for every 1000 square feet in a library
14 parking spaces for 1000 square feet in a bar.”
TLDR:
All of Houston’s parking regulations results in Houston having a supposed 30 parking spaces per Houston resident.
More [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/hqjarb/invisible_zoning_or_the_trouble_with_houston/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1)
Its a misconception that houston doesn't have zoning laws. While it is true they don't have a set of laws called zoning they basically have every part of land use policy incorporated in many other parts of the code that would be traditionally associated with zoning. I think city beautiful did a really great video showing how that works.
Houston has zoning laws. Just different from everyone elses. It's still a very car centered and suburban sprawl promoting zones. Honestly, Houston is just ugly to look at
houston is definitely ugly but suburbs seem to be what people want. like 3 generations deep into post-wwii suburbia and seems there is just a niche of people hoarding subs like this denying that suburban appeal exists.
If 55% of people want to live in a car dependent suburb, they should be able to. But the problem is those 55% then vote to force the other 45% to do the same by banning dense developments and mandating lots of parking.
How is "the opposite" when you literally have the power of the state being used to block dense development? Nobody is proposing to evict SFH at gunpoint to force them to live in apartments. The Board of Supervisors used a CEQA loophole to indefinitely block even a private moderate development of 10 townhouses. Those who want low density development are not content with living in one but have a need to force every development to be low density. "Just start your own city" is the same thing as telling people to get out, and they do, out of their homes and onto the street. SF supporters have no standing to complain about homelessness when they are the ones who happily created the crisis.
This is not what I see at all. Plenty of cities have a dense central area surrounded by suburbs. The suburbs have higher land values than the denser parts.
Even within the same city, people prefer suburbs.
The dense central area is the only area where any density is allowed. The rest of the city will not allow dense developments, effectively limiting the supply of dense developments. 55% may want the suburb but 90% of the units are suburban because laws have capped the dense supply. 94% of San Jose's land is restricted to SFH only and even duplexes and ADUs weren't allowed until the state forced them to allow it.
Suburbs may have individual housing units worth more, but land values in general are not worth nearly as much. Try building surface parking in downtown LA vs a suburb and the downtown one will bleed you dry, which is why most parking in downtown LA is garages.
That’s not true. Zoning Variances are approved all the time. There is no such thing as the city not allowing a certain type of development.
Zoning is necessary. You can’t plan your infrastructure effectively if anyone can build whatever they want anywhere. There is also the matter of people not wanting a liquor store across the street from their house, but for the most part, the planning process is about matching infrastructure with the development that needs it.
I don’t know how to respond to hypothetical percentages.
>individual housing units versus land values
Land values are only relevant to what the developer wants. Bear in mind that the developer also wants to build the minimum amount of infrastructure and doesn’t give a hoot about services.
The housing price goes straight to what the people who buy the housing units want. By and large, people want suburbs. The vast majority do not want to live in underserved city centers.
Why don't you try getting a variance for a townhouse approved in an R1 Zone or SF or San Jose and see if that "SFH-only" label on the zone is a mere suggestion? The state government even had to force California cities to allow ADUs. "You can ask us for permission and we'll say no 99% of the time" is not the same thing as something being legal.
Zoning to some degree is necessary, but zoning that says only single family homes in 90% of the land is ridiculous. It inherently means there's a low cap on housing units. Neighborhoods don't suddenly turn into crime infested hellscapes because people are allowed to build ADUs and duplexes on single family lots.
If the "vast majority" didn't want to live in cities, why is rent and housing prices in major cities so high? You're engaging in a very dishonest logical fallacy. You're saying a single family home in the suburbs is better because it's more expensive than a dense dwelling in the city but those are two completely different products. You'd need to compare that same single family house with the same square footage in the central city to one in a suburb. That same house will be more expensive because of land values. And land values don't come out of thin air. It's supply and demand.
It would be unconstitutional for them to just say no. While I am sure there are situations where they can, that would be the exception to the rule. More than likely they would create a list of conditions that need to be met for the variance to be approved.
>The state government even had to force California cities to approve ADUs.
No. The state had to force California cities to approve ADUs without conditions, which was a terrible idea that will have lasting impacts on the livability of those cities.
>only single family homes
This gets a lot of play on social media, but density caps are much more common than the idea of “single family only”, and there is a very good reason why you don’t want 15 units per acre built in an area that was designed to support 10 units per acre.
>why is rent and housing prices in major cities so high?
