
A Traditional City Primer - nopinsight
http://www.andrewalexanderprice.com/blog20131204.php#.U9PdSPmSz6A
======
rayiner
I've always found the "cars are freedom" angle a little odd. There's no bigger
interface between your typical middle class American and the police/legal
system than the automobile. The very fact of driving a dangerous two-ton
machine around on expensive publicly-owned infrastructure spawns registration,
taxation, regulation, enforcement (traffic cops, DUI checkpoints, ticketing,
traffic courts), etc. A car isn't freedom, it's just the easiest way to get in
trouble with the law.

Another thing I find interesting is that suburbia is spawning manufactured
human-scale areas. E.g. Atlantic station in Atlanta:
[http://vccusa.com/i/projects/atlantic_station1.jpg](http://vccusa.com/i/projects/atlantic_station1.jpg).
Reston Town Center in Virginia:
[http://www.fairfaxcountyeda.org/sites/default/files/photos/r...](http://www.fairfaxcountyeda.org/sites/default/files/photos/reston_town_72dpi_0.jpg).
They're planning on building an above-street level plaza in Tysons near the
new Silver Line stop, because the street level of that area is beyond
redemption:
[http://assets.macerichepicenter.com/FileManager/Tysons/Heade...](http://assets.macerichepicenter.com/FileManager/Tysons/Headers/InteriorPages/Plaza_Subhero.jpg).

~~~
bignaj
Ever owned a car before? How about being able to hop in your vehicle and drive
anywhere in the entire country whenever you want _just because you feel like
it_? That's why cars are freedom. Ask any recently-turned 16-year-old what
it's like actually being able to go places. You could also just step on the
gas pedal, drive across the country and feel the freedom yourself. Your
comment has some good side-points to add to the discussion of cars for sure
but by far the biggest point has gone about 3,099 miles over your head (Boston
to San Francisco). To add to the OP: I think the ideal mix would be
traditional cities where walking/biking are the ideal (like older parts of
Europe) and then something like the interstate system/cars to allow freedom
and mobility across the entire country (USA). I live in a city and ride my
bike anywhere downtown, but my car is absolutely essential to go anywhere
else. Freedom!

~~~
rayiner
My new apt is next to Balitmore Penn Station. I can be at BWI within 20
minutes of walking out my front door, and from there anywhere in the country.
Yeah, the TSA is oppressive, but there's actually very little actual power
other than not letting you board the plane. Cops have real power, and they
exercise it over drivers. You know how much you hate getting bossed around by
TSA agents? Car ownership is like that, except every day.

Then there is the danger: I got hit by an oil truck merging into my lane.
Nearly got run off the road by another truck going through Baltimore Harbor
Tunnel (asshole didn't realize until the last minute one of the tunnels was
closed). Nearly got killed by a tire falling off a big rig while on the
highway. Nearly got killed fishtailing on an icy bridge in New York. That's
just the last 18 months. On my commute to Philly I see some poor asshole
crashed by the side of the road several times a month. In a year, I've never
walked by a murder scene in "dangerous" Philly. I've almost certainly passed
by more than one fatal accident in that time.

Car ownership brings your average middle class white American into contact
with two things they normally don't have to deal with: death and police
oppression.

