Cities: A Smart Alternative to Cars

99% of all motorists approve of public transportation for others.

From the first article:
??what comes out of the tailpipe is only a fraction of the total climate impact of driving a car, and the climate impact is in turn only a part of the environmental and social damage cars cause. Improving mileage will not fix these problems.?

What other problems? The article does not elaborate on its main premise. Road-rage? Drunk driving? The environmental degradation required to manufacture and distribute the car? I would say that what comes out of the tailpipe is the big problem. I think with proper incentives [$15.00/gal gas?, $60.00/gal gas?] fuel efficient cars would be on the road before the next ?16 years to replace 90% of our automotive fleet? time period is up.


The Kunstler piece was a hoot and at the end he innocently counts himself among the
?many Americans of good will also stand ready to face reality, to roll up our sleeves, ditch the video games and the Nascar and the microwaved cheese treats, and the internet porn and all the other noxious, narcolepsy-inducing distractions of our time, and put our shoulders to the wheel to haul this nation into a plausible future.?
- But apart from saying that everything the US is and does sucks; he offers no plausible future. We have enough people saying the US sucks right now, thanks for the input.

Thought experiment:

If we had free, clean energy tomorrow, would suburbia still suck? What would be left to hate? The banal, uninspired design of it? I don?t think that is a good enough argument to eliminate suburbia since [I believe] most people that live in McMansions have chosen them [along with selecting whether to have the Palladian window in the garage gable end or ? oh what the hell let?s do it up with the Georgian brick-master fa?ade with beveled EIFS quoins.]
 
touche', I withdraw the question. I value this forum too much.


cheers
 
The main problem I see with many of our suburbs comes back to land use, density and design. Strips malls, parking lots, streets designed for fast-moving traffic, lack of sidewalks, and large distances between housing, shopping, and employment essentially force people to drive, since the other options become almost impossible. Reducing emmissions will help the air and our lung health, however, it won't fix any of the problems of inactivity. And when so many people NEED cars to get around, you have all the problems associated with that, including noise, congestion, and the sheer amount of physical space to park those cars at all the various destinations. On top of that, because you need so much space for parking and space everything so far apart, transit becomes totally out of the question as an option for getting people around.
 
We need a strong resurgence of [sub]urban planning.

Rem Koolhaas wrote:

"Where there is nothing, everything is possible.
Where there is architecture, nothing (else) is
possible.

Who does not feel an acute nostalgia for the types
who could, no more than 15 years ago, condemn (or
was it liberate, after all?) whole areas of alleged
urban desperation, change entire destinies,
speculate seriously on the future with diagrams of
untenable absurdity, leave entire auditoriums
panting over doodles left on the blackboard,
manipulate politicians with their savage statistics
- bow ties the only external sign of their madness?
For the time when there were still...thinkers?

Who does not long for that histrionic branch of the
profession that leapt like clowns - pathetic yet
courageous - off one cliff after another, hoping to
fly, flapping with inadequate wings, but enjoying
at least the free-fall of pure speculation?

Maybe such nostalgia is not merely a longing for
the former authority of this profession (no one can
seriously believe that architecture has become less
authoritarian) but simply for -fantasy-.

It is ironic that in architecture, May '68 - "under
the pavement, beach" - has been translated only
into more pavement, less beach.

Maybe architects' fanaticism - a myopia that has
led them to believe that architecture is not only
the vehicle for all that is good, but also the
explanation for all that is bad - is not merely a
professional deformation but a response to the
horror of architecture's opposite, an instinctive
recoil from the void, a fear of -nothingness-. "
 
scootie said:
If we had free, clean energy tomorrow, would suburbia still suck? What would be left to hate? The banal, uninspired design of it? I don?t think that is a good enough argument to eliminate suburbia since [I believe] most people that live in McMansions have chosen them [along with selecting whether to have the Palladian window in the garage gable end or ? oh what the hell let?s do it up with the Georgian brick-master fa?ade with beveled EIFS quoins.]
Click to expand...

If we had free, clean energy tomorrow, suburbia would still suck. Surburbia sucks because of it's banality, it's environmental impact, and it's lifestyle. Free, clean energy would (for the most part) solve the environmental impact, but that still leaves two problems. The architecture and civil planning still sucks, and that's pretty self-explanatory. The lifestyle sucks because once you've made the money to go live in a make-pretend mansion, you've got nothing to do. Your neighbors are only so entertaining, you have to drive to get anything done, and there's nothing to do! Seriously, Saturday morning trips to Home Depot, Wal-Mart, and Market Basket get pretty dang boring.

I guess my point is, suburban locales shouldn't exist, only smaller and smaller cities. You can still have your lot and your McMansion, but it should be cohesively planned into the town that allows for easy access to public amenities. From the outskirts to a 'downtown', density should steadily increase to a pedestrian-only area, with continuous facades and various local businesses.
 
<JohnAKeith> I don?t remember where I read/heard the quote, but the Onion is probably correct. Sometimes they nail it.

<Kennedy> Out of the three problems of banality, environmental impact, and lifestyle, only environmental impact has real consequences beyond the suburb's borders. So if that is solved then other people can live in hip urban smart-growth inner-city villages and not give a shite about the suburbs or worry about the death of the planet; everybody wins.

?The architecture and civil planning still sucks, and that's pretty self-explanatory.? While I agree that not all architecture and urban planning aspires to art, and even less so in the suburbs you describe, I have seen some that clearly does. This means that it is possible.

?The lifestyle sucks?. Money?.make-pretend mansion?.. got nothing to do?. neighbors only so entertaining?. have to drive to get anything done?. nothing to do! ?.. trips to Home Depot?..Wal-Mart?. Market Basket? .pretty dang boring.?
This goes back to Koolhaas? essay:
?the horror of architecture's opposite, an instinctive recoil from the void, a fear of -nothingness" The architecture of the suburb reveals the nothingness of modern society; so it has played a vital role.

