Making America into Amsterdam

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:08:38 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-29 20:11, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:19:15 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
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.


It looks like Frankfurt (the only city I checked) has land use and
zoning laws.
https://www.stadtplanungsamt-frankfu...94.html?psid=d


Bebaungsplan is not Zoning. It mostly regulates what building styles can
be used, how many stories, setbacks, how much parking must be provided,
and so on. The use is generally mixed like here in the inner city of
Frankfurt:

http://www.frank66furt.de/frankfurt/innen069.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0_DSC_9367.jpg

On the ground floor it's shops, bars, restaurants and such. On the upper
floors you sometimes have apartments and sometimes office space. Often
even that is mixed where, for example, the 2nd floor has a dentist's
office and the 3rd floor is an apartment where the dentist's family or
someone else lives. The ones above are usually also apartment units.
That's how we lived in Duesseldorf, above a grocery store.

Many Germans do not find it very desirable to live in such city
quarters, hence the sprawl. In smaller towns that's different, there
more people like to live in the center. I lived smack dab in the middle
of a pop 5000 village in the Netherlands and really like it.


Frankfurt has zoning. https://www.stadtplanungsamt-frankfu... 441gpjjfqmq3 It includes a regional land-use plan like many US metropolitan areas.






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.

snip

Here as in Cameron Park? Or here as in the United States? Portland
is filled with multi-family housing over businesses.
https://d2bj656w1sqg1s.cloudfront.ne...t-1024x523.jpg


Sorry, I meant in general. I know we have some mixed use in US cities
but that typically ends in the suburbs. And therein lies the problem.
Because of stupid zoning laws people living in the suburbs which is
probably the majority of Americans are always in their cars even for teh
smallest errands. Unfortunately also for a pub visit.


It's SOP in many cities. My brother owned a building with
apartments over business in Denver. From an owner's perspective,
it's not a great risk since you lose a lot of cash flow if your
business tenants move. Its hard to fill a restaurant or other
specialty space.

Your gripe is not with zoning laws but with zoning in particular
towns, assuming that the development pattern was zoning driven rather
than market driven. It became hip to be in downtown PDX, so condos
and apartments popped up -- too many as a matter of fact. My commute
to work is through
hehttps://d2bj656w1sqg1s.cloudfront.ne...t-1024x523.jpg
Condos over business with OHSU offices. It used to be a shipyard. I
preferred that.


You accidentally posted the same link again.

Yep. What you're getting at -- and a legitimate point -- is that European cities are much more likely to have mixed-use zoning. Mixed-use zoning is common in existing large US cities but much less common in smaller cities -- and practically non-existent in suburbs, depending on where you live. In PDX, we have mixed use in some of our suburbs. https://www.pdxmonthly.com/articles/...-neighborhoods

OTOH, much of the PDX west side (Beaverton) is McMansion sprawl punctuated with strip malls. That's your gripe, and it's really common in Sacramento where dirt was plentiful and cheap. There are endless gated communities cut out of old rice paddies and farm land and then a neighborhood strip mall. I don't think anyone would want to live over the 7-11. There is nothing charming about mixed-use living in those areas.

If Sacto suburbs were quaint old Amsterdam, you would see lots more mixed-use, but with lots of available dirt, you can segregate uses -- and people who want suburban McMansion living go for that.

All of the NL could be tucked into two Oregon counties in the lower right hand corner of the state. It's small, and of course its going to have more mixed use. The same goes with all the high-density European cities. More dirt, more sprawl -- unless there is a policy to prevent sprawl or some common desire or convention. Us rugged USians sprawl, and now you're one of the sprawlers.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/30/2018 4:26 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/30/2018 12:57 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

It is sad when people say "Oh, if we can't be like
Amsterdam, let's forget about all that and do nothing". My
hope is that such people will never make it into public
office.

Perhaps because I'm someone that now actually has to deal
with the reality of all of this, rather than an outsider
looking in and complaining that if infrastructure doesn't
get 99% of people onto bicycles then it's a waste of money.

The reality is that bicycle infrastructure is actually
relatively inexpensive, on a per trip basis.

We have a lot of Silicon Valley Cities with a bare majority
in favor of cycling. It can easily change. Ironically,
developers are suddenly pro-bike because they use it as a
way to justify providing insufficient parking. But the
reality is that getting people to do transportational
cycling, at least some of the time, is not going to reduce
the need for parking at residential developments.

snip

Yesterday I was sitting next to a woman from our transit
agency (VTA), a
hopelessly awful organization when it comes to running
buses and trains,
but they also build some of the bicycle infrastructure. I
pulled out my
phone and brought up Google Maps and showed her where we
badly needed a
bicycle freeway over-crossing. She instantly recognized
the location and
told me "it's in the bike plan." ...


