
What a City Would Look Like If It Were Designed for Only Bikes - geezsundries
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3052018/what-a-city-would-like-if-it-was-designed-for-only-bikes-no-cars-allowed
======
Kluny
I'm a cyclist and I love the idea of making cities more bike friendly, but
this group of designers has missed a major point. Cities are for PEOPLE. Not
for cars, not for bikes, but for humans. Space for people to live and exist in
should be the highest priority, and anytime you start cutting into living
space to make more room for vehicles, you're making the city less human
friendly. That's what these guys seem to be doing. They're saying, "cars
aren't important, bikes are!" But neither bikes nor cars are important. People
are.

I'd even suggest that a major reason why cars have supremacy at the moment is
that they are more inclusive of people than bikes are. I prefer using my bike
any time I possibly can, but I am young, fit, childless and live within 2
minutes of my job. Cars are inclusive of people who have more than one kid,
live across an interstate from their job, and may have mobility issues - and
bikes are not. This redesigned city needs to make room for people who aren't
25 years old and single.

~~~
TulliusCicero
> I'd even suggest that a major reason why cars have supremacy at the moment
> is that they are more inclusive of people than bikes are.

This is mostly true because >>we make it true<<. You see plenty of older
people, people with kids, kids themselves, etc. biking around in the
Netherlands or Denmark. This is because they have good support for biking,
such that people 8 - 80 can bike around town.

Plus, it's not like cars universally win at inclusiveness: They're _less_
inclusive of the poor, for example, because they're vastly more expensive to
own and operate than a bike. The poor who need a car because there's no good
transit or biking options have to spend a huge % of their income on
transportation.

> This redesigned city needs to make room for people who aren't 25 years old
> and single.

Honestly, it sounds like you just haven't been to any city with a high (15%+)
bike modal share, because then you'd see how your assumptions are wrong. If
you live in America, that's understandable, because we don't have any major
cities like that. But they do exist, elsewhere in the world. Visiting
Amsterdam or Copenhagen could be eye-opening.

~~~
Kluny
> Honestly, it sounds like you just haven't been to any city with a high
> (15%+) bike modal share, because then you'd see how your assumptions are
> wrong. If you live in America, that's understandable, because we don't have
> any major cities like that. But they do exist, elsewhere in the world.
> Visiting Amsterdam or Copenhagen could be eye-opening.

I believe you, for sure, I just don't think the concept in this article does
it correctly. You're right that I've never been to Copenhagen or Amsterdam,
but honestly, do they have roofs that slope to the ground so they can be bike
ramps, and extra wide hallways to permit bike riding indoors, with pedestrians
marginalized to the side of the corridor even inside their own homes?

A more bike friendly city is definitely more inclusive. But prioritizing bikes
at the expense of pedestrians isn't correct either.

~~~
TulliusCicero
Oh, I agree that these particular concepts are over the top. I was just taking
issue with the idea that bikes aren't inclusive. This is a common
misconception in the states, because indeed, here we are used to cyclists
being mostly young, fit and male, because our bike lane networks are so shoddy
that no one else is brave/crazy enough to risk their lives just to move around
the city.

Funnily enough, at Google, their bike commute rate in the Mountain
View/Sunnyvale area for people who live within 9 miles of work is 21%, which
is obviously extremely high for the states. It's helped along by a reasonably
high number of painted bike lanes in the area, a few good bike/ped trails, and
the fact that car traffic going to those areas is really, really horrible
during rush hour.

------
hackuser
I had thought the custom on HN was to post valuable, constructive comments,
and not to find fault or to post typical Internet forum sniping and hyperbole.

Perhaps it's my impression, but I've rarely seen anything constructive
recently. Almost everything in this discussion, for example, is reaction and
sniping ("useless", "absurd", "stupid", etc.). It's a way to hang out and
socialize online; there's nothing wrong with it. But personally, I've read
enough Internet sniping for a lifetime; it's not thoughtful, informative,
insightful or constructive; I don't learn anything and leave uninspired.

Perhaps it's just my impression or it's temporary; perhaps it's a bigger
change (related to YC and its leadership distancing themselves from HN?). Is
there anywhere online where the sniping is eliminated and the discussion more
valuable?

EDIT: Sorry, I know it's off-topic, but there's no other place to post it
(that I know of).

