As an American, it struck me how similar these suburbs are to many of our college campuses. It makes no sense to me why most Americans accept that dense, walkable neighborhoods are great for college students, but somehow only for them and not any other populations
College campuses are built to facilitate social mixing between residents to help students integrate into the educational establishment of which they're a part. As far as I can tell, American suburbs are built with pretty-much the opposite philosophy in mind.
@@EdamL22 Exactly right. American suburbs were built in order to give white people a place to run away from everyone else, both by cost and by legal fiat, and while that kind of attitude is considered distasteful now, it's still quite influential, and that's not even taking into account how so many of the people in positions of power in the US are older than the civil rights movement.
@@EdamL22 It's almost like Americans want to live like little aristocrats with as big of a house as possible surrounded by a big yard to keep the plebs at a distance. Sort of like your own Feudal estate. It's so weird to find such a classist society in the new world.
Suburbs were designed not necessarily just to segregate people, but segregation was definitely in mind. It’s self perpetuating though because people who grow up in it become anxious and hateful and that’s a recipe for segregation.
@@Bertuzz84 The American suburban design originated in Detroit catering to the car manufacturers there. Detroit was the most robust American city during the great depression, so everyone in the US copied Detroit after WWII with federal backing. Racial segregation and the auto industry were also major reasons for the building of American suburbia.
I’ve been telling people about the downsides of road-based suburbs and sprawl without being able to give many real examples of what else to do. I’m really glad to see this video :))
Great video as always, I've always said that having a lawn is dumb when its better to just share all of that land with neighbors as a huge park instead, you've proven that tenfold
@@brennanruiz1803 pragmatically though, even if you did share your lawn, one large green space the size of 100 lawns is way more usable than 100 separate laws divided by driveways and such
Sharing!? Land!? You're trying to import communism with these *exaggerated quotation fingers* "European methods" - Sean Carlson or Tucker Hannity or someone
@@Shulwelld yeah, exactly. I’m not using the land, so why have it be private property? Build houses closer together, have more contiguous green space, make it public, and maximize use of the land.
I live in a normal U.S. city neighborhood, with single-family homes and some apartment buildings, with some businesses, the Mississippi, a large park with a falls and close to buses, bike lanes and a train. When I drive out to the suburbs I can't believe the traffic, the sprawl, the absence of bicycles, pedestrians, humans, the ugliness, the asphalt parking lots, the crumby mini-malls, the 'stroads,' the freeways and interchanges. All based on cars, cars, cars.
@@berrysummers4323 Perhaps you have reading difficulties. I already live in the city. Unfortunately for you, the city and suburbs are part of a community, which means what happens in the suburbs affects those in the city and visa versa - financially, environmentally, time wise, etc.
Goal of the video: to get American and Canadians motivated to make better cities and suburbs Me, an American after watching all these urban planning videos: “why do I still live here” lol
@@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920 I don't think it's all that unfair for someone to consider just leaving though. This isn't exactly a huge movement or popular perspective, and it's gonna take time to get it off the ground. Some people just want to live better lives sooner, and can't afford to wait or to invest their spare energy into helping spread the ideal.
@@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920 how though? It seems that the only way to improve things is by having money or leaving. Here where I live, master planned communities are being built left and right. I wish I had the money to build my own community that resembles the suburbs of this video. But unfortunately, I'm poor. If it were possible for groups of people to come together and build a community like the subjects of this video, then that would be great. Unfortunately, no bank is going to loans millions of dollars to groups of poor people who have no intention of making a profit, just building a place they can raise their kids in that's walkable and livable.
@@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920 sorry, I’m 25. I’d rather not wait for this hick ass country that insists on doing everything in the worst way possible for as long as possible, to transform its entire infrastructure.
To every fellow North American reading this, whenever suburbanites or suburbanite-minded people complain about density being somehow incompatible with quality life, make this video a must-show to them and spread the word.