PS: On the issue of 16 year olds having cars--that's absolutely terrifying.
What blows my mind is that I seem alone in finding it terrifying. People worry
about their kids in the city, but at least you can buy your way out of that
danger. How often do you hear of an upper middle class white or asian kid
getting shot in Chicago? Meanwhile, about a dozen teenagers die in car
accidents every year in the upper middle class white/asian suburban county
where I grew up.

~~~
eqdw
Hey man, I share your fear. I hate cars. I hate driving.

I live in the SF Bay Area. I work in downtown San Francisco. When I lived in
SF proper, it would usually be faster to walk somewhere than drive, because of
traffic. Then factor in finding parking. Then factor in _paying_ for parking
(upwards of $10/hr anywhere important). Add the stress of driving in dense
areas, moronic pedestrian tourists who wander into the middle of the the
streets, cyclists who seem to have a death wish, and other drivers who act
like it's an aggression competition

Now I live across the bay (I got gentrified out of SF), and it's even worse.
The freeway nearest me is bumper-to-bumper stop and go across 5 lanes of
traffic, for 3 hours in the morning and for 3 hours in the evening. Everyone
is just as aggressive, but the speeds have quintupled.

Bignaj mentions freedom. Shortly after buying my car, I went up to Portland
for a conference. I thought, FUCK YEAH ROAD TRIP. Well, for one, turns out 11
hours of driving in one day is hard. I looked at the radio at the wrong moment
and almost killed myself. I burned about $250 worth of gas round trip. And
once I got to Portland, parking was $30 a night. After the trip was over, when
I came home, I priced out airplane tickets. A round trip for both my
girlfriend and myself, was cheaper than the cost of gas + parking in Portland.
It would have saved us the better part of a day's worth of time (at Bay Area
tech salaries, $400), and it would have given me a 100% reduction in near-
death experiences. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, and used to Air Canada
prices, but airline travel is so cheap in this country that, for the vast
majority of places people want to go, flying there is cheaper and easier than
driving. I don't see how car = freedom in that regard.

I own a car. I wish I didn't, but I already have it. It's paid in full, I have
a flawless driving record so insurance isn't that bad. I like going on day
trips hiking. I've run the numbers, renting a car every day I want to hike
would be cheaper than buying the car, but the car is already bought and
depreciated at this point so too late on that. I would've traded my car for a
smart car or scooter years ago if it wasn't for that. And I'd be doing without
that if I could afford to live in a walkable place here.

Cars are horrible, and most utilitarian arguments for them are terrible.

And P.S.: That horrifies me too. Every 3 months, one 9/11 worth of americans
die in motor vehicle accidents. We haven't declared a war on driving yet

~~~
peatmoss
The rental option is really compelling. In Seattle, the missus and I use a mix
of biking, walking, public transit, Car2go, Zip car, and UberX. Not owning a
car, we make a choice each and every time we go somewhere that balances
convenience, travel time, and cost. We save heaps of money, and stay in shape
by not having a "default drive" option.

When people have already bought a car and paid a flat insurance rate, the
_marginal_ cost of another car trip is very low. Thus, people who own cars
don't really make a choice very frequently. Their choice has already been
pretty much made once at the outset.

Because carsharing services will almost undoubtedly be the first deployments,
self-driving cars cannot come quickly enough for me. I think the net effect is
that they will drive (har har) more people to adopt carsharing services. Self-
driving cars will solve one of the inconveniences of something like Car2go,
namely the need to walk some indeterminate distance to a car.

If they can get more people into an a la carte transportation usage model, I
anticipate public transit and non-motorized transportation options will
benefit greatly. Since trip costs will only be marginal, the choice to do
something other than drive will come up routinely.

As self-driving carsharing fleets replace the >90% idle private vehicles of
today, we'll need less land for parking. My hope is that on-street land can be
given over to wider sidewalks, better quality bicycling infrastructure, and
dedicated transit right-of-way, which will make those modes even _more_
competitive.

In part because I've been personally touched by the mass slaughter on our
roadways, I left a career in information security to retrain / work as an
urban planner focussing on transportation. Oddly, the nearishness of self-
driving vehicles is pushing me back in the direction of my former career. I'm
bullish enough on the potential of self-driving vehicles to remake the
economics and safety of transportation that I'm now pursuing a PhD researching
privacy / security aspects of the "smart city"\--including on-demand mobility
services. If we can get all this suitably right, I think it will be
transformative for society.

~~~
paddy_m
The rental option is not at all compelling in NYC (where I live). If you want
to get away for the weekend, you are looking at a $275 to $350 rental if you
go to Jersey to pick it up. Going to Jersey is an extra hour (and $7.50 per
person ferry ride), plus once you're over there, you're going to take a taxi
to get to the rental place. You could rent in Manhattan, but then you're
looking at $500 for the weekend. With all of that, you have to get to the
rental place before they close on Friday, and hope the location you are
returning to is open late on Sunday.

I got so annoyed when family members would say "just rent a car and come down
to visit us". It's not cheap, it's not easy, and it's not fun.

Renting a car in Stamford, CT is cheap, ~$70 a day.

~~~
kimdouglasmason
Zipcar. CityCarShare. A number of other organizations.

Zipcar now have differential pricing (i.e. more expensive on weekends), so a
24 hour rent Mon - Fri is under $100.

Expensive, you may say. But... I pay only $70 per year for a full insurance
waiver, all fuel is included, and there are no maintenance costs or other
hidden costs.

Last Zipcar I got I used almost a full fuel-tank worth in a 24 hour period.
Subtracting fuel from the price put the days rental at about $40. And there's
a pod across the street from my apartment (and about a zillion other pods
nearby, here in Berkeley CA).