~~~
_delirium
I mostly agree. I do sometimes find valuable counterpoint in the HN comments,
but most often that's on topics where the community here has actual expertise
(mostly programming) and the counterpoint is pretty specific.

This has been a discussion on HN for years, though, and even has its own
jargon term, the "middlebrow dismissal":
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224)

~~~
hackuser
Thanks for the interesting link.

I think the discussions used to be much better. There was less 'noise' and
some truly excellent 'signal', which made the discussions worthwhile.
Recently, my impression is that the noise has significantly increased and the
excellent signal has almost disappeared. But: That could be simply my mistaken
impression, it could be just normal variability, or it could be something
else. Certainly I'm not the first to say, in any community, 'it's not like it
was in the old days'.

~~~
sanderjd
In my opinion, there is plenty of noise, but the truly excellent signal
remains and pops up at a reasonable rate. But I've only been around 5 or 6
years, so I always wonder if I simply don't have a concept of the "good old
days" that people are nostalgic about.

------
Avalaxy
A bike ramp into the apartment is useless. You can just take the elevator with
your bike, or you know... Just make a garage for bikes on ground floor. The
article doesn't really say much about how to design a city for bicycles, which
mostly comes down to providing good roads where you aren't bothered by cars.

~~~
micheljansen
Yep, I live in the Netherlands and my apartment complex has a separate
entrance to a bicycle storage area on street level, which connects to the
central hallway. Parking's only half the story though. You also need to feel
safe to ride a bike, which requires infrastructure and attitude.

------
jules
I wonder if that expert has been to the Netherlands or Copenhagen. In fact I
wonder whether he has really experienced a bike for day to day use, because
some of the ideas are very strange. It's telling that most bikes in the
pictures are racing bikes. What's the advantage of bikes in apartment
buildings? Why not park the bike at the ground floor? It would waste a lot of
space in the corridors. Think about what you'd rather have: 2 meters extra
apartment, or 2 meters extra wide corridor.

Bikes in shops will not work either. Walking through a shop with a bike seems
extremely unwieldy; you would need much larger space between the shelves. A
bike in your hand makes it hard to pick up things from the shelves. A bike
does not stay upright by itself when you go to pick up something from the
shelves, so you have to park it with that thing that I don't know the English
name of. Even then, if you load the bike with a bag of groceries it usually
falls over. When you are walking on one side of your bike it's hard to reach
over your bike while not falling over. Bike parking space is a non-problem
compared to car parking space. No cars whatsoever is unrealistic even in bike
utopia. How do you move big and heavy things? No ambulance, no fire trucks?

~~~
netcan
I think there's a different culture in places where bikes remained (like
Netherlands & Denmark) as a major vehicle type and where they can back in
recent decades.

In the places where they came back, it was a trendy sporty thing. Very
expensive bikes became normal and when these new age cyclists try to use their
bikes for transport they hit the theft and vandalism issue. Part of the
solution in (EG) Netherlands is riding fairly inexpensive & simple bikes so
that theft is not such a show stopper.

To the sporty newcomers, this seems like a crappy trade-off.

