> “It’s too tall” is a common refrain in public hearings to approve new construction, but I’m honestly puzzled by the obsession with the notion of a building’s height as a measure of compatibility with its surroundings. I think the importance of height in and of itself is vastly overstated.
That is true, height is often a bad proxy for some other quality you're looking for and which could be solved in original ways besides height e.g. in the north east you'd want enough light to reach the street and avoid gloomy alleys, besides height you could manage it by removing wedges of the building (from a basic cuboid shape), or having a front courtyard or a large atrium, or yes height. Height also becomes a factor of the street width, narrower streets would tend to get shorter buildings.
Furthermore regulating height can be counter-productive: while you want to avoid excessive shade in the north-east, in the south-west you want to do the exact opposite, much like cities of northern africa or the middle east, for an arizonan or texan city to be walkable it needs shade and air flow rather than light: you need buildings tall enough that they protect pedestrians from the sun (without falling into gloom), but you also want them to guide and amplify the slightest breeze.
> 3. Land Use
> Segregation of uses is the most important of those features. The biggest factor that predicts walkability is the presence of actual destinations in walking distance of where people live. The postwar paradigm has been to rigidly control where commercial land uses can go and where they can’t, based on the premise that they are a nuisance in a residential neighborhood—bringing traffic, noise, and possibly crime. Yet all commercial uses are not created equal.
Many places segregate by maximum nuisance rather than specific land use: plots are give an maximum nuisance level, and businesses are charted according to the expected nuisance they produce. Anything below the plot's MNL is allowed and thus your small corner shop or barbershop (low-nuisance businesses) can live in a "residential" area, but a nightclub or a machine shop probably can't.
This reminds me of a fight I had with a city council member. A new restaurant going in a very old space (the Town Talk Diner in Minneapolis, with its classic lighted Art Deco door that forces all businesses there to have the same name) wanted a full liquor license. A council member was blocking it because there were too many liquor licenses within a couple of blocks, and there were too many problems with drunken fighting. But those could be traced to a nightclub and a seedy bar. People don't go to a hipster-nice restaurant to get drunk and start fights!
What people say in public hearings and what they actually want are separate things.
"Height", "neighborhood character" and a few other things are typically things that are legally required for the regulators to consider in their decisions, so they keep being brought up.
What people really want is typically just two things (1) keep the value of their homes up through scarcity, and (2) keep outsiders out.
I know Japan regulates by nuisance. Which other countries/cities do? It seems like a great system.
My neighbourhood of Montreal has some of this, but I think a lot is grandfathered in. You can't just open anything you want in any building, even if there's a similar store around the block.
When the new office workers are going to look down into my hot tub and block my solar for half the day... then yes, the height is a pretty good proxy for the problem... unless they want to have offsets from the property line that prevent almost any significant building size on small lots.
The problem is you always have to have a border between low rise and high rise development. The difference between having a 1 story next to you with an 8ft fence and having a 5 story next to you is huge. Also there is no dealing with the new parking issues that will be created unless suddenly people decide they want to ride city busses.
But in any event, if you live someplace with a shortage of housing supply relative to demand, including many people who would be happy to live in studio or 1-bedroom apartments, then it becomes absurd to have most available land zoned to only allow buildings with <2 story single family detached houses on largish lots with strict parking requirements and sad little unused yards in the back, as happens e.g. in San Francisco and many nearby cities. Housing prices get driven up to absurd levels making the whole region unaffordable except to the best-paid professionals.
You end up with a large number of 2-bedroom single-family houses occupied by groups of 20-somethings sleeping in bunk beds; workers essential to the basic functioning of society commuting hours each way every day; schoolteachers working extra part-time jobs so they can afford to sleep in someone’s closet; families raising multiple kids while renting a small in-law unit in someone else’s back yard; people forced to move away when they get married because they can’t afford to live anywhere but their current rented multi-roommate spaces, the prices of everything in the economy going up but all of the difference siphoned off by large land-owners, ....
Having a few people’s gardens shadowed for part of the day by 3–5 story apartment buildings just isn’t that big a problem in comparison.
What part of San Francisco with 1 story houses are you talking about? I lived there for 5 years and the only ones I remember were in the parks. Even the low density is almost all 2 story just to have a parking space.
No, I'm talking about the burbs where they've decided to put 5 story commercial next to city blocks of single family homes on quarter acre lots. 2 stories would be fine... 25% of the houses are anyway.
There's always going to be an edge to zoning, but going from 1 story to 5 is stupid. There's no parking, no transit, no shopping, just offices and houses. The commercial was single story and fit into the neighborhood, but now going 5 it's just going to cause problems.
More than half of the area of San Francisco is zoned to only allow single family houses or (in some parts) duplexes, with height limited to about 2 stories. 3–5 story apartment buildings are not allowed.
I moved out of town where demand is likely to pick up when the tech 30 somethings discover they don't want to raise kids in the city. I watched the city get decimated of artists, great restaurants, and interesting architecture in the 2000 boom and again recently. The number of people who have to commute in just to support the lifestyle of higher incomes and the neighborhood color they squeeze out is part of what got me to leave. People who grew up there, love the city, and want to contribute to making it better deserve a chance to stay rather than getting gentrified out. I also hate the empty buildings on Prop13 valuations waiting for prices to go up even more.
YIMBY won't reduce the homeless population, make housing more affordable, or the city more livable... it's not a simple market and pretending it is won't solve the problems.
Your city probably doesn't care about urban design at all. They want the tax money from businesses, but they also want to restrict housing, so they have to spend less on services and property costs rise as much as possible. Therefore, 2 stories residential is too much, but 5 stories business is fine.
I think there's something to what you say... but I also follow the general rule of politics, follow the money. The developers/RE give the most money and they get what they want where they want it. I kinda hope that the city at least realizes that most housing won't pay for its city services with taxes, but I really think it's more short term money grab by influential people investing Other People's Money. They don't care what happens after they've sold it.
> hat is true, height is often a bad proxy for some other quality you're looking for and which could be solved in original ways besides height e.g. in the north east you'd want enough light to reach the street and avoid gloomy alleys, besides height you could manage it by removing wedges of the building (from a basic cuboid shape)
> Segregation of uses is the most important of those features. The biggest factor that predicts walkability is the presence of actual destinations in walking distance of where people live. The postwar paradigm has been to rigidly control where commercial land uses can go and where they can’t, based on the premise that they are a nuisance in a residential neighborhood—bringing traffic, noise, and possibly crime. Yet all commercial uses are not created equal.
