Car dependency: consistently driving 3 miles to work in 10 minutes. Urbanism: walk those three miles because it's literally faster than the bus, even though there's a bus stop within 100 yards at both ends. Until you can fix that for every possible situation, expect pushback. Yes, that is based on personal experience.
@@willythemailboy2 Dedicated bus lanes, more than 1 or 2 buses per hour. Fixed. Relying on cars that 10 minute commute of yours could easily turn to 30 once induced demand catches up with road capacity. Plus with how much space cars take up everyone living within just 3 miles of their work would be impossible.
It’s so funny how the American mind has come to view driving as a symbol of independence and walking as a symbol of dependence when it’s quite literally the opposite. When you drive, you depend upon having a car, you depend upon the infrastructure accommodating your car, whereas with walking, you literally just go anywhere.
It goes back to the propaganda of our highway system and some peoples reliance on 14A "right to travel" where the argument is that a car is the only way to achieve that.
It goes both ways. When you don’t have a car, you’re dependent upon the proximity of goods and services, your own physical health and ability, and the local environmental conditions for your quality of life. Having a car vastly reduces your dependence upon these things. The harsh reality is that independence is a myth. You will always dependent upon someone and something. What matters is choosing what we want to be dependent upon.
having a car and infrastructure to drive it on isn't enough, you also need to pay the local government for a drivers license, license plate and government mandated insurance. But yet, walking which is free is somehow a symbol dependence
@@jonathanstensberg i think the argument is that we should be able to have a choice on what we are depending on. I highly value being able to choose to walk or take quality public transit to work or school if i don't want to or can't drive. Its a huge reason why i live in the HCOL area i live in. The independence is in the ability to choose, not the independence from infrastructure. Vast majority of the US doesn't have a choice. And for those who can't drive, from cost or ability, they're screwed. Even in the Netherlands where there is excellent public transit infrastructure has a fairly high % of household who own cars, but many dutch still choose to bike and public transit to work or school, leaving the car for less frequent car trips or driving for pleasure. Even though i live in a very walkable and urban context, i have a friend who lives near me who does choose to own a car.
But you can go SO much a smaller range of "anywheres" while walking or using a public vehicle that has to stick to a route and a schedule... that's why the car ends up getting valued for independence. Is there a way around that? I totally understand not customizing every travel route to the car... but it's a big world.
I may be guilty of getting on a soap box about healthy urbanism too often in my personal life. We live in a walkable city by American standards but it could be much better. My fiance finally realized first hand why it matters. She walked to the gym, passed a friend on the sidewalk, ended up hanging out, going to dinner, etc, had a great evening. This serendipitous hang out will be impossible soon because that friend is moving 20 minutes away to a classic suburban sprawl neighborhood. We will have to drive 20 min each way to see them.
It's good to be vocal and rant about it often. Like he said, urbanists are sincerely underdogs; we are the vast minority opinion, and even though there are a lot of us, there are a lot more people who just don't care, on top of an equally sized contingent that will gladly just label us communist-child-eating-globalists because it scares people. The one thing to remember about talking about urbanism in your own life is to try not to be preachy. Nobody likes PETA and insane vegans for a reason; they claim the right answer with the worst arguments, so even if they are technically right, they're too self-aggrandizing for anyone to take them seriously. The nice thing about urbanism is that so much of it is automatically connected to equity. So pointing that out usually makes your positions seem more relatable and rational. "I hate having do drive to the supermarket, don't you?" The other person will naturally say yeah, traffic sucks, I hate it. And then you could reply, "I do wish the city would change zoning laws in our area, it would help both of us," and I can guarantee the other person likely didn't know those factoids and a conversation might sprout up naturally.
Walking to almost everything I need is not a part of some grand plan to control conservatives, it's actually awesome, and a natural result of people and the things they need being in the same general area.
Well it kind of is a conspiracy to control conservatives as it’d subject them to the horrors of sharing public space with the underclasses that actually work in these areas. Look up involuntary commuting class.
Certainly one of the more morbid topics you could cover, but how about a top ten of the worst externalities caused by cars/ car dependency? From my perspective, that would be the most convincing and relatable topic to share with and convert non-urbanist friends/relatives. Thanks for all you out into this channel!!!
