Living Car Free - your ideal city?

In recent posts, I have cast myself as a public transit skeptic. However, that doesn't make me an apologist for current autocentric development. In the interest of sounding more positive, here are my ideal rules for a city. I think they combine the best aspects of the city with the best aspects of the suburbs. I tried to construct them such that they would work for places already built, instead of requiring that a completely new city be built from the ground up. I invite everybody to describe their ideal city as well.


1. Interconnected street networks shall be mandated. For every arterial street, a two-lane 25 mph route must run roughly parallel to it -- it must have wide outside lanes and and sidewalks to enable the free movement of cyclists and pedestrians.

2. The maximum speed limit within cities will be 30 mph. No street will be wider than four lanes. Three lane streets with center turn lanes will be preferred.

3. All developed lots must meet a 15 to 20 percent green space requirement.

4. Zoning codes will be loosened to allow the construction of cottages, small-lot homes, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in residential areas.

5. All "local highways" and expressways that don't serve the purpose of connecting one metropolitan area to another (i.e., non-interstate highways), will be torn down and replaced with surface streets. Interstate highways and railroad tracks must have underpasses or overpasses every quarter mile to enable easy crossing.

6. Developers shall not be mandated to provide parking spaces on site. If this leads to a lack of on-street parking, metering in the area shall be implemented. Surface parking lots are prohibited -- all parking lots must be enclosed within a building or placed underground.

7. Mixed-use commercial/residential shall be permitted on busy streets.

8. Rail shall be constructed with separate right-of-ways to enable its speedy passage.

9. In order to promote the aesthetic quality of the community and to combat the urban "heat island" effect, property owners will be granted tax credits in exchange for planting trees.

10. Developers will also receive tax credits for constructing basements in new houses. Basements are useful for music, home gyms, mechanical projects, extra bedrooms, etc, and should be encouraged.

11. The gas tax will be raised, or replaced entirely with a vehicle mileage tax.

12. In the interest of preserving views and sunlight and preventing overcrowding, new buildings shall not rise higher than five floors.

13. The creation of parks and trails shall be encouraged. Planting street trees will be encouraged and funded by city governments. Palm trees shall be banned due to their excessive ugliness and the lack of shade they provide.

14. Acquiring and maintaining a driver's license will be far more difficult than it currently is. The drivers test will be harder. Those who do not graduate high school or acquire a GED shall not drive. Anybody convicted of driving while intoxicated shall have their license suspended for two years minimum, and permanently for a second offense. Hit and run offenders will lose their license permanently. Convicted felons will lose their license permanently. Speeders will lose their license for six months -- their suspension time will be doubled for every subsequent offense. However, those who do not qualify for a standard drivers license will have the opportunity to pass an easier test for a license to drive a low-speed vehicle (namely, the type not allowed on highways, such as scooters, golf carts, "neighborhood electrical vehicles", etc).

Amsterdam, Copenhagen or Isla Vista

http://www.lotsafunmaps.com/view.php?id=470

I like palm trees. They're beautiful and provide dates or coconuts. You contradict yourself with a height restriction for sunlight yet complain that palm trees don't provide enough shade. DC has a height restriction based on some formula to do with street width.

One thing I notice with interstate highways is they put in too many interchanges and they are too close together. I think the developers want these but am not sure. The on and off ramps should only be at the beltways around cities. Around here we seem to have off ramps built just for malls.

I like palm trees. They're beautiful and provide dates or coconuts. You contradict yourself with a height restriction for sunlight yet complain that palm trees don't provide enough shade. DC has a height restriction based on some formula to do with street width.

Haha, yeah, I noticed that. In all honesty, my dislike of palm trees is strictly aesthetic. I probably wouldn't ban them. I'll just choose not to live in a climate where they are likely to be planted in mass.

Heck, I'd be happy enough if nearly every motorist here didn't drive like they were being chased by a forty foot tall pitbull. After that, my second wish would be to live in a place that never got below 50 degrees in the winter or above 70 degrees in the summer. The miserable summer heat bothers me more than any motorist ever could.

I've lived in Montana for a few years and this year is the first time that winter has really bothered me. It isn't the temperatures, it is the length of the cold season. Most of the points from chriswnw would be fine with me, though I think drunk drivers should loose their license to drive for ten years after one offense. They should be mentally tested and drug tested when they reapply for driving privileges. If they fail or reoffend they won't ever get a drivers license.

The requirement of 15-20% green space per development will spread out the city. It would be better for the entire city to be laid out with that much green space in the form of predetermined park locations. That way there would be fewer small vacant spaces causing the city to spread out more. Having more town homes in compact areas would make the city more dense. This would be preferable to all lots having lawns.

I think any city that reclaimed existing streets by covering them with grass and wider walkways would be better. For instance; a four lane road with a median between the different directions could be turned into a one lane per direction road with a turning lane in the middle. The outer parts or just one side could be for pedestrians, cyclists, and trees. A 25 mph speed limit would make it more attractive for people to adopt cycling instead of driving.

This would not be the ideal arrangement for all streets. It would just be one alternative to having such roads supporting only cars.

I like a lot of that but it seems strange to be trying to prevent urban sprawl by mandating buildings be less than 5 stories. How about now area should have more than x buildings above 5 stories? This would allow denser living and commerce but also let some sun in. Also, reflective glass on tall buildings goes a long way in making sure that light comes in. Dense living I think has to be a priority if you want people to drive less.

