|
Some people, who have been reading this website, now understand the
basic rightness of the Traditional City format -- it is, after all,
the normal human pattern of urbanization over the last 5000 years --
and they want to express it to others, especially those who might
have some influence, like developers and town bureaucrats.
Mostly, they go about this the wrong way. If a person is not
convinced of the rightness of the Traditional City approach, the
fact that it creates much better environments than other approaches
(19th Century Hypertrophism, 20th Century Hypertrophism and Suburban
Hell), and also doesn't have a lot of the problems of those
approaches; in other words, that it is better in every way and worse
in none, then that person will make up endless excuses about why the
Traditional City pattern won't work.
Of course, these excuses are stupid. Hundreds of millions of people
are already living in a Traditional City-type environment worldwide,
in both developed and developing countries, just as they have for
millennia. It works. Duh.
The fact that the excuses are stupid is irrelevant. It is simply a
reflection of the fact that the person has not yet been sold on the
idea. They haven't been convinced.
FIRST, you have to get
people to embrace the vision. It is mostly a "vision," in other
words, a picture in the mind. This is done mostly with pictures.
Innsbruck, Austria
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Amalfi region, Italy
Tokyo, Japan
Vientiane, Laos.
Amalfi region, Italy.
Tokyo, Japan
Vientiane, Laos.
You can describe the basic characteristics of these environments:
1) Streets designed for human ("pedestrian") use, i.e. "Really
Narrow Streets" typically of 12-25 feet wide.
2) Buildings side-by-side (little or no side setback) and up against
the street (little or no front setback).
3) No cars (actually, there are often cars, or a motorcycle as is
the case in the photo above. However, the idea is that the street is
designed for people primarily, with no central roadway/sidewalks,
but rather flat from one side to the other.)
Typically, you might have a pattern of:
80% Really Narrow Streets (by length)
17% Arterial streets (central automobile roadway and sidewalks,
typically two to four lanes of traffic, buildings and storefronts on
either side)
3% Grand Boulevards (four to six lanes of traffic, which may feed
even larger elevated freeways and so forth)
Although the Really Narrow Streets make up the great majority of
street length, actually nobody is very far from an Arterial Street,
typically a quarter-mile or less.
Talk about all the advantages of this environment. Go on and on
about it.
Only a total moron -- for example, a high-fashion architect,
Professor of Urban Studies or New Urbanist; in other words, someone
who is already trying to make a career of selling some other,
inferior idea -- could complain that these are unpleasant
environments. Lots of Americans pay big bucks to spend their
vacation in places like this. This is a very mainstream idea.
Now, ONLY AFTER THEY HAVE EMBRACED THE VISION,
you can talk about the practical steps of implementing such a thing
in the context of the existing U.S. 19th Century Hypertrophism (in
city centers) or Suburban Hell environment.
June
6, 2010: Transitioning to the Traditional City 2: Pooh-poohing the
Naysayers
May
23, 2010: Transitioning to the Traditional City
Now, instead of making excuses, they will seek solutions. Things
like parking, fire and medical access, and so forth are easy to
solve, but only when a person is actively seeking solutions
rather than actively making excuses.
Obviously, this is not such a big problem. Don't you think they have
modern fire, medical and so forth in Innsbruck or Tokyo?
Another problem people get into is that they insist on making things
EXACTLY like they might be in Innsbruck or Tokyo. Unfortunately, due
to the lack of an adequate train system in the U.S., that is rarely
possible. The fact of the matter is, although people may be able to
get around their immediate Traditional City neighborhood without
cars, they will want a car to interface with the rest of Suburban
Hell in some fashion. You have to accommodate the reality that
exists in the United States today.
Unfortunately, we don't have the kind of train system they have in
Tokyo:
December
27, 2009: What a Real Train System Looks Like
In many cases, in the United States, we would likely end up with
something of a hybrid -- basically, more parking.
Whatever your solution is, it has to be something that will make a
profit for those that build it. That's how we get things done here
in the capitalist United States. It isn't the Soviet Union. I don't
think this is a big problem. Once you can make a profit -- a big
fat disgusting profit -- then the amount of resources at your
disposal is immense. Trillions of dollars!
Now think. If you have a solution which:
1) Produces a better result in every way
2) Has no real drawbacks
3) Uses valuable land wisely, without wasting most of it on
non-remunerative roadways, parking lots and Green Space
4) Produces beautiful, attractive living spaces which also have
inherently low building costs (multifamily or single-family on
small lots of 1000-2000sf).
5) Might allow residents to get by with one car instead of two,
thus saving them big $$$ per year
6) Allows children etc. to go to school and get around town
without needing to be driven everywhere by Mom, or bussed in
school buses
Don't you think that might be a little more valuable than today's
Suburban Hell patterns? Or, the inferior 19th Century Hypertrophism
or 20th Century Hypertrophism solutions being pitched by others as
an alternative to today's Suburban Hell patterns?
July
20, 2008: The Traditional City vs. the "Radiant City"
April
19, 2009: Let's Kick Around the "Sustainability" Types
July
26, 2009: Let's Take a Trip to an American Village 3: How the
Suburbs Came to Be
July
19,
2009:
Let's Take a Trip to an American Village 2: Downtown
July
12,
2009:
Let's Take a Trip to an American Village
November
15,
2009:
Let's Kick Around Carfree.com
October
3, 2010: Let's Kick Around the New Urbanists
August
1, 2010: The Problem With Bicycles
Obviously, if a) the end product is more valuable, and b) it is
cheaper to produce, and c) it is already proven in thousands of
places worldwide as shown in the pictures above, then d) there's a
bigger profit margin, and e) not much risk.
Duh.
Also, people who have billions of dollars at their disposal, which
they intend to use to make a Traditional City-type environment that
also makes them a big fat profit, tend to be rather
influential upon municipal governments.
They get what they want.
Which is also what you want, right? A Traditional City-type
environment.
January
20, 2013: HTMAPODWTTC 11: The Diminishing Returns of Suburbia
November
11,
2012: HTMAPODWTTC 10: Let's Bulldoze a Big Box Shopping Center 2:
No, Seriously
September 23, 2012: Corbusier Nouveau 3: Really Narrow Streets
With High-Rises
August 26, 2012: Corbusier Nouveau 2: More Place and Less
Non-Place
August
19,
2012: Corbusier Nouveau
July
1, 2012: How To Make a Pile of Dough With the Traditional City 9:
Townhouses With Parking
April 22, 2012: How to Make a Pile of Dough With the Traditional
City 8: Shared Parking
April
1, 2012: How To Make a Pile of Dough With the Traditional City 7:
Let's Bulldoze a Big Box Shopping Center
August
21, 2011: How To Make A Pile of Dough With the Traditional City 6:
Better Than a Thousand Words
July
31,
2011:
How
To
Make a Pile of Dough With the Traditional City 5: The New New
Suburbanism
July
17,
2011:
How
To
Make
A
Pile
of
Dough
Wi...
the Traditional City 4: More SFDR/SFAR Solutions
target="_blank" June
12,
2011:
How
to
Make
a
Pile
of
Dough...
City 3: Single Family Detached in the Traditional City Style
target="_blank" May
15, 2011: How To Make A Pile of Dough With the Traditional City 2:
A Ski Resort Village
target="_blank" August
22, 2010: How to Make a Pile of Dough with the Traditional City
That's pretty much how you get it done.
So get it done.
| |
