|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Making America into Amsterdam
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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Making America into Amsterdam
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 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Making America into Amsterdam
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) |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Making America into Amsterdam
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? |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Making America into Amsterdam
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. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Making America into Amsterdam
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) |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Making America into Amsterdam
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) |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Making America into Amsterdam
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/ |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Making America into Amsterdam
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/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking like Amsterdam | Alycidon | UK | 23 | August 15th 15 06:45 PM |
A bicycle not wood, Black & Decker's feeble attempts at making bicycletools and tire-not-making | Doug Cimperman | Techniques | 7 | December 8th 12 11:40 PM |
Tire-making, episode {I-lost-track} --- making inner-tubes | DougC | Techniques | 1 | September 11th 10 03:43 PM |
TT: 1. Deutschland Uber Alles 2. America 3. America | Ted van de Weteringe | Racing | 4 | September 25th 08 07:26 PM |
These mp3 interviews -Air America -Know why there is about to be civil war in America. A MUST LISTEN | harbinger | Australia | 17 | June 4th 06 12:16 AM |