Walkable city
Jeff Speck has dedicated his career to determining what makes cities thrive. And he has boiled it down to one key factor: walkability. The very idea of a modern metropolis evokes visions of bustling sidewalks, vital mass transit, and a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly urban core. But in the typical American city, the car is still king, and downtown is a place that's easy to drive to but often not worth arriving at. Making walkability happen is relatively easy and cheap; seeing exactly what needs to be done is the trick. In this essential new book, Speck reveals the invisible workings of the city, how simple decisions have cascading effects, and how we can all make the right choices for our communities. Bursting with sharp observations and real-world examples, giving key insight into what urban planners actually do and how places can and do change, Walkable City lays out a practical, necessary, and eminently achievable vision of how to make our normal American cities great again.
Stats for nerds
7recommend
13mentions
9people
2013–2026years
54% recommend46% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
This is of no surprise to me. There are folks doing work [1] where you can measure things like stress, hormones, how the eye moves, and more and when you look at modernist architecture or even "traditional" suburban homes you find that eye tracking is weird - folks can't find the door, stress levels rise, and more.> In every survey conducted, over 60 percent of the respondents have favored traditional architecture, with many revealing over 85 percent support. This preference is surprisingly unaffected by age, gender, politics, socioeconomic class and nationality. The results are not definitive, but they suggest that there is substantial public discontent with the dominant trends in modern architecture. Perhaps the anecdotal impressions of Summerson and von Eckardt were not so far off after all.The human brain is genetically wired a certain way. We find symmetry for example to be pleasing. Specific heights, setbacks, ornamentation, and more were much more carefully used in older buildings than they are today because today is more about cost efficiency than it is building something impressive.
Some will join this thread and talk about how today's modernist architecture will be tomorrow's traditional architecture, how what we see today is only the best stuff left standing, or they'll downright refuse to admit the evidence before them "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but they're wrong and each of those specific points can be refuted.
First, while architectural patterns do change over time bad ideas were discarded and became unused even if momentarily popular. It's why Oxford shoes will continue to be popular while Crocs will ultimately fade into obscurity as a trend.
Related to "only the good stuff is left standing" - sure. So now that we know what the good stuff is we should build more of it.
While beauty is arguably in the eye of the beholder (I think everyone has a valid opinion but not all opinions are equal, and beauty is likely something that can be objective even if we today lack the ability to describe how or why) we can look at other things to help inform those opinions. We're reaching the stage now where not only do we have tests of taste, we have tests of science or even tourism to help inform what people actually enjoy.
[1] No affiliation at all but I find Ann's work to be incredibly interesting. It's sort of the Walkable City by Jeff Speck, but for architecture: https://www.routledge.com/Cognitive-Architecture-Designing-f...
- Jeff Speck has written a great book called "Walkable City." I have nothing to do with city planning, but I found it super-interesting.
https://www.amazon.com/Walkable-City-Downtown-Save-America/d...
- Check out The Walkable City by Jeff Speck or Suburban Nation. I believe both of those books touch on the lack of use of parking spaces. Especially with city codes requiring a certain number of spaces for businesses or residential structures even when said spaces aren't necessary.
You can reduce spots/meters and raise prices and that should solve a lot of the problem. It'll also increase walking/biking/ride sharing.
Also please keep in mind I'm just trying to be constructive with some thoughts I have and books I've read, and not trying to be argumentative.
- The US is massively subsidizing this lifestyle and making it more attractive than elsewhere in the world. This is the only excuse for US style suburban sprawl vs similarly developed countries.
We are massively subsidizing it by: -Not pricing in to user fees all costs of roads (especially over several life cycles of the road). This applies to highways but also local roads where infra in sprawly neighborhoods costs more than denser/centric neighborhoods but usually are paying same property tax rate -Not pricing in to user fees cost of resource security (oil) -Not pricing in to user fees all externalities of personal auto use on health care system - what is healthier our system or one where you have to walk a bit? -Mandating from the highest level an interstate highway system, the funding of which no common person understands (gas tax goes in and then distributed around country to pay for 90% of road project - why not local funding so people understand where the money comes from?) -We are not regulating green field development - we are letting developers build what they want because it makes the most money without asking how is the best way to build the city. Is the best way to build a city "leave it to the developers to build what makes them most money" ? -Our zoning is designed to separate stuff which makes cars the only option.
Why does this matter? Because the government is choosing how we build our cities and they are choosing cars. It is not the free market.
Check out Jeff Speck "Walkable City" for lots of facts, examples, and ways forward.
- I would think that contractors need to dig a deep hole to ensure the foundations of the building are secure - get into the bedrock, especially in earthquake zones. Whether the car parks are below or above ground is moot.
That said - The High Cost of Free Parking (1) and The Walkable City (2) are both excellent reads on the matter of parking and car parks. The second is the more readable.
(1) http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/1... (2) http://www.amazon.com/Walkable-City-Downtown-Save-America/dp...
- I recommend this book as relevant to your interests: http://www.amazon.com/Walkable-City-Downtown-Save-America/dp...
Speck is kinda acerbic, but if you can get past this, his points are very good.
