The Coronavirus Shows It’s Time To Remake The American City

[hauntedheadnc]

The Coronavirus Shows It’s Time To Remake The American City
Cities across the U.S. and world are closing streets to traffic in response to the pandemic, offering a glimpse of a world where cars are no longer king.
By Amy Crawford

Like much of California, the city of Oakland has been under a shelter-in-place order since March, leaving its population of around 430,000 few options for getting out of the house other than to go for a walk.

But even that has suddenly become potentially perilous. Social distancing requires that people stay six feet apart to diminish the risk of passing the coronavirus to others, but when sidewalks are as narrow as four or five feet, a stroll down the block can become a game of high-stakes chicken.

In April, however, Mayor Libby Schaaf announced that the Bay Area city would close 74 miles of streets ― 10% of its grid ― to through traffic for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis. The program, called Oakland Slow Streets, provides people on foot, bike, skateboard or scooter, along with wheelchair users and parents pushing strollers, the freedom to exercise in the fresh air ― and the space to avoid spreading the virus.

Oakland’s plan is particularly large in scale, but the city is just one of the dozens of communities in the United States and worldwide to close streets or change traffic patterns in recent weeks.

Bogotá, Colombia, and Mexico City have painted miles of emergency bike lanes in an effort to provide essential workers with alternatives to crowded public transit, and German cities have widened bike paths. As car traffic drops, American municipalities have turned over vehicular lanes and on-street parking to pedestrians. Vancouver, Canada, banned cars in sprawling Stanley Park. (“Quiet. No exhaust. Sun. Ocean. Forest. Absolutely brilliant,” enthused one Vancouverite on Twitter after cycling through the car-free park.)

***

“We have communities that don’t have any sidewalks and don’t have outdoor public spaces, either. There are a lot of low-income parts of cities where the streets are too wide and too fast. Even before COVID-19, we knew our transportation system had given precious little space to people walking and biking and using wheelchairs. And now we’re seeing the ramifications of those decisions.”

***

“We’ve been rethinking our streets for some time now,” said Minneapolis Public Works Director Robin Hutcheson, explaining that the city had a policy of incorporating improved walking and cycling access into street resurfacing as a way to encourage people to choose more sustainable modes. “That means sometimes there are fewer traffic lanes, or sometimes we make a trade-off with on-street parking, and generally people are supportive.”

Since the coronavirus appeared, these redesigns have become more ambitious. In addition to banning cars from parkways that traverse or circumscribe green space, city officials have closed 7 miles of city streets to provide space for cyclists and pedestrians, while also accelerating planned work to create protected bike lanes.

***

Some cities are using COVID-prompted city redesign to directly address inequalities. In Denver, Eulois Cleckley, executive director of Denver’s department of transportation and infrastructure, and his staff selected the locations of 5.5 miles of street closures by taking into account socioeconomic factors, concentrating closures in areas of high residential density and limited access to park space.

Source.

[accord1999]

And once the pandemic eases, cars are going to be stronger than ever as people eschew public transit for the car. Given the precarious state of mass transit in most of the US even before COVID, many of the systems will probably see their death spirals accelerate.

[mhays]

Walking+transit will always be healthier than driving...the walking, and the lack of crash dangers.

I wouldn't want to get in an Uber. That's a profession in the front lines, not only being next to a lot of different people but being in a confined space with them for long periods.

[goat314]

Nothing is going to change. People have a very short memory.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by mhays

Walking+transit will always be healthier than driving...the walking, and the lack of crash dangers.

Maybe, but the risk of COVID and the need of physical distancing is going to be crippling to transit until a vaccine is available, which may be too long for the survival of most American transit systems.

I wouldn't want to get in an Uber. That's a profession in the front lines, not only being next to a lot of different people but being in a confined space with them for long periods.

True, another reason why the private car will remain king and should end the talk of shared-cars (and future robo-taxis) of taking over from private cars.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

Walking+transit will always be healthier than driving...the walking, and the lack of crash dangers.

I wouldn't want to get in an Uber. That's a profession in the front lines, not only being next to a lot of different people but being in a confined space with them for long periods.

My wife and I were in San Francisco right before everything went to shit and the one thing we avoided like the plague (pun intended) were MUNI and BART so we either walked or took Lyft. I love taking transit as much as I can wherever I can in cities that have it but they are petri dishes due to the critical masses using them. I think we will all be a little self-conscious about getting on a crowded subway sitting/ standing inches apart for a while.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mhays

Walking+transit will always be healthier than driving...the walking, and the lack of crash dangers.

