Ever wonder why people daydream of European towns? Or why your city's core isn't bustling with energy like New York? The answers probably have something to do with how they were built.
Our cities should work for us, not the other way around. A boom in post-war suburban development patterns has left us with inefficient and overbuilt sprawl. We can, however, bring back healthy cities - the kind of walkable, interesting, and comfortable places that make you want to hang around (as opposed to just driving on to the next desolate town).
Healthy cities create healthy (and wealthy!) people. Stick around to see if your city is really built for you.
Bikes are Cheap, Public Transport is cheap, Walking and Taking Public Transport or taking the Bike is Healthy and improves your health. Cars on the other hand is more Expensive. They can lead to Obesity as you be sitting for long and cause Varicous Veins, Blod Clots, Loss of Money, and also Mental Health Issues. Many People use cars more than Bikes is that some places are hilly. Well in some cities that are flat, It was Easy to Ride Bikes more than Cars.
Car Ownership has started rising since the late 1960s after some cities started to get rid of trams. in Amsterdam, and other cities like, Oslo, Paris, London, etc has started planning to reduce congestions by more people using bikes, taking public transport to work, and even make walking accessibility.
I am 26 years old. There are two things in my life that I grew up with that I question the value of and think I can live without: suburban living and cars. Suburbs are dumb. You live in a bubble alongside people who are small minded, selfish and boring. Plus there’s nothing to do. And then there’s cars aka the only means to get around the suburbs built and maintained by these stupid people. Cars are dumb, too. They are expensive: to maintain, insure and fuel. They are dangerous. I have been in 3 accidents in my life, with varying degrees of severity. All terrible. To hell with cars. I give my current job situation and car 5 years each. I’m going to save as much money as I can and gain as much equity in my house as possible. Then I’m packing up my junk, moving to Chicago and never buying a stupid car or living in a suburb ever again. City life may be more expensive, but the costs are definitely worth it.
I love driving. But i also love that i can do anything in my city withoht needing my car. Don't want to waste gas? Don't wanna be stuck in rush hour traffic? Don't want to have to park? Don't want to gave to drive just to go get a bottle of cock or any couple of items that don't justify having to bring your car? Just walk! Most things are within 500m of my home. Even better if it's a sunny day outside
Sitting in Cars = Bad, Sitting in Buses/Trains = Just Fine? I could ride a bicycle to work most of the time; it's not that far, with reasonably safe sidewalks, residential streets, and trails the whole way. But I choose not to, because any significant injury could either kill me or be financially ruinous -- certainly enough to wipe out the savings from not driving a car. And I'd still want/need a car anyway, for longer in-city trips, hauling tools and gear, or going to remote/rural locales that'd never have any kind of transit access, even in the alternative reality where the US actually cares enough to build a good network.
Bin Salman: Efficiency is boring, why don’t we try something ineffective and inefficient!? Employee raises hand: like a line??? Bin Salman: EX-ACTLY It’s like making a spoon with a hole in it… Imagine that one maglev or Hyperloop line fails. 5 million people would be late to work, or would have to travel like 300 subway stops.
I bike to work. ~$2000/year saved in fuel alone. ~$2400/year in saved car insurance ~$300/year in oil changes saved I feel better the whole day when I bike as the fresh air and cardio first thing in the morning wakes you up better than any coffee ever would. The cardio helps you maintain a healthy body fat level, this alone helps you feel better drastically A bike is cheaper all together as stated above. And I don't have the stress associated with driving, or parking a car. Anyone who lives within 4 miles of their job if there is a sidewalk or its a residential street I highly suggest you try biking to work. Why pay money just to go make money when you can keep more of the money you make just by doing a bit of biking each day.
I was waiting and waiting for the Japanese model where mixed use is within the same building (many people have a small factory or business in their house). And yet the actual integration of the building itself into mixed use wasn't even mentioned. There wasn't so much as a colour for it and seeing that on a Japanese city would have added greatly to this presentation.
Since the US has no social safety net it produces a lot of homeless or otherwise desperate people. The car based lifestyle let's the more fortunate live their entire lives without seeing this part of the population. And the car based infrastructure makes it so those poor people can't move around and have to stay in certain areas. This is a big reason why a big chunk of Americans would never ditch their cars in favour of better transit. They're afraid of seeing poor people.
Cities are round-ish because they start small at a point of interest (typically the interest is a convenient place for commerce), and grow outward in each direction over years, decades and centuries. Similar to when there is a street performance and the crowd grows in a circle around the show. The people in the crowd are not concerned about their proximity to everyone else. They want to be as close to the action as possible. Most cities never had a master plan, they mostly evolved or grow layer upon layer like the rings of a tree as people and business try to get as close to the action as possible. So the biggest departure for The Line project from that of typical cities is it is preplanned and the hope is millions will see it as a point of interest. I believe distances from points is inconsequential. That is actually one advantage I believe the Line would have over other cities. The Line has preplanned commuting routes. No traffic crisscrossing, no forks in the road or 5 way intersection, traffic jambs - none of all the things that happen because of an unplanned web of commuting pathways. But the Line would be manufactured as opposed to organic like most cities. Can a city be manufactured and packaged in a box?