For fiscal year 2072? :-)

No, no, but probably not for five more years.

snip

I only half-jokingly suggested that it would be far more
cost-effective,
in terms of number of single-occupancy vehicle reduction,
to not build
any more light rail ($40 million/mile) or heavy rail ($1+
billion/mile)
and just buy a few hundred thousand electric bicycles to
distribute with
certain caveats. Remember, those dollar figures are just the
construction costs for the track, and don't include
equipment or
operations and maintenance.


It would be but we need to keep in mind the elderly and
disabled. Also, many Americans would never consider a
bicycle even if they had a red carpet all the way to the
destination.

We're only trying to get a modest percentage of people on
bicycles. Those unable to use a bicycle will have other
options.


"The reality is that bicycle infrastructure is actually
relatively inexpensive, on a per trip basis."

When compared to the $12 toll on the George Washington
Bridge maybe.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 6/30/2018 5:18 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:08:38 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-29 20:11, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:19:15 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
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.


It looks like Frankfurt (the only city I checked) has land use and
zoning laws.
https://www.stadtplanungsamt-frankfu...94.html?psid=d


Bebaungsplan is not Zoning. It mostly regulates what building styles can
be used, how many stories, setbacks, how much parking must be provided,
and so on. The use is generally mixed like here in the inner city of
Frankfurt:

http://www.frank66furt.de/frankfurt/innen069.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0_DSC_9367.jpg

On the ground floor it's shops, bars, restaurants and such. On the upper
floors you sometimes have apartments and sometimes office space. Often
even that is mixed where, for example, the 2nd floor has a dentist's
office and the 3rd floor is an apartment where the dentist's family or
someone else lives. The ones above are usually also apartment units.
That's how we lived in Duesseldorf, above a grocery store.

Many Germans do not find it very desirable to live in such city
quarters, hence the sprawl. In smaller towns that's different, there
more people like to live in the center. I lived smack dab in the middle
of a pop 5000 village in the Netherlands and really like it.


Frankfurt has zoning. https://www.stadtplanungsamt-frankfu... 441gpjjfqmq3 It includes a regional land-use plan like many US metropolitan areas.






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.

snip

Here as in Cameron Park? Or here as in the United States? Portland
is filled with multi-family housing over businesses.
https://d2bj656w1sqg1s.cloudfront.ne...t-1024x523.jpg


Sorry, I meant in general. I know we have some mixed use in US cities
but that typically ends in the suburbs. And therein lies the problem.
Because of stupid zoning laws people living in the suburbs which is
probably the majority of Americans are always in their cars even for teh
smallest errands. Unfortunately also for a pub visit.


It's SOP in many cities. My brother owned a building with
apartments over business in Denver. From an owner's perspective,
it's not a great risk since you lose a lot of cash flow if your
business tenants move. Its hard to fill a restaurant or other
specialty space.

Your gripe is not with zoning laws but with zoning in particular
towns, assuming that the development pattern was zoning driven rather
than market driven. It became hip to be in downtown PDX, so condos
and apartments popped up -- too many as a matter of fact. My commute
to work is through
hehttps://d2bj656w1sqg1s.cloudfront.ne...t-1024x523.jpg
Condos over business with OHSU offices. It used to be a shipyard. I
preferred that.


You accidentally posted the same link again.

Yep. What you're getting at -- and a legitimate point -- is that European cities are much more likely to have mixed-use zoning. Mixed-use zoning is common in existing large US cities but much less common in smaller cities -- and practically non-existent in suburbs, depending on where you live. In PDX, we have mixed use in some of our suburbs. https://www.pdxmonthly.com/articles/...-neighborhoods

OTOH, much of the PDX west side (Beaverton) is McMansion sprawl punctuated with strip malls. That's your gripe, and it's really common in Sacramento where dirt was plentiful and cheap. There are endless gated communities cut out of old rice paddies and farm land and then a neighborhood strip mall. I don't think anyone would want to live over the 7-11. There is nothing charming about mixed-use living in those areas.

If Sacto suburbs were quaint old Amsterdam, you would see lots more mixed-use, but with lots of available dirt, you can segregate uses -- and people who want suburban McMansion living go for that.

All of the NL could be tucked into two Oregon counties in the lower right hand corner of the state. It's small, and of course its going to have more mixed use. The same goes with all the high-density European cities. More dirt, more sprawl -- unless there is a policy to prevent sprawl or some common desire or convention. Us rugged USians sprawl, and now you're one of the sprawlers.