I have friends with a 2-kid family in Manhattan and no car. They use Alamo,
and claim it's cheap and easy.

Renting is expensive. Owning a car is also expensive, with more 'hidden' costs
that people frequently ignore.

------
graeme
Thanks for this. I moved from Toronto to Montreal, and am much happier for it.

In Toronto, I felt a malaise. I couldn't articulate why. When I told people
why I moved, I would say "Montreal has old buildings, a mountain,
bilingualism, and....narrow streets".

No one ever got the streets, and I never had seen much discussion, so I
couldn't convey why that mattered. This drives it home. It's the human scale.

I now live in the plateau Mont Royal. It was a neighborhood made possible by
transit, but most of the streets are narrow and meant for the use of
inhabitants.

I am in the middle of a square grid; on a quiet street. A three minute walk
north, east, south or west sends me to a different, bustling commercial
district, each with their own distinct flavour. Side streets in other
directions have their own shops, and there are residential streets extending
ten blocks in any direction.

I spend 90% of my time within a 5 minute walk of my house, and yet have a
world of options to choose from. And almost every bit of it is human scale.

Not accidently, rents are highest in this part of town, and this is where the
tourist come to experience "charming, European Montreal".

Some people talk about increasing density by building high rises in the
plateau. I wonder why they don't talk about building more plateaus.

(Note: Rents are actually quite low across the board in Montreal. A one
bedroom can be had for less than $700 per month in the plateau.)

~~~
butchler
I actually just stayed at a little hotel in the plateau Mont Royal while on
vacation in Canada a couple of weeks ago! It was amazing and I seriously think
I might move to Montreal someday.

Another thing that Montreal has that they don't have where I live is tons of
Summer festivals. While we were there was some kind of festival put on by a
clown school and we got to see basically a mini, outdoor Cirque du Soleil
performance for free. I don't even usually like things like that very much,
but it definitely helped give the experience of a "charming, European" city =P

------
twelvechairs
This is my field. I trained as an architect and work as an urban designer
(somewhere between an architect, landscape architect and planner). This
article hits on some good points but misses a lot of others. Some dot points
to keep it short:

* People (especially those with children) often prefer to live in houses with space which are more private rather than in narrow apartments (required if you want low building heights and for everyone to walk everyhwere) on top of their neighbours. Do you really want to hear 3 screaming babies next door every night. Because that's how it works.

* Modern business don't work in low desnity environments like this. You simply need to be as accessible as you can to as wide a market (of workers and other businesses you work with) as possible. Maybe once we are all working on the internet it will shift this way - but it hasn't gone far yet.

* Even the 'traditional cities' shown will have outskirts with houses which are a pain to walk to rather than just apartments in a centre.

* There is no single 'traditional city'. There are differences even across Europe. England has its widened-road market squares. Italy has its hill towns. Places like Japan usually built out of timber (which doesn't last) rather than stone. Etc.

* There are plenty of examples of tower cities with bustling urban environments and low car ownership. Like Hong Kong. Dehumanising? Perhaps. It depends on your definition.

* Most 'traditional cities' couldn't be built for anywhere near the same cost as a modern development.

Overall though, this is pushing in the right direction, just not quite thought
through as thoroughly as it might be.

[edit] Perhaps the most successful attempt at building in this vein in the
west recently has been Poundbury, England. It was Prince Charles' pet project.
It has done some things well (like managing to break the highways codes) but
in the end perhaps still isn't as nice as a traditional town or as attractive
a location for modern living as other places being built. You can see it in
streetview here:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@50.712904,-2.463939,3a,75y,145....](https://www.google.com/maps/@50.712904,-2.463939,3a,75y,145.8h,79.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sP_ymofrDtmlmk2aW3jaL5w!2e0)

~~~
Joeri
As someone who deliberately left behind suburbia and its mandatory car
ownership to find a better quality of life in a traditional city i find it
saddening to hear you argue against human-friendly urban planning. I find your
arguments unconvincing.

* Just because apartments are small doesn't mean you hear your neighbors, or live uncomfortably. I've lived in three different apartments the past decade and the only time i had noise issues was with a neighbor who played techno at full volume at 3 am, which would be an issue in any city design, dense or sparse. The notion that hearing three crying babies every night is just how it works is only true in hollywood movies which fictionalize poverty in the inner city. In real world apartment life you have a mixed habitation pattern, and soundproofing.