Unfortunately, it's not as compelling for car-drivers. Broadly, car drivers don't care about the externalities, because they don't feel them. Or if they do feel them, altering them seems impossible. Yeah, cars make exhaust, that's the price of admission, but in your car, you barely notice it. Yeah, cars make walkable areas awful with noise pollution, but you won't hear that noise pollution if you turn on the radio. Yeah, that nearby highway may make so much smog that it literally gives children in a 5 mile radius cancer and asthma, but, like, move somewhere else poor person. The "independence" of car culture is baked into the immature ideal of "independence" in America.
A few years ago, I worked for 18 months in Brisbane Australia and lived in and urban area. For the first time in my life, I lived without a car. I could walk to any of several grocery stores, could take either a bus, train or ferry to work, and felt quite safe just wandering around. I loved it.
That sound great. More people would adopt the urbanist life if they felt safe. Did the local shops in Brisbane have all their merchandise behind lock and key to prevent shoplifting?
I believe one other misconception is that walkable towns/cities are seen as a luxury by the broad majority of people. Which is why many vacation spots tend to have walkable or mostly walkable cores. It's also why people don't think "It would be great to live like this" since it's inherintley seen as a space you can only spend little time in. Disneyland is a great example of this.
The important part to note about those vacation spots is that the people needed to run them don't live in them. The lifestyle you're pushing so hard requires a servant class that can't afford to live it. That's not just fast food and retail workers, either. For example, the majority of NYC police officers don't live in NYC because they can't afford to.
@@willythemailboy2 Are you seriously trying to appropriate class to argue AGAINST urbanism? Buddy, what you're describing is the result of landlords and greedy capitalists. Car dependency is anti-poor and requires EVEN MORE of a servant class who are also saddled with the burden of having to own a car and not be too disabled to drive. Cities in other countries and often walkable and don't have this issue. Please think about this for more than one second.
"Americans seem trapped in a sort of Stockholm syndrome of car dependency." Never before have I heard such a succinct definition of the barrier to urban progress!
I exclusively ride a bicycle for most of the year, something in my heart I will always hold dear. But the auto industry has me over a barrel, for daily I feel my life is in peril. Disconnected bike lanes with no protection, distracted drivers coming from every direction. I want to be car-free but let’s get down to brass tacks: You need a car when the world’s like Mad Max. So many are lazy and want their motorized chair, declining in health increasing medical care. Some drivers see a cyclist and out comes the knives, to eliminate the person who might disrupt their lives. Leaders would rather pull their own arms from their sockets, because car companies and big oil are lining their pockets. So, while we wait, the climate gets worse, the automobile has gone from blessing to curse. They killed our earth with their relentless pollution, and electric cars are not the solution. A commute in a car will still be a slog, when vehicles are too big, keeping roadways clogged. Firetrucks and ambulances should not be impeded, getting there quickly to where they are needed. Fewer cars on the road will free up some space to make where we live a much safer place. Don’t trust big oil for they are constantly lying, prolonging their profits, keeping their industry from dying. They have promised changes then move like a snail, offering fake solutions that they knew would fail. Big oil and car companies must be made to bend; they have had their day, now their reign must end. 😃
I got roped into the planning profession because of the whole “urbanism” blowup the past 5-6 years or so and I think it’s worth mentioning that planners, at least where I live, can’t really “do” anything. Of course we can do our best to advise P&Z or ED commissions as well as internally advocate for legal reforms, but at the end of the day people really should go to their elected officials with any “urbanist” concerns, as the NIMBYs or traditionalists definitely control most conversations as things are now.
Right! Follow what your local representatives are doing. Read a local newspaper, or follow them on social media. Especially locally, don't just vote along the party line, pay attention to what they are actually doing.
I love your continual ribbing of Cheesecake Factory. The first time I went to one, I was absolutely horrified. I would never go back, at least not willingly. If friends want to go there, I won't be a stick in the mud, I'll just order an appetizer that is the size of three entrées at a normal restaurant.
So well said! You have managed in less than 15 minutes to say many things I have believed for many years of my adult life and never could articulate. Must be why I enjoy this channel so much.
We will always be dependent upon someone and something; independence is an unobtainable myth. What matters is choosing what we want to be dependent upon. Once we accept that reality, real discussions and debates are possible.
Urbanism is the fight for their own life (sometimes literally) of people living in the cities, who are fed up sacrificing themselves to the convenience of those, who fled the traffic to then be the traffic.