-- Jay Beattie.



Right and this is not Manichean. I lived and worked in
Houston, which is at one extreme for zoning theory[1],
Portland being at the other end of the scale[2] for
functioning US cities.

I would prefer Houston to Portland but not everyone would.

[1] There isn't zero zoning restriction, just very little
[2] Portland doesn't own all the buildings and assign
citizens to housing/workplaces. Yet, anyway.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 6/26/2018 10:57 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Interesting article, with data, about how much the Dutch actually ride
their bikes.

https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/best...h-hardly-bike/


Turns out they average, oh, maybe a mile or two per day.

That works for them because their cities are so dense that many
destinations are less than a mile away. That comes from having cities
that were founded in medieval times. When things are more than a couple
miles away, they tend to leave the bike and use other modes.

So we can get Dutch bike mode shares if we start work on our cities
early enough. Like, back in 1400 AD or so.


I had a web page saved of another study that showed similar results.
Something like 85% of Dutch cyclists rode less than 5 miles a day, and a
similar percentage only rode to the nearest bus/train terminal. They did
not ride directly to their destination.

Which is fine and all, but now I am wondering how much bus coverage is
there on average? Because in the ~55K population town I live in, most
people would only walk a few blocks at most to catch a bus that would
take them to the (admittedly sparse) light rail stations, if they wanted
to go to a further route than the local bus lines served. The buses have
front bicycle racks (3 bikes capacity) and the train stations do have
bicycle racks and people do use them but either is rarely ever full.

-----

If you wanted more people in the US to bicycle, I'd think you'd have to
give them e-bikes to do it. And then you'd only add a few younger guys,
if the distance was short and the weather was fairly nice.

99.99% of women old enough to 'need' makeup simply won't do it, riding
inside a motor vehicle is just the expected level of luxury. If you are
a bicycle activist in the US, you might as well forget about them. Women
would only try it if they had no other choice except walking. (and US
e-bikes don't even require you to pedal at all)

On 6/26/2018 10:57 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Interesting article, with data, about how much the Dutch actually ride
their bikes.

https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/best...h-hardly-bike/


Turns out they average, oh, maybe a mile or two per day.

That works for them because their cities are so dense that many
destinations are less than a mile away. That comes from having cities
that were founded in medieval times. When things are more than a couple
miles away, they tend to leave the bike and use other modes.

So we can get Dutch bike mode shares if we start work on our cities
early enough. Like, back in 1400 AD or so.


test post?

On 7/1/2018 8:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/30/2018 4:26 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/30/2018 12:57 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

It is sad when people say "Oh, if we can't be like
Amsterdam, let's forget about all that and do nothing". My
hope is that such people will never make it into public
office.

Perhaps because I'm someone that now actually has to deal
with the reality of all of this, rather than an outsider
looking in and complaining that if infrastructure doesn't
get 99% of people onto bicycles then it's a waste of money.

The reality is that bicycle infrastructure is actually
relatively inexpensive, on a per trip basis.

We have a lot of Silicon Valley Cities with a bare majority
in favor of cycling. It can easily change. Ironically,
developers are suddenly pro-bike because they use it as a
way to justify providing insufficient parking. But the
reality is that getting people to do transportational
cycling, at least some of the time, is not going to reduce
the need for parking at residential developments.

snip

Yesterday I was sitting next to a woman from our transit
agency (VTA), a
hopelessly awful organization when it comes to running
buses and trains,
but they also build some of the bicycle infrastructure. I
pulled out my
phone and brought up Google Maps and showed her where we
badly needed a
bicycle freeway over-crossing. She instantly recognized
the location and
told me "it's in the bike plan." ...


For fiscal year 2072? :-)

No, no, but probably not for five more years.

snip

I only half-jokingly suggested that it would be far more
cost-effective,
in terms of number of single-occupancy vehicle reduction,
to not build
any more light rail ($40 million/mile) or heavy rail ($1+
billion/mile)
and just buy a few hundred thousand electric bicycles to
distribute with
certain caveats. Remember, those dollar figures are just the
construction costs for the track, and don't include
equipment or
operations and maintenance.


It would be but we need to keep in mind the elderly and
disabled. Also, many Americans would never consider a
bicycle even if they had a red carpet all the way to the
destination.

We're only trying to get a modest percentage of people on
bicycles. Those unable to use a bicycle will have other
options.


"The reality is that bicycle infrastructure is actually
relatively inexpensive, on a per trip basis."