* suburbia is even less dense than any sort of city. It's not the density that's the issue, it's the ability to commute. In a city where commuting can be done on foot or through public transit, like many european cities, it's simply not an issue. I walk 5 minutes and then take the tram to work, reading HN while commuting.

* There's no such thing as a traditional city, yet you're arguing against it. The article was quite clear on what is meant by the traditional city.

* Having low density at the edges is a feature, not a downside, because some people prefer the isolation. Anyway, if we built all cities in this pattern, there would be a better density distribution. City edges would blend. In high density urban construction everybody struggles to reach the center and get back out again, every day during rush hour. Having ten smaller less dense cities without suburbs instead of one big dense one with a lot of suburbs seems like it would have fewer traffic problems and a better quality of life. Maybe it's just my personal preferences talking though.

* I've been to NY, as a tower city with low car ownership it is impressive, and i was glad to visit, but also glad to leave. The best living in NY is in traditional city areas like greenwich village. High rise is not the answer to quality of life in urban planning.

* The cost argument is a red herring. We don't know how to build traditional cities cheaply because we haven't done it enough recently. It would solve itself. Business finds a way when forced to.

Anyway, whatever design is used, there is a sort of universal understanding
what a city that is nice to live in is like, and it's one without cars. Cars
simply don't belong inside a city where people actually live. I hope urban
planners everywhere eventually realize this and force cars to remain at the
edge, where they belong. Usually the people who want to drive their car inside
the city don't even live there.

~~~
santaclaus
> Just because apartments are small doesn't mean you hear your neighbors, or
> live uncomfortably.

Having lived in three apartments in the densest city in America, this is
patently false. I can hear my neighbors eat dinner, fart, kick their son out
at 2am, etc. You can do sound insulation, but that doesn't mean cheapo
developers do!

~~~
turar
Like others mentioned, this largely depends on the building type -- e.g.
concrete vs wood and gypsum. Most American apartment complexes below 5-6
stories high are usually all wooden with low sound proofing.

~~~
kimdouglasmason
For what it's worth, I'm in a newish (2010) apartment building in Berkeley.
It's one of those wood and drywall jobs, and we never hear anything from
neighbours except those above us if they drop something or stomp.

Perhaps this building might be unusually well built. All the windows are
double-glazed for example, which is definitely not needed for climate reasons
around here (Berkeley has to be one of the mildest climates on Earth).

Having said that, this building is mostly populated with moneyed students (the
garage looks like a BMW/Merc/Audi/Porsche showroom - factory stickers are
common). I imagine they're not the noisy type. We're a family of 5 where the
kids have done things like use skateboards indoors, so perhaps our neighbours
are cursing us for the noise :).

------
chestnut-tree
I think this is a rather romanticised view of a traditional city. I don't want
to live in a city dominated by cars, but that doesn't mean the best
alternative is to build extremely narrow streets.

All cities need contrasting spaces. Even the medieval town or city was marked
by narrow streets that led to an open piazza or square. The feeling of walking
from a confined narrow space into a wide open expanse can give a feeling of
exhiliration. It's something architects continue to use today inside
buildings. Think of the walk through a corridor into the grounds of a stadium
and the excitement it generates. Or the excitement of walking through a
corridor in a theatre before you enter the large expanse of the auditorium.

The scale and proportion of buildngs in relation to one another creates a
sense of enclosure that can either feel comfortable or uncomfortable. The
author calls the extremely narrow streets "intimate" and they are in many
cases, but they can also be claustrophobic (especially if you live in them).

For housing, not everyone will want to live in streets as narrow as the
pictures in the blog post. Who doesn't prefer long views out of their window?
(Preferably of some greenery) That doesn't mean building huge spaces between
houses as is often the case in modern car suburbs. But there needs to be
enough distance to psychologically feel you have a sense of privacy from your
neighbours.

Here is a random Victorian street (in a very expensive part of London) that I
think has a good scale. The road is not too wide. Cars are parked on the
street rather than in garages. The houses are of fairly high density. This is
a better template for housing than modern car susburbs in my view. But it
won't be for everyone.

[https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.556208,-0.165162,3a,75y,36...](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.556208,-0.165162,3a,75y,36.4h,95.29t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s7s8c8K1PkJB5p_w2cTWCYA!2e0)

~~~
rmason
There is a good reason for the wide street in Chicago or Detroit and that is
snow. Or more precisely snow removal.

