
Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive - oftenwrong
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/16/why-walkable-streets-are-more-economically-productive
======
reaperducer
This is something that certain cities have understood for many years. Chicago,
for example, mandates that all new development from a simple three-story
building to a 100-story skyscraper has retail at its base to improve the
walkability of its streets and make its business corridors vibrant. This also
helps push down retail rents even in the CBD, allowing local upstart
businesses a shot at reaching the masses.

Chicago has also come around to the notion that streets aren't "for cars."
Streets are public property and belong to all of the city's citizens,
including the hundreds of thousands who don't own a car. CDOT evaluates
streets and sometimes decides that private property storage (parking cars)
isn't the best use for some of that land. So it turns parking spaces into
miniature parks or seating areas, or public art.

~~~
del82
Interestingly, Strong Towns published an article a bit more than a week ago
about why mandating ground-floor retail is also not the best way to go:

[https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/8/mixed-up-
priori...](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/8/mixed-up-priorities-
for-mixed-use-buildings)

~~~
davidw
He's one of the Market Urbanism (
[http://marketurbanism.com/](http://marketurbanism.com/) ) guys, so a bit more
on the libertarian edge of things, but it's a good point in any event: cargo
cult urbanism is probably better than "suburban experiment" urbanism, but
flexibility and adaptability are even better.

 _Edit_ \- one of the really cool things about the growing movement that -
broadly - includes YIMBY's, Market Urbanists, Strong Towns and so on is that
it really crosses the ideological spectrum. For instance, this quote:

"Reforming local land use controls is one of those rare areas in which the
libertarian and the progressive agree. The current system restricts the
freedom of the property owner, and also makes life harder for poorer
Americans. The politics of zoning reform may be hard, but our land use
regulations are badly in need of rethinking."

From [https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-land-use-
regula...](https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-land-use-regulations/)

 _Edit 2_ if you're interested in Strong Towns, it's a pretty cool group, with
Slack ( [https://www.strongtowns.org/discussion-
board/](https://www.strongtowns.org/discussion-board/) ) and local groups that
are starting to form:
[https://www.strongtowns.org/local/](https://www.strongtowns.org/local/)

~~~
closeparen
Pretty sure progressives are strongly aligned on opposition to any housing
construction unless it’s specifically set aside for low-income residents, and
are okay with low density zoning as an anti-gentrification measure.

YIMBYism is more center-left than progressive.

~~~
beat
It's more complicated than that. The recent Minneapolis mayoral race had
housing policy as a major issue, and Minneapolis is nothing if not
progressive.

Affordability and gentrification are interrelated, but so is quality. I live
in a relatively low-density neighborhood of mostly 80-110 year old houses.
Lately, we're getting new development in the form of cheap older rentals being
torn down, and large-for-the-lots (typical lots are 1/10 acre) new houses
being built. These new houses are considerably more expensive than
neighborhood average. My above-average house is worth about $300, but a new
house two blocks away just sold for $475k before construction was completed.
So I have concerns. On the other hand, that new house replaced a run-down
rental. A lot of these old houses simply have worn-out bones and will never be
good again. Left on their own, they'll contribute to the neighborhood drifting
"bad", with cheap rentals.

And developers? There's no money in building "affordable" housing. They'll
build upscale if they can, because it's much more profitable.

What do I want? A better neighborhood, yes, but one where the people who
already live here can continue to afford to live here.

~~~
bobthepanda
So there are multiple policy options that you could do.

There's deregulation; deregulate anything that isn't explicitly for safety
purposes. Schools and sewers and congestion and all of that should ideally be
paid for with impact fees, not reflexively blocked out of hand. Every
additional regulation is a cost on the developer passed down to the owner and
the renter, and with enough small costs eventually you start pricing people
out.

There's also more regulation; a lot of the current appreciation is because
America places a lot of strange emphasis on housing as an investment product,
rather than a commodity. It wasn't always this way; go back a few decades and
property performs more like a bond than a stock, none of this speculation and
house-flipping BS. And in most housing markets, housing works this way. Tax or
restrict purchases of non-primary homes and such.

And then there's the final thing; lot size regulation. You can cap how big a
lot can be for a project of a given size. You could build a very comfortable
house at 1/10 an acre, or even 1/20th of an acre; it's hard to justify a
single-family house much bigger than that. And in general, buildings should
take up at most a quarter of a normal city block.