So basically you're saying exactly what I'm saying - that this whole movement is about excluding countryside low density populations from the labor market, it's just worded differently.
@@charlienyc1I guess, that's a common misconception: It's not about having a giant area completely car-free. In Europe it's often just the medieval core having _limited_ car access, which is typical an area of just one square mile. Deliveries are still allowed, however at _very_ low speeds (often 5 mph), while the rest has to leave their cars in parking garages placed around the edge. This area is then dedicated primarily to walking with lots of small stores and even outdoor restaurants.
@@kailahmann1823Well that sounds far superior to what my city has! Really I was thinking about all the commuters who come from the suburbs. They don't want to live in the city but are fine crowding it with excessive traffic and aggressive driving towards bicyclists. I wish they'd take transit, hop on a bike, or at least a motorcycle.
I hate it when some Americans say that Trains are communist / wlkable cities should not exist and good town and city design should accommodate cars and cars only
When people in government refer to something as communist or socialist, or invoke a conspiracy theory to refute it, my view is they are expressing that they want to keep their respective jobs, collecting a paycheck, without actually doing anything for their constituents.
I think the idea that if you’re not living in a major city or metro area means that you’re living in a rural area needs to be dispelled. Urbanism & its benefits can occur in small communities that may not be linked by continuously developed land. We seem to have different standards for our European counterparts than those in North America as we let our “rural” communities, where even there the majority live in urbanized areas, off the hook for not being a fully serviced community, even if not at the scale of big cities/metros
Good point. I’ve been to countries such as Greece, Croatia where there are heaps of villages everywhere. People living in quiet locations yet close enough with each other to have frequent social interactions. As well, easy access to local produce and the local cafe, church, store. They can easily visit nearby villages either by walking, car or bus. If they need to see a doctor, large store, etc, it’s an easy trip to the nearby town/city with all the facilities. I feel cities these days are too damn large, noisy, polluting and the social interactions less than village life. That’s why I think anyway.
@@josephj6521I suspect many American cities are oversaturated with young professionals willing to pay obscene amounts for rent because there are so few places capable of providing the basic things that someone needs to have a healthy social life in their 20s. Perhaps many don't crave big city life to begin with, but it's the closest thing to the social environment of villages like these- which may very well be what they prefer. There's no reason why a mid-sized midwestern or sunbelt city can't provide the basic neighborhood amenities that would translate to an acceptable quality of life for this demographic- but of course most don't. I recall once being told to "move to NYC" when I explained how much I enjoy walking to a small grocery store and purchasing $20-40 worth of items at a time. As if a city needs to reach a critical mass of 8+ million people before it can overcome the level of car dependency that requires someone to move 4000 lbs of steel in order to purchase an apple or drink a cup of coffee.
@@anthonycampagnola good points. I think for many of us, we may need to live in huge cities for work. That’s it really. Imagine if there was more availability to work remotely from smaller communities and meeting your team face-to-face monthly instead of the drudgery of long commutes? Yes the social aspects matter too I gather.
@josephj6521 Later in life this may be true. I live in a midwest city of 80,000 and I have an entry level engineering job that provides me with a more than comfortable lifestyle as far as finances go. However, I will soon be relocating to Seattle for an industry change- and truthfully my reasons for this are about 50% related to my career and 50% because of the prospect of relocating. My salary will be higher, but my income to cost of living ratio will drop by 9%. I consider that to be a more than acceptable price to pay considering that it's literally impossible for me to meet other 20-30 year old professionals, the fact that I can't do anything on foot/bike, the absence of high quality cultural/entertainment/culinary experiences, the fact that I risk being hit by a car every day when I run due to our lackluster parks/trails system, and more. While my city is subpar in these regards, I feel it does not have to be. On the other hand, I actually have multiple coworkers who relocated here from Seattle specifically because they consider it to be a better place to raise a family than suburbs like Everett or Kent. One did so because they can get by on a single income, and now his wife can homeschool their children. Their reasoning makes sense given their lifestyle and what's important to them. But, a good city and a good neighborhood is one where an individual could hypothetically spend their whole life. In big cities, upscale dense areas tend to be great places for young dual income couples, or retirees/empty nesters who need to downsize and eventually may be unable to drive. Unfortunately they tend to be poor places to raise a family. Suburbia may not be an ideal environment for children, but it's often better than the alternatives. One of the ultimate goals of good urbanism is that it should accommodate any demographic- and perhaps the funafmental problem with many modern cities is that they don't.