I would probably vote for Amsterdam or Portland OR if I was considering bicycle infrastructure.

But I would REALLY like to live in a city where the citizens were obsessive about the visual impact of their buildings. I keep thinking of your average Italian city, where the notion of setting up a cheesy strip mall would cause riots.... just because they hate buildings that do not appeal visually. I guess I would vote for Florence or Perugia or maybe Rome...

That off my chest, I think the ideal city would foster a sense of community. The houses would be built to assist people in sitting on the front where they can run into people and have discussions. Community centers which are easily accessed... casual cafes that did not create mountains of disposable cups... community gardens.

Wouldn't that be nice?

I would probably vote for Amsterdam or Portland OR if I was considering bicycle infrastructure.

But I would REALLY like to live in a city where the citizens were obsessive about the visual impact of their buildings. I keep thinking of your average Italian city, where the notion of setting up a cheesy strip mall would cause riots.... just because they hate buildings that do not appeal visually. I guess I would vote for Florence or Perugia or maybe Rome...

That off my chest, I think the ideal city would foster a sense of community. The houses would be built to assist people in sitting on the front where they can run into people and have discussions. Community centers which are easily accessed... casual cafes that did not create mountains of disposable cups... community gardens.

Wouldn't that be nice?


Sounds a lot like a really Green collage campus to me!

My ideal city? Hmmmm ... let's see .... in random order ...


-- Small ... probably not a city at all, but rather a town.

-- Located nearish a bigger city, with at least one mass transportation option for getting between the small town and the big city for the occasional visit.

-- The wide streets of a typical Australian country town.

-- The town should contain a grocery store, hardware store, pharmacy, bank, school, post-office, library, a couple churches, perhaps a small industry, and maybe a few other small businesses.

-- Quiet, peaceful, low crime-rate.

-- Nearish some nice attractions like mountains, lake, ocean, etc. with good quality paved roads complete with shoulders between the small town and these attractions.

-- Populated with friendly people.


I'll probably think of more, but that's a good start. :)

In recent posts, I have cast myself as a public transit skeptic. However, that doesn't make me an apologist for current autocentric development. In the interest of sounding more positive, here are my ideal rules for a city. I think they combine the best aspects of the city with the best aspects of the suburbs. I tried to construct them such that they would work for places already built, instead of requiring that a completely new city be built from the ground up. I invite everybody to describe their ideal city as well.


1. Interconnected street networks shall be mandated. For every arterial street, a two-lane 25 mph route must run roughly parallel to it -- it must have wide outside lanes and and sidewalks to enable the free movement of cyclists and pedestrians.

2. The maximum speed limit within cities will be 30 mph. No street will be wider than four lanes. Three lane streets with center turn lanes will be preferred.

3. All developed lots must meet a 15 to 20 percent green space requirement.

4. Zoning codes will be loosened to allow the construction of cottages, small-lot homes, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in residential areas.

5. All "local highways" and expressways that don't serve the purpose of connecting one metropolitan area to another (i.e., non-interstate highways), will be torn down and replaced with surface streets. Interstate highways and railroad tracks must have underpasses or overpasses every quarter mile to enable easy crossing.

6. Developers shall not be mandated to provide parking spaces on site. If this leads to a lack of on-street parking, metering in the area shall be implemented. Surface parking lots are prohibited -- all parking lots must be enclosed within a building or placed underground.

7. Mixed-use commercial/residential shall be permitted on busy streets.

8. Rail shall be constructed with separate right-of-ways to enable its speedy passage.

9. In order to promote the aesthetic quality of the community and to combat the urban "heat island" effect, property owners will be granted tax credits in exchange for planting trees.

10. Developers will also receive tax credits for constructing basements in new houses. Basements are useful for music, home gyms, mechanical projects, extra bedrooms, etc, and should be encouraged.

11. The gas tax will be raised, or replaced entirely with a vehicle mileage tax.

12. In the interest of preserving views and sunlight and preventing overcrowding, new buildings shall not rise higher than five floors.

13. The creation of parks and trails shall be encouraged. Planting street trees will be encouraged and funded by city governments. Palm trees shall be banned due to their excessive ugliness and the lack of shade they provide.

14. Acquiring and maintaining a driver's license will be far more difficult than it currently is. The drivers test will be harder. Those who do not graduate high school or acquire a GED shall not drive. Anybody convicted of driving while intoxicated shall have their license suspended for two years minimum, and permanently for a second offense. Hit and run offenders will lose their license permanently. Convicted felons will lose their license permanently. Speeders will lose their license for six months -- their suspension time will be doubled for every subsequent offense. However, those who do not qualify for a standard drivers license will have the opportunity to pass an easier test for a license to drive a low-speed vehicle (namely, the type not allowed on highways, such as scooters, golf carts, "neighborhood electrical vehicles", etc).

Your city sounds ideal, except for the rule about 15-20% green space per development; it would only increase the rate of sprawl. It would be better to have denser development, with large-ish tracts of public green space, kind of like in Vancouver, BC, or the open space around Boulder, CO.