Most Americans these days live in suburbs, and I can't really think of many that don't adopt rigid single-use zoning.
>> The biggest factor that predicts walkability is the presence of actual destinations in walking distance of where people live.
Refrigeration. In days past people needed to make regular trips to buy food. We needed lots of stores, butchers, bakers and such within walking distance. (Think a metal shop is a nuisance? Imagine living downwind of an open-air butcher's yard.) Today, largely thanks to refrigeration, we can purchase larger volumes and keep them safely in our homes. So we don't need to go to the store every day, and when we do we purchase more than we can easily carry. This isn't a bad thing. It has freed up countless man-hours increased our dietary options. Not every urbanization problem is about cars.
I actually hate the fact that in USA you can only shop for groceries in a supermarket that is 5 miles away.
Problem with that is that if you happen to run out of milk,or salt, etc., you have to plan the whole trip, instead just quickly coming downstairs and buying it in the grocery store that is in the same building as your apartment.
Another problem is that instead of buying fresh bread everyday in your local bakery you have to buy this packaged, loaded with chemical conservants shit that supermarkets sell.
Grocery store within walking distance should be considered a human right :)
> I actually hate the fact that in USA you can only shop for groceries in a supermarket that is 5 miles away.
Even in most suburban areas (much less urban; rural areasmay have his problem but it's kind of the nature of the beast) this is far from true, even before considering the availability of grocery delivery services.
> Another problem is that instead of buying fresh bread everyday in your local bakery you have to buy this packaged, loaded with chemical conservants shit that supermarkets sell.
In most (again, non-rural) places where you have a long drive to the grocery store, you'll also have a long daily commute to work and a fresh bakery (dedicated or attached to a grocery store) with very little deviation from the commute route, so it's quite possible to buy bakery-fresh bread every day if you want.
>> this packaged, loaded with chemical conservants shit that supermarkets sell.
My grocery store sells normal bread. Just plain stuff with normal ingredients. Baked on site. But here too refrigeration has a part. The supermarket "bakery" starts from frozen blobs of dough that are created offsite and stored until the day they are needed. Because they are transported frozen and/or very cold, they don't need any preservatives. The tiny grocery in your building won't have the capacity to run a bakery and so will have to stock preservative-filled loaves.
The shift to larger "destination" grocery stores often means fresher foods. Look at costsco. Hate it as a big-box store, but their turnover means they can run a full bakery without caring about shelf life. The tomatoes sold at my Costco are also fresher than those at any local grocery because they come strait from the greenhouses without middlemen distribution networks.
In normal American suburban traffic, 5 miles is only 7 minutes. A typical person can walk only 1900 feet in that time.
Getting that for everybody would pretty much require paving America with supermarkets. Consider the sizes of some supermarkets near me, roughly estimated in feet: 250x200, 250x250, 250x300. All of these have lots that are nearly 1000x1000, though shared with other stores.
So for walking to be equally fast, ignoring the need to carry groceries, we'd need 50% of the land to be supermarkets.
The benefit of the normal supermarket gets even bigger if there are people in the household who can't reasonably walk to a store on their own. Kids need to be watched. Elderly and obese people have trouble carrying groceries for 1900 feet. Shopping would mean taking trips all day long, one for each bag of groceries, so 1900 feet is really way too far. Cut that down to compensate though, and then there physically isn't enough room for all the required supermarkets!
> Getting that for everybody would pretty much require paving America with supermarkets.
Have you considered that other countries exist, do not look like American suburbs, but also do not consist of 100% end-to-end supermarkets with the odd park or hospital thrown in?
Yep. The time calculation should make my suspicion clear: these people don't actually have a reasonable way to get groceries. They live in what is often called a "food desert".
I think some of them burn lots of time walking and on buses, maybe a couple hours for their groceries. I think some of them live on food from other sources. They could order food to be delivered. They could eat junk food from a vending machine.
Supermarkets exist in urban areas without nuking the city with parking lots. The parking lots are only necessary because we've created this requirement to drive. In fact this is how most of the world does their grocery shopping.
I walk half a mile with two grocery bags, and that's pretty much enough for a week's worth of groceries. Granted, certain bulk items are more annoying and I have to make special trips for them (like a bag of rice) but those are more the exception than the norm.
> Kids need to be watched. Elderly and obese people have trouble carrying groceries for 1900 feet.
For the elderly and obese, they make personal folding shopping carts, which are not an uncommon sight in urban areas.
Suburban Americans also helicopter parent their kids much more aggressively than the norm; when I was a child in New York City, my parents trusted me to not burn down the house if they were gone for half an hour, and once I was attending school it wasn't uncommon for me to fetch something for them from the store. And if you bring kids with you to the store it's basically free labor for walking back with groceries.
7 minutes is disingenuous when you consider the time spent getting into your car at one end, finding a park at the other, walking between the car park and the shop, navigating the (large) shop and waiting at a checkout. All these things are simpler and quicker if you can pop out, walk a few blocks to a (much smaller) corner store and grab the things you need.
For me walking a 2.5km round trip to my nearest local store vs driving the 8km return to my supermarket both take about half an hour if I'm grabbing a couple of things.
In terms of space - no one is suggesting these grocery stores should be the same size as a supermarket - if they are less centralised they need to hold less stock and can be smaller. If you can walk there, you don't need enormous car parks.
It may not be as ~efficient~ but it sure makes for a nicer existence.
The other thing is that with mixed zoning you can get so much more than just grocery stores. My neighborhood has the following within the 1000 feet radius:
- grocery store (x3)
- dentist's office (x2)
- hairdressing salon
- pharmacy
- kingergarten (x2)
- pizzeria
- Starbucks
- music school
- post office
None of this thins ruins the overall experience, because they all are small scale and none of them has their own parking lot - they are located at the ground floor of residential buildings (except music school which has it's own small building). Kindergardens are most interesting case because they both are actually just apartments adapted to their new role, so each of them hosts maybe 20-30 kids.
I used the 5-mile example, but usually it is less. Parking is plentiful right at the door of the supermarket; there is no need to find it.
I've never seen a good answer for how walking is supposed to work for the less-able-bodied. My knee isn't getting better with age.