I think that most of what gets built, and the zoning that accompanies it, is more about survival than art and that is why the suburb lacks interest, It is a simple, dumb solution in a legally, politically and economically complex landscape. As we get better at working within this landscape, then our designs will get more complex and inspired.
 
Scootie-
Kennedy-The architecture and civil planning still sucks, and that's pretty self-explanatory.
Click to expand...
While I agree that not all architecture and urban planning aspires to art, and even less so in the suburbs you describe, I have seen some that clearly does. This means that it is possible.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that architecture isn't artistic, I said that the vast majority of suburbs developed post-1970s are not artistic, rather at best try to emulate some 'artistic architecture' of the past, or of the cities, while retaining the conservative and monotonous style of suburban design.

Scootie-
Kennedy-The lifestyle sucks?. Money?.make-pretend mansion?.. got nothing to do?. neighbors only so entertaining?. have to drive to get anything done?. nothing to do! ?.. trips to Home Depot?..Wal-Mart?. Market Basket? .pretty dang boring.
Click to expand...
This goes back to Koolhaas? essay:
?the horror of architecture's opposite, an instinctive recoil from the void, a fear of -nothingness" The architecture of the suburb reveals the nothingness of modern society; so it has played a vital role.
Click to expand...

So you claim that by using suburban nothingness as a comparison, artistic architecture exists? So an architect can give a B effort, then say "Well, the guy next to me got a D!" and it's okay? If we hold the comparison to a higher standard, we'll hold ourselves (the 'good' architects) to a higher standard. I don't agree that suburban architecture plays the vital role, just that second-rate design does. At this point in time, suburban architecture is the second-rate (or further down the list).

Scootie-I think that most of what gets built, and the zoning that accompanies it, is more about survival than art and that is why the suburb lacks interest, It is a simple, dumb solution in a legally, politically and economically complex landscape. As we get better at working within this landscape, then our designs will get more complex and inspired.
Click to expand...

Survival > Art, correct? Survival of what? Of the past, of idealism, of reckless disregard? Clinging to a romantic notion of the American Dream? Suburbs exists due to the fear of modernizing and globalizing. Fear of changing that dream that has defined our country, and our way of life, for almost an entire century. As people come to realize they cannot just shutter themselves in a sub-division behind a nice little fence, the architecture will change to emulate this attitude. As the people gain of sense of connectedness, the architecture will portray this idea of unification and togetherness.
 
I applaud and share your final sentiment of unification and togetherness. Let?s see what Mr. Obama will do.

I think the reason that suburban housing sucks is due to the fact that the market has freely determined that the cost of ?design? results in diminishing marginal returns. The value added [by design] is not worth the extra value paid [for the home] by the consumer. Maybe design has been transferred to cheaper and easier to consume items such as furniture, clothing and i-phones. Even so, modern housing developments are highly engineered and represent the cutting edge of efficient construction technology.

Our big problems are unsustainable energy use and pollution. If it weren?t for that the American Dream would work.

Survival > Art
 
Asthetics aside, the environmental argument against suburbs goes far beyond pollution from automobiles. The bigger issue to me (and a lot of people) is land use. Even if cars/trucks ran on 100% non-polluting fuel, there's no getting around the fact that the suburbs take up needless space that would be better used if it was returned to wilderness.
 
In many exurbs hit by the housing bubble that is exactly what is happening.
I too have a problem with the suburbs because of land use (also for the total lack of culture). The problem is that if we only build infrastructure for automobiles than this is the only land use we get.
 
I'm a big fan of cities, but I would not say there is a "total lack of culture" in Arlington, Melrose, Waltham, Lexington, Concord, etc.
 
Ron Newman said:
I'm a big fan of cities, but I would not say there is a "total lack of culture" in Arlington, Melrose, Waltham, Lexington, Concord, etc.
Click to expand...

The problem here is definition. When people think of "suburbs" they are thinking of the sprawling auto-dependent ones that have sprung up post-WW2. Streetcar suburbs are so urban that it almost isn't fair to call them suburbs in the modern parlance.

Also the culture of a suburb depends on the culture of the city. What has more culture, the suburbs of Phoenix or the suburbs of New York? Both are pretty mind numbing but I'd take Long Island over Sun City, AZ anyday.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
The problem here is definition. When people think of "suburbs" they are thinking of the sprawling auto-dependent ones that have sprung up post-WW2. Streetcar suburbs are so urban that it almost isn't fair to call them suburbs in the modern parlance.

Also the culture of a suburb depends on the culture of the city. What has more culture, the suburbs of Phoenix or the suburbs of New York? Both are pretty mind numbing but I'd take Long Island over Sun City, AZ anyday.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. I wouldn't call Lowell, Melrose, Fitchburg, or Arlington (or wherever else Ron mentioned, suburbs. They follow my idea/wish of having zero suburbs (suburbs defined as auto-centric, strip mall dependent, and sub-divided) and only having smaller cities.
 
Ron, just think Route 9 Framingham instead of Route 2A Lexington.

Or Route 1...anywhere.

There. That's the problem.
 
But even Framingham is becoming a cultural center ... for Brazilians. And parts of Orange County, California became Little Saigon. Culture can spring up in places you wouldn't first expect.
 
Downtown Framingham (where the Brazilians are) is not Route 9.

And just because there are ethnic restaurants in a strip mall doesn't mean that strip mall is financially or environmentally optimal.
 
True, but usually there's more to ethnic enclaves than just restaurants. Visual and performing arts venues often follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top