~~~
beat
My neighborhood is old. Lots are generally 1/10 acre, and many houses are
under 1000sqf. So questions for us aren't about building new, but rather about
how to maintain the neighborhood for the future. How do we replace old houses
that are falling apart without changing the essential character of the
neighborhood? How can we get some more small businesses and restaurants
without giving way to strip malls and big boxes? And the current
controversy... there's a possibility that a light rail route will pass within
a block of my house, down the major in-out drag for the immediate
neighborhood. The light rail does us no good, but because it's a relatively
short residential pass, we will have a hard time resisting.

------
d--b
It's always a tradeoff...

\- super dense cities like Tokyo or New York can feel suffocating. A lot of
people can't bear it. The lack of green space, and the overcrowding of people
and cars increases the stress levels by a lot. Yet, being able to walk around
the city is excellent for exercising and mindfulness, it's easier to meet with
people, etc.

\- super sparse cities (like LA or Brasilia) on the other end tend to isolate
people, and to mediate the experience of daily life. Life is constantly split
by episodes of driving / parking. Yet, these cities offer a lot of space,
greenery and privacy.

The fact that both very dense cities and sparse cities exist and are
successful only shows that different people enjoy different kinds of cities,
so it would be a bit preposterous to claim that one style is better over
another.

That said, electric cars and self driving car fleets will most likely help
reduce pollution (both noise and air) by a lot and make living in dense city
much easier.

~~~
xvedejas
Even from the perspective of personal preference, I think it's fair to say
that, at least in the US, there is a wide variety of sparse cities for people
to choose from, and only a few actually dense cities. This leaves those
preferring density at a relative disadvantage.

Unrelated: it's unclear to me how self-driving cars can help pollution.
They're a solution to the problem of the high cost of labor, and not much
else. If anything, self-driving cars will make it cheaper for everyone to ride
cars everywhere, and so people will more often ride cars everywhere, and more
pollution will be the result.

~~~
wonder_er
> This leaves those preferring density at a relative disadvantage.

100% agree. I much prefer to live in a dense, urban, walkable area, but most
built environments that satisfy these criteria violate modern zoning
regulations.

So, the USA's supply of pleasant, dense environments is dwindling because
every time an olde/walkable area revitalizes enough to attract new
development, that new development must comply with modern zoning, and kills
the thing that that makes the area attractive.

It's thoroughly frustrating.

~~~
baby
The only city I've been in the US that made me think "wow, that's kind of
walkable" was Boston. Are there any other dense cities I should visit?

~~~
com2kid
Lots of DT areas of cities are walkable, but Boston is kind of unique in that
it has miles and miles of walkable streets. Its urban core is just really big.

Portions of Seattle are very walkable (From the International District going
north, quite a few miles), and individual parts of Chicago are walkable. Heck
there are 2 or 3 mile stretches of San Diego are walkable (there might be more
than that, I only spent a week there!)

~~~
baby
I wouldn't call Chicago and San Diego walkable (I'm talking about like
european cities walkable)

~~~
chc
I don't know about European cities, but it's generally easier to walk around
the San Diego Gaslamp Quarter than it is to drive.

~~~
jandrewrogers
Gaslamp is a tourist area, you wouldn’t want to live there, there isn’t much
around. It used to be really dodgy, no one sensible would go there, but they
rehabilitated it to a significant extent. Unfortunately, it is mostly only
frequented by 20-somethings getting drunk at the myriad bars and tourists.

------
weisser
I live in Boulder and attribute much of the quality of life here to walkable
(and bikeable) streets. We have hundreds of miles of multi-use paths that are
used extensively for getting around and for recreation. Our main road downtown
has a pedestrian mall for a number of blocks that keeps traffic away and lends
itself to street performers, community events, and a generally calming
atmosphere.

Downtown parking lots are free on the weekends and just $1.25 / hour during
the week — this keeps people from circling around looking for the absolute
closest spot to where they are trying to go.

You can bike (or technically walk though it's >25 miles) from Boulder to
Denver on a dedicated path nearly the entire time.

