We Should Design Cities For Shorter Distances, Not Faster Speeds

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Bushwick is much more urban and transit-oriented than Bensonhurst. And Bensonhurst is far from "average" Brooklyn, it's one of the least dense/urban areas.

I think Bensonhurst is a good representation of Brooklyn overall, as it features pretty much every neighborhood-level housing typology minus polished brownstones. The population density is 51,000+ per square mile, which is well above the borough's average of around 35,500.

Bushwick is basically an eastern extension of Williamsburg. It's a traditional working class tenement and factory neighborhood. In contrast Bensonhurst was mostly developed right before WW2 and is semi-suburban in parts.

There's no question that Bensonhurst is newer and more auto-centric by design. Definitely reminiscent of Queens with shades of West Philly and Outer London. But what's also true is that more of Brooklyn looks like Bensonhurst than Bushwick (which isn't without its own auto-accommodating post-war housing stock), despite what people readily associate with the borough.

I don't see how Bensonhurst has better rail coverage. Bushwick has two lines, the L, and the JMZ, both obviously closer to Manhattan. Bensonhurst has the D and N. The F doesn't serve Bensonhurst. The L is one of the busiest/highest frequency lines in the entire system. And the N barely serves Bensonhurst, in the Orthodox part, where they have their own transit.

I'll retract my state about Bensonhurst having better Subway services (wrong choice of word), but accessibility is about the same. And this is just nitpicking, but while the F train technically doesn't run through Bensonhurst, it does have two stations (Avenue N, Avenue P) that some of its residents can clearly make use of. For example, if your nearest station is either of those two, it's less than a 15-minute ride to Prospect Park.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think your premise is accurate. The only reason people own cars is to make their lives easier. If a car doesn't somehow make a person's life easier, they will not own a car. It's just that simple. The people who own cars in south Brooklyn do so because it makes their lives easier. The people who do not own cars in north Brooklyn don't because cars won't make their lives easier. This point is emphasized by the fact that the north Brooklyn neighborhoods are generally wealthier than the south Brooklyn neighborhoods.

In my premise, I state that car ownership "fulfill[s] a certain need/desire/preference," which is to say that a car represents some sort of value that aligns with personal lifestyle choices. Whether it's a large Orthodox family, a wealthy couple who frequents a second home in the Hamptons and would rather drive their Volvo directly there than travel to Manhattan to catch the Jitney, or someone who likes to visit the parents in Nassau County every weekend, the reason doesn't matter. The point stands: they prefer their own private automobile over a combination of Subway, bus, commuter rail, rental car, Uber/Lyft, bicycle, scooter, etc.

I expected high car ownership rate in Brooklyn, just not 45%. My guess is that many use cars for intra-borough travel, as Brooklyn is a city unto itself and not laid out like a bunch of disparate villages like Outer London. The grid system makes driving much easier too.

[Crawford]

I still don't get how an American city with lower vehicle ownership than Paris or London has "high vehicle ownership."

Bensonhurst is quite transit oriented, and getting moreso over time. In 2013, 71% of work commutes were via transit, compared to 63% in 2000.
https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty...14_HighRes.pdf

Bensonhurst is almost entirely residential, so actually much less dense than Brooklyn as a whole. Bushwick is about half industrial, with a giant warehouse zone. You can't just compare density without accounting for the weighted density and land use.

The Bronx is much denser than Brooklyn despite having slightly lower overall density (because the Bronx has a much higher share of parkland, industrial land, highways, waterways and institutional space). The UES and UWS are basically the same density, but UES is technically 50% denser, because UWS community board includes two giant parks (Central Park and Riverside Park). And Bensonhurst has high household size, with a bit of "LA effect" (not particularly structurally dense but large household size due to immigration). You also see this in parts of NE Queens, with unimpressive structural density but very high household size.

And obviously multigenerational living in a single housing unit is more likely to include a vehicle than a smaller household.

[iheartthed]

I doubt there is any part of Bensonhurst that is this dense, but this is typical of Bushwick: https://goo.gl/maps/KtVExfMM8dovL4Wv6

This is typical for Bensonhurst: https://goo.gl/maps/owfv8cQ19mSbyT9G9

One thing that immediately stands out is that there are driveways and car garages in Bensonhurst. That is extremely rare in North Brooklyn.

[Doady]

No matter how transit-friendly Brooklyn is, people might still need or favour a car to around to other places in the NYC area. Places don't exist in isolation, and people cannot live in isolation either. How transit-friendly is Westchester County, Nassau County, New Jersey? And so on. NYC area is huge too, so those longer distances are going to make travel without car harder to begin with. Ultimately even places like Brooklyn are part of a much greater whole, we also have to consider the overall urbanity and culture of the region. That influences the way new neighbourhoods are built too. If we want to build new 1930s-style streetcar suburbs everywhere in the USA, we need to bring back some of that culture.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I still don't get how an American city with lower vehicle ownership than Paris or London has "high vehicle ownership."

