I-Like-To-Bike

A municipality changing a traffic pattern or on street parking is one thing, permanently prohibiting motor traffic on a residential street over the homeowners' objections is an altogether different situation and extremely unlikely to occur anywhere in the U.S. in the foreseeable future.

wahoonc

I know of many a downtown area that did away with car traffic for several blocks, in many cases it has since been reversed. Don't recall any residential areas. I believe that the pedestrian mall in downtown Iowa City used to be city streets quite a few years ago, they are also talking about increasing the amount of the mall area ie: restricting traffic and in some cases removing it all together.

Aaron

overbyte

No argument. But the city could remove a car lane, still leaving at least 1-way access by car, and use that lane for bikes, with a barrier between traffic and bike lanes, like this one in Chicago:

New Bike Lanes Help Steer Cyclists To Chicago Bike Week Rally « CBS Chicago

or this one:

Will CDOT and CTA Launch ?True BRT? on the Central Loop Corridor? | Streetsblog Chicago

overbyte

Sacramento's experiment with closing the downtown K Street and making it a pedestrian mall failed. The pedestrians that frequented the place were the homeless. Businesses failed due to unsavory characters walking around and lack of visibility to drivers-by. The city re-opened it to traffic. Here's the news story: Sacramento businesses, shoppers, celebrate return of cars to K St. | news10.net

I-Like-To-Bike

We are in agreement though neither of your examples portrays permanently changing a traffic pattern on a residential street.

timmythology

It can be done in the US, but in order to accomplish it a group will have to organize and develop a Transportation Restricted Community. As a new development built through private dollars the organization should be able to form a clause that restricts the use and purpose of transportation used in the community.

overbyte

Where I live, Santa Cruz, California, there are examples where the city blocked cars from entering at one end of a residential street, only allowing egress there, turned the street into a 1-way, so that patrons of a new big-box drug store would only have access from the main boulevard on which the store fronts, not through a residential neighborhood. Here's a Google Maps location link of such a street, showing the blockage by plantings across the full width of the street at the drug store's side, only allowing a pedestrian sidewalk.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=36.96586...01549&t=h&z=20
At the other end of the block on that residential street, the ingress side of the street is similarly blocked but the egress side is unchanged. Residents have access from a side street, to the 1-way street, which used to be a normal 2-way street. The city is doing a similar blockage and re-routing at 2 other streets where a large medical clinic is under construction, so patients would only be able to reach the clinic from the main frontage, not through a residential neighborhood. If the city can do this for traffic flow, they can do similar things for bicycle routes.

I-Like-To-Bike

Can you provide a reference or link to a single successful residential development in the U.S that prohibits homeowners the use of privately owned vehicles to access their own residence?

fietsbob

No but Freiberg on the Rhine has some developments that do .. there is, as I understand ,
parking but its not directly in front of the building ..

prathmann

Not quite what you asked for, but Portland is building some apartment buildings without car parking spaces:
New bike-friendly 'micro-apartments': 200 square feet and no car parking | BikePortland.org
So they aren't for 'homeowners' but they don't provide parking places for the apartment residents.

B. Carfree

Many people in Oregon are watching with interest as PDX allows more and more developers to put in multi-housing units without providing what has long been considered a normal number of parking units. I find it entertaining that people think they own the on-street parking in front of their houses and are furious when either someone parks there or when it is proposed that it be removed. I'll admit that I don't like it when people park in front of my house either, but I just don't care much for cars. If I could remove the parking in front of my house I would do it in a heartbeat.

timmythology

Can you provide a law that would prohibit me from using private dollars from developing what ever I would like in the US? If I want a car free community, I would use private dollars to purchase land that would be redeveloped into a private community. As a private community you can provide restrictions as long as you can sell others on that idea, and have them buy into the development. So unless you can provide me with a law in the US that prohibits private development for a specif population, I will stand by it can be done.

I am not a believer that the government is the only entity that can impact change. I would rather develop from scratch than spend 50 years trying to convince others to live with my life style choice.

I believe the current legal term in the US for a private community is GATED. READ

I-Like-To-Bike

I didn't say that your dreamy no motor vehicles allowed housing development idea could not be built. The reality is that nobody has done so and nobody will unless they (government or private investors) wish to build a residential housing development with few if any residents.

I-Like-To-Bike

You are correct, apartment buildings are NOT the subject of discussion.

I-Like-To-Bike

No is correct; Freiburg, a beautiful city where my daughter went to the University for two years, is NOT in the U.S.

fietsbob

the car, thanks to the pay to play politics of how elections are run, got the US torn down and rebuilt

around driving in a privatized transportation product ..