Every single complaint about urbanism and middle density is a projection from the NIMBYs. Low Density suburbs are incompatible with a good quality of life.
I agree with you completly. I grew up in the burbs, went in the military and then move between big cities (Jersey, phili, DC etc.) What I loved about city life was the easy availablily to make a quick run down the block from work perhaps for food or socializing. Living on base was very much like living in a small city. I miss that. In my current suburb, there is a grocery less than than a 3 min drive from my home. I could walk or bike but we have no side walks. Go figure. So every few days, I drive two minutes to grab a gallon of mile. It makes no sence.
That's exactly what I was thinking actually! "Huh, those just look like really really nice, well maintained military bases" Everything was walkable, for the most part, we all had places to go if we wanted private/quiet time, but there were plenty of amenities, we always had people to be around which was good at easing depression and loneliness, we learned how to interact with all kinds of people which eased anxiety, everywhere on base was walkable and bikeable, and at almost every base I was on there were buses either on and off the base, or right at the gate for easy access to the closest city/town. The only issue was everything being a little run down because the DOD would rather give money to contractors than their actual military personnel.
Oh hey,Freiburg is my hometown. I grew up seeing the construction of Rieselfeld from my balcony. I also remember cycling past the Gaskugel, to the large park full of playgrounds and a BMX park, which are also just in literal spitting distance of Rieselfeld. I've been living in the North American (semi)-suburbian stroad wasteland for years now, and more and more I'm realizing how much I miss the ability to just hop onto a tram and be anywhere quick and easy. Especially recently having all our vaccine shots, me and friends started meeting in person for D&D games again. And getting together, squeezing a bunch of cars into a driveway, it's the most annoying thing. And if we wanna get something to eat, not wanting to have to spend all the effort and time heading out like we're going on an expedition, we are essentially forced to pay extra to have it all delivered.
Great to see you highlighting how much land would need to be covered at US densities. Urban Sprawl is psychotic, the idea that anyone could look at such a proposal and greenlight it is deeply worrying.
Yeah it could only really happen to this extent in the US and Canada just because of how sparse the population is compared to large parts of the rest of the world
@@craigstephenson7676 the only reason it’s so sparse is specifically because Jefferson and Jackson had grand dreams of white homesteaders each having their own large plot of farmland to live off of, and decided that the land west of Appalachia was actually “ours” (white capital owners) now. even vast “empty” land still serves an IMMENSE ecological purpose, think about siberia or the sahara. there is no reason other than pure, self centered greed that sprawl like this occurs.
@@brhim5731 Yup, America's wasteful land use is a legacy of its settler colonial past (and present). Private land ownership was promoted largely to occupy as much land as possible with white people so that the native peoples got displaced further and further west.
America and Canada hasn’t populated out yet, they could easily support double the population. Sprawl makes sense, it’s cheaper than building up by about 10X. Also people don’t have kids in cramped apartments, that’s why Europe has a demographic crisis, they’re running out of young people. Every economic system relies on the concept of more people, capitalism communism facism socialism.
Can I just say I love the idea of different kinds of price levels in a single apartment complex. Keeps communities from becoming too segregated, and also for that matter allows you to pick a cheaper or more expensive apartment without having to leave the neighbourhood.
Yeah. But you have to change the culture and mindsets of some middle class or up people saying providing cheap homes near them is "bringing the property value down". That sounds like classism and prejudice to the poor too. That comes from middle class and regular people too. Not just rich people.
Thank you so much for this video. As an American myself, I agree that American suburbs are horribly inefficient and isolating but I also don’t want to live in an apartment. I want a little more space and privacy than that. This is the first time I’ve seen a housing solution that fits exactly what I would want. There is a solution out there and it makes it all the more frustrating that American cities seem unwilling to try solutions like these.
To make you even more frustrated: the predecessor (where you see a lot of the traits these suburbs have but with more car infrastructure and maybe a little bit more private green space) of these kinds of developments are the standard in almost the whole of Europe. America really did it's citizens dirty with how bad their neighborhoods are designed.