Those ideas may work well in a mild climate but who wants to trod down a
narrow street every day through two feet of snow? Or through downtown Phoenix
when its 115 degrees last week?

~~~
tklovett
Believe it or not, you can remove snow from narrow streets too.

Here's a very common snow removal vehicle:
[http://image.dieselpowermag.com/f/tech/11090507+w799+h499+cr...](http://image.dieselpowermag.com/f/tech/11090507+w799+h499+cr1+ar0/0812dp_04_z%2Bsnow_plow_truck%2Brotating_brushes.jpg)
This type of vehicle is used all winter on the narrow paths, sidewalks, and
streets at the University of Michigan. Snow levels at U-M are very similar to
those in Detroit. I imagine that these vehicles are probably a lot cheaper
than the snow plows used for wide streets too.

While googling for that image, I also found this, which I thought was pretty
cool: [https://www.arcsfoundation.org/minnesota/news/its-time-
annua...](https://www.arcsfoundation.org/minnesota/news/its-time-annual-
autonomous-snowplow-competition)

------
cjf4
This did a good job of highlighting the benefits of a traditional city and an
awful job of recognizing why American cities and suburbia are the way they
are, which is space.

What's the stereotypical American Dream: a house, a yard, a family, and white
picket fence. And while a stereotype, I think most Americans would prefer to
have some sense of personally owned space in their domicile. A traditional
city wouldn't be very good at providing this.

There's certainly a cost to be paid for this individual space, which the post
did a pretty good job of pointing out. But to completely ignore the benefits
of suburbs and why the culture created them in the first place is not a recipe
for change.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Speaking for myself, I strongly prefer a plentitude of public open space,
rather than a little bit of private yard. It would be neat if a city were ever
built along the lines of this proposal:
[http://carfree.com/topology.html](http://carfree.com/topology.html) It's a
proposal for a city housing a million people, which is 80% non-urbanized, and
in which nobody lives more than 400 meters from open space.

------
Balgair
Yes, yes, charming little streets.

However, having just last week spent a few nights in Weimar, Germany, I can
say I do not like it. Weimar is a very little city. It is a perfect example of
the OP. Lots of tiny streets, no right angles, nothing over 5 stories,
taverns, hotels, children, a little chapel, window boxes with flowers on every
window, etc. Truely, it did feel like traveling back in time. Heck, there is
even a music school there to honor Bach's time in the city.

And that, the music school, is the exact reason why I disliked every single
night there. The SOUND! Yes, the cacophony of practice on 15 different
instruments died off at about 10pm. But then all the students went to the bars
to knock off until about 2 am. And, the drunker you get, the louder you are.
Yes, it is the summer time, yes, it is a music school, that is unique. But I
feel the point still stands, the sound is a big problem, not just in Large
cities, but equally as in these human scale ones

Don't get me wrong, I love having my apartment. I love that ability, even in
LA, to walk across the street or down to 7-11. I like that i have weird
neighbors. I like that my cat has other cats to play with. I like having
little kids running around. But I HATE the #17 bus at 6am on Sunday. I HATE
the Harleys blasting down Santa Monica at 4am. I HATE the damn Ambulance in
the middle of a nice romantic dinner or in a movie theatre.

I think that nice reduction and cancellation is the largest step to a better
urban environment. Being able to play guitar, at proper volume, in an
apartment, without hearing my neighbor's washing dishes, the cars outside, or
the newly wed couple 2 windows over is a fantasy. A fantasy that engineers and
architects might be able to make real.

Why did everyone move to the suburbs? One, among many reasons, was so you
could get a proper night's sleep.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Your hate list can be easily solved by: modern windows that don't let sound
thru; police; a policy for ambulances to make noizes only when they must.

It's very solvable if that's what you have in mind.

I live in an apartment block and I'm certainly not "hearing my neighbor's
washing dishes, the cars outside, or the newly wed couple 2 windows over".
Maybe some people are loud outside in the evening, but nights are usually
undisturbed.

~~~
tormeh
I don't know about the police part. I think people should be able to party
during the weekend. Maybe it's just my berliner perspective, but if you don't
like noise you shouldn't live in the city - I don't want to tip-toe around
because someone else can't be arsed to close the windows (and if someone has a
single-pane window that's not my fault).