A point to make about the road at 3:05. While they may be starkly different there may be a good reason for that. Namely sunshine and the desire to have or not have it based on the season. If that street was in the northern hemisphere and the bare street side is on the north side of the street that could be benefiting from the natural change in sunlight. During the winter you want to maximize sunlight on your home as it is otherwise cold. In the winter the sun comes from the south so to have no shade on the south side of the house is best. Likewise you would want to shade the north side of your house to avoid the heat from the summer sun which is now in the north. I don't know that street but that may be an intentional decision to keep or shed trees on that road to take advantage of the natural seasonal variance.
I assume that maximising the perimeter is part of the point. It maximises light on the solar panels. This is a solution for a country with plenty of unused land and sun. I'm not saying it's been perfectly thought out though.
AN ARCHITECT WHO TAUGHT AT BROOKLYN'S PRATT INSTITUTE ALSO HAD A DESIGN FOR THE REMOVAL OF ALL BUILDINGS IN MANHATTAN AND BUILDING A STRAIGHT LINE MEGA BUILDING WITH AN AIRPORT ON THE ROOF. AND A SUBWAY IN THE BASEMENT. AS THE BUILDING WAS BUILT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN MANHATTAN WOULD BE MOVED INTO THE BUILDING AND THE SITE OF THEIR FORMER BUILDINGS WOULD BE TRUNED INTO A GREEN CARPET OF GRASS AND TREES. FIRST PROBLEM WAS THAT ONCE BUILT ON THE ROOF THE AIRPORT COULD NOT BE TURNED INTO THE WIND. ANY SPILLED FUEL WOULD DRAIN DOWN INTO THE BUILDING. HIS NAME WAS GAMAL EL ZOGBY.
Hey that guy stole the idea I had for Cities: Skylines years ago! To be clear though, "The Line" isn't about city planning. It's actually an exercise in psychology. With buses going back and forth along The Line all day long, no matter where you're going, the amount of time you spend getting there is identical if you take a bus or your car. What's not identical is the amount of stress and financial cost it takes to commute. Car ownership would produce the exact same results, but at a much higher cost and with a lot more mental/emotional stress being put on the driver. Additionally, the simplicity of The Line's design means bus routes would also be incredibly simple. The average person doesn't want to be in a situation where they need to memorize bus routes just to get around. When your city is a simple line, all you need to know is which direction your destination is. If it's on the left, you take a bus going to the left. If it's on the right, you take a bus going to the right. Simple. So eventually each citizen would decide it is not necessary to own a car, since all advantages of car ownership are negated by public transit (or more appropriately, the design of The Line). And because each citizen has given up their vehicles, they now have more money to spend on things that aren't cars. This means the city can enter into a new phase of economic prosperity. Businesses thrive in this city where people spend freely, stress is lowered, and good times are had by all. Even long commute times can be minimized by new delivery/courier businesses, which would naturally do well in such a city. The irony is The Line is still a horribly designed city. But it ends up being successful because it uses a bunch of mind tricks to brute force success. You will be car-free, you will be stress-free, you will have money to spend on things you actually enjoy, and you will like it. We demand it.
One small caveat: if you have to only build in two directions, things will inevitably become placed further apart from each other than they would be on a normal city.
@@flytrapYTP Yeah, like I said, it's a horribly designed city. But it brute forces success by using jedi mind tricks on its people and their habits. Besides, as long as everything a person needs to live is within a 10 minute walk, any city can be livable.
What is the name of the law w the 45%:55% ratio? While we’re here what are the names of the zoning laws form the 50s-60s that separated business zones from residential zones?
"If you have ever salivated over the beauty, charm, and liveliness..." I don't think those Boomers in Mississauga care about that. Like my family, they drive to that industrial commercial zone to pick up German sausages at Brandt, and then nearby to the factory store MC Dairy to pick up 2 months worth of kefir buckets, then drive home.
Being able to turn a house into a bar sound like an awsome thing expecialy if people can walk to it instead of killing a family of 4 driving home drunk
Somthing like a supermarket which needs large semi trucks to stock needs to be zoned where that kind of trafic can be delt with, but somone should be able to turn a residential house into a small store into a small store if they want to
4:28 thats ridiculous its a total waste of space though you only want enough space for 2 to 4 cars and to pervent a fire from spreading from one house to another too easily
That’s because riding the bus or the train can make you sick if you aren’t careful. Not only can you get a cold or the flu, your local transit system and coronavirus also go hand-in-hand. With multiple people crowded into a small area with recirculated air, you greatly increase your chances of getting sick.
Why have the enormous 500m tall walls that seem inescapable? What if you wanted to go out of the line to take your dog for a walk will there be a fire escape for easy access on ground level or no pets allowed? Never be afraid to speak the truth because this in reality is a 170km long prison for your mind.