Bensonhurst is quite transit oriented, and getting moreso over time. In 2013, 71% of work commutes were via transit, compared to 63% in 2000.
https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty...14_HighRes.pdf

Bensonhurst is almost entirely residential, so actually much less dense than Brooklyn as a whole. Bushwick is about half industrial, with a giant warehouse zone. You can't just compare density without accounting for the weighted density and land use.

The Bronx is much denser than Brooklyn despite having slightly lower overall density (because the Bronx has a much higher share of parkland, industrial land, highways, waterways and institutional space). The UES and UWS are basically the same density, but UES is technically 50% denser, because UWS community board includes two giant parks (Central Park and Riverside Park). And Bensonhurst has high household size, with a bit of "LA effect" (not particularly structurally dense but large household size due to immigration). You also see this in parts of NE Queens, with unimpressive structural density but very high household size.

And obviously multigenerational living in a single housing unit is more likely to include a vehicle than a smaller household.

I actually see a little bit of LA in Bensonhurst in the sense that the housing typologies can shift dramatically from street to street.

By pointing out Brooklyn's "high ownership rate" (it's all relative), I'm not claiming that it's auto-centric or think it any less urban than before. Design is also not something I'm really harping on either when Tokyo -- arguably the world's most "urban" city when taking into account population size, density, and transit coverage/usage -- isn't that well-designed, as the neighborhood-level built environments lacks raised sidewalks and has lots of housing with car port(s).

What do Bensonhurst and neighborhood-level Tokyo have in common? They are both functionally urban despite auto-centric design elements and generally "non-streetwall" vernacular (e.g. there are gaps between buildings). Which brings me back to my original point: Auto ownership (reason is irrelevant) exists even in big urban cities, and people have found ways to make it work. That doesn't mean those places are auto-dependent, nor does it preclude high-transit usage (you mentioned Bensonhurt's 71% transit commute share). Just look at the contrast between SF and Philly. SF has wide streets, curb cuts, and garages everywhere; intact pre-war Philly has mostly narrow streets, streetwall density, and no mid-block alleyways originally designed for vehicular access. Philly, however, has lower transit and higher car ownership rates.

[Steely Dan]

^ philly is also 3x the geography of SF.

If you take a 49 sq. mile chunk out of central philly, auto ownership rates would drop and transit use rates would go up.

City limits are typically a terrible way to compare these types of things because you're often comparing apples to oranges.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Acajack

When I think of places that I've visited that have enthused me from a city perspective, the thing that strikes me the most positively in terms of transportation and getting around isn't a single mode like public transit, but rather the multiplicity of "options" and ways to easily get around.

That's what makes a great experience for me. Buses, subways, trains, walking, cycling, taxis and yes even private cars if that's what makes the most sense for going from point A to B in a specific case.

Too many cities only offer one (or sometimes two) way of more or less efficiently getting around.

Yep. Living in Chicago now for a year(although an insane year), i've found my options to be the biggest selling point:

I can walk a block to a bus station
I can walk 2 blocks to a train station(with three lines)
I can walk downtown in 25 minutes

I can bike pretty much anywhere in the central city within 45 mins

My drives in the car are usually very short. A target, home depot, TjMaxx(not for me...:S), and pretty much any big box type store is 3-10 mins away. I can drive almost anywhere in the city with a car comfortably(minus downtown, but thats what walking and trains are for). I have legit options. This wouldn't be the case for me in Manhattan or 98% of other places in the country. It's a sweet spot.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ the difference is that I don't expect overnight urbanism to form in places like schaumburg.

Hell, I don't expect it to happen even gradually, ever.

They are lost causes unless they are obliterated off the map and rebuilt from scratch from the street layout up.

As monkeyronin said in like the 3rd post of this thread, it's not that I'm against suburbia existing, I just don't get why they had to make it so goddamn ugly in the postwar era.

Coulda had millions more people living in oak parks.

Whoops.




Higher bus ridership will never fix the community on the right pictured below.

I think Tysons(Corner) in VA is making a decent attempt at it...

[muppet]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I still don't get how an American city with lower vehicle ownership than Paris or London has "high vehicle ownership."
.

I think it must involve how much those vehicles get used too. Londoners and Parisians don't use their vehicles as much due to better convenience from PT, and much higher expenses in petrol, parking and entry fees such as the ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) or Congestion Zone -daily $24. Cars tend to be for leisure, eg daytrips or short trips once a week -eg local superstore shopping.

[Acajack]

It's been quickly alluded to, but I think we can't underestimate the importance of parking access in terms of the % of households who have cars.

Where parking is a huge PITA, fewer people tend to have cars. People who don't care about having cars probably self-select towards these areas to some degree.

Areas where parking is somewhat easier will draw more people for whom it's more important to have a car.

I don't think everyone in society necessarily wants to have a car, but I'd also say that the existence of areas with low car ownership proves that most everyone wants to live car-free, "if only they could". And that people in areas of NYC (or any other cities) with higher auto ownership are automatically prisoners of their built environment.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's been quickly alluded to, but I think we can't underestimate the importance of parking access in terms of the % of households who have cars.