It's odd to even think of a grocery store that isn't a supermarket. I guess that would be like a Wawa, 7-11, Circle-K, or Walgreens. Those exist in suburbia, but they are nothing like what I expect for normal food shopping.
I can count on being able to buy artichokes, fresh and frozen whole turkey, fresh and dried apricots, asparagus, Bartlett pears, frozen rabbit, fresh cilantro, fresh and dried figs, bean sprouts, and alfalfa sprouts. I can almost count on quinces, dragonfruit (pitaya), and fresh beef heart. Other people can count on what they like, somehow choosing Muenster and rice cakes and tofu.
My examples were less than 5 miles, too. 2.5mi each way to drive vs 0.8mi each way to walk.
I like having both options - I stop at the supermarket on my way home from work for a bigger shop. But when I just need one thing it's great to be able to walk and get it.
Plentiful parking is available at my supermarket door too - but it's a different experience. The need to navigate other cars, the busy intersections which inevitably exist around shopping centres, the larger store with more people - it all creates a larger and more frustrating/stressful experience than a quick walk in the sunshine when I only need a couple of things.
None of those products seem extraordinary for a small grocery store to stock they all sound like staples of any shop - especially the fresh food. If they don't exist in your local stores then that is of course an issue - but it is an issue by design where you live.
I imagine part of the cost if that to achieve the kind of stock levels I have you need a certain population density (I live on the urban/suburban fringe of my city) - and if you live in the suburbs with everyone on a 600m2 block then of course it will be difficult to maintain fresh stock and a large enough customer base. But this article is talking about making cities walkable areas so it doesn't really apply to suburbs anyway.
Now it’s not 100% clear what they’re referring to by “city”, as they also mention “incorporated areas”, which could refer to suburbs, so I won’t say your wrong exactly, but it doesn’t seem accurate.
The technical definition of suburb is often quite different from the colloquial definition. There are quite a few “cities” near me that most people would consider suburbs compared to the major metropolis I live by.
I would ask colloquially: how many Americans live in low density single family home zoned areas that require the usage of a car for commuting and access to various services? That’s my colloquial definition.
> That is true, height is often a bad proxy for some other quality you're looking
Be careful of what you wish for. Because getting at the actual quality you want is part of what makes building in SF so difficult, e.g. the infamous "shade on public spaces" test.
The problem of light is often an issue of street angle, not height.
A good example is Denver, where they actually changed street angle closer to the river Platte because of light issues, specifically to melt snow I believe.
It's sad but some people are so immensely lazy, they'd rather circle the block in an SUV 10 times than walk 5 steps. So, when such people are asked to produce regulations: the results are predictable.
Plenty of adults do it too. I'm reminded of this every time I go shopping with someone who objects that I did not find a closer parking space. And I have to point out that it would take more time and fuel to go to the closer space than it would be to walk from where I parked to that space.
These are just people who don't walk enough outside to know how long it takes to walk places. They're trying to maximize efficiency in a rather horrible way.
Those things 'don't compute' into our secular views of productivity and equations ... but they are essential.
All the little mouldings, trimmings, foliage, gardens, window sills, the brick, the cobblestone, the dishes, the wine.
And I would add 'local people'. Expats and immigrants are good folk, but when everyone is a transplant, there's no rooted culture, and there's something missing. Nobody can agree on what should be what, and you end up with bland everything. Take for example many European cities have strong limits on building height etc. because to the locals, it's imperative, but in the new world, it's generally the opposite. The land in Stockholm is worth a lot, economically, it would make sense to just bulldoze everything and put up skyscrapers. Thank goodness that won't happen.
In my experience places in the US that have strict aesthetic zoning rules end up with bland cookie-cutter buildings that look like a disneyfied facsimile of the aesthetic they are are trying to enforce. I don't know if the problem is in the details of their regulations or if the entire idea fundamentally failed, but I'll take unregulated variety over forced aesthetics anyday.
"but I'll take unregulated variety over forced aesthetics anyday"
I doubt it really.
The 'enforced aesthetic' in North American regions generally are very poorly conceived in the first place and are usually utilitarian, not actually aesthetic.
Typically 'forced aesthetic' only happens in places wherein there is a strong and obvious history in the area.
Vienna, Stockholm, Zurich as easy and obvious examples.
This 'forced aesthetic' is also culturally impinged, meaning that it's kind of what people would do anyhow.
Would you seriously consider knocking down and old building in Zurich and putting up a McMansion? I doubt it.
It might be an impossible thing to do from scratch, wherein there are no obvious references either. A 'new development' in Switzerland could easily have it. A suburb of Chicago ... probably not.
It would take an enormous degree of thoughtfulness and careful consideration to do in most places in North America, but it might be possible, particularly in places like New England. I could see a village in Maine saying 'no new development within the township unless it meets colonial era criteria' or something like that.
Without it, you get a deluge a true kind of blandness of hyper mediocrity. A lack of critical mass around cultural ideals, meaning corporate developments rule: a shopping mall on every corner.
Every city council and local government official wants to 'increase the GDP', and a few new Wallmarts and a 'Starbucks on Every Corner of our Community' would do just that - so it takes quite a lot of cultural momentum to keep those things in check.
And I'm just scratching the surface: how we design our living spaces goes a long way to defining who we are as a people as well.
I think partly zoning especially the way it is implemented in US is something that is pushed by bigger businesses to suppress the competition from mom-and-pop stores. Look at Japan where zoning seem to be quite lax, you see huge number of tiny groceries, coffee shops etc. in the most amusing but very convenient places. Here is states it is mostly big and medium grocery chains with ultimately less choices that could otherwise be available.
I live in a 100 year old neighborhood. Over the past decade or so, there's been new construction - old houses with bad bones are torn down, and new ones built on their lots. But the new houses, try though they may, don't fit the aesthetic of the neighborhood very well. First, none of them use stucco, although stucco is by far the dominant surface material for older houses. It's too expensive for new. And while they have porches, they're made with these ridiculous oversized columns with plastic rocks and fake wood. And the windows! The side windows of our old bungalows are elegantly symmetric. The new ones have the rococo randomness of mcmansions in their windows. They just don't look right at all.
Not only is the utter cheapness of materials a problem, but the complete lack of architectural integrity as well.
I walk around some places and they are a total mishmash. Guess what - there are no architects for most of these things, just CAD guys grabbing stuff from here and there without thinking, mishmashing it together.
Our homes are like poorly cropped photoshop mishmashes of random photos from the internet.