Which major cities? Pick a city, and I will show you that the homes with yards, parking, public parks and good schools nearby are more expensive than the cramped poorly maintained apartments in the tenderloin areas.
Your whole theory is based on an apples versus oranges sleight of hand.
>You’d need to compare the same single family house with the same square footage in the central city to one in the suburb.
That’s a no-brainer. Let me know how many examples you want.
Single family home in dense, underserved urban core is cheaper than single family home in suburban community. Check.
Any home in a good school district is more expensive than any home in a less respected district. Check.
Homes near public parks are more expensive than homes with no nearby public parks. Check.
Homes with lots of street parking are more expensive than homes without street parking. Check.
Same square footage homes with large front and backyards are more expensive than homes with smaller or nonexistent yards. Check.
Every aspect of suburban living is worth more when isolated.
Placing parks in between. Wider sidewalks. Street trees. Ultimately you need places to walk to that aren’t just recreational however; stores, etc. A robust urban trail network can help bridge the gap.
718 Martin Ln
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pmzS8QAWReXwc1zT6
I legit just picked a random Houston suburb and it didn't have sidewalks lmao
Most of the second and third (and further) ring suburbs in chicago don't have side walks.
crazy cause all the ones next to it do have sidewalks. missouri city is a black suburb. ive never been there. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5982806,-95.5362031,3a,75y,254.64h,90.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBmkD83KaphR76QwzvUz2RA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DBmkD83KaphR76QwzvUz2RA%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D314.2194%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Looking around I couldn't even find a single suburb on the north or west side that did have sidewalks. Some do seems like there are many that don't, I looked like atleasy 10 that didn't.
Doesn't really matter though they all should.
Right but there's no place to walk in suburbia that's what you're missing. You can put shortcuts between neighborhoods from house to house to go where? How to a huge ring road with big box stores. This is the problem there's no destination no purpose to walk except strolling around the neighborhood for exercise and in that case you don't need shortcuts..
The solution for that is to rezone for flexible mixed uses, to allow for low impact, high neighborhood value non-residential uses on lots within a suburban development. Small markets and grocers, cafes, barbers, hair salons, dentists, clinics, tax preparers, and the like. Some of these could be locate in part of existing residential buildings, others could repurpose entire residential buildings, and others might demolish and build new purpose specific buildings on an existing lot.
As long as the businesses are of a modest scale to primarily serve residents within a development subdivision, parking needn’t be a concern, as many patrons would be within easy walking or biking distance, particularly if the subdivision has pedestrian/cyclist cut through a to connect cul-de-sacs to make direct routes for active transportation.
This is politically toxic though. Even in urbanist haven Seattle, when someone opened a neighborhood bar in their own garage because their main store was shut down by COVID regulations, a neighborhood NIMBY complained to the city to shut them down. Most Americans have shown they cannot stand the sight of people in their own neighborhood.
You will note that I did not list bars amongst the “low impact” usages that would be compatible with a neighborhood, as there is a tendency for them to have noise a ruckus late into the night.
My neighborhood has two barber shops, a liquor store and small corner market on an otherwise residential street, with no issue or controversy, because they provider useful neighborhood services without creating nuisances like noise, disorderly conduct, traffic, or parking contention. They have no off street parking because they are all small and serve clientele almost entirely within walking or biking distance.
The bar was mostly a daytime thing and the complaint wasn't even about late night noise. It was that people were loitering on the sidewalk in front of the garage. That kind of thing would apply to corner markets too. Don't get me wrong. I would love to have these kinds of amenities in my own neighborhood. But for neighborhoods that don't already have them, I don't think it's possible to convince suburban homeowners to allow them.
As I said in another comment, I have no doubt that suburban homeowners will likely oppose ANY changes to their neighborhoods, as they have always done. If we collectively think that we should evolve our built places for greater sustainability and more options for active transportation (just not in MY neighborhood, but in the OTHER guy’s neighborhood), I think the only way we will achieve that is by imposing the policy at a higher level of government where the aggregated policies will can override the local opposition.
This is exactly how California is starting to make changes, but imposing state level limitations on zoning, requiring cities to allow things like in fill densification and transit oriented densification.
I would love it if CA did a state level mixed using zoning law to allow for low impact commercial like they did ADUs by right. But it just seems unlikely because the docket of land use laws the state is trying to ram through is already huge and every minor change has lots of pushback. California needs another decade of Newsom style governors who will twist arms to get enough of these laws through to make a difference.