Where parking is a huge PITA, fewer people tend to have cars. People who don't care about having cars probably self-select towards these areas to some degree.

Areas where parking is somewhat easier will draw more people for whom it's more important to have a car.

I don't think everyone in society necessarily wants to have a car, but I'd also say that the existence of areas with low car ownership proves that most everyone wants to live car-free, "if only they could". And that people in areas of NYC (or any other cities) with higher auto ownership are automatically prisoners of their built environment.

Yes. It's also just basic economics that as population density goes up, so does the cost of owning a car. Why? Because space costs more when there are more people, and cars take up space.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's been quickly alluded to, but I think we can't underestimate the importance of parking access in terms of the % of households who have cars.

Where parking is a huge PITA, fewer people tend to have cars. People who don't care about having cars probably self-select towards these areas to some degree.

Areas where parking is somewhat easier will draw more people for whom it's more important to have a car.

I don't think everyone in society necessarily wants to have a car, but I'd also say that the existence of areas with low car ownership proves that most everyone wants to live car-free, "if only they could". And that people in areas of NYC (or any other cities) with higher auto ownership are automatically prisoners of their built environment.

Sorry, I should clarify this sentence:

I don't think everyone in society necessarily wants to have a car, but I'd also say that the existence of areas with low car ownership DOESN'T NECESSARILY prove that most everyone wants to live car-free, "if only they could".

[nito]

Originally Posted by muppet

I think it must involve how much those vehicles get used too. Londoners and Parisians don't use their vehicles as much due to better convenience from PT, and much higher expenses in petrol, parking and entry fees such as the ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) or Congestion Zone -daily $24. Cars tend to be for leisure, eg daytrips or short trips once a week -eg local superstore shopping.

I would agree that ownership and utilisation are completely different. A quick glance shows higher public transport use in London compared to New York, as well as far higher levels of walking and cycling. I assume it is a similar outcome in Paris.

For London - in addition to the aforementioned high fuel prices and the congestion and emission charges - it is the very built form that acts as a limitation to facilitate large volumes of private car use. There simply are not the volume of broad avenues or expressways and the like found in New York. Road capacity is further reduced by greater emphasis on cycle and bus lanes (the ratio of bus lanes in New York relative to London is 1:3.6), shared space environments and pedestrianised spaces.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

I would agree that ownership and utilisation are completely different. A quick glance shows higher public transport use in London compared to New York, as well as far higher levels of walking and cycling. I assume it is a similar outcome in Paris.

For London - in addition to the aforementioned high fuel prices and the congestion and emission charges - it is the very built form that acts as a limitation to facilitate large volumes of private car use. There simply are not the volume of broad avenues or expressways and the like found in New York. Road capacity is further reduced by greater emphasis on cycle and bus lanes (the ratio of bus lanes in New York relative to London is 1:3.6), shared space environments and pedestrianised spaces.

Maybe this is true, but London isn't as dense as New York so there is more space for parking.

[muppet]

I really don't think London and parking belong in the same sentence. Dear lord, have you been here? Parking in London is literally the devil's work. They rarely exist, and only at exorbitant fees.
It's not about the space, but part of the strategy to discourage car usage. Whether lowrise or highrise - like Manhattan, no patch of land can ever make a profit if given over to parking, even multi-storey:

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by muppet

I really don't think London and parking belong in the same sentence. Dear lord, have you been here? Parking in London is literally the devil's work:

I'm typically in London about once a year, so I'm pretty familiar with it. I've biked and driven around the city before. Next to any other U.S. city, yes, London is clearly the harder place to own a car. But compared to NYC, no.

[Crawford]

London is more car-centric in the core than NYC, but less car-centric on the fringe. Someone in Mayfair is more likely to own/use a car than someone on the Upper East Side. But someone in Paramus, NJ, or Greenwich, CT, is more likely to own/use a car than someone in Essex or Kent.

Overall, London is likely less car-centric, because both metros are primarily suburban, and U.S. suburbia is much more car-oriented. But NYC's urban core has higher transit orientation and lower car usage/ownership. Basically the 10 million or so residents in the region's prewar core vs. the 10 million or so outside the core.

[Acajack]

Comparisons are often perilous but only a tiny portion of London is a high-rise skyscraper jungle like what predominates in Manhattan.

Most of London in terms of car-friendliness (thinking mostly of parking) is more similar to the other boroughs of NYC like the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens.

Not even close to being as car-friendly as Houston, but not as crazy as having a car in centralmost Manhattan with no place to put it except a high-priced garage that will demand a pound of flesh for the privilege.

[Steely Dan]

NYC is probably the only city in the US where you find middle class and higher families with young children who forgo car ownership altogether out of choice at any kind of meaningful scale.

everywhere else in america, that's a VERY niche demographic.

even in the other big urban cities like boston, philly, chicago, SF, etc. 100% car-free among the middle class and higher demographics is much more the domain of those without children living at home (young adults, singles, the childless, retirees, etc.).

of course, among the poor and working classes where the economic costs of car ownership in those same cities can be a serious burden, it's a different matter; lots of car-free families with young children, not necessarily out of choice.