Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-07-05, 12:43 AM   #1
Martyr
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Bikes: Gios (Road), Zullo (Track), Fixed Giant Conversion (MTB), Kona (Commute)
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
NU and cycle-worthiness?

As promised, I have composited a list of US NU projects - this list is quite brief but they are held-out-there by your own Congress for NU. And as mentioned in my earlier thread, I am keen to know if people have cycled in these places and can make observations about how well cycling has been integrated into these communities.

I also want to make some points.

1. Australians are very quick to observe that these US projects have a very strong neo-tradition leaning. In Australia, our architecture probably has a more developed modernist aesthetic. Each to their own but if you hear an Australian respond "that is just georgeous" when shown one of these communities, it probably isn't a compliment.

2. US projects seem to be developer driven whereas Australian projects are much more strongly Government Driven. Our governments appoint developer authorities that oversee the design and implementation, and this has proven to lead to strong outcomes (see some of the australian links)

3. About Road Design, we consistently have councils demanding unrealistic road widths to accommodate rare events, such as the chance meeting of a car/truck and a garbage truck a 5:30 in morning that one day in the week that council collects. The wider the road, the faster vehicles travel and the greater the seriousness of injury in case of a collision.

We were all heartened to hear the director of Honeysuckle exclaim "who cares" in response to council engineering departments whose primary concern is how the rubbish is collected as opposed to the resultant amenity of the built form. We need to reject design to this lowest common denominator because designing roads based on turning templates (especially in residential locations) is leading to roads that are just too big which in turns leads to poor amenity and high speeds - read: places you dont want to be.

Do check out the Aussie links though. The difference in outcomes between US and Aus are striking. Anyway... please review with a mind to walkability and cycle-ability. All comments (well, almost all) welcome.

US Links
> I'on Village
http://www.ionvillage.com/
> Seaside
http://www.theseasideinstitute.org/
> Celebration
http://www.celebrationfl.com/
> Mashpee Commons
http://www.mashpeecommons.com/
> Battery Park
http://www.batteryparkcity.org/
> Mizner Park
http://www.miznerpark.org/Home/
> Orenco Station
http://www.orencostation.com/

Australian Links
> SubiCentro (WA)
http://changecorpf.per-iis-01.didask...om/subicentro/
> Claisebrook Village (WA)
http://www.claisebrookvillage.com.au/Claisebrook
> Victoria Park (NSW)
http://www.vicpark.com.au/
> Honeysuckle (NSW)
http://www.honeysuckle.net/pages/

And dont forget that the Europeans have been doing Urbanism for a bloody long time. We spent time in Switzerland and Austria over winter in 96/97 and were staggered by the high number of commuters on bike. -10C and there would be a few hundred bikes locked up to everything at the train stations. Narrower and slower speed roads count for a lot.

cheers


Marty
Martyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:12 PM.