@@anthonycampagnola best of luck in Seattle. Yes it seems career progression instigates a move to a larger city. As you said, no city is perfect. It doesn’t have to be that way but it is. Cost is an enormous factor too. I think the motor vehicle has changed cities like no other technology previously. It’s a problem we all must deal with collectively but many initiatives have made things worse. I’m all against office-type jobs being decentralized within cities. Public transport cannot keep up with the changes. Most transport systems concentrate to/from city centres. If most jobs like these were close to public transport infrastructure we’d see reduced congestion on our roads. People will start thinking that living close to a transport hub will be better than miles away where the car is king and walking isn’t an option. Small communities can thrive instead of decline if remote work was more available and guaranteed not be be sneered at by many employers. This may change over the years and I surely hope so as our cities are becoming overly congested and younger generations begin to take greater influence as they age.
"Whether or not you believe in something has no bearing on whether or not it's true." YES, THANK YOU! (Sorry for yelling, I just get excited when someone points this out.)
Two people approach an intersection: One enclosed in a metal box, protecting them from rain and danger. He is sitting comfortably. If he is late, he can speed up and get to the place he needs in no time. Another one on their feet or bike. Maybe they are already tired from walking, they can't sit, they stand. They are not protected. Who should yield and wait?
I commented this on a previous video, but I saw your tweet comparing the size of the Midwest/ Great Lakes region to Spain and arguing for HSR within that region. As a Chicagoan and Spanish-American, I would be really interested in seeing a series that compares Spain HSR city pair scores to the Midwest. I know you did a video already on Chicago's HSR scores with other Midwest cities, but I would be interested to see how they compare to Spain's city pairs. Also congrats on 200K! Keep up the good work, you're one of my favorite content creators.
This video also got me thinking about HSR between downtown, O'Hare, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Grand Rapids, St. Louis, KC, etc. It would be pretty epic to have the freedom to get between these other towns without a 🚗.
I am likewise not a very social person, but I enjoy being around people and activity. I may only interact with my nieces and nephews out of obligation, but it's still a joy to overhear a kid pointing out all the ducks at a public garden.
Samesies. I'm very quiet and introverted, I don't need a ton of friends, but I love being in a city and surrounded by people. I know it's counterintuitive but there's way more privacy in a crowded city than in a small town. In Boston, the streets are full of people ~18 hours of the day. Everyone sees you, but no one is really looking at you. You can go anywhere and remain unnoticed. In a small town, eyes are on you everywhere, *ESPECIALLY* if you choose to walk or bike most places. NextDoor and local Facebook groups are full of posts by karens freaking out about how a "suspicious looking" person was seen walking down their street, and how the cops should do something.
You might wish to try and start conversations with the random strangers (who don't look like mad mass murderer) one meets on a train journey! Works for me (sometimes).
The fact that good urban planning has become yet another new, insane conspiracy, just makes me give up any last hope for humanity I might have had left.
its a very strange paradox but you have to keep educating people about why good urban planning is good. for example, people in my city ask for parks so I have started pushing for TOD with park space.
I am a socialist, though not a strict Marxist. I would like to point out that Marx was anti-urbanist. The 9th Plank of the Communist Manifesto: "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country." In 1848, that sounded like a good idea, as it was believed to bring the advantages of cities to everyone. I don't think Marx would say that today, if he was here to see the real-life results of urban sprawl.
I REALLY enjoy this format, and I hope you do more of it. You told us what you want, and then justified it. The choice video clips, the absurd pedestrian solutions, the matter-of-fact authority in the subject. I enjoy the lists and regular commentary, but this felt honest and weirdly hopeful.