Your post makes me wonder why the cities we want are so different from most of the cities we have. The central parts of most NA cities are actually tolerable in a lot of cases (Seattle and Denver are examples that I'm most familiar with), but the suburbs and exurbs of almost any city on this continent are, more often than not, total sh*tholes. Basically, the urban development model we ran with after 1945 has been a spectacular failure, and it's a real shame that we weren't able to see the train wreck coming. Now it's too late. People have to live in this landscape, and, for many, the only way it's even remotely tolerable is if you have a car.

I too would vote for a town rather than a city. 30 to 50K people and with zoned industrial areas on the outskirts of the town. I simply have no use for buildings taller than three stories. The downtown area can house the banks, law offices, restaurants, and fast food places. A few local businesses like plumbing, watch repair and personalized hardware store would be on the main drag. One or two big box stores and one or two big hardware lumber yards would be nice. The high schools should be located on the opposite side of town with the feeder elementary schools located in-between. The people live in little houses about two or three blocks off of the main business street or streets if more than one are necessary. The streets are in a grid pattern and all have wide lanes with room for bicycles. Any big houses should be on the outer edge of town. One or two LBSs would be nice. Apartments would have to be away from the family homes and maybe even out by the industrial area. The police department, City Hall and Hospital should be no more than two miles apart. It would be even better if this city was located in a cluster of similar cities. Toss in a golf course and you have everything you need.

I too would vote for a town rather than a city. 30 to 50K people

30 to 50K wouldn't be bad ... but I'm thinking even smaller than that .... like maybe 5000 or 10,000 or somewhere around there.

And I'd like to live in a little house on the outskirts of town, or possibly out into the country a ways. :)

30 to 50K wouldn't be bad ... but I'm thinking even smaller than that .... like maybe 5000 or 10,000 or somewhere around there.

And I'd like to live in a little house on the outskirts of town, or possibly out into the country a ways. :)

I just moved from a town of about 8k. Sometimes a real small town is just too personal. But our best friends lived in a house just like you describe. It was nice visiting them. They had a close relationship with their neighbors but you couldn’t hit a neighbor’s house with an arrow shot from a bow unless you could shoot over 300 yards. The burned wood for heat and had their own well for water. They had gas and electricity for cooking but not heating.

30 to 50K wouldn't be bad ... but I'm thinking even smaller than that .... like maybe 5000 or 10,000 or somewhere around there.

And I'd like to live in a little house on the outskirts of town, or possibly out into the country a ways. :)

The small town thing does sound nice but imagine if everyone lived in such a town. Thats 350 million people in towns that are 50-60k. How many towns would it take? There is no way that would work. Just is not efficient with space and we are running out of it rappidly. It does sound nice and I can understand why some people would feel that thats the ideal. I prefer a large city with hundreds of thousands of things, and people to see and do, not necessarily in that order ;)

The small town thing does sound nice but imagine if everyone lived in such a town. Thats 350 million people in towns that are 50-60k. How many towns would it take? There is no way that would work. Just is not efficient with space and we are running out of it rappidly. It does sound nice and I can understand why some people would feel that thats the ideal. I prefer a large city with hundreds of thousands of things, and people to see and do, not necessarily in that order ;)

First of all, I'm thinking of small towns ... like 5000 to 10,000 people. Not as big as 50K-60K. I spent a lot of time growing up in a town that was 1000 people. That wasn't bad, but maybe a little bit too small. 5000 to 10,000 offers a few more options.

Secondly, I'm not asking everyone to live in small towns. The question was about MY ideal town. Most of the rest of the world can bunch themselves up in crowded, noisy, poluted, crime-ridden cities if they like that sort of thing ...... I would absolutely hate that. <<shudder>>

I prefer space, elbow-room, nature. Give me fields, mountains, lakes, grass, and trees any day rather than skyscrapers, cement, traffic, noise, and crowds. In fact, if most of the rest of the world wants to stack themselves on top of each other, all the better ... more room for me elsewhere! :)

I'll be moving shortly to live on an orchard ... between a town of about 200 and a town of about 600 (about 8 km from each). The nearest bigger town is about 25 km away and is about 2000 people. I love the idea of living on the orchard way out in the country ... the towns around aren't a bad size, but eventually I wouldn't mind living nearer to something a teensy bit bigger. We'll see what happens. Meanwhile, for now, I'm looking forward to getting out into the country. :)

First of all, I'm thinking of small towns ... like 5000 to 10,000 people. Not as big as 50K-60K. I spent a lot of time growing up in a town that was 1000 people. That wasn't bad, but maybe a little bit too small. 5000 to 10,000 offers a few more options.

Secondly, I'm not asking everyone to live in small towns. The question was about MY ideal town. Most of the rest of the world can bunch themselves up in crowded, noisy, poluted, crime-ridden cities if they like that sort of thing ...... I would absolutely hate that. <<shudder>>

I prefer space, elbow-room, nature. Give me fields, mountains, lakes, grass, and trees any day rather than skyscrapers, cement, traffic, noise, and crowds. In fact, if most of the rest of the world wants to stack themselves on top of each other, all the better ... more room for me elsewhere! :)

I'll be moving shortly to live on an orchard ... between a town of about 200 and a town of about 600 (about 8 km from each). The nearest bigger town is about 25 km away and is about 2000 people. I love the idea of living on the orchard way out in the country ... the towns around aren't a bad size, but eventually I wouldn't mind living nearer to something a teensy bit bigger. We'll see what happens. Meanwhile, for now, I'm looking forward to getting out into the country. :)

I realize that we are talking about ideals here but this is LCF so I thought I would mention a little bit about sustainability. Like I said, country is not my thing. Go live out with the inbred, white trash, isolated, anti-social, nothing to do, watch the wheat grow, no services, gossip ridden small towns if you want to. I prefer the city with people and things to do.