You will likely find 2-3 stories tall housing in most European suburbs, and very commonly you will find Terraced houses, where you have an almost non existing front yard and a tiny back yard, and is basically just more dense single family homes. There are also some real single family housing, but the houses tend to not be larger than the terraced houses and the planned areas for those are not larger than described in the video. The single family houses slowly gets pushed further and further away as part of gentrification and many of the people living pretty close by the central areas in a 1960's or 1950's house is complaining about the 2-5 story buildings coming up all around until they move or gets bought out and that plot gets the same design change. There are just fewer and fewer in Europe who wants to commute while being stuck in traffic and would much prefer some of those green suburban designs even if it means living an apartment in a 3 story apartment building over a single family home.
As somebody in the planning and architecture profession, a lot of us are annoyed too at the calcified zoning and planing institution unwilling to move to facilitate good projects like the ones stated above. Even more problematically, we've been trying to make stuff like this happen since the 90's, and in some cases, since the 70's. There's people out there doing good work despite this, but there are immense challenges to doing it in the US.
U might want to check out the "missing middle" videos that NotJustBikes & OhTheUrbanity have on TH-cam. They talk about cities that have preserved their neighborhoods (that existed before the automobile) have an interesting mix of housing options.
One really noticeable thing in North American suburbs is how unnecessarily damn wide the streets are, making most of the land paved. They could easily be half the width and one way, which would already densify it 2x, while still keeping single family homes. Another improvement can come by simply deleting half the streets and converting them to foot/bicycle paths (means the owners have to park further). Another possibility is narrow but tall houses (E.g. 4 story).
@@nataliekhanyola5669 If I can bring a large commercial vehicle into a narrow street, I think an SUV and pick up could fit as well. The neighborhoods that I find work quite well for some US cities are the stilt houses that have 3 or more floors and allow for traffic to flow out of garages. The homes themselves open up to massive forward facing streets that cars can't access.
@Hobbit Girl ... this very video includes Scandinavian cities. I think they understand the concept of snow and road clearance. Obviously this can be managed.
The city with the most snowfall on earth is actually toyama in japan and they don't have oversized roads so I don't think that that's necessary. There is also a lot of other examples in europe where there's a lot of snow but normal sized roads.
A (relatively good) commuter/regional rail service in my (American) metro area has ample opportunity to grow suburbs like these all around their stations, especially because many of these stations are surrounded by parking lots and, in some cases, empty land. Recently, a private company proposed a plan to one city's council where they want to take the land they own around the city's station (currently occupied by a few offices and roads) and build a walkable, transit-oriented community, complete with grocery stores, small businesses, offices, and even a school. It's met gigantic backlash from local residents, saying that there is "no more room" and that traffic would exponentially increase because, as one commenter put it, "it's nice to think that everyone would ride the train to work, but that won't happen because this isn't NYC, everyone drives. More people means more cars which means less safe roads for our kids." This private company wants to build new, even affordable homes in an area experiencing a housing crisis, and the local residents can't see anything but the possibility of seeing a few more cars speeding down their incredibly wide roads. I just want to sit all these nay-saying people that, frankly, lack the ability to imagine a life outside their cars down and show them this video. Car-centric communities are a choice, and a choice that is continually made over and over again to the point where it swallows our environment whole. These communities showcased here sound like amazing places to live in, much better than the sterile, car-centric neighborhoods that exist where I live today.
There are naive people or people who say they're too busy taking care of their family to care, but Not Just Bikes talked about that North American law forbids building certain houses near businesses. Not cause everyone wants that. There's American comments on NJB saying they dislike America's city design or want to migrate out.