In fairness, The Netherlands is flat & small. You can cycle from the outskirts
to centres of major cities in 30-45 minutes and even between some cities (EG
Hague & Rotterdam) in an hour. Even with the wonderful infrastructure, it's
probably not applicable in places like Sydney. To get from the centre to the
western suburbs where most people live would take 3+ hours cycling. On a
rickety Amsterdam classic it'd be quite a chore, much hillier and hotter. Even
inner city Sydneysiders travel farther that Amsterdam Suburbanites. So, sydney
cyclists dreaming of a bike-first world are thinking about maximum speed, the
fitness to power up hills, sweat clothes and showers at every destination.

~~~
jules
The Netherlands wasn't always bike friendly. There was a big push in the 70's
to redesign cities and popularize cycling. It wasn't something that just
happened or something that was always there.

I agree that you need to adapt the approach to the country or area. The real
goal should be making the space in cities outside of buildings human friendly
rather than only car friendly. This is about pedestrians, bikes, public
transport, architecture, atmosphere, etc. In Sydney you could perhaps use
public transport for long distances, with bikes for the last mile. This is
also common in the netherlands for people who travel between cities. Or you
could have electric bikes for hilly terrain and warm weather. Note that the
netherlands is rainy and windy, and that's not nice for cycling either yet
people still do it.

------
jacquesm
That's a city designed for _ONLY_ bikes, and no city will ever be designed
like that, no cars allowed is nice in theory but not workable. To be practical
it would at a minimum have to accommodate foot-traffic, supply lines to stores
(or did you think that those stores will be supplied by cargo bikes?) and
access for disabled people (not everybody can ride a bike).

So it's a nice thought experiment but not at all practical, on top of that
'bike lanes in apartment building hallways' make you wonder just how much
experience the designer has riding bicycles, you park your bike at the
interface between inside and outside and you don't run around the apartment
hallways on a bicycle because of (1) pedestrians, (2) playing kids, (3) the
fact that you now have to elevate your bicycle every time you want to go in or
out of your house and (4) storing your bike at streetlevel is simply much more
practical.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
"no cars allowed is nice in theory but not workable"

I think cities existed before cars.

~~~
saiya-jin
well they did, but you wouldn't want to live in most of them.

what about ambulances? fireworkers? once your place is on fire, or your dad is
having heart attack, you want help to arrive in eco-friendly manner half an
hour too late?

even places like Zermatt in Switzerland, which prides itself in banning all
cars except electric has medical, technical and police guys routinely cruising
the village in... you guessed it, normal cars. and that's a tiny holiday spot,
not some vibrant metropolis.

you want more bikes in your town? look at Denmark or Netherland how they
achieved it. dedicated bike lanes over WHOLE city, not just here and there.
Bikes have dedicated time and dedicated traffic lights. every major road has
bike-only side road, no pedestrians allowed.

~~~
nilkn
Well, I recently watched a small restaurant get robbed at gunpoint. It took
the police ~15-20 minutes to arrive because they had to drive from downtown.
Cars allow a single officer to service a much larger radius, which
unfortunately in this case meant that the city simply hired fewer police
officers, resulting in little net benefit.

By the time the officer arrived the thief was probably in his living room
counting the money because he himself drove off with the aid of an accomplice
waiting outside.

The situation you describe in Zermatt sounds like an interesting compromise,
though.

------
smcl
That "bike friendly" apartment block looks extremely pedestrian hostile

~~~
WorldMaker
The "hallway with lanes"? The thing that isn't obvious at first glance (but is
more obvious in further design depictions) is that it is setup like a
miniature version of a typical street in which to the immediate sides of the
bike lanes are "bike parking" spots and on the far sides of those spots are
pedestrian "side walks".

It seems like a fair design to me.

~~~
Super_Jambo
Really?

You're using up an absolutely vast area in your building for bike paths. You
also are forced to build everything into a ramp shape so that the bikes can
get in.

Oh and alternative solution (put a bike garage on the ground floor). Is
cheaper and probably nicer to live in since the people on the top floor can
use lifts instead of riding an extra couple of k up hill.

~~~
WorldMaker
The whole point of the conceptualization is to explore what cities/buildings
might be like if we built bike-first. Of course it's not "practical" versus
the cheapness of first floor bike garages. It's meant to be a vision of what
we might do if we rebuilt things from first principles.

Certainly you could do both: have a good lift to your floor in the evenings
that you could ride your bike into and then in the mornings coast your way all
the way down as a fun way to start your day. Some people would even appreciate
the extra uphill climb every day as an easy way to stay fit in their own home
buildings.

Another thing to note here is that the conceptualized buildings are a lot
wider than they are tall. The impression being that even if you had an
elevator to your floor you might still want to ride your bike to your unit as
the floor itself will be long enough to warrant that sort of thing.