When it comes to buildings concrete is basically the answer; it is an
excellent noise insulator.

~~~
dasmoth
>> if you don't like noise you shouldn't live in the city

I couldn't agree more. It's unfortunate that it's quite hard for people
working in some sectors to avoid cities -- and I feel that the New Urbanites
and their opposition for out-of-town developments deserve some blame here.

------
istjohn
It was interesting to read this with another HN post in mind from a month ago,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7965077](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7965077),
a Wired article about the observation that increased road capacity
paradoxically does nothing to decrease congestion as people just use the roads
more. Road building has a coercive effect in that many of its costs are born
by everyone, and there is no way to opt out of those costs if you live in the
city. Everything is more diffuse and less pedestrian friendly and moving about
the city is more expensive. If you opt out of car ownership, you bear the
expenses without enjoying the dividends. People who can't afford to drive
suffer a sort of regressive tax. They do not drive but nevertheless live in a
sprawling city built for cars with dangerous roads, ungainly parking lots,
sprawling commercial districts, and inadequate public transportation.

Roads are terrific for creating distance to separate rich from poor. Those
with means can hunker down in their gated community in the suburbs with a
spacious private back yard and drive their air conditioned SUV to the parking
garage downtown without even suffering a whiff of the common people on the
street.

Walkways and public transportation democratize the city. Everyone enjoys the
fruit of public investment, and everyone rubs shoulders on the subway or
railcar. Common areas create a public forum where an inclusive community can
form. The streets and sidewalks and alleys are used by everyone, not just
those who cannot afford to drive past them. So it is in everyone's interest to
make the city streets a safe and healthy place to be.

------
platz
Strongly resonates with Christopher Alexander's "The Timeless Way of Building"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Timeless_Way_of_Building](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Timeless_Way_of_Building)

------
carsongross
The hills around the bay area could be filled with smaller scale, well built
cities like this, if Americans were civilized and tasteful enough to demand
them.

But... we aren't. Rather we will get sprawl and ridiculous techno-mansions.

'murica!

~~~
sehr
Be the change you want to see in the world, sarcasm doesn't really get anybody
anywhere

~~~
vinceguidry
> Be the change

You want him to build cities?

~~~
coryrc
Yes.

[http://www.cohousing.org/](http://www.cohousing.org/)

~~~
kimdouglasmason
I looked at their website. All I can see is a group of moneyed people choosing
to live in an unconventional way, in semi-rural environments.

For people earning a wage and living in large cities who have no choice but to
rent, it's utterly meaningless.

Please explain how this is anything but a privileged group of white people
congratulating themselves on their ability to live precisely how they want.

~~~
vinceguidry
Actually, I visited one co-housing group in the middle of Atlanta, the people
living there just seemed like regular homeowners, not any more moneyed than
any other homeowner. Co-housing is something I think you do if you _don 't_
have the cash to just build whatever you want on your huge plot of land, but
still want to live someplace with amenities. Just share the cost.

So co-housing might well be one way forward here.

------
sdotty
"The only thing you have to do to build a traditional city - an environment
where people naturally want to walk - is to build Really Narrow Streets; "
Then pictures of several architectures of buildings are shown along very
narrow streets, but nothing more than 4 stories high.

My first thought when I read this was, the narrow streets constricts the
heights of the buildings possible because if the buildings are taller than a
few stories, the windows will not get light and there will be lack of wind,
fresh air and sense of openness. When every building has to be short, how can
you meet the demand for housing? Perhaps I'm biased because I live in Jersey
City, across from NYC with its own share of residential high rises. Where are
you going to house all the people who cannot afford to have a place to stay,
due to high cost of housing, due to low supply, due to short buildings?

~~~
pouetpouet
You can have some larger streets between neighbourhoods with higher buildings.
Not every single street needs to be really narrow, but you need to have them.
[http://urbankchoze.blogspot.de/2014/04/japanese-
zoning.html](http://urbankchoze.blogspot.de/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html)

~~~
sdotty
Thank you for that. Have never looked into japanese zoning.

------
VLM
Only one pix was taken during winter. No pix of commuters during
precipitation. No pix were taken in hot weather (at least the majority in
pants not shorts).

For the 1% or so of the worlds surface that never goes below 40F or above 70F
and only rains at night, walkable architecture sounds pretty appealing.

For the other 99% of the worlds surface, as soon as economically possible for
to own a car, they're going to want a car to get out of the weather.

I say this as a guy who considers hiking/backpacking and walking the
neighborhood to be "recreational".

I wouldn't want my livelihood and lifestyle to depend on walking in a heat
wave, a cold snap, a snow storm, a thunderstorm. Its fun for recreation but
not serious stuff, like living.