I have lived in an apartment block in a former Soviet country, and in several typical Swedish apartment suburbs with a somewhat "grey" look. It's a decent way to live. Now I live in a somewhat more aesthetic apartment suburb. Still in a city owned rental apartment. The challenge lies in the affordability. All of these are cheap to build, but all these private developers want to make a good buck on this whole project, which drives up the cost of living in such new developments. They become communities where only upper middle class people live. And the less nice suburbs (but frankly, often quite nice) becomes places where poverty and other social problems are concentrated. The private developers have been so good at charging more and providing less, that they have decreased productivity over time, so in spite of newer technology and methods, stagnant or lower wages for the people building these projects, they provide less housing for the same amount of money (corrected for inflation). Just as the public could commission this project, I believe, they should also realize it. Else it is simply a breeding ground for corruption, where the people who should make responsible decisions about new development, commission idyllic, but economically inaccessible new developments. We need to fight back against ghettos and elysiums.
I've heard the same from some other residents in post-Soviet countries--private developers vaguely emulate the old Soviet developments, but don't provide as many services while charging more money. I think we have a lot to learn from how the USSR and its bloc built neighborhoods back in the day.
Also the buildings they make are actually kinnda shit as they cut cost everywhere. It looks nice but has flaws all over. I have a friend who is tile layer and he tells me that two out of three new houses when he uses laser to measure out the room for tiles he has to bring a cutter and cut down the tiles because the room itself is not perfectly rectangular.
@@EcoGecko Now that I have lived in Sweden for more than 20 years, is that Sweden could also learn a lot from its own previous successes! I see here a slow motion version of the collapse of basic social functions, which we had in former USSR in the 90s. These things don't happen for no reason, because they happen to be very profitable to some very few (both in former USSR and in Sweden). If it is of interest, I can say that many cities have a company with "city owned" rental apartments. By registering in these companies queues, you usually get a "point" for every day you are registered in the queue. When an apartment becomes available, you can register your interest for that apartment, and the person with the most points gets the apartment. When you get the apartment, your points are reset to zero. The rents, both in these (at least partially) publicly owned apartments, and in privately owned rental apartments, are regulated, so they need to be in some proportion to the economic abilities of the citizens. So far so good, but the issue lies in the fact that there are not enough apartments in relation to demand, so more and more people, who have the means, are pushed in to buying an apartment or a house in the suburban sprawl. They have though recently made rents unregulated for new developments. They also tried to do the same for old apartments, but luckily that didn't go through. The argument is that if it is more profitable to build rental apartments, there will be more rental apartments built. We haven't seen that so far. In reality it is easier to increase the rents, rather than to build new apartments. And if you build new more expensive rental apartments, then only upper middle class people will be able to afford them, and they don't want to waste all that money on rent. They will for the same amount of money buy an apartment or a house.
@@Turtle1631991 In the last apartment I lived in, just before we moved in, they had to redo a bathroom, because when the original bathroom was built, local companies competed (because competition is always a good thing?) amongst themselves, trying to determine who could finish most bathrooms in a given period of time. So that bathroom wasn't properly done, and there was extensive water damage.
@@dempa3 We have a somewhat similar system in Denmark where you have to pay a yearly fee to be in the queue for housing. As every city has its own queue (and sometimes multiple queues) it can get quite expensive if you want to keep opportunities open in all major cities. That has pushed a lot of people into either owning their own apartments or moving into the suburbs, leading to the usual problems with the slow migration of people out of the city and gentrification of more and more areas. Getting an apartment within the five major cities is now a pipe dream for many. There aren't enough apartments to begin with, and while new ones are being build they're privately financed which ensures that the rent is too high for many of us. And now the same process is being seen in other cities around the country. The government has promised to build more affordable housing for a long time, but little is being done. Meanwhile, private companies are building and building and building... Sometimes it makes me wonder just how much large companies like Blackstone are "greasing the wheels"... There is a growing resistance to this as the gap between owners and renters is growing bigger, but it's nowhere near enough to force the government to change their policy.
