On 2018-06-29 14:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2018 10:11 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-28 08:47, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/27/2018 7:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-27 14:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I think there are different cultural or social expectations in
Europe,
most of which are influenced by history. Europe seems to generally
have
much more restrictive land use policies, and those policies seem to
promote "infill" development.

Example: In Britain, in Austria, etc. when we bicycle toured, I was
struck by the practicality of city limits. There seemed to be a
boundary
around most towns, with apartments, houses, shops etc. on one
side and
little but fields and forests on the other side. We saw almost no
rural
convenience stores or gas stations, for example. People have been
living
close for hundreds of years, and they're used to such a system.


Except that such difference are not truly there. Think back to when
your relatives came from Europe. Probably not very wealthy, they
likely settled in an east coast town very similar to a European one.

Joerg, I'm talking about present day geography, not that of over 100
years ago.


So why did you ask about the age then? Makes no sense. I said it
doesn't matter and now you seem to say the same.

scratching head

I'm sorry you're confused again. I'll try to explain more thoroughly.

European cities were typically founded in medieval times, often when
they were enclosed by walls and back when almost everyone walked to get
around. As a consequence, city blocks were and still are small. Most
streets were and still are narrow by U.S. standards. And to a much
higher degree than the U.S., that original high density remains.


I suggest you visit Berlin, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt, Hannover or Dortmund
in Germany. All cities I spent lots of time in and they are by no means
small or resemble any of their characteristics from their medieval
times. With some cities that is because they were thoroughly flattened
in WW-II, others just razed the old city core and only left historically
valuable structure standing. Or what they thought was valuable back then.


Buildings fill the cities to a much higher degree than the U.S., leaving
little room for parking lots, again resulting in higher density.


Duesseldorf is quite similar to Sacramento, for example. However, no
zoning laws so there are people living right in the center whereas in
Sacramento they mostly don't. Some other cities like parts of Frankfurt
become ghost towns at night but not because of zoning, it's because
people want to rather live in the suburbs.


... And
it's still considered quite normal to have a residence within the city,
which makes destinations one might want to access every day a relatively
short distance away.


It could be the same here if we'd ditch the stupid zoning. When I lived
in the Netherlands my apartment was on top of a pub, with several others
within less than 3min walking distance. An ice cafe with pretty girls
next door. I had a blast! Of course, this also resulted in, ahem, less
than stellar grades at university.


... Public policy was able to prioritize mass transit,
which was and still is heavily used because of the density. That reduced
the need for private cars compared to the U.S. and contributed to
retaining higher densities.


And now for a dose of reality. This is Duesseldorf in Germany where I
lived as a kid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKApZPEDb-M


Even before 1900, most U.S. cities were not quite as dense as those in
Europe. They were not walled in at their founding, so there was simply
more room.


Neither were most European cities. In those that were walled the walls
were soon ignored and torn down or sometimes preserved as museum pieces.
Heck, they even had a full-blown racetrack inside Berlin.


... But starting in the early 1900s, the automobile took over
here far sooner and far more thoroughly than it did in Europe.
Construction from that point on was even less dense.


What was less dense about New York back then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...37u_edit.j pg


... Most mass transit
systems like streetcars crashed early on. The car became the only way to
get around beyond a few blocks, and economics of scale plus cheap land
caused things like grocery stores to grow in size and grow huge parking
lots that further reduced density. And Americans soon decided that the
suburbs were the place to be, reachable only by the car that everyone
needed anyway.


So did the Europeans.


... The metro areas came to be dominated by the suburbs, so
even when the density of the inner city was relatively high, the density
of the metro area was low - low enough that one could not practically
walk to where one needed to go.

Here's a list of 125 large cities ranked by density. Note how seldom USA
is mentioned, and how low on the list those U.S. cities tend to sit:
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...nsity-125.html


The first European city on there is Athens and ranks a whopping 40th.
Before that it's all Asia, South America, Middle East and so on.


You (even you) can look up the population density of the U.S. vs.
northern European countries. You can look up the population density of
metropolitan areas both here and there, or typical home sizes, etc.
There can be no question that the U.S. sprawls more in every way.


As is evident in the examples I brought from Ireland and you brought
from the US, sprawl is almost identical.

A) It's not. An unbiased person looking at the city you chose would say
it's far different from most American cities.


Sorry, I disagree, it's largely the same.


Except in the US many people have (had) larger lots.

So the U.S. is just as dense, except that it has larger lots that make
it less dense?


No, it simply means that a suburb with 10,000 inhabitants in the US is
several time larger than in Europe but it's just as detached from the
city as the other. As I pointed out with current examples that is
changing or already has in many places in the US. Lot sizes are of
similar size as Euopean ones, often smaller.


... And the suburbs, where almost all new
development happens, are all car-oriented. It's not only that business
owners expect that everyone will arrive by car; it's also that their
preferences and local regulations usually demand huge parking lots.
Those big parking lots force tremendous reductions in density.


That is indeed a major difference between America and most of the
world. Sprawl isn't different though, it's just that in US people used
to want larger properties. That is changing and now it looks more and
more like Europe, sometimes the density is even higher like he

https://goo.gl/maps/sJn6YgExy1K2

The car orientation is often still there but that has to do with
laziness. "Well, for starters a bicycle doesn't have an A/C button and
it's hot out!"

Yes, climate is another factor. We'll have heat indexes near or above
100 Fahrenheit for the next week. How often does Netherlands get that?


Rarely but what's the big deal? My rides are usually 35-45mi these days.
It doesn't matter whether it's 30F, 90F or 110F. At 110F I just carry
more water and maybe have a 2nd beer along the route.


But back to the original point: Data shows people in Amsterdam average
about 2 miles of bicycling per day. If you restricted your mileage to
that figure, how many of your transportation needs could you satisfy by
bike?


None, zilch. That wouldn't even get me to a church meeting. However, my
experience from the Netherlands is way different and I have a hard time
believing the country has changed so much for the worse in 30 years. But
maybe it has. We rode 30mi just to have a particular Abbey Ale that was
only available at a certain pub in Belgium. That included climbs which I
never liked.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/