I was once visiting Tunisia, a local man was showing me around, he pointed out the fountain that his brother designed. He said he didn't like it, I didn't see why. He point out that the perimeter was Arabic, and the main fountain was colonial i.e. Italian renaissance. As soon as he pointed that out, even my untrained eye could see the issue immediately, I was like 'oh yeah' obviously.
This guy was not educated, I'm not sure how literate he was, and yet even he could point out basic architectural issues.
The world is such a mix we forget what the components are, and are unfortunately not able to forge our own. I feel it's not quite a 'nice mix' but 'lowest / cheapest common denominator' in most things.
Yeah. Those awful porch columns are clearly a product of being able to buy cheap off-the-shelf molded plastic columns and wrap them around equally cheap metal posts. They're trying to look "impressive", but they just look unbalanced, at the scale of the house.
Then again, each generation has its own problems. Housing for all but the rich is built around cheapness and available technology. Ours is a bungalow neighborhood because in the early 1900s, that was the cheap way to build houses. Balloon-frame construction with 2x4s and factory nails would have been anathema to previous generations - how could that possibly last? (Answer? About a hundred years.) My kitchen door is crooked because the door frame was crooked, built by relatively low-skilled laborers with poor measurements and tools, and the guy putting in the door just trimmed it to fit. No replacing that.
> I was once visiting Tunisia, a local man was showing me around, he pointed out the fountain that his brother designed. He said he didn't like it, I didn't see why. He point out that the perimeter was Arabic, and the main fountain was colonial i.e. Italian renaissance. As soon as he pointed that out, even my untrained eye could see the issue immediately, I was like 'oh yeah' obviously.
This is an interesting subject to me. There's value in preserving traditional styles. When I look at one of those bad-architecture blogs, certainly there are things that are obviously tasteless or mismatched to me. But there's also a lot of things where I can't see the problem until it's explained, and even then it just sounds like an arbitrary list of rules that you're supposed to follow because the cool people do it. The architectural equivalent of not wearing white after Labor Day.
If it performs the functions of a home and makes the people who live in it happy, how much does architectural integrity really matter?
On McMansion Hell [1] one of the common criticisms is the mismatched windows. Aesthetic considerations aside, having mismatched windows can be a maintenance issue. One example might be hurricane shutters for homes along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts---if all the windows are of the same style, it's cheaper (or easier) to obtain the proper shutters (you don't have to obtain six different sizes) and eases installation when required.
Complex roof lines (another symptom of McMansion Hell) leads to leaky roofs [2] and expensive repairs.
[2] Frank Lloyd Wright's houses notoriously leaked along the roofs. When called upon it, he is recorded as having remarked, "That's how you tell it's a roof!"
I just laughed out loud because I have never heard of the term McMansion before but every single house that I have been seeing go up in Dallas lately fits that description so elegantly. They do look like a mish mash of wierd things but when organized into clusters of hundreds its somewhat normalizing to see them all so wierd.
The one thing that this seems to miss, and for me what defines the "character" of a neighborhood as "walkable" or not, is how much of the space between buildings is for people vs. for cars.
So many of the photos here have skinny sidewalks for people and fat roads for cars, and a space like that is never going to be full of people -- the sidewalk is a place "to get from here to there", not a place to be.
Probably the best rule of thumb I've found is "Would I jaywalk here"? If an area is people-first, you have a lot of pedestrian traffic, little car traffic (because folks drive alternate routes), and what traffic there is travels at low speed. For car-first areas, it's a losing game of Frogger.
Totally agreed. Even in Manhattan, where pedestrians vastly outnumber motorists, way more space is given over to driving and parking lanes than to sidewalk lanes. There are entire areas of the city that are known for severe sidewalk overcrowding during every single rush hour.
Many European cities do a much better job of giving space to people instead of cars. We should do a better job of it here too.
Yep — I’m a Manhattanite as well. It’s telling that when you intersect pedestrian-friendly with transit accessibility you end up with a list of the most expensive places to live in the US, even when the housing stock is mostly shit.
> Many European cities do a much better job of giving space to people instead of cars. We should do a better job of it here too.
this is mainly because many european cities are simply far older then cars, and public infrastructure was usually build around the victorian/late industrial era aswell. This results in a far more limiting option regarding "massive suburs".
Also, many people seem to forget the population density of (western) europe. When the next town with its own 1000+ years history is 20km away, you cannot create urban sprawl without getting resistance from the people living in said village.
Indeed, the center of Bristol was mostly road in the 70s and 80s, but has since partially pedestrianised large areas of the centre. And it's now a wonderful place to be, let alone just to walk through.
Around LA it's really extreme how wide the roads are vs. sidewalks if they even have one. Even far out roads often have four lanes or at least easily could fit four.
Current US zoning creates vast swathes of single-family-housing-only areas. This segregation prevents a lifestyle of walking. In order to preserve the value of single-family houses, we've chosen to destroy the livability of the city.
I'm pretty sure that having no zoning regulations in addition to allowing business and residence in the same building would improve a lot. Who doesn't want to live above a grocery store?
I'd love to see more of that residential / service mix... I would not, however, want my neighbours to run a tannery, nor would I care for a payday loan office next door.
This is my exact situation. I live across the street from two auto repair shops and it is spectacularly annoying to be woken up early in the morning by people blowing horns, grinding metal, or having inventory replenished by loud trucks.
I am fully in favor of mixed development and would love to live above a coffee shop, restaurant, bodega, retail store etc. I am not in favor of living next to a place where assembly or manufacturing is taking place (or any other industrial behavior). Either the type of business needs to be somewhat regulated or the hours in which commerce can occur need to be better regulated to encourage people to do things like replenishing inventory in the evening as opposed to early in the morning.
Its part of city life. I lived across the street from a fire house. On one corner was a bar and laundrymat. Up the street was a taqueria, body shop and corner store - a block over was EFF. Behind, an artifact of the neighborhood’s blue collar past was a metal fab shop. The rhymic cur-chunk of the punch presses often put me to sleep on a saturday afternoon only to be startled awake by sirens.
At the time it suited me fine. It is clear to me though that we still need suburbs. For some at certain points in their life they need the quiet. We have too suburbs though. I think many folks could live in denser environs.
Its backwards that cities are more expensive than suburbs. Density should lower costs. High populations should lower costs. There should be both economies of scale and network effects. I think, to the writers point, we regulate the wrong things.