Not just Newsom, but Wiener. The more Scott Wiener types you can get onto the CA legislature, the more bills they'll propose, and the higher chance that their political allies will approve them into law. Wiener himself is a force and has introduced, coauthored, or otherwise championed tons of urbanist legislation. Elect more folks like him and the state will change in no time.
>Most Americans have shown they cannot stand the sight of people in their own neighborhood.
I think you finally hit on the underlying cause to most planning issues.
I don’t doubt that ANY reconfiguration of existing suburban subdivisions would be politically controversial, possibly even political unviable, unless imposed from level of government higher than the municipal level. This includes add cut through for direct pedestrian and cyclist routes, up zoning for ADUs, plexes, and small apartments, and upzoning for mixed uses.
Suburban homeowners are extremely small c conservative, and resist any changes they think might change the character of their neighborhood.
Convoluted roads are the result of developers being anti-car. People want cars, but they don't want other people's cars near their houses. The lack of cars makes the neighborhood more walkable, but it's not like a downtown with businesses. Cities could outlaw convoluted streets, but they don't.
Uuh, how the convoluted hierarchical street layout because of developers being anti car tho? If they were anticar... Might as well just go back to grid, because at least the grid doesn't promote car dependency.
I honestly think a lot of them in the US will need to be abandoned. There simply will not be a need to densify everything unless our population triples or something. Also many of the houses in these places don't last very long anyways, so if we make significant progress densifying prime locations, and make more transit oriented development, people will leave the suburbs for these places.
I really doubt that anyone is going to every want to abandon their homes that they own lol. I think that if every suburb had a denser downtown within a 15 minute walk, that would be ideal. That way, we wouldn't have to abandon suburbs and the sprawl could stop.
The problem is that no one wants to give up their land to be that dense downtown core.
Maybe we could turn strip mall parking lots into those kind of urban centers and that would bring down housing costs for everyone as people move to the walkable areas that have smaller units that are more environmentally friendly.
I see that as the ultimate end of the suburban experiment as well. As wealth and the standard of living drop with the deterioration of the planet, private vehicle ownership will get more burdensome and be something less can afford or attain. This trend will also be present for governments as tax receipts fall and extremely expensive and complicated highway based infrastructure becomes more and more difficult to maintain to an adequate standard. This will result in necessary abandonment of extremely low density and unproductive suburban areas.
The top comments are right. Shortcuts. Right of ways that close loops and create smaller blocks (they don't have to be rectilinear, just much smaller).
But very quickly the problems stack up. Who's going to negotiate and buy these shortcuts that go over private property? How does that play out in council meetings when you're buying the Smith family's driveway to connect their cul-de-sac to a shopping plaza?
How many times can your city afford the process and legal battles that come with these acquisitions? Then comes the infrastructure.
Grids do nothing for walkability. What you need are connections - and they can be as non gridded as they want to be, if they are of an adequate interval they're still faster than any grid. Of course you need the increased density and commercial spaces, but from a network perspective it really doesn't need that much. You "just" have to buy a \~ 1 m strip from some properties (and considering how large they are, that's very much possible) to connect what was separate.
In a sense many improvements are easy, as they don't come at great expenses or require niche expertise, they are only so difficult because of politics.
Unsavable. Cf white Flint in Montgomery County Maryland and atysons redevelopment in Fairfax County Virginia. Huge costs if retrofitting, still ersatz. Then again, urban lite is fine for the suburbs. Eg Reston Virginia.
Get rid of single family zoning. Permit multituse development. Invest in multituse path infrastructure to incentivize bikes, ebikes scooters, electric carts, etc.
why would a grid matter? walkability as i understand it means walking to grocery stores pharmacies doctors schools etc. this forum seems to think walking through the neighborhood with your dog.
In some places just being able to walk through your neighborhood with your dogs is a goal in and of itself. I was surprised when I moved from Phoenix to Southern Alabama and realized they don’t even have side walks in my neighborhood at all. Phoenix is definitely not know for walkability but I can think of many ways it’s better than it is here for when I want to just get outside and walk for recreation (when weather permits). If I wanna walk my dog in my neighborhood (which is otherwise I pretty clean and decent neighborhood with an HOA) I have to walk in the street (no pedestrian lanes either).
As bad as the built environment is in the Phoenix area, it has potential to be a great city in the future if more areas (maybe along the major grid roads) densify.