~~~
davidw
Boulder's a great place in many ways, but it's also what got me really
interested in urbanism, and getting involved at a local level, because it is
an abject failure in terms of being affordable to even middle-class people who
didn't buy in 30 years ago, with average house prices somewhere around 700K or
north of that.

This is, in part, because they refuse to add denser areas like the downtown in
more parts of the city, despite there being ample room to build 'in and up'.

I mean... if Aspen or something like that is expensive, it is what it is, but
a larger town with ample space like Boulder or Bend (where I ended up) or Palo
Alto should not have these crazy prices.

~~~
weisser
I don't disagree. Boulder does well by the people who can afford to live here
but seemingly (I'm still new) does little to offer affordable options.

You go around Boulder and it doesn't feel like a city — this is part of the
charm and also part of the problem.

~~~
davidw
They don't need skyscrapers or other big city stuff. Just more 3/4 story
buildings that use their available lot well. You don't even have to mandate
that; just get rid of the restrictions and market forces would gradually drive
things in that way.

------
Chiba-City
I've waited 50 years for an organization like Strong Towns to combine a) sound
accounting and b) urban architecture in a USA context. These guys are sobering
consequentialists, testing principles against their realized potential. That's
a breath of fresh air cutting across party electioneers, subsidy seekers,
wishful thinkers and noisy promoters. Great publication.

------
vinceguidry
I pay a pretty hefty premium to live in the only walkable neighborhood in
Atlanta, Midtown, and even then I'd only call it "barely walkable." There's
still not nearly enough density for me to spend a whole lot of time walking
around.

Still, you can't put a price on having a grocery store, train station, liquor
store, neighborhood bar, and cheap Mediterranean restaurant all within a 5
minute walk. As much as I'm paying, it's worth it.

Now if only I could convince my favorite coffee shop proprietor to open up a
shop nearby...

~~~
wakkaflokka
I've started my search to buy a place in Midtown, precisely because of the
walkability. The prices really do reflect it..

~~~
vinceguidry
Yeah, and if you're not right inside the Juniper - Spring St Corridor, you may
as well live in West Midtown. Brutal.

Kicking myself for not trying harder to buy into the Metropolis back when
1-beds still went for <$250k

------
MaysonL
Jane Jacobs pointed this out in 1961:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_Am...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities)

~~~
kobrad
It's nice to see her mentioned here. If you've had any architectural education
you got to read Jacobs. It's also amazing that we need to rediscover her 60
years later.

------
tabeth
I've often wondered why somone moderately wealthy doesn't just start a super
dense town, e.g. everything within 100 acres, and be within 10 miles of a
major city.

Create tons of these at a 50K people/sqmi density and implement some sort of
hub spoke transportation with the major city being the hub and it could work!

~~~
itaris
Interesting, what would incentivize people to live there, as opposed to the
city?

~~~
tabeth
I'm still figuring that one out, hah. I think if the culture was strong enough
and public transportation was "perfected" within the cofines of the 100acres
people might gravitate their under normal market pressure.

Otherwise I guess you could just make it cheap. For those reading -- what
would incentivize you?

~~~
beat
Well, what incentivizes people to live anywhere? Wanting to live near people
like themselves, and wanting to _not_ live near people unlike themselves.
Living where they can afford to live - most people would like to live
somewhere like where they currently live, but nicer (which they can't afford).
Tradition... live where you grew up, where your family has "always" lived.
Etc.

Something to think about here... Noodles and Company. You know what their ad
budget is? Zero. They're entirely location-driven. They build only in areas
that satisfy certain economic criteria. People who frequent those kinds of
areas recognize them from style and previous experience. They know who they
want their customers to be.

So you don't start with "I want to build a certain way". Start with "I want to
build a community of a certain type of people, with particular incomes and
social values".