No need to hate on people with city preferences or people with country preferences. Im just saying that one is unsustainable on a large scale.

The small town thing does sound nice but imagine if everyone lived in such a town. Thats 350 million people in towns that are 50-60k. How many towns would it take? There is no way that would work. Just is not efficient with space and we are running out of it rappidly. It does sound nice and I can understand why some people would feel that thats the ideal. I prefer a large city with hundreds of thousands of things, and people to see and do, not necessarily in that order ;)

I think small to medium sized towns are the way to go. 15-20k would be the ideal size, IMHO. I have lived in small towns and larger cities and they both have their advantages and disadvantages. From what I have observed, most large cities are actually small towns grouped together with no obvious separation. Small towns would need to be densely built, but would still work.


I realize that we are talking about ideals here but this is LCF so I thought I would mention a little bit about sustainability. Like I said, country is not my thing. Go live out with the inbred, white trash, isolated, anti-social, nothing to do, watch the wheat grow, no services, gossip ridden small towns if you want to. I prefer the city with people and things to do.

No need to hate on people with city preferences or people with country preferences. Im just saying that one is unsustainable on a large scale.

You had better watch how you talk about country people...where do you think your food comes from?:rolleyes:

To me a large city is unsustainable to a certain extent because of the sheer volume of people. Take any large city...where do you grow the food supply? With a small to medium sized town the food can be grown in the surrounding countryside and easily brought into town. New Jersey used to be known as The Garden State for a reason, it was full of truck farms that fed NYC. Now the bulk of the food is shipped in from places like Mexico, California, Iowa and other rural states. Take a look at where your dinner comes from and try to adhere to the 100 mile diet (http://100milediet.org/). I would be willing to wager it will be more difficult in a large city than in a smaller town.

FWIW we have been doing it for the most part, but I live in a part of the country where many basic foods are produced. The only notable exceptions being bread flour (hard wheat), coffee and citrus fruits. Other than that everything I need for my supper table can be sourced within an 100 mile radius or less, usually within 25 miles which would be very difficult to do living in NYC, Chicago, or LA.

Aaron:)

-- Populated with friendly people.

That alone would make other shortcomings more tolerable.

Go live out with the inbred, white trash, isolated, anti-social, nothing to do, watch the wheat grow, no services, gossip ridden small towns if you want to. I prefer the city with people and things to do.

No need to hate on people with city preferences or people with country preferences. Im just saying that one is unsustainable on a large scale.

You haven't been out in the country much have you?

:rolleyes:
Go live out with the inbred, white trash, isolated, anti-social, nothing to do, watch the wheat grow, no services, gossip ridden small towns if you want to. I prefer the city with people and things to do.

No need to hate on people with city preferences or people with country preferences. Im just saying...

:rolleyes: Right, no need to hate, eh? :rolleyes:

[size=3][font=Times New Roman]I too would vote for a town rather than a city. 30 to 50K people and with zoned industrial areas on the outskirts of the town. I simply have no use for buildings taller than three stories. The downtown area can house the banks, law offices, restaurants, and fast food places.

My city was designed this way, it was a bad design. Clustering all the bankes, offices, resturants in a downtown area just leads to having to drive miles to get there. I lived in a house in the city it was a long commute on a highway to get into downtown.
Now I moved to a north side suburb where there are clusters of housing mixed in between the retail and office places so you can actually get a house close enough to work that you can bike or walk. if you design this way you have a group of small towns together making up a city so you get benefits of both.

My little city has many of these atributes in fact almost all of them. Don't come here ;). Yes that 400 year old pedestrian mode. Not only that but it fills with tourists who make the bike the fastest mode of travel in town for for 5 months of the year.

The requirement of 15-20% green space per development will spread out the city. It would be better for the entire city to be laid out with that much green space in the form of predetermined park locations. That way there would be fewer small vacant spaces causing the city to spread out more. Having more town homes in compact areas would make the city more dense. This would be preferable to all lots having lawns.


I like having lots of trees and greenery in the city that I live in, and would never want to live in a concrete jungle like SF and NYC. I guess that "streetcar suburbs" are probably my favorite places in America, which is mostly what medium density cities like Portland, Denver and Minneapolis consist of. Also, I like having a yard because I can choose who is allowed in! Parks don't provide the same sense of solitude or privacy as a yard.

I think there are ways of promoting moderate density even while preserving greenery. Chicago is extremely dense, even though it mainly consists of detached houses. However, such "houses" are usually duplexes and triplexes.

I also don't really have a problem with sprawl per se -- I just don't like the way it is currently done. Ideally, I'd like it to halt at some point, but I think that single-family detached dwellings will remain popular (i like 'em), and that they will continue to be built until our population starts to decline.

Your city sounds ideal, except for the rule about 15-20% green space per development; it would only increase the rate of sprawl. It would be better to have denser development, with large-ish tracts of public green space, kind of like in Vancouver, BC, or the open space around Boulder, CO.