Tbh I really want to move back to Phoenix soon because I’m starting to really love it there. Lots of the surrounding suburbs have really nice infrastructure, parks, and landscaping now. I also just really love the desert and mountains there and think it’s beautiful. Yeah it’s hot as hell, but here in Alabama it’s hot and humid, and I can’t go outside for 2 minutes without getting 10+ mosquito bites. And in the city I live they really don’t take care of their infrastructure/landscaping and the roads are all super ugly, and again no sidewalks hardly anywhere.
Just add a LOT of mixed use homes. Build tall, have stores on the first floor. Makes any town more interesting. Do that for one square mile, and you now have Disneyland fun for walking and bicycling in the suburbs.
Pedestrian lanes, sidewalks, trees, pedestrian crossings (both traffic calmed zebra crossings and traffic light crossings), slower speeds and traffic calmed local streets, and of course things to walk to within walking distance.
You need things to actually walk to. Banks, grocery stores, restaurants, drug stores, medical facilities, third places like bars and libraries, parks and plazas, and general shopping. It doesn't matter how dense a place is or how many sidewalks there are if all the things to *do* are miles and miles away.
[удалено]
Also called pedestrian alleys! But political unviable in suburbia. People would not want “undesirables” walking through their neighborhood.
>People would not want “undesirables” walking through their neighborhood thats a good thing
Ah yes. It’s a bad thing to create a walkable city so that the average person and kids can walk. You in the wrong sub bro.
let's give you the opportunity to explain to us why people not being able to walk through neighborhoods is a good thing. Let's say you had a child and that child lived one house behind you and to the right. You did not get along with your neighbors so your child physically can't walk through your neighbors privately fenced in yards resulting in a scenario where the *only* way to get from A to B is to go all the way around, a mile long trip. In many places, all the way around consists of going *more* than a mile. How in *any way* does that make any sense? Also I have family that lives in suburbia and they had this exact issue so my hypothetical isn't even a hypothetical it's a reality.
wow. an extreme example. everyone sees what a mess liberal progressive db have done to sf and portland with all the homeless. we dont want that. we dont want drug addicts living in our alley ways etc.
I'm laughing. Genuinely. It's not an extreme example when it's a *common* example. As an fyi, I personally grew up in an older suburbs. Not one of these deranged modern ones. We had an alleyway on a smaller property. I promise you, having people wander through our alleys did not harm us. We didn't even know they were there because *why would we*? It also meant that when we visited our neighbors we didn't have to go *all the way around the block*. The homeless aren't your problem you just are scared of strangers. Also, this might be insane to you, but at the end of the day not *everyone* wants to live in those kind of hellish suburbs, so why is it the only option? By saying *I* don't want this so *no one* can have this is some of the stupidest most selfish shit. Go live in your suburbia. But by screaming how it's unsafe for everyone is completely ignoring a very separate vocal group that absolutely wants that. You're welcome to your suburban landscape but don't tell us that our urban landscape should be the only option because it's fucking selfish. You sound like a bratty child "mine me" And a final note. The homeless problem is a government issue that is solvable by this scary little thing called *socialism*. Helping people rather than punishing them for struggling. And you know what the easiest way to do that is? Affordable housing. *Urban development*. Not your snakelike suburban fantasy.
no one wants homeless living in an alley behind their house. people see the progressive liberal policies in sf and portland. no one wants that. exagerating claims of 2 mile connected cul-de-sacs isnt going to have the impact you think its going to have.
I knew coming into this it would be a brick wall conversation. No one is saying that San Francisco or Portland is doing it perfectly but those issues are generally exasperated by the shitty treatment of the homeless population. A problem that isn't resolved by ignoring it, which is what San Francisco infamously does. Creating suburban hellscapes isn't the answer, urban affordable housing developments are, but you completely ignored my last message so it's going to get ignored again. Homeless populations are perpetuated and worsened by the government's unwillingness to fund social programs. Something that is infamously worse in "conservative policies". Just because you don't see your homeless population doesn't mean they magically cease to exist. The idea that you think that just not having them near you is better than them not existing is selfish and dark. Humans should be way fucking better than that.
If you disagree with points made here, you could just offer a counterpoint of substance instead of regurgating Fox News talking points and scare tactics. I suspect you have no argument to make, though.
it's trickier than that. You'd have to take land by imminent domain.
what if there’s no public property through places that need shortcuts like culdesacs? is this like a hindsight/planning stage idea?
there is something called easement in real estate. there isn’t necessarily need for draconian imminent domain. what the municipality can do is buy an easement right on a property rather than the property itself; this can be a sliver of 4m wide land at the side of the property that the easement contract allows the municipality to pave over and illuminate and fence. they exist in many subdivisions but are usually too few. admittedly an easement like this is less appealing to the typical homeowner than the easements that public utilities buy. but i don’t believe the preemptive fear of upsetting residents should cloud the judgement of a town council on this. all it takes is one owner to agree and bam you get a connection; and it’s a private deal. Others on the street may object but it’s not really any of their business and they will live with the consequences peacefully afterwards. Like a lot of things in politics, this improvement requires political courage to implement, but it is not some insurmountable goal because of laws and regulations. The laws are flexible here. It’s a purely political topic.