I wouldn't want to get in an Uber. That's a profession in the front lines, not only being next to a lot of different people but being in a confined space with them for long periods.

One of the earliest confirmed cases in NYC was an Uber driver from Far Rockaway in Queens (near JFK airport). I don't think it is any coincidence that the neighborhoods with the highest infection rates in New York City are near the airports.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by goat314

Nothing is going to change. People have a very short memory.

Exactly.

Imagine if there was the perception that Corona spread quicker in suburban areas, would people automatically ditch the 3,000 sq ft home and good school district because of that? A TINY amount of folks may do that, but it would be statistically nothing. Same with city living. Some may be scared about the city and move out or never move in because of that fear, but if you like living in the city or enjoy your neighbors/neighborhood or lifestyle it isn't gonna be a large enough push factor.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Maybe, but the risk of COVID and the need of physical distancing is going to be crippling to transit until a vaccine is available, which may be too long for the survival of most American transit systems.


True, another reason why the private car will remain king and should end the talk of shared-cars (and future robo-taxis) of taking over from private cars.

People like me have zero issue taking public transit today. Like right now. I just have nowhere to go. I miss the CTA. I miss the smells and the people. I miss getting pissed about the non-stop crime in the news on the trains and stations. A lot of people are like me I am sure. But I think you do have somewhat of a point. Even if 10% of people decide not to take transit anymore, that will hurt agencies A LOT.

[austin242]

I'm avoiding transit till the Vaccine. Then I'm right back to transit. Right now I have no where to go so it doesn't matter anyways. I will also be looking forward to Voting YES on transit in the Fall (Austin $10Billion Rail System). However it's going be an uphill battle getting it passed unless this vaccine comes quick (which then everyone will forget cover-19 ever happened).

[The North One]

There's been a lot of hot takes from people who already live in suburbs acting like this is going to kill the American big city lmfao. They're full of shit.

[xzmattzx]

Wouldn't the post-coronavirus future of cities be the suburbs? Outside of nursing homes, the largest numbers of positive cases are in dense, urban areas. Spread-out suburbs and rural areas are affected much less so. Sheltering-at-home is a lot different in a single-family home with a front and back yard than it is in a 20-story apartment building.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Wouldn't the post-coronavirus future of cities be the suburbs? Outside of nursing homes, the largest numbers of positive cases are in dense, urban areas. Spread-out suburbs and rural areas are affected much less so. Sheltering-at-home is a lot different in a single-family home with a front and back yard than it is in a 20-story apartment building.

Depends. Suburbanites work and spend time in urban areas and when we're not in lock down, we in the burbs find ourselves in crowded situations fairly often; office environments, stores, events and so on. The main thing we avoid is mass transit. We live in the suburbs but my wife works downtown and i worked in the Texas medical center. Massive amount of people in both locations.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

Depends. Suburbanites work and spend time in urban areas and when we're not in lock down, we in the burbs find ourselves in crowded situations fairly often; office environments, stores, events and so on. The main thing we avoid is mass transit. We live in the suburbs but my wife works downtown and i worked in the Texas medical center. Massive amount of people in both locations.

Right. I don't get the "Covid-19 will encourage sprawl" argument.

I could see a plausible "Covid-19 will encourage rural living and isolation" argument, but those living in metropolitan-area sprawl are generally doing the same things as those living in metropolitan-area city centers. They eat out, go to stores, fly in planes, go on vacations, visit museums, attend concerts, have friends/family etc.

So I'm not clear why, say, a McMansion sprawl town would have an advantage over a main street-style suburb, or a more urban environment. At least in the U.S., the lifestyles are generally about the same. Yeah, they might go to different kinds of restaurants or venues, but the risk factors are the same. A Home Depot in sprawl isn't safer than an artisanal product store in hipsterville.

And this is all assuming that Americans have long memories and will permanently alter their lifestyle and forego innate desire for human interaction for a once-in-a-century pandemic on the downswing. Sounds rather implausible.

[The North One]

I don’t understand their logic. Is covid seeping through the walls of condo units? Does covid have the ability to jump from one detached home to the other of they’re packed close enough? Unless you’re living in complete isolation is Alaska or something you’re not at any less risk of catching it. World leaders and wealthy celebrities have all caught this virus despite being the most insulated people on earth.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right. I don't get the "Covid-19 will encourage sprawl" argument.