To me, it seems somewhat contradictory to be concerned about the preservation of green space one rarely sees (namely on the outskirts of the city) if one doesn't care about the preservation of green space in an area that one sees everyday. For example, I don't know why a person from SF would be concerned about the preservation of green space on the outskirts of the metro area, considering that they choose to surround oneself in a sea of concrete. I grew up in the Bay Area, and SF is the most barren treeless city I have ever been in. It's also far too crowded for my tastes. Sprawl is a price that I'd be willing to pay to not live in a place like that.

Central Vancouver at least has more street trees than SF, but the yuppie equivalent of the Le Corbusier "towers in the park" scheme is really not for me. One of my problems with towers is that the high construction costs requires them to be either luxury housing or subsidized low-income housing. Duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes are far more economical, quick to construct, and are far more affordable to people of a modest income like myself. Further, I appreciate their "houselike" aspect. I don't like being stacked on top of people that I don't know or trust. I have done it before -- I have lived in a tower apartment, and I will never, ever do it again. I like my personal space, and found that sharing common areas with hundreds of people to be a trying experience. There were a number of residents who engaged in destructive behavior, and given the anonymity that towers offer, it is really hard to hold them accountable. I now hate downtown and escape the area as soon as work is out, so that I can get back to the eastside, with its yards, trees and the three bedroom house with its enormous basement that I rent out with two friends.

Plus, a lot of places that are enveloped by sprawl aren't very attractive to begin with. For example, the hills of the East Bay in CA consist of little but grass, weeds and a handful of scrub oaks. The ritzy and sprawly hillside developments of Oakland and Berkeley, however, involved planting a lot of trees. Those areas are now far more lush and aesthetically pleasing than the barren hillside. That said, I am in favor of keeping certain areas off-limits to development in the form of national and state parks.

Go live out with the inbred, white trash, isolated, anti-social, nothing to do, watch the wheat grow, no services, gossip ridden small towns if you want to. I prefer the city with people and things to do.

For most people in large cities, "things to do" means little more than drinking at bars and coffee shops all day long. That's how the "artists" in Portland spend their time :lol:

I like a lot of that but it seems strange to be trying to prevent urban sprawl by mandating buildings be less than 5 stories. How about now area should have more than x buildings above 5 stories? This would allow denser living and commerce but also let some sun in. Also, reflective glass on tall buildings goes a long way in making sure that light comes in. Dense living I think has to be a priority if you want people to drive less.

I guess I could go with a limited number of glass towers in "city centers" areas, enough to cater to the demand of the limited number of people who want to live in such things and to potentially offset some amount of sprawl. I wouldn't spend any time in them myself, of course :P

I have read that Vancouver does have a very strict green space requirement where towers are constructed -- mandated setbacks from the street, limited footprint diameter, etc. Although I am not a fan of towers, I find the skyscraper part of Vancouver to be more tolerable than that of other cities.

A couple of books by JAmes Howard Kunstler are illuminating upon this subject: "The Geography of Nowhere", and "Home from Nowhere." Both are highly recommended.

Kunstler is interesting. My understanding is that he dislikes both skyscrapers and suburban sprawl, preferring moderate-density European or early 20th century American style development.

I look for development like what they had at the height of the pre-auto age. That usually was a downtown area with the offices and major department stores. There was a grid street system so there were many alternative routes for cyclists. Streetcar routes followed the grid pattern, and streetcars travelled on tracks in the middle of streets. Commuter trains radiated from the downtown station, facilitatinfg the development of suburbs within 30 minutes of the downtown. These suburbs each had their own mini-downtowns, much like a village or town. There were also shopping districts scattered throughout the city, so everybody was within walking distance of a grocery, bank, pharmacy, etc.

If you want to see what pre-car cities looked like, there are hundreds of views at carfree cities (http://www.carfree.com/design/index.html).





http://www.carfree.com/design/pix/stin100san-francisco_unk.jpg

I look for development like what they had at the height of the pre-auto age. That usually was a downtown area with the offices and major department stores. There was a grid street system so there were many alternative routes for cyclists. Streetcar routes followed the grid pattern, and streetcars travelled on tracks in the middle of streets. Commuter trains radiated from the downtown station, facilitatinfg the development of suburbs within 30 minutes of the downtown. These suburbs each had their own mini-downtowns, much like a village or town. There were also shopping districts scattered throughout the city, so everybody was within walking distance of a grocery, bank, pharmacy, etc.


I agree, streetcar era cities are my favorite type of cites. However, I don't think that the streetcar is the best transportation vehicle anymore -- I'd favor rapid commuter rail combined with various low-speed personal transportation vehicles. And please, no horses!

I agree, streetcar era cities are my favorite type of cites. However, I don't think that the streetcar is the best transportation vehicle anymore -- I'd favor rapid commuter rail combined with various low-speed personal transportation vehicles. And please, no horses!

The fixed routes of streetcars do seem to encourage desirable development patterns. that's their only advantage that I'm aware of.

Oh, one other advantage of streetcars--they don't require batteries.

....and once again the bike forums site takes my carefully crafted post and flings it into the ether...this is a really frustrating site sometimes. It reminds me of the Python sketch" John Cleese as Beethoven--he finally works out the opening to the 5th, but then is distracted, and then can't find the notes again....