Again, the goal here is to question design principles and it is a fair and
interesting design because it asks questions about our assumptions. We
currently don't build buildings more than a quarter mile wide because once
inside them we assume everyone has to walk. Thus we tend to build taller
buildings instead. Shorter, wider, ramp-like buildings are an interesting idea
and this concept gives us a vocabulary to discuss them.

Do I expect to see these in cities any time soon? Definitely not. But it is
still a neat design worth discussing, especially if it allows us to re-
question old city design assumptions.

------
geezsundries
I'm confused as to why they created bike paths in apartment building hallways.

~~~
davidw
Indoor races when the weather is bad? :-)

------
joveian
I like that they are trying to consider different possibilities, although I'm
not personally fond of what they came up with. For example, one picture looked
like ramps for bikes to go over cars, but in practice it works better for
cyclists to go under (even though from an engineering standpoint it is more
work to put the heavy traffic on top). I also don't want bikes to be indoors
(and I primarily bike for transportation).

I like David Hembrow's blog about cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands.
Here is a good post on myths and excuses about cycling infrastructure:
[http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-
myths...](http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-
excuses-in-one-post.html)

~~~
lifeformed
Why should bikes go under the cars?

~~~
joveian
Otherwise bikes get an extra hill :). And then you get extra speed when you
don't need it. Down and then up is easy. Although for typical intersections
I'm not sure either is a particularly good idea most of the time. Other
options are separate signals or giving priority to cyclists (Hembrow has a
bunch of pictures of this stuff), or, as someone else mentioned, for high
density areas having a separate fully elevated bike path could work too.

------
ape4
A secure/convenient place to lock your bike at ground level is better.

------
wehadfun
A bike friendly building is a good idea if city really, really wanted to
promote bike use. Being able to ride your bike into a grocery store, shop,
then ride your bike into your kitchen and unload is kind of awesome. But this
is the last step after bike only roads and decent bike public transportation.

------
acaloiar
Even as a cyclist these designs seem myopic to the demands of civic design
such as pedestrian friendliness and affordability. Perhaps a Dubai could
afford retrofitting, but as these designs stand, they are only practical (and
I use that loosely) for new construction.

------
cdnsteve
I think the concept is interesting but needs some tweaking. The main issue
with any core downtown is space. There simply isn't any available, for anyone.
The space that is available is extremely costly so we need to think outside
the box. Bike paths on the ground aren't the only option.

Go up. Elevated bike paths, much like the Vancouver Skyrail, are an option.
[http://www.railway-
technology.com/projects/vancouver/vancouv...](http://www.railway-
technology.com/projects/vancouver/vancouver5.html)

\- The elevated structure would only be for cyclists \- You could literally
ride above all the downtown traffic \- Dedicated lanes so you don't get road
rage

------
netcan
There seems to be a great amount of enthusiasm in the zeitgeist about the
future, positive and negative predictions. A lot of it comes with some far out
economics baked in nonchalantly. Basic incomes, abundance economies & zero
marginal cost everything.

I like it and I do quite a bit of indulging in this sort of thing myself. But…

I don't think I'm seeing the trends in gadgetry, software, and manufactured
goods at work everywhere. The production cost (and often the price) of
manufactured goods (used to be "mass produced) has come down tremendously
compared with average income. The trend is hundreds of years old. Underpants,
sugar bowls, cereal commodities and almost everything else you can fit under a
very wide umbrella of "manufactured goods" is heading towards free, or at
least extremely cheap. We've seen it happen with a lot of things. Clothes pins
& pencils used to be worth something, but I can't remember cost ever being a
factor. They're basically free. Software also. I agree that a lot of things
are headed towards "abundance." The things that aren't are often things that
keep getting better, things where we have an appetite for (qualitative) more,
iphones & whatnot.

The bicycles come into it at the points where there isn't a fruitful trend
towards more, better everything. Housing & transport are still most people's 2
biggest expenses. These have improved in quality over time and we consume more
(bigger house, long commute, overseas holiday…) but there isn't an obvious
"trend towards abundance."

The fact that a radical idea (radical because of the radical trade off of
eliminating cars) like this is interesting is kind of proof that this thing is
not moving and we're frustrated. We still commute a lot, and we don't enjoy
it. It pollutes. It's noisy. Expensive. Slow. It's not much different than
1980 or even 1965.

I think housing and transport are the stick in the abundance ideas. In 25
years roads might be full of quite, clean, electric, driverless, parkingless
cars but even that amazing achievement will still not match the technology
trends that have brought other things up the quality and abundance curve.

------
domfletcher
I'm curious to see the interaction between self driving cars and bicycle
friendly cities. What about banning human driven cars from a city and then
using the resultant savings in road space to make it more cycle friendly?

------
crystalmeph
For one thing, you wouldn't have to look at old or infirm people...

------
throwaway41597
Misleading title and absurd idea: they suggest having bike lanes _inside_
buildings. This is wasting precious real estate: the indoor bike lanes and
parkings are nearly as big as the apartments they service. Why not build
streets in buildings if you prefer cars? or a river if you're a boat person?
or a half-pipe for skaters?

------
zyxley
> and maybe even wheel their bike through stores as they shop, with a sleeping
> baby in the bike carrier, or use the basket to hold groceries

Anyone who has ever actually had a bike for more than a week and who actually
shops for their own groceries will know this is a terrible idea.