------
thomasfl
Building new urban cities that doesn't suck is extremely capital intensive,
but also potentially very lucrative. New cities that doesn't suck needs laws
that ensure the city will continue to stay that way to. The economist Paul
Romer has proposed the idea of charter city.

I can recommend some of Jan Gehl's writings. The man who made Copenhagen into
to one of the most liveable city on the world, with more than 40% of the
population commuting by bikes.

Last week I came back after two weeks in the southern parts of France. Visited
old cities like Conque, Couvertoirade, Belcastel, Toulouse, Albi and Cordes.
Nice to see human scale towns where no two buildings are a like, but still
they all look similar.

------
wdewind
Wow this is an incredibly short sighted and "get off my lawn" piece. The
author completely negates the massive cultural multiplicative affect humans
get from living millions at a time together, among many other advantages.

I'm a New Yorker, so I'm biased, but I don't see problems with any of the
types of living, they all have their advantages and disadvantages. The author
writes as if this is not a preferential thing.

To be honest, this isn't HN quality: it's poorly written, and poorly reasoned.
The author is not an expert in city planning and doesn't seem to understand
even the basic challenges being solved.

~~~
pessimizer
Could you be specific? Because:

>I don't see problems with any of the types of living, they all have their
advantages and disadvantages.

could be said about anything. I don't understand your reasoning, and the only
thing that I can figure out about your opinion is that you don't like think
that there's anything wrong with places like New York because you live in New
York(?), but I could definitely have that wrong.

~~~
bronbron
Fellow new yorker here, I'll contribute my 2c:

The hypertrophic city is undoubtedly going to have advantages that suburbs and
traditional cities don't (he touched on some of the disadvantages, so I won't
repeat them here). The sheer scale ends up being a good thing and a bad thing.

As a random example, if you're really into wingsuit flying you can easily find
a sizable group of people who are similarly interested (and then you can
arrange trips, etc.) That's much harder (sometimes even just impossible) to do
at smaller scales (traditional cities) or smaller densities (the suburbs).
Finding a good social cohort obviously has a noticeable impact on quality of
life.

I also heavily disagree with his assessment that mass transit discourages
walking. The very nature of mass transit is that one must walk to specified
stations, and it wouldn't shock me to learn that New Yorkers walk a few miles
every day even with arguably the best mass transit system in America. Cities
with mass transit systems regularly appear on lists of America's fittest
cities (e.g. Seattle, SF).

It seems silly to be arguing that traditional cities are a panacea to all
problems when they obviously carry their own drawbacks.

------
guard-of-terra
Istanbul's Fatih and Beyoglu districts come to mind as an example of a very
large traditional city. And it's perhaps the most pleasing place I've been to
- in my whole life.

(Not just because it's a traditional city, but still)

------
archagon
I guess this is a divisive topic, but I agree completely. Every time I visited
one of these cities in Europe, it Felt Right in a way living in the US never
did. "Human scale" is a great way to put it, and I think it's actually a two-
way street (so to speak). I feel much more content being a living cell in an
ancient, twisted, organic city rather than a replaceable tenant in some
downtown highrise or suburban townhouse. You can see it in the decor: the
narrow streets of traditional cities take on the attributes of their owners,
whereas you'd be lucky to see an occasional window poster in a big US city.

In addition to the traits mentioned in the article, there's one other feature
that my ideal traditional city would have: proximity to nature. I want my home
to be close to water, to have hills in view, to be littered with trees and
greenery. This necessarily limits the size of the city, but I'm OK with that.
Smaller cities have the additional advantage of having a tighter community and
having better access to things like street markets, which are notoriously
absent in the US.

Tangentially, I really enjoy artistic representations of what happens when the
two styles mix:
[http://www.agraart.pl/pics/dziela/091_yerka.jpg](http://www.agraart.pl/pics/dziela/091_yerka.jpg).
See also Imperial Boy.

------
gipp
I'm not sure that going back to the exact sort of city we had pre-modernity is
quite viable or desirable -- but I do think (or rather, hope) that something
more "human-scale" is in our future, even if it isn't exactly this.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that self-driving cars are the catalyst. Car
services -> Lower car ownership & drastically reduced need for colocated
parking -> More easily hidden away infrastructure -> More livable cities.

------
seszett
I agree with most of the author's points, however... isn't it too late to
think about that, in the US?