I think our definitions of urbanism are very similar. Mine just goes a further and argues for completely private motor car-free cities with only micro cars and delivery vehicles allowed (and even these are permitted only around superblocks and not in them)
I love your videos. I'm torn between urbanism and the suburbia I grew up on in the prairies. When I was a teenager, I bought a car for $35 and was able (couresy of $0.49 gas) to drive to school for less than the bus fare my mother gave me. The bus to anywhere took FOREVER. Fast forward 40 years and I spent some time in NYC, much with a car. Parking is "free" in upper east side if you can find a place, but you quickly learn never to move your car because it will take you hours to park it again. Of course you can pay $500/mo for valet parkine, and then you can have your car if you give them 30 minutes advance notice. So much for the spontaneity of a vehicle. But I learned the aversion to moving the car and I've maintained it in a mid-sized Canadian city. I'm in a preposterously oversized house and lot but 5 minutes walk from the LRT. And there's lots of diversity near me. So I have a goldmine but I didn't pay much more than somebody 20 minutes drive from here. I think I found a market anomaly, and I feel guilty, but not guilty enough to leave. But it still takes 50 minutes to get to the other end of town on the LRT, and 20 in the car.
THIS is an especially pointed video this week and one I whole-heartedly agree with especially when it comes to surface parking. I applaud France for making it illegal over a certain size (at least without a solar shade) and for my hometown Edmonton for taking on this issue especially when it comes to illegal surface lots which litter the ring around the CBD which is used to hoard land for wealthy developers AND dodge proper taxation especially in the middle of the largest affordable housing crisis in Canadian history...
It's funny how planners can work for years without defining something as essential as the actual subject. Thank you for setting up the basic understanding of a complex topic in under 15 minutes.100% pure gold. 🙂
As recently as a few years ago, when I would talk to friends and family about why science denial makes no sense, I would bring up city and urban planning as my example. "I don't know anything about urban planning, how to properly design a city or even a simple traffic intersection. It would be really stupid of me to suppose I know better than the people whose only job is urban planning, the study and measurement of city design. It would be even dumber to claim that the entire field of urban planning is a big political conspiracy. Likewise, acting that way about things like climate science or evolutionary biology makes no sense." Fast forward to today, and "15-minute cities" is the latest conspiracy theorist buzzword. Urban planning is now one of the many theaters in the war on science. I'm worried that I'll find another point of reference that's currently uncontroversial and then see that uncontroversial example become tainted by conspiracy theories within a couple years.
Urban planning got us into this mess, So alot of us even pro Urbanists reject urban planning. I have been to several cities made by many hands, and had little to no central planning and they are some of the most interesting and livable places.
Yeah urban planning is not exactly based on science. You can watch many videos and/or read books (by urban planners) who say that traffic studies are the devil.
@@loganwashere24 Even without that... there are a LOT of value judgments in any planning document I've ever seen. It's an attempt to be sensibly speculative about what will be needed in the future.
I expect part of the reason for that is because a lot of office workers who live in suburbs started working from home in 2020, which meant that now this sea of single family homes meant to only be a 2000sq.ft bedroom and carpark now suddenly has to become the nexus of daily life. I know my parents have become much more in favour of walkability and bikeability just in the last couple years as a result. I'd be curious to see studies breaking down the people on either side of the issue by profession. I expect that sub/exurban people who work in trades or other jobs that didn't shift much with CoViD would be more anti-urbanist, while office workers would probably have shifted towards urbanism, simply because the first group didn't get as much of a shift in perspective (or ability to go for days without driving) as the second group.
@@dominiccasts i was able to get my parents into walkability enough for them to want to move deeper into the city, where there is a walkable, dense old style suburb that is very close to mixed-use businesses and even Downtown.
I love driving, have for years, but honestly? I'd be willing to give it up for quality public transportation. We (my husband and I) have lived in Henderson for 17 and 30 ish years respectively. He's seen as many changes as I have and then some. Currently, he drives Pecos/St. Rose daily for work. Your videos have me thinking: A light rail system running up both St. Rose and Eastern would be amazing. I grew up in San Jose, CA and frequently rode on VTA (not the greatest city transit, but compared to Vegas it's considerably better). Loved riding light rail into downtown when I still lived there. I'd be more than willing to do the same thing here in Henderson. Alas, this area is entirely car-centric and walking anywhere often feels blah along with being dangerous. I'm terrified to cross major intersections on foot knowing full well how crazy drivers are in this area. If better public transportation and safer options were available I'd ditch my car in a hot second.
Most of the "beg buttons" in downtown Minneapolis do not affect signal timing. They provide vibrotactile and auditory signals for people with disabilities to safely cross. Every new signal will need to be equipped with APS (similar to these push button stations) due to the updated PROWAG rules
As someone graduating university soon who will be moving across the country, it would be nice if you made a video about how you find walkable neighborhoods in a specific city!