I basically spent my whole childhood in Rieselfeld, Freiburg and only moved out of my parent's house last year to study in a different city. I remember having a great time playing tag and "cops and robber" (Räuber und Gendarm) with 10 to 20 other kids in the whole city district all day long since we weren't frightened by the sparse traffic which is limited to 30 km/h. The school, grocery stores, your local kabap, even the forest was within a walkable distance, if you had a bike (which most of us did) it was a matter of 1-3 minutes. The only thing that took me way to long to figure was that the tram was the least efficient way to travel to the city centre for me and once I used my bike it took me only 20min and saved me 10-15min and 2,40€ (2,70$) per trip. However in my experience most car owners will use their vehicle even for short distance trips because it (sadly) is still the most convenient and fastest way to travel in and out of Rieselfeld.
Most Americans in my opinion, don't even use all the space they have in their homes or land their homes are on. Most of the time, if not all the time, they spends their time in a few rooms in the house, and rarely go outside in the back yard or the front yard.
@@liegemkw And when he talks about the positives it’s almost always just simping for the Netherlands. But he did do a good video on streetcar suburbs which was nice.
@@justanotheryoutubechannel I didn't get Not Just Bikes overhyping the Netherlands. And if their city design is good and accommodates other modes of transportation like walking, biking, and public transportation why shouldn't use that as a shining example?
I like how I grew up in neighbourhoods like these and just assumed this was how you normally build a city, the fact that other countries are NOT doing that is kind of baffling to me
Unfortunately, like Not Just Bikes talked about, some North Americans are naive and think cars equals "advancement, culture, identity, pride, or the safest". Or think accommodating other modes of transportation is expensive. When America gives too much taxes to the military, among other things. Some people are just stuck in what they're used to. NJB also talked about how some North Americans bully bikers or people who don't drive. There's punishment passes which drivers punish bikers (or even pedestrians) by driving too close to them, even touching some of them, or blowing car smoke in their faces. NJB showed videos of that as well. Public transportation there is also belittled, and thus unreliable.
@@berrysummers4323 Although most of our cities consist mainly of suburbs, the good thing about Australian cities is that there tends to be denser mixed used developments near public transport hubs, even deep in suburbia. Although I agree that having a house and backyard is great, and I personally prefer it, zoning laws in the US should be relaxed a bit outside city centres to at least allow those who want to live in denser areas more choices, instead of only building single family homes. For example here in Australia, townhouses, duplexes and small units are generally allowed to be built next to houses.
@@night6724 My magesty, your Versailles castle housed between 3 000 (at the begenning) up to 10 000 (at his current size) during your reign. Even a high man of culture as yourself is a living proof that density is preferable to suburban spall.
That's amazing to hear! I'd be curious to hear how it turns out. If they need any help with sources or anything like that, I'd be happy to help, tell them to feel free to DM me on Twitter or send me an email if they'd like.
@@EcoGecko Oh, sorry I replied so late, we already held it, but your video descriptions were our main way of getting good sources, so thank you for that. The presentation went pretty well.
Daly City, CA a suburb of San Francisco is a good example of a dense suburb in the US. Composed of small single family homes glued next to each other. Daly City is also centered around BART.
I’d love to see more videos about how developing countries should best develop their towns/cities and what current governments/companies are doing wrong.
In my (developing) country, residential development is basically directed by real estate developers that only builds two types of housing: gated community rowhouses for families or
@Anel Zukic Nah it is absolutely possible to build in a country where money is tight. I'm typing this from my 3 bedroom apartment in Kenya (4 story building), in a 4,000 ish housing development just like those in this video. The project was government driven, in an area a few clicks behind an old warehouse district, only 12 km from the city centre. And it's far from the such "estate" around here, there's quite a few. The biggest problem for us is public transit, which is a hilarious mess. Cycling is only for the incredibly brave (though its a very popular hobby for many), but the government is trying, albeit very slowly to remedy that.
