‘People are happier in a walkable neighborhood’: the US community that banned cars
‘People are happier in a walkable neighborhood’: the US community that banned cars
A new housing development outside Phoenix is looking towards European cities for inspiration and shutting out the cars. So far residents love it
A new housing development outside Phoenix is looking towards European cities for inspiration and shutting out the cars. So far residents love it - The Guardian
I really like it, I got excited. But ...can we please build some for sale units in walkable areas and not just rental units? This live-by-subscription bullshit is out of hand
100Permanently Deleted
21I wonder if this is a college thing. Most of us who have gone to college probably experienced a 15 minute walkable “city “ and are more likely to appreciate it
1
What is it about ownership that you like?
-6I'm not them, but generally, the appeal of ownership is that if you don't own it, then somebody else does, and that person or company is making profit from the relationship. So, ownership seems like it should be cheaper.
18To me it’s about having a real home that you can call yours and the stability that comes with that. In many rental properties you can be evicted on the whim of the owner—usually not immediately but after some warning period. With ownership as long as you pay your bills you know you’ll have a place to live and where it will be barring some exceptional catastrophe.
14Rent is a scam.
11predictability in future pricing
8Stability (your (fixed rate) mortgage payment doesn't change, control (within reasonable limitations, I can mount things to walls, pour concrete in the back yard, rip up the floors and put hardwood, etc), the ability to actually pay it off and no longer have to worry about the payment (even if its a long way out for a 30 year mortgage, you build equity instead of just losing all of the money), the ability to sell the house to recoup equity (not in an investment sense, just in a, this house didnt depreciate like a car would so i can make a significant portion of what i paid back when I do decide to move), among other smaller things.
The critical downsides in my experience are maintenance (no repair guy to fix your water heater), and being locked in, especially during turbulent economic times and personal instability (for example, it's difficult to 'up and move' for a new job.)
That being said, there are also legitimate reasons to rent, though I found as I get older, I wanted more stability, and less having to deal with a landlord dictating me (and being able to enter my house and decide how I behave) even if that means sacrificing some other aspects like better locations.
We only live one time, and I like being able to have a home that is mine and my families, it's given us a lot of opportunities, like being able to immigrate family members and have a place for them to live with us, something that becomes challenging when a landlord tells you that you can't have additional tenants, for example.
8Modification and paint the home the way i like.
5I want to drill into my balcony to hang planters and lights, upgrade appliances like a more spacious dishwasher, induction range, and heat pump water heater. I'd like to install ir reflecting window films but that's not allowed here. I also miss having my tv wall mounted and tidy but lag bolts aren't allowed. We also aren't allowed to swap light switches for smart switches or add dimmers (maintenance is required to see the apartment for routine stuff like hvac filter changes and they would notice). I also want to be able to pull additional cat6 through the walls but that's pretty risky and if anything went wrong we could lose our security deposit. Owning would also open up the possibility of doing my own electrical work, which while it was possible to get away with minor additions in my previous rental (get a work box and cover plate and mount it where it looks like it belongs and nobody bats an eye), I would still be prevented from being able to get approvals on stuff that requires inspection and owner sign-offs such as utility diaconnect switches for battery back up. I'm lucky enough that my previous landlord was willing to sign off on fiber internet installation work but at my new place you need approval to even put up a tv antenna on your balcony.
1
I would love to see more and more car free cities and other urban sprawling, but I have to say, this centralized business model where this developer is providing all the amenities, passes for the near by rail, paying rent to this developer, basically everything goes through them, they even had an app for the community, this is not a viable solution. What happens when this company is not able to sustain the spending or goes bankrupt, or worse sells majority share to an equity company. A decentralized model that goes through local government is a better option and not through for profit company. Even better option is to start from city center not a separate community on the edge of the city. I know what I'm saying sounds impossible in America, and with lobbying buy auto makers and other large corporate overlords, it probably is impossible. Social change can bring about the difference.
46On the bright side, it may be that someone doing it this way can be the inspiration for communities allowing it, now that they can see someone else do it first
7Homer gets a promotion
1
Why aren’t we building neighborhoods like this in every city in the country?