THANK YOU for mentioning 3:53 - this is talked about very little, but it can't be overstated how important "strength in numbers" can be for marginalized communities. This is the biggest reason why I've been desperately trying to move to NYC from the southern town I live in at the moment, besides the fact that I really really really really hate car dependent environments lol.
A miracle? Seriously though it would require someone funding a lot of politician's campaign funds or someone funding think tanks and amending big corporations to basically just pump out the benefits to even get it talked about, and even then you have those who make a lot of money from his things are right now. I think the best we can hope for are governors of states that see a case for such projects backing these projects and getting federal funding where they can. The problem with a lot of the US is that there isn't even great basic inter city rail infrastructure, not that is owned by the states or federally and isn't fucked mainly on freight, so I think going straight from nothing to HSR isn't going to happen, though I'm not sure what is called HSR in the US is actually HSR (it's just a buzz word that resonates with the public who have been to countries with it or watch YT Channels it), but that's ok, you can't always run before you can walk. I don't know any country in the world that has pulled off going from practically nothing to HSR in one step and I think this is where the problem lies.
Bring the Japanese in to do it, Americans love and trust Japanese people if JR-Central came to the US to build a line, it would get done, and most people would be happy with it. Oh wait. Unfortunately every time the Airlines and Auto interests step in and prevent it from happening.
@@linuxman7777 I think the Japanese, French, Spanish could and should be brought in, with American involvement to learn from them and you're right it would get done. You're right that even when approved there are stipulations put in place so that it can't easily and efficiently get done by interests that want it to fail.
@@mattpotter8725 I heard that in the 80s in texas the French tried doing what the Japanese are now, and Southwest Airlines shot it down. Did all it could to fight the hsr line
my city (Tempe) is some what in an identity crisis, most of our city is very urban but (boomers) still think we're a traditional small town. we build a streetcar but removed buffers from bike lanes. they want to reform parking requirements but only to limit heights
@@davidabramovitch4289 He's talking about Urbanism of course. Though there are two phenomena called Urbanism: The first one is the scientific discipline of Urbanism i.e. the study of cities and the people in them and how the interact. The second is more like a grass-roots political subject i.e. the want of some people to improve life in cities, by using the understanding gained by the first.
Yes I am indeed referring to urbanism. It is wild because some people somehow believe that is a big scheme against them (?) Of course there are grassroots movements linked to urbanism and urbanisation and this should be taken into account but some people genuinely believe that the engineering discipline itself should be banned... I don't get it
You mentioned jaywalking. It’s the way of life in Boston. Seriously, everyone does it there. Hell, I once did it right in front of a police cruiser, and no response at all
It’s not just walking but having the option to opt for alternative transportation for me. I identify with the misanthropic loner self view, but I also need to be in touch with the culture and exist in public spaces to feel sane.
People ask who is going to pay for the railways, and expect them to be profitable. All other countries spend taxpayer money on rail infrastructure because they know having ways for people to get around easily should be a right, and spurs economic growth. Also…if you use the same logic, then drivers should have to pay for all the road and highway infrastructure right?
If you ever see an original McDonalds from the 50s you will notice no drive thru. Many of our inventions over the years have been driven towards laziness. The TV Remote, your smart phone, the Keurig coffee maker. Anything to make life easier and to allow us to be lazier. It is a mindset. Nowadays you can just have your fast food burger delivered. No more need to get in your car. LOL
That description of what cities should be in the first 5 minutes of the vid was similarly done very eloquently in _Progress and Poverty_ in a passage known as The Unbound Savannah. And speaking of _Progress and Poverty,_ the problem of rising housing prices in cities that are moving towards urbanism and densifying can be fixed by the Land Value Tax and decreasing or perhaps even eliminating other taxes. This would lower housing prices, increase wages, and decrease cost of living. Research Georgism and Henry George or if you're hardcore, read Progress and Poverty.
Walkable/bike able cities are a good thing and I wish the US put more into creating them. People should be able to come and go without having the obligations that come with vehicles. I wouldn't want to live in an urban area or be reduced to using public transit but I'd like it to be there for those who would.