For example, my spouse and I live in a hundred year old house in a quiet
Minneapolis neighborhood. We could have two or three times the space (inside
and out) if we were willing to live in the burbs. But we live in the city
proper for shared values... access to the artistic communities we love. We
live where we can count on most of our neighbors to share our political
values. Where we can get the diverse food we like. Etc. And if we had more
money, we'd just live in a more expensive version of the same area (heck, my
wife's dream house is about four blocks from ours, an old mansion on the
Mississippi).

------
Animats
The US has too much retail space. About 2x too much. There's a fan club for
cutesy little hipster stores that sell overpriced hipster stuff bought by
hipster people with their hipster little dogs. Look at the pictures in the
article.[1] See any stores selling necessities? A hardware store? A real
grocery store? Nah. Retail is happening at the strip mall or online.

It's hard to fill those little shops at the base of commercial structures with
anything useful. Most apartment buildings can't even support an on-premises
convenience store. SF tried. The big parking garage at 4th and Mission has
lots of little shops, marginally trying to survive. The Metreon was supposed
to be a tech showcase. Now it's a Target store.

Don't confuse decorative hipster with success.

[1]
[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd6676e4b0fedfbc26e...](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd6676e4b0fedfbc26ea91/54b6c509e4b062126976d942/5a5e174853450ab8996ddb54/1516298146574/4558849693_bf779c96ed_b.jpg?format=2500w)

~~~
rsynnott
I don't know about US cities, but in Dublin, a lot of supermarkets would be
the ground floor of offices or apartments in built-up areas. Very big
supermarkets would be dedicated buildings (or in a shopping centre), but you
can get a fair bit on the ground floor of an apartment block.

Obviously, a lot of people who live in cities don't have cars (and in many
cases, even if they do have cars, won't want to use them regularly, due to the
traffic), so having many smallish supermarkets works better than a few big
remote ones. I don't drive, but my 25 minute walk home from work brings me
past one medium-sized supermarket and two small ones. If I want a big
supermarket I take a tram.

------
dsfyu404ed
The author appears to think that optimizing for tax revenue is one of the main
goals of publicly funded transportation infrastructure (a category which
includes roads, sidewalks, subways, etc.) or is at least not a terrible idea.

I cannot even begin to convey how much I disagree.

The purpose of public funded transportation infrastructure is to make
transportation cheap (in terms of time, money, frustration or any other
metric, they are all interchangeable) to the point where anyone can use it. In
an ideal world physical distance would be negligible part of any decision.
Travel would be as inconsequential as getting water from a faucet. Obviously
this is little more than a fantasy.

Making cities walk-able at the expense of some longer range form of transit is
not something I endorse in any way shape or form. Making longer range
transportation more expensive (time and money are basically the same thing at
this level) creates a negative incentive for people to move about beyond a the
limited distance of cheap alternatives (i.e. walking). While that may be a
benefit to the wealthy it creates is a detriment to the poor. For example,
you're stuck paying too much for bad selection at the local grocery store
because you can't afford the level of mass transit pass or a car that would
let you get to the better grocery store in a reasonable time (or maybe the
increased demand for buses and rail degrades their quality substantially).

To hear the author toss in the tax argument annoys me. Transportation isn't
free. It costs money and time. It's basically a tax on physical distance.
There's no such thing as good roads in a city. They're busy and slow during
basically all the hours which people want to use them. People don't pay for a
car or rail pass because they want to but because the benefits of increased
freedom of movement outweigh the costs. The costs aren't cheap. If increased
business/commerce and tax revenue is your argument for reducing the capacity
of people to get in/out of your city then you should be asking yourself how
the heck you got to a the point where people would rather put up with driving
than live/work/spend money in your city.

~~~
wonder_er
I think you and the author might be in more agreement than your comment
indicates.

You said:

> The purpose of public funded transportation infrastructure is to make
> transportation cheap... to the point where anyone can use it.

and

> Making cities walk-able at the expense of some longer range form of transit
> is not something I endorse

The reason I think you both might be in agreement is because by "optimizing
for tax revenue", you _have_ to allow dense (and perhaps) walkable
development.

If a dense environment allows 10000 people to access services with 10 minutes
of walking, or a not-dense environment requires public transit to get 10000
people access to services, wouldn't the dense one do it better than the not-
dense one?