I might be wrong, but I don't think a lot of new cities are still being built
there, so it would be necessary to destroy city centers to re-build them in a
more human-friendly way? I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Otherwise, I completely agree. The last time city centers were rebuilt here in
France in large scale was in bombed cities after WWII, and they were
transformed into car-friendly places (some of them _really_ ugly). Only today
are we trying to turn them back into pedestrian-friendly cities... but the
wide avenues stay, it's better because there are less cars, but it's still not
as nice as narrow paved streets (I'm thinking of the recent overhauling of
Nantes' center, here).

~~~
Tiktaalik
It's not too late. Cities are constantly changing and reinventing themselves.
Many cities have old industrial areas that are being converted to other uses,
or very low density residential spaces that are being rezoned to higher
density. Any time a neighbourhood undergoes change there's an opportunity to
do it differently.

Vancouver's Olympic village (built from old industrial land) is an example of
a brand new neighbourhood in a North American city built close to this form.
It's not pedestrian only in width, but the streets through it are only a
single car width wide.

------
lelf
I'd love if the photos were tagged with city names

~~~
oska
Yes, I found the lack of names frustrating too.

Perhaps we could crowd-source the names?

My identifications are:

21-4 Saint-Paul-de-Vence, France

21-5 Gold Coast, Australia

21-14 New York City, USA

21-18 Kyoto(?), Japan

18-7 Dublin, Ireland

18-8 Quebec City, Canada

9-69 ?, Australia

13-26 Montpellier, France (?)

~~~
m_myers
Pretty sure 11-3 is Grand Junction, CO, based on the highway signs and the
mountains in the background.

------
Systemic33
I've seen the same kind of narrow streets in LA, which gave the same cozy
feeling. I'm talking about places like The Grove in LA.[1] The difference
between these and the authentic type of narrow streets is, that the grove is a
privately owned estate area, that can set its own rules. Whereas the authentic
ones are owned by the city, and don't just close for the night or ban alcohol,
or what not.

[1]
[https://www.google.dk/search?q=The+Grove+LA&tbm=isch&tbo=u&s...](https://www.google.dk/search?q=The+Grove+LA&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nSTUU4_OMeqAywOV24D4Bw&ved=0CDwQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=979)

------
peter_l_downs
How does this work out for people with physical disabilities?

~~~
chippy
This is what I thought of too when looking at the first few images. How can
they "walk" in those places?.

However, I believe not all of the examples were steep stepped or cobbled but
had vehicular access and were level, and the article explains issues about
access and ambulances etc - it would work out fine - arguably better in terms
of human closeness.

~~~
tormeh
Motorized wheelchairs is what's mostly used in these cases.

------
legulere
Those narrow streets are illegal because it's a problem for the fire
department.

I have lots of old cities here in my region that stayed small (<10k
inhabitants) and only few of the streets are narrow

Another problem is that you're pretty limited in city size if you can only
walk: people don't want to commute for more than 1 hour daily

~~~
pouetpouet
European 'traditional' cities don't burn down all the time. They just have
smaller engines, and because they are less sprawling, the fire truck come from
a closer place and can afford to negotiate the streets a little bit slower.

------
rdl
I'd rather go completely the other direction -- maybe some tiny clusters of
50-100k square feet of living/work space shared with voluntarily self-
selecting people, like a modern farm or industrial park with some nearby
housing, but tens of kilometers separating these clusters.

~~~
zephjc
we'll call them "tah-oons"

------
heydenberk
>> Chicago is over two centuries old, and has street widths that rival those
of any modern highway

Chicago wasn't incorporated as a city until 1837. It was the 10th biggest city
in the US two decades later, but still, it's much younger than the east coast
big cities.

------
VLM
Serious book idea: A treatment of new urbanism as an authoritarian conspiracy
theory.

------
traughber
This is fantastic. Great breakdown of the different city types.

------
coder23
It is simply needed to calculate which type of city can support more
people/area.

If a large mall can provide more goods to people that smaller shops that take
the same area, then it is better.

~~~
seszett
_> If a large mall can provide more goods to people that smaller shops that
take the same area, then it is better._

What if the people live better, more peaceful lives in the city with smaller
shops? Is raw efficiency the only criterion that matters?

~~~
coder23
How do you measure that.

As long as most people are happy with television and similar crap( most free
time is spent with tv ), city landscape doesn't really matter; at least on the
grand scale; the first step towards nicer cities is always removing personal
cars.