~~~
jrock08
Why?

I use panniers for my groceries, however, the grocery store won't allow me to
just bring my bike inside, so instead I have to take the panniers off my bike
and put them in a cart. Using my bike as the cart would make sense.

~~~
zyxley
Now imagine trying to get something from a freezer or off of a top shelf
without having to put the kickstand down and then up again after over and over
and over.

------
mroll
One problem that immediately stands out to me is how sweaty everyone would be.
I'm in shape but riding around a city on a hot day would have me drenched.

~~~
dalke
In this vision of the future, I believe all of the bike paths will be indoors
and air conditioned.

------
ilaksh
I like the general idea of moving away from cars and creating architecture
that supports that. I feel that my idea solves many more problems than this
design though. I do not have drawings and 3d renderings etc. or own a firm and
I am just an individual, but my tiny villages concept is much more
comprehensive.

[http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/](http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/)

------
kazinator
I speak as a non-car-owning bicycle commuter when I say that bicycle lanes
_inside_ apartment building hallways are ... glaringly stupid. Rabid
bicyclowns like this give the rest of us a bad reputation for fanaticism.

------
electricblue
particular small areas with extremely high pop density might improve if cars
were banned but for the most part adding separate bike paths that don't
interact with roads much is the way to go. The sloped apartments seem
dangerous and stupid.

~~~
ctdonath
_particular small areas with extremely high pop density might improve if cars
were banned_

Cars, on the whole, occupy a single flat level. Why don't buildings spread out
over roads as the norm? rather than the occasional oddity of a road tunneling
thru a building, why isn't that the norm? Ventilation etc problems can be
solved. There's N stories of unused space over the roads; leave the first 2-3
stories for road tunneling, and fill in the building-sized empty spaces above.

~~~
electricblue
Probably because it's prohibitively expensive compared with just building a
larger building next to the road and it's aesthetically pleasing to have space
between buildings and humans like sunlight.

------
jbb555
It would look empty, because who would choose to live there?

------
Shivetya
If exposed to weather it is an automatic fail. Sorry, that is just how it
works. From any transportation alternative that is no enclosed it always comes
down to comfort. One day it is too hot, another too cold, or too wet, and on
and on, until the excuse is no longer needed as the alternative mode is
parked.

So any bicycle or pedestrian friendly environment needs weather protection as
part of its design. It does not need be fully enclosed but that type of
protection may be required depending on climate. Perhaps a convertible system
where panels retract?

~~~
larrymyers
I happily commute by bike year round in Chicago, as do many other thousands of
people that live in the city. It gets into the 90's in the summer, and well
below freezing in the winter.

If it's hot I pack my work clothes and change (and shower if needed) at work.

If it's cold I dress warmly. It's amazing how quickly you warm up when
pedaling more than a few miles.

If it's raining I wear a rain jacket, and the fenders on my bike keeps water
from splashing up on me.

So no, weather is not an automatic fail. It's just a mindset change if you're
used to be in the enclosed bubble that car provides.

------
coldcode
I live 43 miles from my job, all on major interstates, in a big metro area.
What good would this do? Unless you designed the city for mixed
living/working/shopping in the first place, most US cities could never change
to be bike first. This isn't SimCity where you can raze the whole town.