Cities don't have to be loud. My neighborhood in Tokyo is the one of the quietest I've ever lived in but minutes from places that are denser than literally anywhere in the United States. Not having giant streets, as well as nuisance zoning [1] pretty much solves that problem.
But then in suburbs your boomer neighbor will be riding his gasoline lawnmower outside your window at 7 am on a Saturday. Or he'll be paying his gardener to push leaves into his neighbor's lawn with a leaf-blower (a device that ought to be banned by law) instead of using a fucking rake.
>spectacularly annoying to be woken up early in the morning
If by early you mean "slightly before the start of bushiness hours".
Nobody is waking up at 6am to turn wrenches at 7. Yeah, I guess if they start up at 7-8am that puts a damper on your ability to sleep in until 9 on weekdays but is that really something you find yourself wanting to do all that often? An automotive shop sounds a heck of a lot better than any establishment that is open late. I say this as someone who lives baseball throwing distance from a small business that maintains a fleet of excavators and trucks. If you live in a relatively developed area something is going to be making noise, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, nearby construction, etc.
Most shops I know open at 7:30, which seems reasonable on a Wednesday, but super obnoxious Saturday morning if they start work before their official opening.
I get the point of your sarcasm, but is a grocery store really a great example? It doesn't seem that living above a grocery store would be that bad. Quite the opposite, in fact. I lived next door to a grocery store in San Francisco for several years, and there were also several floors of apartments in the same building above the grocery store.
Surely a better example would be a night club or a coal plant.
I used to live less than 100' from a small grocery store and it was awesome. I really missed that proximity once I moved and had to drive to the store again. It was a genuine timesaver.
I agree, when I lived close to a grocer it was amazing and that is the absolute biggest thing I miss being a suburbanite. Beer runs were so much less complicated and my neighbors annoy me so I could avoid borrowing the proverbial cup of sugar.
I've thought I should open a suburban bodega right in the neighborhood. But with lot sizes being fairly large and households being fairly small, i doubt I would get enough traffic since I couldn't compete with discount grocers and Walmart.
C'est la vie, I bought a muscly convertible to enjoy these interstitial commutes.
Me too. I was ok paying the premium if I could run across the street for some flour and eggs. It was one of the reasons we chose to live where we did, though naturally it closed down shortly after we signed the mortgage.
When my wife was in college we had a tiny apt-owned convenience store in our parking lot of our apt. It was really really small. The milk was from a local dairy and was priced as low as any grocery store. Eggs were an okay price. Most everything else was very expensive. But it was the best. "Oh, we're out of milk... be back in 2 minutes..."
A friend of mine used to live in an apartment complex where the entire bottom floor was an Asian grocery. Not a dinky corner store either, it was a whole city block. Can confirm it was awesome.
Years before I met her, my wife lived above a grocery store. She absolutely loved it: the entire store was effectively her fridge, and she didn’t need to get dressed for the outdoors to buy food. Listening to her talk about it, I really hope that we’re able to live above one together someday.
This feels to me like a lot of urbanist stories: it really is nice, once one has experienced it.
Mixed use is precisely what zoning regulations are pushing for these days. If there were no zoning laws developers would only build whatever makes them the most money (from what I gather this may be mini-storage in all honesty).
Edit: also elder care. I see developers do all sorts of less than honest things to win the approval to make an elder care facility.
I used to live in a new mixed-use development. The builders built as much of the residential parts as the county would allow, and then basically quit. It's been the better part of a decade now and the place still doesn't include a single office or retail unit. A huge chunk of land just sits empty. I'm certain that if the county stepped out and allowed the developers do what they wanted, that land would instantly be filled with even more residential units and that would be it. (And given the demand for housing, that may not be a bad thing, but the result isn't mixed-use.)
That is definitely true. I work on the infrastructure/engineering side of municipal government but I have worked on the private side in companies that also do land planning. Developers always promise anything the city wants in order to get approval for a tentative map, then phase the construction. Phase 1 residential goes in and gets certificate of occupancy, next day "phase 1 went way over budget, we just cant do it right now." Not all developments go this way but a lot do. I am always very careful to structure conditions in such a way that they at are obliged to construct all public infrastructure and as much of the development as I possibly can prior to giving them public works signoff.
>>Phase 1 residential goes in and gets certificate of occupancy, next day "phase 1 went way over budget, we just cant do it right now." Not all developments go this way but a lot do.
Sounds like a great reason to blacklist that developer for, say, 5 years.
It's my understanding that self storage (and in some places, paid parking) are basically a low up front cost way to break even. It's basically a way to cover your taxes and make a small profit while you hope that land values go up.
Is this really a rule in some areas? In Asia this is a really typical thing. Somebody will live upstairs and downstairs run an internet cafe, convenient mart, grocery store, or whatever else. Makes it really easy to open up a business as well. Knock out your lower floor's front wall, put a sign up, you're in business!
It's also nice for people in the neighborhood when there's a coffee shop, grocery store, etc within like a 200m walk.
Depends on where you live, I suppose. Large cities I've lived in have all allowed commercial spaces at ground level, but there are a ton of regulations as to what you can do in them.
Doing nothing but knocking down a wall and putting up a sign is a sure way to get shut down by the city, along with some likely hefty fines.
Edit: another barrier is building insurance; if a building is all residential, and someone wants to convert ground level space to commercial use, the insurance company has to re-assess the risk and premiums they charge due to the increase in people coming through, if nothing else.
In the UK it's quite rare for people to run a retail business out of their home, I can see why we don't do this but I also have a feeling we miss out on a lot as well.
In the town I grew up in (Blackburn), all the traditional family-run shops in terraced streets had the shop on the front room on the ground floor, and the living room and kitchen at the back, bedrooms on the top floor. Bakeries, butchers, delicatessens, shoe shops, chip shops, fashion shops, habadasheries, newsagencies, hardware shops, electrical shops, everything was like this. This was typical of most towns until the mid-late 1980s. You could do all your shopping on a single street local to your house.
These were not supermarket-style shops. You would walk in and be served directly over the counter in most. It's a shame that this was all destroyed by big supermarkets and globalism, because the quality of the products and service was superb, and they all sold locally produced food and goods, supporting a lot of local economic activity rather than having massive supply chains to source everything from China. The staff weren't minimum wage and disinterested, they were experts in their fields who cared about their businesses and customers, and had pride in their jobs and skills. Their destruction is one of the reasons why so many of our towns are struggling.