I-Like-To-Bike

Perhaps in some future paradise...(the rest deleted by me) Reason: to leave the OT political and anti-motoring chatter to others.

fietsbob

or the Judge in finding the collusion of Standard Oil, Firestone and GM , in the Guilty judgement from the Bench
said "now rebuild it" instead of a slap on the wrist Microfine for destroying US public trolley systems in major cities
Immediately after WW2.. which was The bomb maker but not actually bombed in the war..

Europe Used the Marshall Plan funds after the same War to rebuild their Tram systems .

ist the Corruption of Money in the US political system infecting the whole scheme.



Wouldn't you want to be the co owner and managing partner in your job?
and the company that pays you?

timmythology

Actual if you think it is a dream, thank you.

I would actually rather spend my time doing what I like to do. While others want to talk about subsidies and government money, I would rather work on a project that will be accomplished in five years, I just assume you have some type of plan and goal for yourself.

Once a goal is developed, it allows for a vision, which can be developed in both words and visual media. While I am not sure what you do, I know that once I can describe my idea and explain it in the language that the intended party uses I have a really high success rate. Yup I have a dream, like the individuals before me I have a dream that will allow for something different to be developed. I did not use weird or strange, I said different, and if you can not respect a difference in opinion on this. I will wish you a good year and may you find happiness in the same place you have always found it.

Freedom is also a dream and has been a focus for many books written over the years. Just remember that dreams are what actually count, because I would rather live to pursue my dream than live to the dream of my ancestors.

change is scary, exciting, and frustrating which is why I am looking forward to the next change.

I-Like-To-Bike

Let us know when you can raise $100 from anyone to begin the implementation of your car free project; perhaps you should try Kickstarter, don't forget to post the URL for your project here.

timmythology

Really is that all you can really come up with? Wow, I really had much higher expectations from you.

Just disappointing, but here's another really bad picture I took and would like to share with you, hope you understand.



Have a nice day.

B. Carfree

Hmm, I heard words to this effect when Village Homes was being built back in the '70s. People just like you were certain that no one would want a house in a development where no one was allowed to have a fence, most of the homes were attached to others, the yards were minuscule (but there was substantial open space so that the average number of dwellings/acre was the same as contemporary developments), most of the homes didn't have garages, many of them didn't even have a driveway that one could park in, the sidewalks didn't even have streets and there were homeowner dues to boot. Surprisingly enough, those houses still sell at a premium.

I suspect that a car-free development could also have a host of people flocking to it, and I might just be one of them. However, it will have to be built in a region that has a culture in which people do not fear setting trends. I think that means Iowa and other flyover states won't see any such thing until long after you are gone.

I-Like-To-Bike

Are you referring to the THREE homes built 40 years ago in Davis that you mentioned previously in this thread as Village Homes? That is your idea of a successful car free residential housing development? And the history of these three houses demonstrate the likely success ("host of people flocking to it") for future housing development projects in the U.S.?

If so, I guess anything is possible then in housing development trends with such an analysis.

Edit: The Village Homes in Davis that can be found on the Web does have streets with the homes on various cul-de-sacs and the owners do have auto access to their homes. What it doesn't have is sidewalks.

Roody

Most of what I know about living in Manhattan I learned from the Seinfeld show. They didn't have any parking in or around their apartment building, so they paid to park on the street or rented a space in a nearby parking lot/garage. Several episodes were premised on this parking situation.

Also, a guy on BF once mentioned that he lived in central Boston and had to pay to park at a structure a couple blocks from his apartment.

My point is, you keep saying that no "carfree" housing development could ever be commercially viable in America. But it looks to me like millions of people already live in carfree housing, and pay some of the highest rents in the country for that carfree privilege.

B. Carfree

Look again. Read again. First of all, every house in Village Homes can be reached by sidewalk. The sidewalks are on the opposite side of the houses from the streets. Second of all, when it was built in the late '70s, not every house had parking on its lot, although there were always some spaces somewhere on the street. Those cul-de-sacs are actually roads that go thru, but they only go through for people who are not in a car.

I did not describe Village Homes as a car-free development. I said that it introduced several novel features in a suburban housing development that many naysayers thought would cause it to fail. Rather than fail, it has been a longstanding success.

Those same sort of people who couldn't see the appeal of something like Village Homes (and likely didn't see any advantage to developing textiles, agriculture or housing of any sort in our species' past), can be found naysaying the notion of car-free developments today. Rational people will ignore them, as usual, and we will move on. Times change, People learn. Often, we apply what we learn and try new things. Some of them improve the human condition. Curmudgeons complain every step of the way and attempt to belittle those who articulate a better tomorrow. By all means, please continue to fill your role.