1:45 CitNerd says urban living is good as evidenced by high housing prices in cities. Well, caviar and foie gras are expensive, but it certainly doesn't mean everybody wants them, regardless of price. A small number if people are willing to overpay for almost anything if the cachet is there.
no he said lots of people want urban living as evidenced by high housing prices in desirable cities. his thesis is that 'urban living is good', and then he lists some arguments for it after that, like the desire for urban living
@@willmael7914 Just because _some_ people are willing to pay a lot for urban living, doesn't mean it's the ideal for most. His utopia is a dystopia for many. Hence my caviar analogy; it's expensive, but not to everyone's taste.
I think this is genuinely one of your best videos. It is a excellent video that I feel dives into the weeds without getting lost in them. Genuinely amazing video, my only critique has nothing to do with the video, but it is the title. I think it gave the wrong impression and made me a little hesitant to click, but finally watching it was amazing.
No mention of how urbanism is a lower-emissions way of living? Somewhat implied by your efficiency point, but I think it's always worth mentioning as many people mistakenly think higher density areas are worse for the environment
"find me another area of modern life were we have 50000 deaths per year and we dont pour massive amounts of funding and political support into fixing it" You noted guns on screen, but also tobacco and alcohol.
nah jaywalking is some bs. design cities to where nobody has to jaywalk, don't legalize moving through cities stupidly. the history of jaywalking is based in racism, redlining, etc. if we design proper, walkable cities, jaywalking takes its rightful place in the past.
Portlander here. I absolutely love living downtown. If it were up to me, they'd move I-5 away from downtown. While not a subject matter expert in planning, everything you say here appeals to something humane and universal in me. If this is urbanism, sign me up. It seems like a a way of promoting, reflecting, modeling, advocating for recovery from many generations of suffering.
Talking of urban freeways.....has anyone ever fully converted one into a rail corridor? I don't mean putting a metro line in the median. I mean ripping it out and building a rail line in it's place (and I guess some other stuff to fill the gaps).
You mentioned impermeable surfaces causing runoff and I've heard that a few times in some urbanist videos - would it be worth doing a video focused on the effects of that? I'm curious how much worse flooding is in suburban areas and if there's any info correlating the increased impermeable area with increased/worse flooding over time. Between that and climate change... seems like the asphalt covered U.S. is gonna have a bad time.
Really looking forward to hearing what you say about Portland. Years ago it was my city of choice given it’s walkability, food, bike-ability, proximity to lots of green space, and culture. Lately, though, I’ve been more than a bit concerned.
I can imagine you drawing a bunch of critique here. I can only (really) speak for myself here, but since this topic is somewhat technical and people aren't usually overly emotional about this topic I hope my statement reflects the attitude of other critics in your comment section: please don't take it personal. The critique is a statement of disagreement or constructive feedback and not ment as an attack. So here my personal critizism for many of your videos. Your videos are very much focused on your own personal experience, which is fine. However, you oftentimes fall into a pattern of overgeneralization. Specifically, in this video on Urbanism you are extremely US-centric but never acknowledge that all your statements are focused on North America alone. Besides you having some WILD claims in your video, which definatly aren't true anywhere, almost all of your pro-city arguments in this video are only (conditionally) true in North America and few other places. They are not an universal law or anything. In a global context (which RU-vid is) with so many variables they are simply to generalized to be considered.* Thus, I would very much appreciate if you would more clearly underline that you are ONLY (depending on the context of the video "primarily") talking about the USA and Canada. *E.g., in my ears it sound laughable to even suggest that cities would be more walkable than rural areas. Afterwards you are proceeding to descibe how my village already is for multiple minutes, when you are describing why cities are better because they could be like this even though they almost never are... You get what I am saying here?
While I agree with 100% of what you've said, the problem with this video is that having you, me, and 64.000 other agree with what you've said is not sufficient to change the suburban hellscape that is the United States.
I think you people that want to give up cars and live like sardines, can and should do that. While people like me should be left alone to live where we want. Don't tell us how to live. I don't want to live 15 minutes from anything.