It isn't common now, but was until recently. Most high street shops have flats above them (except in the centres of big cities), and many are still owned by the same people who run the shop.
If you're building an apartment complex in a metro area you'll already have no trouble putting stores on the bottom. We have this everywhere and all new construction is going this way as well.
Older urban areas are grandfathered in, but a lot of the US follows an exclusive, euclidian (after the city of Euclid) zoning model, especially for the suburbs: an area is either commercial or residential and there is no distinction between types & nuisance of businesses at that level of zoning.
> I'm pretty sure that having no zoning regulations in addition to allowing business and residence in the same building would improve a lot.
Assuming this is sarcasm, you don't need to have no zoning regulations. Existing zoning types like "residential mixed-use", which usually have restrictions on the type of businesses that can be operated within them, could be expanded. If the area is sparse enough, mixed-use could just be a business district you could walk to, not necessarily one right underneath you.
> Who doesn't want to live above a grocery store?
Again, assuming this is sarcasm. In many places, if the grocery store is clean and has things that the residents above actually want, a lot of people would like living above it - so much so that today, it's considered a "feature" of premium real estate and apartments in big city high-rises.
Of course nobody wants to live above any poorly kept space. If a poorly kept space were to appear below your home, you have the option of moving to a place that isn't like that.
I would kill to have a grocery store just a stair walk or elevator ride away. Cooking dinner and forgot the onions? I could fix that problem in five minutes while the water is still coming up to a boil.
(EDIT: I misread sarcasm in your comment. But my reply works the same either way :)
You still need some zoning regulations: living above a grocery store is great (especially if it's 8-8 or 8-10 or some such, 24/7 would probably be less nice), living above a nightclub is hell.
People who don't like pests. People who don't like truck deliveries early in the morning or late at night.
Grocery stores are a mild example and I get the point you're making, but there are downsides to living above one. I've met people who listed one of those reasons for not living above one when I lived in Brooklyn.
It's mostly the pests though. I know a couple of people who lived above restaurants and grocery stores who said never again because of the amount of roaches that get into their place.
Grocery stores on the lower floor of residential buildings is the norm here (I can think of five within walking distance) and I never heard people from those buildings complain about that. Restaurants yes, but even there I suspect it varies with the cleanliness of the place.
Maybe there are building adaptations to reduce the problem, that stores in that area don't do?
Presumably, the people who elected to live in a building over a grocery store would be exactly the type of people who wouldn't later complain about it.
This same principle doesn't seem to apply to people who buy cheap(er) houses near an existing airport, though...
That said, having lived above a restaurant, I personally will never again live in a building shared with a food-related business. Even the cleanest tend to have a poor record controlling pests; and when they exterminate, all the critters will flee into your apartment.
A grocery store a couple doors down on the same block, though? Ideal. Pharmacy on the ground floor of my building? Absolutely. Shoe store? Jewelry store? Toy store? Hairdresser? Why the hell not?
Many of the most popular neighborhoods in New York are built out like this. The convenience is part of what makes them so popular.
I work as a R&D Engineer in the armor industry and we have an applications lab in a small city in VA which I imagine has relatively lax zoning regulations. The lab is located in a large old tabaco processing warehouse and a few years back a developer bought half the building and put in apartments.
Anyway not sure most residents even know where there but we have tons of hazardous chemicals at the site including drums of JP8 (jet fuel) stored outside near the “common areas”, giant totes of cyclohexane in a shed on the parking lot. Inside we also have a polymer production line where one has to wear anti static shoes and all the equipment doors are blast rated because of the explosive hazards. We also have a ballistics range in the building shooting up to .50 cal armor piercing rounds.
We also have regular evac and containment drills in case something goes terribly wrong. This is all fine and good as I’m well aware of any risks working there but the residents a few walls removed might have a different opinion if they took a stroll through our facility.
Point being, sometimes a few zoning regs can be a good thing ;)
I lived right above a small grocery store for a few years.
If anything, it was pretty easy to walk down an buy some daily food items.
Certainly it's not the greatest option if what you value most is total quiet. But with that, a residential-only street frequented by cars is a bigger nuisance than a corner shop with very low car traffic around it (all parking was ~300ft away).
It absolutely depends on the layout of the building and the sort of grocery store at hand. Proper building codes and zoning can prevent that same grocery store from being able to engage in certain practices that would negatively impact the health and security of those living in the building above.
Should there be an industrial kitchen in the grocery store, zoning and building codes are used to insure that should there be a fire, it won't impact those living above, even though it absolutely increases the cost of construction (and sets minimums on what the cost of housing is).
I live directly over a grocery store, and let me tell you, it's fantastic. The only problem is that the fire alarm goes off more often than normal, because of false alarms from the grocery store.
No zoning is also how you get a city like Houston where there are churches next to skyscrapers next to liquor stores in downtown and sprawling strip malls for miles everywhere else
Houston has zoning though in the form of very high parking requirements, and it's exactly why there are sprawling strip malls for miles. A better example of what a city without zoning would look like is New York (since most of the buildings were built before modern zoning locked what was there historically in place), but especially the tenement districts of the lower east side.
And that works better than you might expect. You'll probably need a car, but the places you need to regularly go are nearby so you don't spend a lot of time in traffic, and housing is cheap enough so that you'll likely be able to live close to work.
People circle the block in there SUV 10 times, rather than walking, is because there main stream fear media is reminding them all the time that they are at risk of being knifed, or shot or beaten by random criminals all the time. And if there are police patrolling the streets, they are also likely to get harassed and questioned, or even suicided by cop. Sheesh, even security guards have the right to kill you with a choke hold. Drive your SUV to the end of the street, it’s safer.
I grew up thinking that every time you walk through a dense urban neighborhood, you have to be on your guard lest you get knifed or shot or worse. Ironically, I didn't get this from my parents; my mom used to ride the subway alone into Manhattan for junior high, and my dad grew up in Zamboanga City. But when your hometown has only 13,000 people and literally zero crime, you're shuttled by car everywhere, your peers all live in the suburbs too, your only image of the city are the news reports about murders & drug dealing, and your one urban friend is a black dude from Dorchester who regales everyone with stories about how somebody got shot on his front step and that's why his parents insist he wake up at 5:30 AM to get bussed to a suburban school, you get a pretty biased perspective.