Could the city acquire some through imminent domain?
Probably not. It would also be political suicide.
[удалено]
It's too late for that. Places that basically don't have eminent domain, like Tokyo, have certainly reaped rewards for their restraint. Places that have already abused eminent domain have already opened Pandora's Box.
I agree. It does seem hopeless without some way to make trips shorted for bikes/pedestrians though
My city is mostly suburbia, and has those in most neighborhoods. Makes it a much shorter walk to the arterial stroads where shops and transit mostly are.
In metro Detroit we have a few examples of this that I know of in Madison heights but I’m not sure if it was originally built like that or added later
It was probably built like that.
Making connections! Cut an opening through the cul de sac so that pedestrians and cyclists do not have to walk all the way around using the infrastructure that was only designed for automobiles. Add pockets of desirable uses like commercial uses and services. Not necessarily those heavier foot heavy places like a mall with a movie theater but consider professional services whether it be an office, dentist, hair stylist/barber, grocery store, etc. Once those are in ensure that those connections mentioned earlier are in and that there's pedestrian oriented infrastructure retrofitted to connect the suburbs to these pockets. Yes, many suburbs can be retrofitted - many of those vehicle traffic lanes are 12 feet wide and can surely be reduced to add pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure. The challenge is all the terrible vehicle drivers who don't want to be inconvenienced or have reduced speed limits on the streets.
Walkable cities/towns need a decent amount of density first, so that the distance between homes and desirable places is short enough that walking becomes a more realistic alternative (to driving). I think loosening up zoning laws would help in that regard.
houston has loosened zoning laws and nothing is walkable.
They have terrible parking regulations, which mitigate much of the benefits of loose zoning laws. “By far the worst offender is Houston’s simply godawful parking regulations. These regulations force enormous amounts of parking to be built compared to the number of buildings. For example, Houston requires there to be 1.333 off-street parking spaces for every single one-bedroom apartment, a truly ridiculous number. For office buildings, 2.5 parking spaces are required per every 1000 square feet of office space. Some other highlights of this section of the code include: 2.2 parking spaces per hospital bed 1 parking space per every 3 high school occupants 1.2 parking spaces for every 1000 square feet in a library 14 parking spaces for 1000 square feet in a bar.” TLDR: All of Houston’s parking regulations results in Houston having a supposed 30 parking spaces per Houston resident. More [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/hqjarb/invisible_zoning_or_the_trouble_with_houston/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1)
Regulating parking spaces for a bar is so absurd it should be parody
>terrible parking regulations build a parking garage. the parking is quite nice in houston. i have no complaints.
Lol. Yes the parking is nice but the walking is hellish subsequently
Its a misconception that houston doesn't have zoning laws. While it is true they don't have a set of laws called zoning they basically have every part of land use policy incorporated in many other parts of the code that would be traditionally associated with zoning. I think city beautiful did a really great video showing how that works.
Houston has zoning laws. Just different from everyone elses. It's still a very car centered and suburban sprawl promoting zones. Honestly, Houston is just ugly to look at
houston is definitely ugly but suburbs seem to be what people want. like 3 generations deep into post-wwii suburbia and seems there is just a niche of people hoarding subs like this denying that suburban appeal exists.
If 55% of people want to live in a car dependent suburb, they should be able to. But the problem is those 55% then vote to force the other 45% to do the same by banning dense developments and mandating lots of parking.
its the opposite. sf uses shadow clauses to stop dense development for example. just start your own dense urban city.
How is "the opposite" when you literally have the power of the state being used to block dense development? Nobody is proposing to evict SFH at gunpoint to force them to live in apartments. The Board of Supervisors used a CEQA loophole to indefinitely block even a private moderate development of 10 townhouses. Those who want low density development are not content with living in one but have a need to force every development to be low density. "Just start your own city" is the same thing as telling people to get out, and they do, out of their homes and onto the street. SF supporters have no standing to complain about homelessness when they are the ones who happily created the crisis.