'don't tell us how to live' 80% of americans live in urban areas. If you're telling me a proportional amount of tax money is going towards servicing these people as it is building out the vast expanse of road networks then idk what to tell ya
I'm a little mad i have to live in a suburb, but i understand why my mom didnt move us in the city, house prices are too high rn for us to have any space to ourselves(5 person family) and I would be at major risk of being run over
I moved from California, where you need a car to get anywhere, because even small towns and cities build shopping centers that are only accessible by car. I moved to a city in the PNW that you featured a lot of photos in this episode, I think you lived here at one time. It has declined in the twelve years I have lived here, due to the pandemic and the fact that homelessness has skyrocketed due to unaffordable housing, the downtown office towers remain empty. BUT trains, buses, and streetcars are readily available, affordable, and get you pretty far along a certain corridor that runs between counties. We also have an airport that continually rates among the top airports in the country. We don't have a baseball team or football team, but our basketball arena and soccer stadium are both accessible in the city center with train and bus stops at the entries. Yay, urbanism!
I agree with your suggestions for urbanism. But your identity politics nonsense will drive people away. No pun intended. Highways are NOT symbols of racism. The same thing happened in NYC under Robert Moses when building mass transit (e.g. the Subway).
Another factor is that most Americans have never lived in a walkable city with their only examples being New York or Chicago. And with all the horror stories pushed around by both cities they end up seeing walkable cities as a detriment to their life style.
The joke has been said before, but it's still always funny how happy people are to run away to Disney for thousands of dollars just to experience the nice, liveable, walkable city they should have by default.
Right, check out home costs and rents in a place like Brookline, MA-that will tell you the desirability of walkable neighborhoods with public transportation.
I'm pretty sure those horror stories aren't being pushed *by* the cities--they're pushed by asinine suburbanites trying to justify living in their miserable, car-dependent bubbles.
New York City was a bad example because of the horrible tenement situation that was well-documented by social reformer Jacob Riis. And it's still not completely resolved even in 2023.
One thing I hear people complain about living it apartment is the noise of people above you. So promote good urbanism we should be promoting sound attenuation in construction of dense housing
Impossible with our zoning but I've always dreamed of a "checkerboard" or "oreo" building of mixed business and residential where every second unit above and below you is an office or apartment. So the units above and below you have people in them during the day while you are working or are away, but are empty and quiet at night. And if you need space for your own office or small business you may be able to find it in your own building.
I know this probably sounds like a minor thing to a lot of people, but personally I was really bothered by the sounds of my neighbors when I was living in an apartment (and I was on the top floor, even...). It is unironically one of the reasons I bought a house in the 'burbs...
I work in construction, true sound proofing for multifamily buildings comes at a big cost. Developers will always chose the cheapest method of construction, the only way to push this topic is to implement more strict noise control standards into our building codes, and actually enforcing them.
I know I’ll be an outlier here but I found the lawnmowers in the burbs to be far more annoying than noise from neighbors in the city. It probably doesn’t help that my neighbor was a retired golf course groundskeeper.
@@Andrew-nw7ho Lawn mowers, pressure washers, leaf blowers, untrained barking dogs, two to six cars per household... Suburbs are way louder than people care to admit
I think the biggest problem facing US cities is actually zoning laws. Transit oriented and infill developments should be approved, parking minimums abolished and regulations reformed to allow more houses on plots of land rather than single family homes
If mixed use and row houses were kept the prevailing development tool, housing costs would have stayed reasonable and transit easier to financially justify.
id go a step further,there are more than enough houses for the people that want them. why not ban construction of single family homes entirely? (also scew just abolishing parking minimums, we should penalize buisinesses for having more than like 4 parking spaces,)
i seriously believe just a couple pieces of legislation could drastically improve american urban planning. ban single family zoning, establish mixed used zoning everywhere, require maximum parking lot laws, require protected bike lanes, require a comittee of urban planners whose job is to ensure the construction and development of at least 2 of 3 options between a bus line, a tram line, and a metro line.
@@critiqueofthegothgf I see no value in a laundry list of demands that have zero hope of garnering mass support. Obviously, most people in this channel want these things but dreaming of a urban utopia is a waste of time. We need to take baby steps and throw away the “revolutionary” ideas. Single family homes, for example, will NEVER be banned. You can’t even get things that have little value at all to be banned in the US (100 round magazines) Can you imagine a politician literally saying “Yeah, you don’t get that house anymore”. Say goodbye to that person… It’s better to remove roadblocks such as zoning and creating voluntary incentive structures. Example: Having a lightrail as an option to go downtown and it is cheaper to use than your car due to parking. I am not trying to be a prick about those ideas but they really don’t help when they practically force the majority of people to do things they aren’t gonna want to do.