There's a pretty strong selection bias maintaining this illusion too: people who are still in the suburbs for this reason will never come in contact with urban dwellers who aren't actually murderers, out of fear, and similarly the majority of urban dwellers aren't actually going to move out to the suburbs (and even if they did, their past lives in the city are just abstract tales to people who haven't experienced it). So much like other geographically-based stereotypes (like "immigrants are all bad hombres", "California is falling apart", "suburbanites are all boring Stepford Wives with nothing to do but gossip", "Appalachia is filled with uneducated hicks", and "religious people are wackos"), this remains a stubbornly persistent belief despite the reality.
I've encountered this maddening driving behavior in both suburban Chicago and Southern California, often while riding along in the car. I think it crops up anywhere there are shopping centers with huge parking lots though.
The parking garages that indicate the number of available spaces on a level are a good counter to this: I find that most able-bodied folks will see the bottom few floors have few spaces open and go for a higher one.
As a native Lynchburger who subsequently spent about 15 years in the Raleigh area before moving to San Jose a few years ago, ... I never felt this way growing up in Lynchburg. Yes, Lynchburg is approximately 50% white / 50% black, with approximately 0% any other ethnicity, and the majority of the white population is either exurbs or specific segregated parts of the city. But even though I grew up in Boonsboro I went to RS Payne Elementary downtown and then EC Glass for high school ... in HS, I freely wandered around that part of town after school (usually while waiting for sports practice of some sort). I never felt endangered. Nor, afaik, did my [mostly white] friends.
That's a stupid anecdote, but I think it actually used to be better than it is now, and that mass & social media have created so much fearmongering that more people are hyper-insecure and wary of any unplanned interaction with anyone not in their in-group.
The threat model for people who think like this is muggers or drug dealers who come up to you on the sidewalk, not drive-by-shootings from a car. This is mostly inaccurate, but when it comes to peoples' fears, few things are rational.
It's probably exacerbated because for people who grow up in low-density areas, the idea that the vast majority of people will just ignore you is a foreign concept. If you're in a small town and you see someone you know & like, you go up to them and chat. If you see someone you don't like, you bully them or get bullied. If you just ignore them, you likely get moved from the "like" to "don't like" category. If you extend this model out from a town of < 10K to a city of 1M, it collapses very quickly, but not before generating some very erroneous predictions.
Just get a gun. Kahr is like $250-300. LCP I is $180. It's a great pocket gun. I walk in one of the poorest cities in Florida at night. Not worried.
Almost had to draw not due to people, but 2 strays. Learn to draw from the hip. If you're looking for self-defense, learn to shoot from the hip. Weaver position is great if you are in war. Hipshots are good if you're truly defending from within 15 ft. Center-mass accuracy is all you need.
No, it’s not. If the majority of the adult population was armed, crime would drop. If you’re a criminal and know there is a 90% chance your target will be armed, will you attack? How about if the target is two people. The only irony is thinking that more regulation is a good idea.
Most violent crime is because an idiot is not in control of his emotions or does something impulsive. If the majority of population is armed and have guns on them all the time, you get accidents and shootings because of that. They will attack to prove manhood or just because they are drunk or out of fear.
There are no studies showing that percentage of people carrying a firearm is in any way connected to the crime rate. Once you account for all the other variables, there isn't any correlation.
> There are no studies showing that percentage of people carrying a firearm is in any way connected to the crime rate. Once you account for all the other variables, there isn't any correlation.
Social science statistics are terrible. If you look at the statistic without controlling for anything, it's wrong. If you try to control for other factors, you can generally make the result be whatever you want.
There are multiple overlapping reasons for this.
One is that statistical controls, like statistics in general, don't reveal causation. If you want an effect to disappear, find something that correlates with the outcome and use it as a control. The effect disappears regardless of whether the control causes the outcome. The outcome can cause the control, or they can both have a shared cause, and you can still use it to erase the original effect. For example, do the demographics of the area affect the crime rate, or does the crime rate affect the demographics of the area?
There are also arbitrarily many things that could be controlled for. Taking some of them into account will make the original relationship weaker. Taking others into account will make the original relationship stronger. Looking at only the ones that move the needle in the direction you want it to move lets you move it in that direction.
If you really want to make something inconvenient disappear, just use the metric as the target. Audi claims its vehicles are safer than some competitors. Partisans collect data from two similar areas with a different rate of Audi ownership. The number of fatalities involving Audis is higher in the area with a higher number of Audis. Does this disprove Audi's safety claim?
When you have a politically charged issue like this, you can't pretend that one side's numbers are true and the side's aren't, when the truth is they're both biased and therefore both invalid.
This is a strong candidate for an adversarial collaboration, but to my knowledge this has not actually happened.
In this particular case, the thing is that both political sides have tried to do studies to prove their point. Most of those studies, as you say, are too biased to pay any attention to - they either cherry-pick data, or conveniently ignore some unrelated variables that could reasonably explain the effect, or involve convoluted models with a lot of subjective assumptions in them.
But every now and then, you get studies that don't do any of that. And then a funny thing happens: correlation disappears, regardless of who commissioned the study. Both sides vehemently object to these findings, which to me is a good sign that they are closer to the truth than anything else.
I am pro-armed-self-defense personally, and regularly carry concealed. But it would be a delusion for me to think that by doing so, I contribute to crime reduction.
> But every now and then, you get studies that don't do any of that. And then a funny thing happens: correlation disappears, regardless of who commissioned the study. Both sides vehemently object to these findings, which to me is a good sign that they are closer to the truth than anything else.
Neutrality bias is actually still bias. A lot of honest people do this by mistake, thinking that there should be balance and then seeking out things that create it and disregarding things that don't.
But when A says +5 and B says -5 and the truth is +3, the truth is still +3, not zero.
Sometimes things really do balance out exactly, but it's not very common. Round numbers are inherently suspicious.
> If you’re a criminal and know there is a 90% chance your target will be armed, will you attack?
American police assume the suspects they approach will be armed, since they have a Constitutional right to be. Does that stop the police from attacking, or do they just approach with caution and, when they attack, do so with overwhelming, asymmetrical force?
The police in the US a) don't attack people as often as it feels like, and b) know there is a good chance that the jury won't hold them responsible due a belief that police are inherently good. The police are not a valid comparison population.
> The police are not a valid comparison population.