This is not what I see at all. Plenty of cities have a dense central area surrounded by suburbs. The suburbs have higher land values than the denser parts. Even within the same city, people prefer suburbs.
The dense central area is the only area where any density is allowed. The rest of the city will not allow dense developments, effectively limiting the supply of dense developments. 55% may want the suburb but 90% of the units are suburban because laws have capped the dense supply. 94% of San Jose's land is restricted to SFH only and even duplexes and ADUs weren't allowed until the state forced them to allow it. Suburbs may have individual housing units worth more, but land values in general are not worth nearly as much. Try building surface parking in downtown LA vs a suburb and the downtown one will bleed you dry, which is why most parking in downtown LA is garages.
That’s not true. Zoning Variances are approved all the time. There is no such thing as the city not allowing a certain type of development. Zoning is necessary. You can’t plan your infrastructure effectively if anyone can build whatever they want anywhere. There is also the matter of people not wanting a liquor store across the street from their house, but for the most part, the planning process is about matching infrastructure with the development that needs it. I don’t know how to respond to hypothetical percentages. >individual housing units versus land values Land values are only relevant to what the developer wants. Bear in mind that the developer also wants to build the minimum amount of infrastructure and doesn’t give a hoot about services. The housing price goes straight to what the people who buy the housing units want. By and large, people want suburbs. The vast majority do not want to live in underserved city centers.
Why don't you try getting a variance for a townhouse approved in an R1 Zone or SF or San Jose and see if that "SFH-only" label on the zone is a mere suggestion? The state government even had to force California cities to allow ADUs. "You can ask us for permission and we'll say no 99% of the time" is not the same thing as something being legal. Zoning to some degree is necessary, but zoning that says only single family homes in 90% of the land is ridiculous. It inherently means there's a low cap on housing units. Neighborhoods don't suddenly turn into crime infested hellscapes because people are allowed to build ADUs and duplexes on single family lots. If the "vast majority" didn't want to live in cities, why is rent and housing prices in major cities so high? You're engaging in a very dishonest logical fallacy. You're saying a single family home in the suburbs is better because it's more expensive than a dense dwelling in the city but those are two completely different products. You'd need to compare that same single family house with the same square footage in the central city to one in a suburb. That same house will be more expensive because of land values. And land values don't come out of thin air. It's supply and demand.
It would be unconstitutional for them to just say no. While I am sure there are situations where they can, that would be the exception to the rule. More than likely they would create a list of conditions that need to be met for the variance to be approved. >The state government even had to force California cities to approve ADUs. No. The state had to force California cities to approve ADUs without conditions, which was a terrible idea that will have lasting impacts on the livability of those cities. >only single family homes This gets a lot of play on social media, but density caps are much more common than the idea of “single family only”, and there is a very good reason why you don’t want 15 units per acre built in an area that was designed to support 10 units per acre. >why is rent and housing prices in major cities so high? Which major cities? Pick a city, and I will show you that the homes with yards, parking, public parks and good schools nearby are more expensive than the cramped poorly maintained apartments in the tenderloin areas. Your whole theory is based on an apples versus oranges sleight of hand. >You’d need to compare the same single family house with the same square footage in the central city to one in the suburb. That’s a no-brainer. Let me know how many examples you want. Single family home in dense, underserved urban core is cheaper than single family home in suburban community. Check. Any home in a good school district is more expensive than any home in a less respected district. Check. Homes near public parks are more expensive than homes with no nearby public parks. Check. Homes with lots of street parking are more expensive than homes without street parking. Check. Same square footage homes with large front and backyards are more expensive than homes with smaller or nonexistent yards. Check. Every aspect of suburban living is worth more when isolated.
Sure but this country is run like 100% of us is for Suburban living.
Placing parks in between. Wider sidewalks. Street trees. Ultimately you need places to walk to that aren’t just recreational however; stores, etc. A robust urban trail network can help bridge the gap.
every suburb has recreational sidewalks. i dont think that is what walkable means.
Plenty of suburbs don't have sidewalks.
plenty to satisfy what? a majority? 30%? 20%? every suburb in houston tx ive ever been to has sidewalks.
718 Martin Ln https://maps.app.goo.gl/pmzS8QAWReXwc1zT6 I legit just picked a random Houston suburb and it didn't have sidewalks lmao Most of the second and third (and further) ring suburbs in chicago don't have side walks.
crazy cause all the ones next to it do have sidewalks. missouri city is a black suburb. ive never been there. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5982806,-95.5362031,3a,75y,254.64h,90.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBmkD83KaphR76QwzvUz2RA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DBmkD83KaphR76QwzvUz2RA%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D314.2194%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Looking around I couldn't even find a single suburb on the north or west side that did have sidewalks. Some do seems like there are many that don't, I looked like atleasy 10 that didn't. Doesn't really matter though they all should.