I think you and the author both want the most people to access important
things in the least time.

I'm inclined to think that dense environments better serve more people than
sparse environments with public transit tacked on.

------
pxeboot
I wonder what city will be the first to ban private cars and allow all streets
to work this way.

~~~
ebiester
You don't need to ban cars. You just need to design around people instead of
cars. Remove parking minimums. Don't put on-street parking but rather leave it
to the free market to handle parking solutions (Yes, that means people pay to
park.) Subsidize public transit but road maintenance must be paid by
automobile-based taxes. Don't require density, but always zone for the next
bigger thing. (The neighborhood is single house? Allow duplexes and MIL units.
Is that the neighborhood? Allow 3 story buildings. Don't go from single house
to giant skyscrapers, but rather build incrementally bigger.)

That means that there will be fewer automobiles, fewer large roads, and less
traffic, lending to more density and more maintainable infrastructure.

~~~
ars
How is that designing around people?

First you are going to make all the people in the cars nuts because they can't
find parking, so they won't come.

Next all the people who find public transport tedious and slow won't come.
(Yes, even the best public transport is not anywhere near as a good as a car
that goes direct, and where you can actually leave your stuff in the car.)

Next all the people who hate living in dense places will leave because
everything is all squished together, so you are again not designing for
people.

How is that designing for people? It sounds more like you are designing for
livestock.

Livestock who don't mind, or have no choice, about living in cramped quarters,
and who don't mind wasting a lot of time.

No thank you, this is not the kind of city I want.

~~~
apendleton
And yet Manhattan is an economic powerhouse, so apparently plenty of people
are okay with these restrictions. If you aren't, don't live there.

~~~
InitialLastName
Most of the areas where people actually live in New York (read: Upper
Manhattan and the outer boroughs) have free street parking.

------
geebee
Another important factor not mentioned here is the practice of "curb cuts"

[http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-
article/2008-06-01...](http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-
article/2008-06-01/eye-street)

I recommend the article (not just posting for a cite, it's an interesting
one). But to summarize - SF has a lot of "curb cuts", sections of the curb
that are cut out and lowered so a car can drive across the sidewalk to a
driveway or garage. This prevents the sidewalks from becoming an inviting
pedestrian space. First, pedestrians must be on a constant lookout for cars,
or dodge cars that are parked on the sidewalk blocking the path. Second, it
prevents the street scape from embracing the pedestrian experience, leading to
what SPUR calls the "barren nature of the streets" in SF.

Ironically, these curb cuts break the street into small sections of curb that
are too small for a legal parking spot, so there isn't really even much of a
net gain in overall parking. The estimate I read was that each curb cut
removes 2/3 of a street parking space.

San Francisco tends to get high walkability scores, but the experience is
notably worse than many other dense cities. I realized this after living in
Paris and Manhattan. There is something much more relaxing about streets when
you don't have to dodge cars, and the streetscapes in those places are far
more attractive (the link above shows some examples of why this is the case).

I'd say it hit me especially hard once I had kids (I live in SF), when the
experience of dodging cars crossing the sidewalk became scary rather than just
irritating. I realized I had to grip my kids hands pretty hard when walking on
the _sidewalk_ , because it is a perilous place for kids who can't be seen. I
had a close call or two, when my kid ran ahead and a car was pulling into a
driveway. Fortunately, the driver was alert. But again, this is the
_sidewalk_. It's incredibly depressing that in a supposedly progressive,
"pedestrian friendly" city, kids in most neighborhoods are less safe on the
sidewalk than in a crosswalk, where they are at least visible.[1]

SF gets high walkability scores, and in some ways, it's deserved. It's
certainly better than the exurbs and many other US cities. But these scores
don't count the curb cuts or experience of the walk, and honestly, the curb
cuts have really damaged the experience in SF.

[1] Edit - leaving this up since it was in my original post, but this isn't
necessarily true. I feel the sidewalks are perilous, but I don't have evidence
that sidewalks in curb cut heavy areas are more dangerous than crosswalks.

~~~
mejarc
I noticed this when I visited Boston for the first time, after several years
of living in SF. I was walking down a street--and I was delighted to keep
walking, unmolested by oblivious motorists zooming out of driveways and
garages. Too bad WalkScore doesn't consider this experience for its
assessments.