~~~
s73v3r
"I live 43 miles from my job, all on major interstates, in a big metro area."

Nobody forced you to live so far away from your job. You're already catered to
by virtue of having those interstates in the first place. Quit complaining
that other people, who aren't you, are finally getting some attention.

~~~
logfromblammo
Other than all the other people that outbid you for less distant homes, you
mean. Or those who consistently NIMBY-veto any potential development of high-
rise residential buildings near their existing homes. Or the zoning boards
that outlaw the very concept of homes being adjacent to businesses.

Actually, there are quite a lot of people who force me to live further away
from my job than is strictly necessary. They are the very same people who
would almost certainly undermine--and eventually destroy--any bicycle-oriented
development. It would be unwise to dismiss those factors as mere whining.

~~~
s73v3r
No. Sorry, but it's still you who choose to live that far away from your job.
You could have chosen another job, or you could have chosen to spend more
money on a house, or buy less house.

Nobody forced you to live where you do right now. That decision was all you.

~~~
logfromblammo
So you're basically telling me it's my fault for not being rich enough to do
what I want. Thanks.

If I had unlimited time and unlimited funds, I could certainly shorten my
commute down to the distance from my bedroom to my in-home office, all in my
palatial mansion in the heart of a culturally vibrant, crime-free, educated,
and thriving city. Unfortunately, living in the real world, there are external
constraints upon my decisions that I have no individual control over. Those
constraints rule out the fantasy that you seem to have invented wherein I can
just choose to be Batman in my Batcave, and the local government begs me for
my help via a spotlight, instead of constantly demanding that I jump through
whatever idiotic regulatory hoops it cares to set up.

In the real world, the amount I am paid for my work is determined by market
conditions. The affordability of housing is determined by market conditions.
The cost of living is determined by market conditions. Within those bounds, I
make the best decisions I can, according to my own priorities. And yes, I do
have higher priorities than being able to walk or bicycle to work. I believe
those priorities cannot be greatly altered while still remaining a socially
responsible person.

There are more variables involved than just home-office distance and pay rate.
You have no idea what it would cost for me to halve my commute distance, or to
quarter it. It may well be the difference between retiring at age 75 instead
of 67, or not retiring ever. Or it may be the difference between helping my
all my kids to pay college tuition, or not. Or maybe it's just the difference
between eating fresh ground beef or canned Spam.

This is why I suggest it is foolish to blithely discount all those unseen
individual reasons people have for following a particular lifestyle. People
generally make the best decisions they can, using the resources they have
available, according to the priorities they have established for themselves.

So when someone says, "I wish I could live closer to work," your response
probably should not be, "You can, but you obviously don't want it enough."
Because what you're conveying is that person is not enough of a selfish prick
to make their spouse commute further, send their kids to lower-performing
schools, spend more money on an apartment, house, or condo with less relative
utility independent of its location, spend more money now at the expense of
savings or investments, possibly uproot any existing social networks for other
members of the household, maybe adapt to an entirely different culture in the
new location, and even physically moving a truckload of accumulated property
and possessions over some distance. What that person was really saying,
without actually saying it, was, "I wish I could live closer to work without
changing into a sociopath, ascetic, hermit, or hobo, and without switching to
job that I would hate."

So maybe adopt a new priority, and make sure it ranks higher than biking to
work: don't be a dick. That's it. Have some care for the daily struggles of
your fellow humans. You might just find that redesigning entire cities to make
cyclists happier has a side-effect of making all the non-cyclists absolutely
miserable. And maybe the current automobile-centric design of cities is overly
unfair to bikers. You can't just ignore bikers because you love driving. You
have to consider the impact on everyone, not just your paragons, eidolons, and
chosen ones.