Many places are missing sidewalks actually. His question is about walkability in suburbs without a grid network. My answer is within context.
Right but there's no place to walk in suburbia that's what you're missing. You can put shortcuts between neighborhoods from house to house to go where? How to a huge ring road with big box stores. This is the problem there's no destination no purpose to walk except strolling around the neighborhood for exercise and in that case you don't need shortcuts..
The solution for that is to rezone for flexible mixed uses, to allow for low impact, high neighborhood value non-residential uses on lots within a suburban development. Small markets and grocers, cafes, barbers, hair salons, dentists, clinics, tax preparers, and the like. Some of these could be locate in part of existing residential buildings, others could repurpose entire residential buildings, and others might demolish and build new purpose specific buildings on an existing lot. As long as the businesses are of a modest scale to primarily serve residents within a development subdivision, parking needn’t be a concern, as many patrons would be within easy walking or biking distance, particularly if the subdivision has pedestrian/cyclist cut through a to connect cul-de-sacs to make direct routes for active transportation.
This is politically toxic though. Even in urbanist haven Seattle, when someone opened a neighborhood bar in their own garage because their main store was shut down by COVID regulations, a neighborhood NIMBY complained to the city to shut them down. Most Americans have shown they cannot stand the sight of people in their own neighborhood.
You will note that I did not list bars amongst the “low impact” usages that would be compatible with a neighborhood, as there is a tendency for them to have noise a ruckus late into the night. My neighborhood has two barber shops, a liquor store and small corner market on an otherwise residential street, with no issue or controversy, because they provider useful neighborhood services without creating nuisances like noise, disorderly conduct, traffic, or parking contention. They have no off street parking because they are all small and serve clientele almost entirely within walking or biking distance.
The bar was mostly a daytime thing and the complaint wasn't even about late night noise. It was that people were loitering on the sidewalk in front of the garage. That kind of thing would apply to corner markets too. Don't get me wrong. I would love to have these kinds of amenities in my own neighborhood. But for neighborhoods that don't already have them, I don't think it's possible to convince suburban homeowners to allow them.
As I said in another comment, I have no doubt that suburban homeowners will likely oppose ANY changes to their neighborhoods, as they have always done. If we collectively think that we should evolve our built places for greater sustainability and more options for active transportation (just not in MY neighborhood, but in the OTHER guy’s neighborhood), I think the only way we will achieve that is by imposing the policy at a higher level of government where the aggregated policies will can override the local opposition. This is exactly how California is starting to make changes, but imposing state level limitations on zoning, requiring cities to allow things like in fill densification and transit oriented densification.
I would love it if CA did a state level mixed using zoning law to allow for low impact commercial like they did ADUs by right. But it just seems unlikely because the docket of land use laws the state is trying to ram through is already huge and every minor change has lots of pushback. California needs another decade of Newsom style governors who will twist arms to get enough of these laws through to make a difference.
Not just Newsom, but Wiener. The more Scott Wiener types you can get onto the CA legislature, the more bills they'll propose, and the higher chance that their political allies will approve them into law. Wiener himself is a force and has introduced, coauthored, or otherwise championed tons of urbanist legislation. Elect more folks like him and the state will change in no time.
>Most Americans have shown they cannot stand the sight of people in their own neighborhood. I think you finally hit on the underlying cause to most planning issues.
I don’t doubt that ANY reconfiguration of existing suburban subdivisions would be politically controversial, possibly even political unviable, unless imposed from level of government higher than the municipal level. This includes add cut through for direct pedestrian and cyclist routes, up zoning for ADUs, plexes, and small apartments, and upzoning for mixed uses. Suburban homeowners are extremely small c conservative, and resist any changes they think might change the character of their neighborhood.
Convoluted roads are the result of developers being anti-car. People want cars, but they don't want other people's cars near their houses. The lack of cars makes the neighborhood more walkable, but it's not like a downtown with businesses. Cities could outlaw convoluted streets, but they don't.
Uuh, how the convoluted hierarchical street layout because of developers being anti car tho? If they were anticar... Might as well just go back to grid, because at least the grid doesn't promote car dependency.
