I like the concepts here. I am concerned about the increased crime and gun violence in some areas and how these practices may be implemented safely. Walkable communities can definitely improve health outcomes and quality of life but it can be a moot point if people feel vulnerable, unsafe and fearful of navigating said spaces. I think people drive more because they feel somewhat safer in their vehicles.
But…but you still walk in some places right? Big box stores, malls, parks. Do you feel unsafe there? Same here. If the streets are walkable and there’s a lot of destinations to go to streets will have people even in the dead of the night. With apartments and some density there are dozens of windows looking at any given place at all time. And with variety in housing there would be people of different socioeconomic status and any unsociable elements would be greatly diluted. Safety is in greater number of eyes on the street.
This is all great info and dead-on target. However, it can't happen in many U.S. cities without a lot of time passing and/or money. Take the greater Detroit area for example. In the 1960's and 70's tens of thousands of white people fled the city for the suburbs and small towns way outside of Detroit. They built huge subdivisions in what were farm fields. Today many of those suburbs have hundreds, even thousands of acres of nothing but houses with no sidewalks and no businesses to support the people IN the neighborhoods. So, the people drive all the time just to get fast food, or gas, or to the cleaners, to church, etc. In order to change this, houses would have to be purchased and torn down to make room for retail businesses. Miles of sidewalks would have to be constructed, roads would have to be rebuilt. In a small town like Walled Lake, or Union Lake and others 40+ miles outside Detroit, they don't have the money. Plus, people will resist saying they moved to the suburbs to spread out and not be more condensed as in the city. To make such change in America, it will take several generations to change people's attitudes. I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen...well, I won't have to, I'll be long dead!
Actually, Detroit is really no different than most North American major cities and even middle size and smaller cities. Over the last many decades, metropolitan areas have had significant growth and movement from the center city to the sprawling suburbs because of middle class flight and general economic and lifestyle issues.. This is a common circumstance in cities all over the country But actually, in Detroit specifically, there are many parts of the metropolitan region that can be considered car optional. Even Downtown Detroit, now with a significant influx of new development, transit, non-motorized path systems, and other dramatic changes over the last 30 years, would be considered a car optional location to live Additionally, many suburban areas can be definitely considered car optional. Places like Dearborn, Birmingham, Royal Oak, Ferndale, Plymouth, Farmington, and a number of others are set up where the density, street grid, ease of getting around with multiple mobility options, sidewalks and pedestrian accommodations, access to transit, and a close connected mix of uses, make all of these communities definite options to have an alternative lifestyle than simply being only car oriented These same circumstances which are clearly an option in metropolitan Detroit, are applicable in numerous metropolitan areas. All of these regions could become more people oriented over time, and good decisions to promote these options by the municipal leaders and the community in general, will move them in the right direction. Even the most car oriented suburban environment can become more people oriented and less dependent on car use. It may be difficult to become completely car free in a lot of places, but being car optional is a good goal for communities that are clearly far from it
@@archivedschannel6964 All true. Yes, Detroit itself, especially downtown is remaking itself to be much more pedestrian friendly. As to places like Royal Oak, Farmington, Northville and others, they were always more pedestrian friendly, even when I was growing up in 1950's and 60's. So, it's easier for them to improve on what they had. But I would argue that far out suburbs like Walled Lake and others like it that are many miles outside of the primary cities, may make some strides toward being more pedestrian friendly, such as installing walking/biking trails, but that's about as far as they will go. They were simply too badly designed (and I use the term "design" loosely because developers simply built where they wanted with no plan between them) to allow for much more. Maybe more and faster progress will come in future generations. I certainly hope so.