In a theoretical US where the majority of people are armed and the threat of any attempted crime being met with armed resistance is a near certainty, one would have to assume that the justice system either doesn't function, or else would be extremely lenient to vigilantism. It would have to be a valid comparison if common citizens are filling the role of the police, because somehow in that scenario vigilantism isn't being counted as a rise in crime.
In any case, the point I was trying to make was not about the police per se, but the fact that the presence of an armed populace is one that can be tactically adapted to. Simply putting more guns in the hands of more people doesn't mean crime goes down, it just means crime involves more guns and more violence.
You need to come to Florida. Many people are armed. In the small cities and rural areas the places with the most crime are the places with the least amount of legal guns. For example, my home is in the last block of the historic district. On the other side of the street is the not-historic district.
As one might expect of historic homes, with their wood exteriors and cost of maintenance, many home owners have more than one gun. Crime is relatively low. This is especially true given there is no clear geographic demarker like a river or an interstate to stop crime.
As you travel a few blocks west up the common road, you get into burglaries and violence. You also find less licensed to carry individuals there. The unarmed are the prey of the armed.
How long does it take to draw a gun versus taking a second shot? Guns are great for offense, not so much for defense.
As with police in the US, the aggressor in an armed society have to be much more aggressive to get what they want and live. Robberies would drop. The criminals not willing to shoot first would find something else to do or transition into ones that shoot first. The violent crime that remained would be much more violent. This includes not only robberies, but also drunken disagreements, informal loans that have gone unpaid, etc. I don't think this is is a direction we want to go in. I mean, I appreciate the aesthetic, but I don't think it would work out very well.
I can draw and fire from my hip (and pocket) and hit center mass at 8 feet in two seconds. I also train to look like I'm cowering and reaching for my wallet in my back hip pocket.
As to the topic of crime, cities with high gun ownership tend to have lower crime. The US, for example, has far fewer hot home robberies, where hot means robbing while people are in the home. The UK has a higher percentage. The difference comes down to the risk of the homeowner fighting back.
Fatal Shootings involving police officers (not adjusted for population so lets be kind and multiply 3 by 8..).
UK (2015/2016 latest year I could find) - 3
US 2015 - 1052.
I'll take heavy gun control (guns are legal here, they are just controlled - If I wanted a license I could apply for one - requirement is legitimate reason (member of a shooting club qualifies) and no criminal background, 700,000 people have the license to own a gun with more than 1.5 million guns in private hands) thanks.
Sure we have a high burglary rate but that isn't to do with guns, it's do with more than a decade of destroying police budgets.
Figures from wikipedia/UN.
Oh and the one that amuses me in a black way, guns kill their owners (suicide) at a higher rate than they do anyone else in the US.
Also in the interests of clarity,
UK suicide rate 7.6 per 100,000
US suicide rate 21.8 per 100,000
with academic research showing that easy availability of firearms increases suicide rate.
The majority of which, as you point out, are suicides.
Also, measuring "gun deaths" is like measuring "blue car accidents" an an argument for restricting blue cars. A better metric might be something like "homicide rate" except that then you have to reckon with the fact that the US homicide rate is higher than the UK homicide rate even if you remove the US firearm homicides entirely, proving that the difference has causes other than access to firearms.
The same is true of the suicide rate. Even excluding US firearms suicides, the US still has a higher suicide rate than the UK. Moreover, preventing suicides by restricting access to firearms is certainly not a real solution -- it implies leaving people in such a despondent state that the only thing preventing suicide is lack of means. Addressing the underlying problem is still necessary, but is then also sufficient and obviates the supposed need to restrict access to firearms.
> this is certainly one of the reasons I'm still here today.
The point is that it's not. Getting to the point where access to means is the only remaining form of prevention implies that five other things have already failed in ways that never should have happened.
Those things sometimes do fail in practice, but that's what needs to be fixed. Because what about everyone who uses a different means?
And now the UK is starting to pass laws and regulations on kitchen knives because it turns out banning guns doesn’t actually fix underlying human nature.
Ok, so say someone wanted to rob you. Of course, now everyone has a gun. This would stop a lot of people from robbing you, but for others they might just shoot or stab you first. I guess crime is down, but stabbing and shootings are up.
Yes. If I was a criminal and I knew my target was be armed, then I would be much more likely to shoot, lest I be shot first. If you were not armed then I would have no reason to shoot you.
That’s quiet an escalation in both of mental ability to take a life and crime level. Armed robbery is lower than murder one. It’s also a jump to think that you’d go from relative coward to iron man murderer.
Most people spend too much time watching the news. Its infected everything and pushed at us 24/7. It wouldn't surprise me if a large % of people have the same warped idea of what its like to walk somewhere.
I feel like your sarcasm is missing the point. Nobody really believes that regulations are all good or all bad. There are, however, more or less effective regulations. Trying to find effective regulations like what Strong Towns are doing, is a good thing!
The point of my sarcasm is different: the word "effective" implies that some goal is being achieved. Who sets the goal? Why do they have the authority to tell people what to do on their property?
That is true, height is often a bad proxy for some other quality you're looking for and which could be solved in original ways besides height e.g. in the north east you'd want enough light to reach the street and avoid gloomy alleys, besides height you could manage it by removing wedges of the building (from a basic cuboid shape), or having a front courtyard or a large atrium, or yes height. Height also becomes a factor of the street width, narrower streets would tend to get shorter buildings.
Furthermore regulating height can be counter-productive: while you want to avoid excessive shade in the north-east, in the south-west you want to do the exact opposite, much like cities of northern africa or the middle east, for an arizonan or texan city to be walkable it needs shade and air flow rather than light: you need buildings tall enough that they protect pedestrians from the sun (without falling into gloom), but you also want them to guide and amplify the slightest breeze.
> 3. Land Use
> Segregation of uses is the most important of those features. The biggest factor that predicts walkability is the presence of actual destinations in walking distance of where people live. The postwar paradigm has been to rigidly control where commercial land uses can go and where they can’t, based on the premise that they are a nuisance in a residential neighborhood—bringing traffic, noise, and possibly crime. Yet all commercial uses are not created equal.
Many places segregate by maximum nuisance rather than specific land use: plots are give an maximum nuisance level, and businesses are charted according to the expected nuisance they produce. Anything below the plot's MNL is allowed and thus your small corner shop or barbershop (low-nuisance businesses) can live in a "residential" area, but a nightclub or a machine shop probably can't.