30Old NIMBYs want barren suburbs and they vote
45One thing I’ve noticed is that most American cities contain huge, populous suburbs that exert strong political control over the urban core. So in my city the actual dense urban neighborhoods only get one of five votes on the city council (let alone the county where we have straight up nazis on board). This results in an inability to implement many of the policies that we here in the city know will be beneficial, solely because residents in the other 4 suburban districts want to maintain their ability to drive through and park at desirable downtown amenities. In my opinion this represents a failure of democracy because our neighborhoods have very little say in rule making or development even in our immediate surroundings.
31It is far less this and far more developers and builders with limited imagination and limited government requirements building subdivisions with thousands of homes that are 10-20 minute drives from commercial districts, combined with state and local governments that are afraid of the political fallout from exercising the right of eminent domain to create trail corridors, so trails are virtually impossible to connect for any distance (except for abandoned rail beds).
1
We have to show support: in our local communities, for plans and designs proposed that include the features we want. We have to track projects in development, and try to make sure the government knows what we want. Transit systems also keep careful track of ridership numbers, and an increase of ridership, and an increase in feedback, is used as exciting news within the bureaucracy. Bike lanes will occasionally measure ridership, too, as part of studies. It's so important to get people to ride them when they're built.
1
Great idea, but they are taking it too far. People should be allowed to have a car, but it should be parked at the edge of the neighborhood and only be allowed to come in for loading and unloading of heavy things.
That way you have all the benefits and almost no inconvenience at all. We have that in many places in Denmark and it works great.
21People should be allowed to have a car, but it should be parked at the edge of the neighborhood and only be allowed to come in for loading and unloading of heavy things
That's exactly what this development is?
10I would take it one step further and say there should probably be small (single lane) roads that run through the neighborhood or an underground carpark with a few freight elevators that run directly into the buildings. Why? For a same reason you mentioned that they should allow cars. If you get a new fridge, imagine trying to walk that sucker from the street to your apartment. You probably wouldn't need very many freight elevators or access roads to significantly decrease the amount of effort required to get bulky and/or heavy objects to your apartment while still maintaining the general feel and spirit of a car-less community.
3There's nothing more American than taking ideas to their extreme end.
But, it's also not surprising to see this behavior given that it's a response to the other extreme of cars in every space, in every location.
3
Walkable towns are better objectively.
17Subjectively.
Like most things, it is about preference and/or what the measure of success is. Some people prefer the tighter, mixed-use concepts and some don't. I know people that would love a concept like this and I know people that would be overwhelmed and depressed.
-7I just wanna add that walkable, while always advocated as a dense "15 minutes city" I hope doesn't always have to be. There are examples of less dense walkable places, too. A little village with a market to one side, perhaps? "Walkable" exactly refers to a design pattern focused on pedestrian safety and pedestrian-scaled development. Aaaand that could exclude density, at the cost of population size.
9Nah.
Walkable towns aren't just concepts, they are how civilization is structured in most other countries.
7
https://culdesac.com/ if you actually want to see pictures of the place. The article just has a bunch of close up photos of walls and people.
13Ughh I love it. Can't wait for urbanist youtube to dive into the details, and follow up on how well it works out.
3
This sounds quite a bit like what it was like when I lived in New York City- I didn't need a car to live (* couldn't afford to park it), everything I needed was available either by walking or transit (or riding my bike).
With that said, I am suspicious of venture-capital-funded re-inventions of this model- who gets to say what amenities and concessions are available, and who profits from fulfilling the kinds of needs a neighborhood like that has?
NYC has a lot of built-in history (and with it, institutions developed from the lessons learned, like rent control to protect renters and such) and if those kinds of protections aren't included in this model, I would be willing to bet there will be abuses and problems. Building a simulacrum of an established model but where you own all the governing institutions seems... a bit of a red flag, no matter how well-intentioned it might be.
7I would live there if I could afford it.
6I think it's cool in theory, but the area is having a housing accessibility crisis, and it seems to be part of that problem and uses this format to hide that.
4(I live in Finland) I was told that in America you cannot travel much by walking because 1) since it was built for cars, stuff is far away from stuff 2) police might stop and question you, give a lift, send home or even arrest you for walking
1Disabled need not apply.
-5I don't know, it looks fairly accessible. I'm not sure someone with a mobility issue that makes it necessary to have a car at the home directly would find any reason to desire living in a "walkable" neighborhood, though.
4