When compared to the $12 toll on the George Washington Bridge maybe.
When compared to the cost of light rail or heavy rail. Even above
ground, light rail is about $40 million/mile if you already have the
ROW. Heavy rail 10X that at least. Creekside bicycle infrastructure is a
bargain compared to that. Again, we're mot trying to get 50%-100% of
people on bicycles. Just 10% would halp unclog the roads.

On 6/29/2018 4:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2018 4:54 PM, Lama99 wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:57:17 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Interesting article, with data, about how much the Dutch actually ride
their bikes.

https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/best...h-hardly-bike/


Turns out they average, oh, maybe a mile or two per day.

That works for them because their cities are so dense that many
destinations are less than a mile away. That comes from having cities
that were founded in medieval times. When things are more than a couple
miles away, they tend to leave the bike and use other modes.

So we can get Dutch bike mode shares if we start work on our cities
early enough. Like, back in 1400 AD or so.

--
- Frank Krygowski


Impossible making any American city like Amsterdam or Copenhagen.
American is the last nation ride bike as commuter unless the nation
completely destroyed itself and born again..

I agree. But there are plenty of starry-eyed dreamers who say "If only
we build enough protected bike lanes..."



I had a web page saved of another study that showed similar results.
Something like 85% of Dutch cyclists rode less than 5 miles a day, and a
similar percentage only rode to the nearest bus/train terminal. They did
not ride directly to their destination.

Which is fine and all, but now I am wondering how much bus coverage is
there on average? Because in the ~55K population town I live in, most
people would only walk a few blocks at most to catch a bus that would
take them to the (admittedly sparse) light rail stations, if they wanted
to go to a further route than the local bus lines served. The buses have
front bicycle racks (3 bikes capacity) and the train stations do have
bicycle racks and people do use them but either is rarely ever full.

-----

If you wanted more people in the US to bicycle, I'd think you'd have to
give them e-bikes to do it. And then you'd only add a few younger guys,
if the distance was short and the weather was fairly nice.

99.99% of women old enough to 'need' makeup simply won't do it, riding
inside a motor vehicle is just the expected level of luxury. If you are
a bicycle activist in the US, you might as well forget about them. Women
would only try it if they had no other choice except walking. (and US
e-bikes don't even require you to pedal at all)

On 6/29/2018 4:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2018 4:54 PM, Lama99 wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:57:17 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Interesting article, with data, about how much the Dutch actually ride
their bikes.

https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/best...h-hardly-bike/


Turns out they average, oh, maybe a mile or two per day.

That works for them because their cities are so dense that many
destinations are less than a mile away. That comes from having cities
that were founded in medieval times. When things are more than a couple
miles away, they tend to leave the bike and use other modes.

So we can get Dutch bike mode shares if we start work on our cities
early enough. Like, back in 1400 AD or so.

--
- Frank Krygowski


Impossible making any American city like Amsterdam or Copenhagen.
American is the last nation ride bike as commuter unless the nation
completely destroyed itself and born again..

I agree. But there are plenty of starry-eyed dreamers who say "If only
we build enough protected bike lanes..."



I had a web page saved of another study that showed similar results.
Something like 85% of Dutch cyclists rode less than 5 miles a day, and a
similar percentage only rode to the nearest bus/train terminal. They did
not ride directly to their destination.

Which is fine and all, but now I am wondering how much bus coverage is
there on average? Because in the ~55K population town I live in, most
people would only walk a few blocks at most to catch a bus that would
take them to the (admittedly sparse) light rail stations, if they wanted
to go to a further route than the local bus lines served. The buses have
front bicycle racks (3 bikes capacity) and the train stations do have
bicycle racks and people do use them but either is rarely ever full.

-----

If you wanted more people in the US to bicycle, I'd think you'd have to
give them e-bikes to do it. And then you'd only add a few younger guys,
if the distance was short and the weather was fairly nice.

99.99% of women old enough to 'need' makeup simply won't do it, riding
inside a motor vehicle is just the expected level of luxury. If you are
a bicycle activist in the US, you might as well forget about them. Women
would only try it if they had no other choice except walking. (and US
e-bikes don't even require you to pedal at all)

On 2018-06-30 15:18, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:08:38 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-06-29 20:11, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:19:15 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
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.


It looks like Frankfurt (the only city I checked) has land use
and zoning laws.
https://www.stadtplanungsamt-frankfu...94.html?psid=d




Bebaungsplan is not Zoning. It mostly regulates what building styles can
be used, how many stories, setbacks, how much parking must be
provided, and so on. The use is generally mixed like here in the
inner city of Frankfurt:

http://www.frank66furt.de/frankfurt/innen069.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0_DSC_9367.jpg



On the ground floor it's shops, bars, restaurants and such. On the upper
floors you sometimes have apartments and sometimes office space.
Often even that is mixed where, for example, the 2nd floor has a
dentist's office and the 3rd floor is an apartment where the
dentist's family or someone else lives. The ones above are usually
also apartment units. That's how we lived in Duesseldorf, above a
grocery store.

