Is there anything wrong with liking urbanism AND auto-oriented places?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I don't buy the inconvenience angle that urbanites supposedly have to contend with. Like, I live a 2-block walk from work. On my daily 5-minute commute, I pass a small grocer, 3 corner stores, a bakery, a brewery, a weed shop, dry cleaners, laundromat, pharmacy, a couple coffee shops, and multiple restaurants, bars, and other services. Within a 10-minute walk in other directions I've got a full-service supermarket, liquor store, green grocer, butcher, and lots more. Literally everything I need for day-to-day life within 10 minutes, most of it on my way home from work - how does it get more convenient than that?

I recognize that my commuting situation may not be the norm, but the point remains that the density of an urban environment inherently leads to a density of services. Running errands on a traditional local retail strip should be less time consuming than having to hop in and out of the car, driving from strip mall to strip mall.

Having a car is absolutely still a major convenience for running longer trips or getting to destinations that aren't on direct transit corridors, for sure, but being in an urban location doesn't necessarily preclude one from the ownership or use of a car either - the only catch is that you might not be able to park it right at your front door.

Yeah, I've owned cars and lived in very suburban environments before, and that experience was never anywhere near as convenient as any neighborhood in NYC that I've lived in. Convenience IS the point of urbanity. And space is the point of a suburban lifestyle. In much of America, though, suburban has become such the default that many people no longer understand the benefits of urbanity.

[JManc]

I never got the impression that living in New York was anymore more convenient than Houston. Urbanity is about the built environment and amenities that more suburban areas really can't compete with. New York, you can walk out your front door and pretty much go anywhere without a car but there a lot of situations where having a car, even in New York, would be helpful...which is why a lot of more well off New Yorkers have cars.

[Yuri]

São Paulo is overall more autocentric than New York, at least on city proper comparisons, and that’s why people usually have cars as soon as they can.

However, it’s more a social status thing, and people don’t realize how expensive is to keep a car. It’s a massive drain in the person’s budget. I for one, don’t own a car and I don’t know anyone in my income bracket that does the same. However, my life is much more simpler: easier to commute, pick a Uber if I’m not in the mood of transit and when I want to leave São Paulo, I just rent a car, very nice ones, by only R$ 200 or US$ 40 daily.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

I never got the impression that living in New York was anymore more convenient than Houston. Urbanity is about the built environment and amenities that more suburban areas really can't compete with. New York, you can walk out your front door and pretty much go anywhere without a car but there a lot of situations where having a car, even in New York, would be helpful...which is why a lot of more well off New Yorkers have cars.

I doubt many people who own a car and live in a prime neighborhood in Manhattan or Brooklyn will even touch their cars once a week. Even if you don't like public transit, it's way more convenient to use a cab or car service to get around than drive yourself.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

São Paulo is overall more autocentric than New York, at least on city proper comparisons, and that’s why people usually have cars as soon as they can.

I wonder if SP is kinda like Mexico City, which also has good transit, but the middle/upper class almost never uses transit. More of a class thing.

My wife, who is from a very central area of Mexico City, right on a Metro line, still thinks its bizarre that I ride the Metro there. Basically a "you're not supposed to do that" kinda thing. I don't see why not. I find the system relatively safe, clean, and efficient, and often faster than by car.

[MolsonExport]

Given the size of the metro (10M), Lima has next to no public transit. The wealthy use their cars (atrocious traffic) while the rest (90%) go on foot or by one of the billion dilapidated private micro/minibuses. I once got stuck on a bus that took two hours to advance a single block. I would have exited, except (a) I didn't have the slightest clue where I was (before I had a cell), and (b) it was late at night and things looked...dodgy outside of the window.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I wonder if SP is kinda like Mexico City, which also has good transit, but the middle/upper class almost never uses transit. More of a class thing.

My wife, who is from a very central area of Mexico City, right on a Metro line, still thinks its bizarre that I ride the Metro there. Basically a "you're not supposed to do that" kinda thing. I don't see why not. I find the system relatively safe, clean, and efficient, and often faster than by car.

I wouldn’t say it’s that extreme, as a sizeable of the middle class use the transit, specially for shorter journeys, but it should use much more.

Ironically, when they go abroad they ride the smelly New York and Paris subways, both with longer waiting times while São Paulo one is spotless clean.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Which cities in the US have managed sprawl?

The only city that I'm aware has an urban growth boundary is Portland, and I'm afraid to go to Portland.

This is an often over-looked driver of Austin’s densification, but the city, state, county, and federal governments and a coalition of quasi and non-governmental actors have taken preservationist land acquisition steps over the last few decades to establish a de-facto urban growth boundary around Austin.