Bus lines, shortcuts and slow ( but steady! ) change to a more walkable design
I honestly think a lot of them in the US will need to be abandoned. There simply will not be a need to densify everything unless our population triples or something. Also many of the houses in these places don't last very long anyways, so if we make significant progress densifying prime locations, and make more transit oriented development, people will leave the suburbs for these places.
I really doubt that anyone is going to every want to abandon their homes that they own lol. I think that if every suburb had a denser downtown within a 15 minute walk, that would be ideal. That way, we wouldn't have to abandon suburbs and the sprawl could stop. The problem is that no one wants to give up their land to be that dense downtown core. Maybe we could turn strip mall parking lots into those kind of urban centers and that would bring down housing costs for everyone as people move to the walkable areas that have smaller units that are more environmentally friendly.
I see that as the ultimate end of the suburban experiment as well. As wealth and the standard of living drop with the deterioration of the planet, private vehicle ownership will get more burdensome and be something less can afford or attain. This trend will also be present for governments as tax receipts fall and extremely expensive and complicated highway based infrastructure becomes more and more difficult to maintain to an adequate standard. This will result in necessary abandonment of extremely low density and unproductive suburban areas.
If we want Chinese looking urbanism we need Chinese size population to make that density. Not happening.
The top comments are right. Shortcuts. Right of ways that close loops and create smaller blocks (they don't have to be rectilinear, just much smaller). But very quickly the problems stack up. Who's going to negotiate and buy these shortcuts that go over private property? How does that play out in council meetings when you're buying the Smith family's driveway to connect their cul-de-sac to a shopping plaza? How many times can your city afford the process and legal battles that come with these acquisitions? Then comes the infrastructure.
It's not as hard as you would think. I know of many blocks in NYC that are curvy but have 6 story apartment buildings on them.
Grids do nothing for walkability. What you need are connections - and they can be as non gridded as they want to be, if they are of an adequate interval they're still faster than any grid. Of course you need the increased density and commercial spaces, but from a network perspective it really doesn't need that much. You "just" have to buy a \~ 1 m strip from some properties (and considering how large they are, that's very much possible) to connect what was separate. In a sense many improvements are easy, as they don't come at great expenses or require niche expertise, they are only so difficult because of politics.
Unsavable. Cf white Flint in Montgomery County Maryland and atysons redevelopment in Fairfax County Virginia. Huge costs if retrofitting, still ersatz. Then again, urban lite is fine for the suburbs. Eg Reston Virginia.
Get rid of single family zoning. Permit multituse development. Invest in multituse path infrastructure to incentivize bikes, ebikes scooters, electric carts, etc.
why would a grid matter? walkability as i understand it means walking to grocery stores pharmacies doctors schools etc. this forum seems to think walking through the neighborhood with your dog.
In some places just being able to walk through your neighborhood with your dogs is a goal in and of itself. I was surprised when I moved from Phoenix to Southern Alabama and realized they don’t even have side walks in my neighborhood at all. Phoenix is definitely not know for walkability but I can think of many ways it’s better than it is here for when I want to just get outside and walk for recreation (when weather permits). If I wanna walk my dog in my neighborhood (which is otherwise I pretty clean and decent neighborhood with an HOA) I have to walk in the street (no pedestrian lanes either).
As bad as the built environment is in the Phoenix area, it has potential to be a great city in the future if more areas (maybe along the major grid roads) densify.
Tbh I really want to move back to Phoenix soon because I’m starting to really love it there. Lots of the surrounding suburbs have really nice infrastructure, parks, and landscaping now. I also just really love the desert and mountains there and think it’s beautiful. Yeah it’s hot as hell, but here in Alabama it’s hot and humid, and I can’t go outside for 2 minutes without getting 10+ mosquito bites. And in the city I live they really don’t take care of their infrastructure/landscaping and the roads are all super ugly, and again no sidewalks hardly anywhere.
Just add a LOT of mixed use homes. Build tall, have stores on the first floor. Makes any town more interesting. Do that for one square mile, and you now have Disneyland fun for walking and bicycling in the suburbs.
Pedestrian lanes, sidewalks, trees, pedestrian crossings (both traffic calmed zebra crossings and traffic light crossings), slower speeds and traffic calmed local streets, and of course things to walk to within walking distance.
You need things to actually walk to. Banks, grocery stores, restaurants, drug stores, medical facilities, third places like bars and libraries, parks and plazas, and general shopping. It doesn't matter how dense a place is or how many sidewalks there are if all the things to *do* are miles and miles away.