~~~
geebee
Fortunately, SF does have quite a few boulevards and other urban areas that
are like this, so the enjoyable experience you mentioned can be had here. A
few are mentioned in the article.

They tend to be commercial "Main Street" type streets, though. Residential
streets are much more likely to have curb cuts, and that's still an important
part of the streetscape.

------
pqh
I'd live in a big city if more cities and building architects cared about
green spaces and noise. I'm glad people are doing research here.

~~~
jdavis703
The problem is the cities citizens. Northern European cities such as
Copenhagen are pretty quiet, despite their high density.

~~~
stcredzero
_The problem is the cities citizens. Northern European cities such as
Copenhagen are pretty quiet, despite their high density._

A lot of the character of a city does come from how its citizens imagine it's
supposed to be. In the nicer parts of Stuttgart in 2000: Never once even the
smell of garbage.

~~~
briandear
Paris is a Northern European town I think and it’s a disaster in terms of
noise. Those damned 2 cycle scooters for instance. And dog poop and trash and
people pissing wherever they feel like. And it’s expensive. Paris is an
overrated nightmare.

And Copenhagen isn’t really that dense. It’s ranked 117th in the world — just
under New Orleans and above Montreal:
[http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-
density-...](http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-
density-125.html)

~~~
jdavis703
Paris feels much more like a western European city, and France is definitely
not considered northern European, at least if northern European is a synonym
for Scandanavian.

Also thanks for adding data to this discussion, I am surprised Copenhagen
ranks so low. But the neighborhoods I'm familiar with (Nørrebro, Vesterbro and
Frederiksberg) definitely feel more dense than your typical North American
city. The majority of housing is mid-rise, with lots of street-level retail.

------
stretchwithme
I look forward to a time when vehicles and pedestrians aren't interacting at
all. Vehicles should be below where people walk and ride bikes. Either roads
are designed to be underground or we one layer up from existing roads. And
that's were storefronts will be.

Robotic construction is going to drive down construction costs dramatically,
so I think it will be feasible. Vehicles will be totally electric a few
decades from now, so pollution will be less of an issue. Cities will get
quieter and we'll see a lot more vegetable gardens and open space where
streets used to be.

~~~
kiliantics
I remember parts of Hong Kong being designed like this when I visited 10 years
ago. It felt a little awkward but I could see this working nicely. Ideally
we'd just remove the need for cars altogether though. Maybe freight could come
in underground.

~~~
stretchwithme
Yes, it will come in underground. Freight and people too, as they already do
in NYC on the subway and PATH train.

It won't happen all at once, of course. But it will happen in most places.

------
mjevans
I keep saying that vehicles need to be on a different layer than pedestrians
and cyclists.

I think what I'd prefer to see is a reduction in the total number of streets,
but for each street that remains to be fully dedicated to vehicle traffic,
with wide single direction entry/exit ports for buildings.

Pedestrians would walk through and between buildings at non-vehicle level
height (under them seems to be the best option); most likely beneath the roads
that were removed (imagine skylights where the roadway was).

Obviously the pedestrian areas would be insulated from the weather.

~~~
Balero
I would suggest places with nice weather have it the other way, cars
underneath, pedestrians walking around on top.

Frankly living in a place that doesn't always get the best weather id rather
get what little sun I could.

------
kikimaru
Completely apropos to the article, but why is it that when I pressed ESC on my
keyboard, the article redirected me to try & log in to Squarespace?

------
potatoman2
Jane Jacobs was right.

------
touringcomplete
I partially agree.

Davis, CA is extremely walkable but it’s not exactly Stanford/Palo Alto.

Stanford/Palo Alto is sort of walkable, but ridiculously economically-
productive.

Amsterdam, SF and Manhattan are very walkable and very productive.

LA is not walkable yet very productive.

------
scotty79
You can think about walkable streets as mall sprawl.

I mean it in a positive way. As analogy for the people that would dubt they
have economic value.

------
roymckenzie
Lol America. Where walkable streets are justified by economics and not
humanities.