I could see a plausible "Covid-19 will encourage rural living and isolation" argument, but those living in metropolitan-area sprawl are generally doing the same things as those living in metropolitan-area city centers. They eat out, go to stores, fly in planes, go on vacations, visit museums, attend concerts, have friends/family etc.

So I'm not clear why, say, a McMansion sprawl town would have an advantage over a main street-style suburb, or a more urban environment. At least in the U.S., the lifestyles are generally about the same. Yeah, they might go to different kinds of restaurants or venues, but the risk factors are the same. A Home Depot in sprawl isn't safer than an artisanal product store in hipsterville.

And this is all assuming that Americans have long memories and will permanently alter their lifestyle and forego innate desire for human interaction for a once-in-a-century pandemic on the downswing. Sounds rather implausible.

It absolutely is. People leaving New York City or any other dense urban area over this already had one foot out the door pre-pandemic. This was the excuse they needed to sell the condo and flee for greener pastures in CT, FLawridah or where ever. I do not see NYC returning to its Taxi Driver glory days.

My suburb is pretty sprawly with big huge houses and I no way feel safer here than If I lived in town. It is busy here and all the essential stores are pack that it makes no difference if I was here or midtown Manhattan and came into contact with someone with CV-19. The only difference is that I have a yard to seek refuge in where as someone in an urban area may not have that option.

[ardecila]

^ This is a little exaggerated, no? Part of living in dense cities is getting physically close to other people on sidewalks and in mass transit. Obviously restaurants/bars, retail, workplaces, and schools concentrate people together, whether urban or suburban... but outside of those building interiors, the auto-oriented lifestyle keeps people separated from one another.

I guess in Houston the Inner Loop lifestyle may not be functionally different from the Katy or Sugar Land lifestyle, except yards are smaller... because in both areas, people drive exclusively to get around. This was my experience in urban New Orleans, especially in Uptown. People lived there as an aesthetic choice, not because it enabled them to drive less. The problem with aesthetics is that tastes change. But in older cities where car-free or car-lite lifestyles are possible, there is a meaningful difference between urban and suburban lifestyles that does include increased physical contact with strangers.

Now, density and physical contact don't necessarily imply viral transmission. We know it is theoretically possible to have both dense cities and effective public health response. As countless other people have mentioned, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan are all highly dense and urbanized yet they managed to keep the virus under control through smart and responsive leadership... but I'm just not sure our political system can deliver that kind of effectiveness. It's not designed to.

Moreover, in a country where the question of urban living is highly politicized, there will always be a huge segment of the population that attempts to steer the conversation in a way that is harmful to cities.

[jtown,man]

When this thread was first started my opinion was HUH, of course not!

But now that I realize how freaked out many people are, I think this could impact cities. Being locked down for two weeks, no big deal. Being locked down for two months in my tiny apartment in a 16 story apartment building, that can get suffocating. My sisters have large houses in the burbs and are enjoying doing odd jobs outside, laying out, and hanging out with the kids out in the yard. I have no of those options. I just sit and consume media and read.

So, will this change my view of the city. 100% no. Will it impact a lot of people's opinions on cities? I would have said hell no a month ago. Today? Yes.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ This is a little exaggerated, no? Part of living in dense cities is getting physically close to other people on sidewalks and in mass transit. Obviously restaurants/bars, retail, workplaces, and schools concentrate people together, whether urban or suburban... but outside of those building interiors, the auto-oriented lifestyle keeps people separated from one another.

People still have to get out of their cars and interact with the rest of humanity..that is unless H-E-B allows me to drive my truck around the store. As for more walkable cities and personal contact, there were loads of neighborhoods in NY, SF, Chicago, Boston, Paris and London where I was able to wander around a few blocks away from commercial strips that had very few people (if any) walking around. It's just that your commercial areas have a crush of people on foot, we don't. And yes, we don't have mass transit here and I think if I lived in one of these cities, I'd avoid transit right now anyway.

[softee]

Density doesn't seem to always be the deciding factor when it comes to transmission of the virus, Toronto is far more dense than Buffalo (Erie County), but Erie County's per capita caseload is well ahead of the City of Toronto's.

High public transit usage is also mentioned as the best way to quickly spreading the virus, and perhaps that was the biggest factor in community transmission in cities like Toronto and NYC, but that doesn't explain Erie County's numbers when compared to Toronto, or Detroit's, which got hit especially hard. Poverty, poor diet and lack of access to healthcare might explain the discrepancy between Toronto and its neighbouring American cities.