Anyway the gist of it was in regard to point #14, limiting access to DLs. This will never happen until its far too late. A DL is your membership card to adult society, failure to hold one is grounds for exclusion and suspicion. Not so long ago, I was questioned at length as to why I didn't have a DL by US blackshirt border guards, even as I held my passport in hand.

Remember too that "the American way of life is non-negotiable." (GHWBush) This was reiterated by the demigod Obama in the inauguration speech: "We will not apologize for our way of life." To suggest that people not be allowed their precious driving "rights" is downright un-'murikan. How dare you!

Camden Maine The North Atlantic to sail in at your front.The coastal mountains for winter sport and walking to your rear; Rt.1 and a great shopping village right down the middle.//Bring a fat billfold//Kenneth

....and once again the bike forums site takes my carefully crafted post and flings it into the ether...this is a really frustrating site sometimes. It reminds me of the Python sketch" John Cleese as Beethoven--he finally works out the opening to the 5th, but then is distracted, and then can't find the notes again....


Make sure your browser accepts cookies. Then click the "Remember me" box when you log in. The site should not time you out if you do this.

Or, copy your post into your computer's memory before you click the "submit post" button. If the site has logged you out, you can log back in and paste the post into a "quick reply" box at the end of the thread.

I'm currently living in my ideal city: New York City.

But I have a few other "backups":

- London
- Tokyo (I lived in Tokyo for some time.)
- San Fran

I'm currently living in my ideal city: New York City.

But I have a few other "backups":

- London
- Tokyo (I lived in Tokyo for some time.)
- San Fran

$$$$$
The three most expensive cities in the world, I believe.

:D

If you want to see what pre-car cities looked like, there are hundreds of views at carfree cities (http://www.carfree.com/design/index.html).

That's a fascinating site. Thanks for posting it!

....and once again the bike forums site takes my carefully crafted post and flings it into the ether...this is a really frustrating site sometimes. It reminds me of the Python sketch" John Cleese as Beethoven--he finally works out the opening to the 5th, but then is distracted, and then can't find the notes again....

Anyway the gist of it was in regard to point #14, limiting access to DLs. This will never happen until its far too late. A DL is your membership card to adult society, failure to hold one is grounds for exclusion and suspicion. Not so long ago, I was questioned at length as to why I didn't have a DL by US blackshirt border guards, even as I held my passport in hand.

Remember too that "the American way of life is non-negotiable." (GHWBush) This was reiterated by the demigod Obama in the inauguration speech: "We will not apologize for our way of life." To suggest that people not be allowed their precious driving "rights" is downright un-'murikan. How dare you!

When traveling I seldom provide my DL for ID I use my US Passport. FWIW I was actually denied boarding at a US Airport because of the condition of my DL, if I hadn't had my Passport I most likely would not been allowed to board the flight.

Aaron:)

For most people in large cities, "things to do" means little more than drinking at bars and coffee shops all day long. That's how the "artists" in Portland spend their time :lol:

That's all the people here (my coworkers, my fellow students) seem to do ... drinking in bars, at home, wherever. The big exciting thing seems to be going out and getting smashed on the weekends.

For me, "things to do" include things like ...

-- cycling here, there, and everywhere (this is, after all a cycling forum ... it's why we're here). I've cycled pretty much everywhere within about a 100 km radius of my current place of residence ... as well as several places throughout my province ... as well as many places in my country and throughout the world. And I'm still cycling because there's a lot to see out there!

-- checking out interesting-looking museums, shops, view points, etc. etc. often found in small towns out in the middle of nowhere. A lot of my city friends don't know that these places exist, but they're fascinating. So much history.

-- other sports such as swimming, cross-country skiing, weightlifting, hiking ....

I can do these things in a city, but I can also do them in the country ... and when it comes to cycling, I greatly prefer to do that in the country.

6. Developers shall not be mandated to provide parking spaces on site. If this leads to a lack of on-street parking, metering in the area shall be implemented. Surface parking lots are prohibited -- all parking lots must be enclosed within a building or placed underground.

Sounds like a good idea, but what are you going to do when there is simply not enough room for cars? People are not likely to stop driving just for this factor.

9. In order to promote the aesthetic quality of the community and to combat the urban "heat island" effect, property owners will be granted tax credits in exchange for planting trees.

Where? only on their own properties? This seems like people will start shoving in as many trees as possible to avoid taxes, even if it could later create problems.

10. Developers will also receive tax credits for constructing basements in new houses. Basements are useful for music, home gyms, mechanical projects, extra bedrooms, etc, and should be encouraged.

11. The gas tax will be raised, or replaced entirely with a vehicle mileage tax.

10 and 11 are the best two things on this list.

13. Palm trees shall be banned due to their excessive ugliness and the lack of shade they provide.

This is a very opinionated statement. I like Palm trees, and as someone else said, they are food providing plants.

14. Acquiring and maintaining a driver's license will be far more difficult than it currently is. The drivers test will be harder. Those who do not graduate high school or acquire a GED shall not drive. Anybody convicted of driving while intoxicated shall have their license suspended for two years minimum, and permanently for a second offense. Hit and run offenders will lose their license permanently. Convicted felons will lose their license permanently. Speeders will lose their license for six months -- their suspension time will be doubled for every subsequent offense. However, those who do not qualify for a standard drivers license will have the opportunity to pass an easier test for a license to drive a low-speed vehicle (namely, the type not allowed on highways, such as scooters, golf carts, "neighborhood electrical vehicles", etc).

