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.
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!
Your first paragraph strikes me as disingenuous. Curious, where do you live and how much driving do you do? For most people I know and have grown up around, cars indisputably are freedom. The bureaucratic and law enforcement pieces are such minor nuisances, I don't know anyone that ever complains about them. The true frustrations of car ownership, that crop up on a daily basis, are traffic and parking (and, less frequently, maintenance).
With a car, I can easily drive out of my city and into a spot of wilderness of my choosing, whenever I want. It is freedom in the sense it greatly increases the number of places you can feasibly travel to and the the control you have over how and when you travel there.
Regarding the manufactured human-scale areas, that is the New Urbanism the author mentions. It's a positive trend but the problem is that the city as a whole is still automobile-scale, just peppered with tiny oases, which seems a kind of inelegant shoehorned solution. That you describe them as "manufactured" speaks to that, I think.
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.)
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
Have you seen Waydowntown [0]? It's a movie about the malaise of living entirely indoors in a non-human-scale city (Calgary.) You might like it if you haven't already seen it!
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....
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.
There is such a thing as sound insulation, not every appartment building is noisy.
Not everything need to be super high density. There are thresholds that make a local restaurant, corner store, transit stop etc profitable.
Not everybody wants to live like this sure, but many do, and these places are sadly often straight up illegal to build. Besides sprawl is incentivised through subsidized road construction, parking minimums, zoning etc.
> * Most 'traditional cities' couldn't be built for anywhere near the same cost as a modern development.
Why is this? E.g. The author points out that narrow streets should be cheaper to build and maintain.
I grew up in suburbia, lived in a typical American city, and now live in a traditional city abroad. My best guesses as to why building a traditional city is more expensive are 1) construction might be more expensive because of the constrained space; 2) lots of roads are cobble stone rather than pavement; 3) maybe infrastructure (e.g. fire hydrants etc)
Are there other more important reasons? I really can't figure it out.
>* 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.
My impression was that traditional cities are higher density than modern cities. They're less dense than hypertrophic cities like Manhattan, but almost everywhere is.
Paris is 9 times denser than Atlanta, for example, according to Wikipedia. Can you cite any statistics showing traditional cities aren't dense? You might be right, but any place I've looked at that's traditional is also rather dense compared to the median city.
My non-HN reading brother is about to graduate an urban design programme and would love a chat about the field (especially getting started). If you have a spare moment it would be awesome if you could send your contact details to me (ib.lundgren at gmail). Cheers!
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.
This seems partly a straw man. I don't think the author would say not to build open plazas. They're very much a part of traditional cities.
That is a nice street in London. I expect housing prices are high. I also expect housing prices are even higher in areas with narrower streets.
We can talk in the abstract about what people "would prefer", but looking at actual choices is more instructive. Residential privacy is one of those things you can learn to do without. Many people would say that London street has no privacy.
People have different preferences, but I've seen no evidence that people don't like narrow streets, even narrower than the one found in your image.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
As far as I can tell, you just made the argument that both narrow and wide streets are loud. Either because of people or because of vehicles. So I'm not sure why you disagree with the OP.
Berlin has a nice trick for this. Trees, lots of trees lining every street. They do a terrific job dampening the street noises, as well as provide shade during the hot summer months.
> 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.
I agree. I don't know how much money or effort that goes into this kind of thing, but it seems like the absolutely most bang-for-your-buck investment if you want to create more liveable city apartments.
It was interesting to read this with another HN post in mind from a month ago, 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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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).
One of the example "traditional city" photos is actually of a touristy shopping center in Gatlinburg, TN. Taking a photo looking the other direction would show a 4 lane highway running through the middle of the tourist strip.
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.
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.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
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. Reston Town Center in Virginia: http://www.fairfaxcountyeda.org/sites/default/files/photos/r.... 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....
[+] [-] bignaj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] resu_nimda|11 years ago|reply
With a car, I can easily drive out of my city and into a spot of wilderness of my choosing, whenever I want. It is freedom in the sense it greatly increases the number of places you can feasibly travel to and the the control you have over how and when you travel there.
Regarding the manufactured human-scale areas, that is the New Urbanism the author mentions. It's a positive trend but the problem is that the city as a whole is still automobile-scale, just peppered with tiny oases, which seems a kind of inelegant shoehorned solution. That you describe them as "manufactured" speaks to that, I think.
[+] [-] graeme|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] peter_l_downs|11 years ago|reply
[0]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0219405/
[+] [-] twelvechairs|11 years ago|reply
* 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....
[+] [-] Joeri|11 years ago|reply
* 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.
[+] [-] pouetpouet|11 years ago|reply
There is such a thing as sound insulation, not every appartment building is noisy.
Not everything need to be super high density. There are thresholds that make a local restaurant, corner store, transit stop etc profitable.
Not everybody wants to live like this sure, but many do, and these places are sadly often straight up illegal to build. Besides sprawl is incentivised through subsidized road construction, parking minimums, zoning etc.
[+] [-] lliwta|11 years ago|reply
Why is this? E.g. The author points out that narrow streets should be cheaper to build and maintain.
I grew up in suburbia, lived in a typical American city, and now live in a traditional city abroad. My best guesses as to why building a traditional city is more expensive are 1) construction might be more expensive because of the constrained space; 2) lots of roads are cobble stone rather than pavement; 3) maybe infrastructure (e.g. fire hydrants etc)
Are there other more important reasons? I really can't figure it out.
[+] [-] graeme|11 years ago|reply
My impression was that traditional cities are higher density than modern cities. They're less dense than hypertrophic cities like Manhattan, but almost everywhere is.
Paris is 9 times denser than Atlanta, for example, according to Wikipedia. Can you cite any statistics showing traditional cities aren't dense? You might be right, but any place I've looked at that's traditional is also rather dense compared to the median city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta
[+] [-] ibl|11 years ago|reply
My non-HN reading brother is about to graduate an urban design programme and would love a chat about the field (especially getting started). If you have a spare moment it would be awesome if you could send your contact details to me (ib.lundgren at gmail). Cheers!
[+] [-] chestnut-tree|11 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] graeme|11 years ago|reply
That is a nice street in London. I expect housing prices are high. I also expect housing prices are even higher in areas with narrower streets.
We can talk in the abstract about what people "would prefer", but looking at actual choices is more instructive. Residential privacy is one of those things you can learn to do without. Many people would say that London street has no privacy.
People have different preferences, but I've seen no evidence that people don't like narrow streets, even narrower than the one found in your image.
[+] [-] rmason|11 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] cjf4|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Balgair|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tklovett|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bergie|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Detrus|11 years ago|reply
There are also earplugs.
[+] [-] Dewie|11 years ago|reply
I agree. I don't know how much money or effort that goes into this kind of thing, but it seems like the absolutely most bang-for-your-buck investment if you want to create more liveable city apartments.
[+] [-] istjohn|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carsongross|11 years ago|reply
But... we aren't. Rather we will get sprawl and ridiculous techno-mansions.
'murica!
[+] [-] wyager|11 years ago|reply
Clearly the objective scale of civilization is having narrow streets.
[+] [-] sehr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkempe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdotty|11 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] VLM|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|11 years ago|reply
(Not just because it's a traditional city, but still)
[+] [-] archagon|11 years ago|reply
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. See also Imperial Boy.
[+] [-] gipp|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] lelf|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oska|11 years ago|reply
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 (?)
[+] [-] jmccree|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Systemic33|11 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.google.dk/search?q=The+Grove+LA&tbm=isch&tbo=u&s...
[+] [-] peter_l_downs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chippy|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pouetpouet|11 years ago|reply