Federal: Balcones Canyonlands ongoing expansion
State: significant state parks throughout
City and County: expansive protection of the inner hill country through preserves and of course an extensive parks and conservation system
Other: Texas Hill Country Conservation Network, Hill Country Conservancy, and many other efforts to deed restrict land and create a network of undevelopable large square acreage.

Private and business-oriented local efforts have secretly won the day without an overly restrictive policy of an urban growth boundary.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I doubt many people who own a car and live in a prime neighborhood in Manhattan or Brooklyn will even touch their cars once a week. Even if you don't like public transit, it's way more convenient to use a cab or car service to get around than drive yourself.

I kept a car in Cambridge, MA for two years. I used it like, at most once a month, but wasted a ton of money on parking / maintenance. I got rid of it and haven't had a car since. Car rental works out better even if you rent one a few times a month (it helps that I can use my employer's rate for personal travel...) , and you don't have to bother with maintenance or finding a place to put it. And you always get a new car that's the right size for what you need it for...

[mhays]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Which cities in the US have managed sprawl?

The only city that I'm aware has an urban growth boundary is Portland, and I'm afraid to go to Portland.

Seattle

Portland

San Francisco

LA

San Diego

Miami

Etc.

All to varying extents of course. For example Seattle's outer counties aren't very aggressive, and even King had to work through years of grandfathered projects into the 00s.

[edale]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle

Portland

San Francisco

LA

San Diego

Miami

Etc.

All to varying extents of course. For example Seattle's outer counties aren't very aggressive, and even King had to work through years of grandfathered projects into the 00s.

Add Lexington, KY to this list, too! It's really impressive to see how little sprawl that city has.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle

Portland

San Francisco

LA

San Diego

Miami

Etc.

All to varying extents of course. For example Seattle's outer counties aren't very aggressive, and even King had to work through years of grandfathered projects into the 00s.

I thought the Californian ones and Miami were constricted due geography not by regional urban planning legislation.

[Crawford]

Actually, a decent chunk of Metro Detroit has strict growth controls. Washtenaw County, MI (home to Ann Arbor and University of Michigan) has a very strict greenbelt around Ann Arbor. You go from city to country almost immediately, which is rare for the U.S. (and very rare for the Midwest).

But Ann Arbor, culturally, is kind of an "island" and not really part of Metro Detroit (even though it's technically included). And Ann Arbor has very high prices and a housing shortage, which is very atypical for Michigan (and which may or may not be somewhat due to the growth restrictions, depending on your worldview).

[Omaharocks]

^Add Madison to the list, as it has very strict growth controls and very minimal sprawl, due in part to coordinated land use and green space preservation with Dane County.

Some SW cities like Albuquerque limit outward growth (particularly leapfrog development) by limiting water rights with new development, and the pueblos/national forest form an effective growth barrier.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Actually, a decent chunk of Metro Detroit has strict growth controls. Washtenaw County, MI (home to Ann Arbor and University of Michigan) has a very strict greenbelt around Ann Arbor. You go from city to country almost immediately, which is rare for the U.S. (and very rare for the Midwest).

But Ann Arbor, culturally, is kind of an "island" and not really part of Metro Detroit (even though it's technically included). And Ann Arbor has very high prices and a housing shortage, which is very atypical for Michigan (and which may or may not be somewhat due to the growth restrictions, depending on your worldview).

The infill in Ann Arbor since they created the greenbelt is pretty stunning.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I thought the Californian ones and Miami were constricted due geography not by regional urban planning legislation.

San Diego definitely is. I'm actually impressed that they have as many people as they do, given how little flat land there seems to be in the area.

I don't know too much about the rest.

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I wonder if SP is kinda like Mexico City, which also has good transit, but the middle/upper class almost never uses transit. More of a class thing.

My wife, who is from a very central area of Mexico City, right on a Metro line, still thinks its bizarre that I ride the Metro there. Basically a "you're not supposed to do that" kinda thing. I don't see why not. I find the system relatively safe, clean, and efficient, and often faster than by car.

Definitely not like this, you'll find most people using public transport in SP. The same people not using public transport in São Paulo are the same types that don't use public transport in Manhattan.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm curious what's so scary about the Portland area. Sasquatch?

Woke commies and antifa supersoldiers.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I thought the Californian ones and Miami were constricted due geography not by regional urban planning legislation.

Miami-Dade County has an urban development boundary which creates a bit of a buffer between the suburbs and the Everglades:
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.6474.../data=!3m1!1e3

As opposed to Broward County which goes straight from the suburbs to the Everglades:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.1987.../data=!3m1!1e3

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Miami-Dade County has an urban development boundary which creates a bit of a buffer between the suburbs and the Everglades:
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.6474.../data=!3m1!1e3

As opposed to Broward County which goes straight from the suburbs to the Everglades:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.1987.../data=!3m1!1e3

Well but in the end of the day it’s the Everglades that abruptly end the urban sprawl. Dade has only this very thin and interrupted line.