~~~
donatj
Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities.

~~~
jdtang13
Everything is humanities, even economics.

~~~
stcredzero
_Everything is humanities, even economics._

Everything started out in the humanities. It's sort of like a primal trunk or
root. I think philosophy, history, and art still have a lot to tell us about
the human condition. I think some of the key questions to be asked are still
waiting to be asked. However, I do think that science will deliver the final
answers. (Giving more fodder for additional questions.)

------
some1else
Obnoxious pop up, pressing escape opens Squarespace login

------
Arn_Thor
Lafayette looks very inviting!

------
michaelthiessen
I found this blog a few months ago and then lost it. Thanks for posting this!

~~~
emodendroket
Don't worry. You'll see it show up here about a zillion times more.

------
intrasight
>Walkable Streets are More Economically Productive

"Walkable Streets" really mean main streets.

Main streets are economically productive if they have a critical mass of
interesting stores.

> More economically productive

More than what? Other main streets? This is circular reasoning.

~~~
CydeWeys
What is a "main street" in the context of Manhattan? That phrase only has
meaning out in the suburbs. "Walkable street" does not mean the same thing as
"main street". Every street here is walkable.

------
jnordwick
> Streetscape enhancements add value to an area and are associated with higher
> rents and the attraction of new businesses. In addition there is good
> evidence to show that improving walking and cycling environments raises
> private property values by significant amounts.

Nobody doubts this. Actually everybody sees this as the problem.

I love NYC, but i also hate it. There is a price for density: crime, trash,
prices, overcrowding, urban decay, poverty and homelessness, etc.

~~~
matt4077
> crime, trash, prices, overcrowding, urban decay, poverty and homelessness,
> etc.

I fail to see how that description actually fits today's New York, or most
other large US cities. It may have been true in the 80s. But just the change
over time proves that these aren't necessary consequences of high density.

You may also wish to take a walk around Paris, Venice, or Barcelona to see how
attractive urban environments can be[0].

Yes, some people may always prefer rural life. But those currently living in
Suburbia, USA have probably chosen the worst of all worlds.

[0]: Random street view link:
[https://goo.gl/maps/t96mDMV48rx](https://goo.gl/maps/t96mDMV48rx)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> But those currently living in Suburbia, USA have probably chosen the worst
> of all worlds.

Not even close. There are parts of the inner city that make the suburbs look
like heaven. There are rural areas where the lack of opportunity makes the
suburbs look like the promised land.

Urban environments can be fine. But they can also be (at least in places)
horrible. And even when their fine, they're not for everybody. Some people
just don't do well with crowds.

~~~
emodendroket
And in fact it does offer "the best of both worlds" in a sense: you can work
in a dense city with plenty of jobs without having to live there. That's the
reason suburbs began to exist essentially as soon as trains made them
possible.

------
Zenst
I love wide pavements as a pedestrian, alas London is in the grip of a cycle
paths fetish and in many instances, they eat up pavements with some cases
reducing pedestrian access and seen some which have reduced the pedestrian
area to one foot due to the oversight of sheltered bus stops consuming the
other side of the pavement. I'm not against cycle paths and indeed for them,
but not when they erode away pedestrian access.

That said, been case of many roads paved over for pedestrian only access and
they have been fantastic on many levels for shops.

~~~
nostromo
That's true in Seattle right now too.

The city has been building bicycle lanes all around the city -- and yet
cycling is down as a percent of commuters for the fifth straight year in a
row.

We could have dedicated that space to larger sidewalks and greener boulevards,
instead of sparsely populated bicycle lanes. (Like London, we don't have great
weather -- and we also have lots of steep hills. But city planners keep
looking to cycling as our transportation panacea.)

~~~
buswell
Seattle has the insanity of having obligatory bicycle helmet laws. No city has
ever had a successful bike-sharing scheme with laws saying you need to wear a
helmet.

No city with that law has ever had any amount of cycling either.

Medellin has plenty of hills and cycling, London has plenty of rain and
cycling. Rain and hills won't kill you, unlike the pollution from cars