Many Germans do not find it very desirable to live in such city
quarters, hence the sprawl. In smaller towns that's different,
there more people like to live in the center. I lived smack dab in
the middle of a pop 5000 village in the Netherlands and really like
it.


Frankfurt has zoning.
https://www.stadtplanungsamt-frankfu... 441gpjjfqmq3
It includes a regional land-use plan like many US metropolitan
areas.


Not like here in the US. They usually prescribe where you can build
anything at all, what must be left agricultural or forest, and where
heavy industries go. Germany rarely has a strict division into
residential versus commercial, and they shouldn't. And we shouldn't but do.



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.

snip

Here as in Cameron Park? Or here as in the United States?
Portland is filled with multi-family housing over businesses.
https://d2bj656w1sqg1s.cloudfront.ne...t-1024x523.jpg




Sorry, I meant in general. I know we have some mixed use in US cities
but that typically ends in the suburbs. And therein lies the
problem. Because of stupid zoning laws people living in the suburbs
which is probably the majority of Americans are always in their
cars even for teh smallest errands. Unfortunately also for a pub
visit.


It's SOP in many cities. My brother owned a building with
apartments over business in Denver. From an owner's
perspective, it's not a great risk since you lose a lot of cash
flow if your business tenants move. Its hard to fill a restaurant
or other specialty space.

Your gripe is not with zoning laws but with zoning in particular
towns, assuming that the development pattern was zoning driven
rather than market driven. It became hip to be in downtown PDX,
so condos and apartments popped up -- too many as a matter of
fact. My commute to work is through
hehttps://d2bj656w1sqg1s.cloudfront.ne...t-1024x523.jpg


Condos over business with OHSU offices. It used to be a shipyard. I
preferred that.


You accidentally posted the same link again.

Yep. What you're getting at -- and a legitimate point -- is that
European cities are much more likely to have mixed-use zoning.
Mixed-use zoning is common in existing large US cities but much less
common in smaller cities -- and practically non-existent in suburbs,
depending on where you live. In PDX, we have mixed use in some of
our suburbs.
https://www.pdxmonthly.com/articles/...-neighborhoods


Now if they would carry this concept all the way into single-family or
condo neighborhoods Portland would soon be where Europe is. Where people
don't use their cars to buy a pound of sugar because they just ran out.
Or where they could stroll down to Molly's Pub for a brew like we did in
Ireland. We only needed the car when we wanted to go to faraway towns.


OTOH, much of the PDX west side (Beaverton) is McMansion sprawl
punctuated with strip malls. That's your gripe, and it's really
common in Sacramento where dirt was plentiful and cheap. There are
endless gated communities cut out of old rice paddies and farm land
and then a neighborhood strip mall. I don't think anyone would want
to live over the 7-11. There is nothing charming about mixed-use
living in those areas.


I lived over a pub for more than five years. While I never frequented
that particular one I never regretted living above it for one minute.
There were several more pubs within minutes walking.


If Sacto suburbs were quaint old Amsterdam, you would see lots more
mixed-use, but with lots of available dirt, you can segregate uses --
and people who want suburban McMansion living go for that.

All of the NL could be tucked into two Oregon counties in the lower
right hand corner of the state. It's small, and of course its going
to have more mixed use. The same goes with all the high-density
European cities. More dirt, more sprawl -- unless there is a policy
to prevent sprawl or some common desire or convention. Us rugged
USians sprawl, and now you're one of the sprawlers.


We bought a house here that was built in 1970. When you move in from
another country you buy quickly. It's nice, we like it but I was a bit
disappointed about the lack of neighborhood amenities such as a pubs,
eateries, li'l shops. Most of all I was disappointed about the lack of
foot and bike paths to where the shops are. It's only two miles, easily
walkable but doing so is risky unless you detour for more miles. That is
IMO a planning screw-up.

Past mistakes are largely correctable. Folsom has recognized those
mistakes and did something about it, big time. Cameron Park didn't, our
political leaders simply don't get it.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-06-30 14:41, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 3:56:44 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:

In America we will never achive a mode share much above 5% except in
"nerdy" areas such as Davis, CA. And that's ok. 5% is a lot. Even 1-2%
is when compared to almost zero.

So if you can't succeed in getting many Americans to ride bikes, the trick is
to just redefine success. "2%? Wow, that's GREAT!!!"


It is. Especially if there are lot of youngsters among those 2%.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/