This may be one of the single most ridiculous paragraphs ever typed on bike forums. First, I will once again note, their is very little correlation between having a license and driving, people drive regardless. Second, what does your education level have to with the ability to operate a vehicle? These are two totally separate issues, and borderline prejudicial. Third, no licenses for convicted felons? Are you effing serious? If the crime was homicide by use of a motor vehicle or something, I could understand. Why in the world do you think it would be more prudent to make it more difficult to reintegrate these people into society? And considering they have already committed at least one felony, do you suppose unlicensed driving is going to be at the top of the list of worries? That seriously has to be one of the worst ideas ever. I agree about your statements about intoxicated drivers to an extent, but what about the children of these people? What are they going to do when the parent can no longer get to work? More strain on them, and eventually the society and economy. Your ideas of punishment for speeding is far too harsh, especially when accounting for issues like speedometer issues and things of that nature. Your last idea is also a bad one, if people can't get a normal license, is it really safe to have them driving around at 25mph in golf carts and such? Do you really want someone who's drunk coming at you going 25mph in a golf cart? This is not a good idea, considering this is supposed to be a safe place for pedestrians and cyclists. I'd much rather have someone get in an accident on the highway then in a busy city area.


.....

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Right, no need to hate, eh? :rolleyes:

Yes, that was indeed the joke. Maybe I should spoon feed you all my jokes by putting little ironic smily faces in my posts?

I realize that we are talking about ideals here but this is LCF so I thought I would mention a little bit about sustainability. Like I said, country is not my thing. Go live out with the inbred, white trash, isolated, anti-social, nothing to do, watch the wheat grow, no services, gossip ridden small towns if you want to. I prefer the city with people and things to do.

No need to hate on people with city preferences or people with country preferences. Im just saying that one is unsustainable on a large scale.

I side with Machka on this one.

Sometimes it is time to toss the Fertilizer Flag. This insistence on big cities is getting a bit oppressive. We talk about LCF as being better for nature but if we don’t enjoy nature what good is it? Big city living has its place but it sure isn’t natural. It is 100 percent man made of Glass, steel and concrete. How many big city dwellers even know they could see the Seven Sisters better known as the Pleiades, with the naked eye? It is true without all that light pollution we have a sky above us that is beautiful to observe. In the winter you can look at Orion’s belt and without a telescope detect a Nebula and with a good pair of binoculars you can see two right about where the sword is.

There are animals that actually live in the wild and places you can park your bike without locking it up. Hard to believe I know. I happen to live where there are dairy farms and fruit orchards and bank clerks that know you first name. I can ride to a lake to fish or go to the hardware store by bike if I wish. There are even streets not that far from me where kids can still play catch in the street. :eek:

All you have to do is fly over the country and you will see we have plenty of room to live with nature rather than build glass and steel fortresses trying to hold nature at arms length. The Big cities look like giant spot lights or hot spots pointing to the sky in defiance of nature. If we ever have to live like Blade Runner or THX1138 then why live? How much heat do we believe a large city reflects back into the sky and change weather patterns? I don’t know but since the question was what was my ideal city it would not be one as anti nature as a large City. I have no problem with people wishing to avoid nature and living in a big city but I wish they would be content with living there themselves and stop trying to convince the people that are free to enjoy a little less concrete and steel that somehow we are missing something. If we can’t even agree on the idea, “to each his own” how in the world are we ever going to see a change in this world? :crash:

Yes, that was indeed the joke. Maybe I should spoon feed you all my jokes by putting little ironic smily faces in my posts?

You are the joker. Keep posting your stereotyped baloney and later post that you were only kidding; only a fool takes any of your posts as the product of a person who knows the difference between reality and fantasy.

You are the joker. Keep posting your stereotyped baloney and later post that you were only kidding; only a fool takes any of your posts as the product of a person who knows the difference between reality and fantasy.

:deadhorse:
Sounds like another personal attack.... yet again.

Sounds like a good idea, but what are you going to do when there is simply not enough room for cars? People are not likely to stop driving just for this factor.

It isn't really my aim to stop people from driving. Plus, developers still would have the right to construct parking facilities for those who demand it -- they just wouldn't be required to.

I was also thinking that requiring all parking lots to be enclosed within buildings or underground would be very punitive toward small businesses that have outdoor parking lots with about ten spaces or so. I might have to reconsider that one.



This is a very opinionated statement. I like Palm trees, and as someone else said, they are food providing plants.
I already backed off that one earlier in the thread. I think they're ugly, but I guess I could just avoid them by living in colder climate like I do now.



This may be one of the single most ridiculous paragraphs ever typed on bike forums. First, I will once again note, their is very little correlation between having a license and driving, people drive regardless. Second, what does your education level have to with the ability to operate a vehicle? These are two totally separate issues, and borderline prejudicial. Third, no licenses for convicted felons? Are you effing serious? If the crime was homicide by use of a motor vehicle or something, I could understand. Why in the world do you think it would be more prudent to make it more difficult to reintegrate these people into society? And considering they have already committed at least one felony, do you suppose unlicensed driving is going to be at the top of the list of worries? That seriously has to be one of the worst ideas ever. I agree about your statements about intoxicated drivers to an extent, but what about the children of these people? What are they going to do when the parent can no longer get to work? More strain on them, and eventually the society and economy. Your ideas of punishment for speeding is far too harsh, especially when accounting for issues like speedometer issues and things of that nature. Your last idea is also a bad one, if people can't get a normal license, is it really safe to have them driving around at 25mph in golf carts and such? Do you really want someone who's drunk coming at you going 25mph in a golf cart? This is not a good idea, considering this is supposed to be a safe place for pedestrians and cyclists. I'd much rather have someone get in an accident on the highway then in a busy city area.

Eh...maybe you're right -- one of my friends who grew up in a rural area told me that most people who have had their license taken away drive anyway. We'll just stick with the 30 mph in-city speed limit (on surface streets, not highways) and getting rid of local express freeways (namely, the ones that don't serve the purpose of transport to and from other metro areas).

Thanks for your comments. Here are my revisions. Now all I have to do is ascend from my role as a lowly office slave to dictator. Until then, this is all intellectual w@nkery, I realize.

1. Interconnected street networks shall be mandated. For every arterial street, a two-lane 25 mph route must run roughly parallel to it -- it must have wide outside lanes and and sidewalks to enable the free movement of cyclists and pedestrians.

2. The maximum speed limit within cities will be 30 mph. No street will be wider than four lanes. Three lane streets with center turn lanes will be preferred.

3. All developed lots must meet a 15 to 20 percent green space requirement.

4. Zoning codes will be loosened to allow the construction of cottages, small-lot homes, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in residential areas.

5. All "local highways" and expressways that don't serve the purpose of connecting one metropolitan area to another (i.e., non-interstate highways), will be torn down and replaced with surface streets. Interstate highways and railroad tracks must have underpasses or overpasses every quarter mile to enable easy crossing.

6. Developers shall not be mandated to provide parking spaces on site, although they will not be prohibited from doing so. If this leads to a lack of on-street parking, metering in the area shall be implemented -- fees will be adjusted for demand levels.

7. Mixed-use commercial/residential shall be permitted on busy streets.

8. Rail shall be constructed with separate right-of-ways to enable its speedy passage.

9. In order to promote the aesthetic quality of the community and to combat the urban "heat island" effect, property owners will be granted tax credits in exchange for planting one to three trees on their property.

10. Developers will also receive tax credits for constructing basements in new houses. Basements are useful for music, home gyms, mechanical projects, extra bedrooms, etc, and should be encouraged.

11. The gas tax will be raised, or replaced entirely with a vehicle mileage tax.

12. In the interest of preserving views and sunlight and preventing overcrowding, buildings taller than three floors will only be allowed on main arterial streets. Buildings taller than five floors will only be allowed in designated "city centers". Towers will be constructed mostly of glass, and there will be minimum space requirements between them.

13. The creation of parks and trails shall be encouraged. Planting street trees will be encouraged and funded by city governments.

Third, no licenses for convicted felons? Are you effing serious? If the crime was homicide by use of a motor vehicle or something, I could understand. Why in the world do you think it would be more prudent to make it more difficult to reintegrate these people into society?

Really? We don't let convicted felons have guns, yet cars kill more people than guns every year in the US and still anyone with half a brain can drive a car.

Cars are the #1 killer of children over 3 years old in the US and we are more than willing to ban almost anything else "for the children"... but not cars.

Now, I don't really care if felons can own cars or guns (as long as they aren't violent felons). But I sure do wish our laws were rational and consistent.

PS- All felonies used to be violent crimes. It is relatively recently that we have a bunch of non-violent felons clogging our penal system.

That's all the people here (my coworkers, my fellow students) seem to do ... drinking in bars, at home, wherever. The big exciting thing seems to be going out and getting smashed on the weekends.

For me, "things to do" include things like ...

-- cycling here, there, and everywhere (this is, after all a cycling forum ... it's why we're here). I've cycled pretty much everywhere within about a 100 km radius of my current place of residence ... as well as several places throughout my province ... as well as many places in my country and throughout the world. And I'm still cycling because there's a lot to see out there!

-- checking out interesting-looking museums, shops, view points, etc. etc. often found in small towns out in the middle of nowhere. A lot of my city friends don't know that these places exist, but they're fascinating. So much history.

-- other sports such as swimming, cross-country skiing, weightlifting, hiking ....

I can do these things in a city, but I can also do them in the country ... and when it comes to cycling, I greatly prefer to do that in the country.

There's certainly nothing wrong with you and others preferring the country to the city.

But the topic was to imagine the ideal city. I'd be interested to hear what, if anything, could be done to make cities more attractive to people like you. I know you don't want to live in the city, but what would make you want even to visit a large city for a few days? Or, at the very least, what would make cities more tolerable if you were forced to spend some time in one?

Really? We don't let convicted felons have guns, yet cars kill more people than guns every year in the US and still anyone with half a brain can drive a car.

Cars are the #1 killer of children over 3 years old in the US and we are more than willing to ban almost anything else "for the children"... but not cars.

Now, I don't really care if felons can own cars or guns (as long as they aren't violent felons). But I sure do wish our laws were rational and consistent.

PS- All felonies used to be violent crimes. It is relatively recently that we have a bunch of non-violent felons clogging our penal system.

Most motor vehicle killings are not intentional murder. I don't know of any reason to believe that roads would be safer if ex-felons--even violent ones--weren't allowed to drive. Do you?