@Anel Zukic Maybe I wasn't clear, but my place isn't in a new development. It was built in 1997. And there is public transport, just a minute's walk from my apartment actually. But public transport throughout the city, and country for that matter is seriously unappealing, only to be used if you absolutely must (you can search 'Kenya public transport' if you want to see what I mean). So I drive or take a taxi whenever I need to move around. Yeah ofcourse prices closer to the city centre are higher here as well, my previous 3 bedroom apartment a short walk from the city centre was about 3000 USD/month. The point that I was making in my previous post is that yes, there are several housing developments like those shown in this video in my developing country. They are very possible as long as there is government will. I'm curious though, in Sarajevo the local government is responsible for financing infrastructure?? Here in Kenya the central gvt builds, and then the local gvt is responsible for maintenance.
It's extremely important to build affordable family-friendly housing in a time of global aging caused by low birth rates. It's unfortunate that so few people take this threat seriously. Great projects and great video!
It's important to make living affordable _in general_ if you want people to stay alive. But I don't think the US is too concerned about that considering the kinds of people who are disproportionally affected by poverty and homelessness.
I was in Freiburg just a few months ago. It's a beautiful and walkable city. They sustained a lot of damage in WWII, but decided to rebuild along the original medieval streetplan.
Only 5 minutes in and I have to add something, seeing as I live in Denmark quite close to Galgebakken. There are 3 bus routes to the area and it is fast and easy to reach by bike as well, so cars are unnecessary. It is also technically not located in Copenhagen but in Albertslund, which is a smaller city almost on the edge of greater Copenhagen (it's called storkøbenhavn and includes 12~18 municipalities) Super cool to see Denmark in a video like this. I can totally see why there seems to be no difference between Copenhagen and Albertslund from an outside perspective, but they are separated by like 5 cities. It's a funny little tongue in cheek insult to call most of eastern Zealand Copenhagen. Sorry for the rant, I'm just excited to see Copenhagen pop up like this ❤
@@EcoGecko Greater Copenhagen is somewhat similar to how Greater London is. The "city" sort of endlessly continues and only the signs says that you entered a new municipality and only your postal code says that you are in a new city. The actual Copenhagen municipality mostly contains the city center area, but it also covers a few actual suburban areas a little further out of the center. And the only type of public transport to stay inside the Copehagen municipality is the metro, so the neighbouring municipalities are fully connected and basically just more suburban design. Hamburg is another city that have somehow merged together varies smaller cities so there are many "sub cities" in the continous suburban area.
Another absolutely fantastic video! Thank you for putting this together, super informative. Now to figure out what to do with this knowledge in my city.
@@night6724 proud patron supporter of this channel. Tbh I’m thinking about raising the donation. I’ve learned so much from this channel and am beginning to put some zoning pressure on the leaders in my city as a direct result. Love me some EcoGecko.
@@night6724 lol what. I’m not aware of any lies. Care to cite some sources on that? The channel author has extensively. Some extremely fine scholarship by TH-cam standards.
@@night6724 then you will have no problem offering them up. Or are you using the MyPillow guy tactic? Saying you have plenty of sources and never produce any of them. Plus Eco's sources are used in the video when he highlights specific numbers.
Another option is to reduce minimum sq ft requirements for SFH. My city requires a minimum of 2,400 sq ft. There are parking requirements, setback and lot lines that reduce density and add costs. In addition to the ideas suggested here build SFH with no basement, no garage, remove seatback requirements and reduce user fees. To build a SFH in my City you add on over $25,000 in City fees.
While I agree that our idea of zoning being intended to separate land uses is incredibly unhelpful, I feel that the issue is more that that's the focus, rather than the extent of its power the way you depict. We absolutely should have zoning be utilized such that neighborhoods can have cafes and small stores a short walk away through the neighborhood, but planners also need to be able to utilize FARs (floor area ratios) and setbacks more flexibly than they have so far. Public transit and pedestrian/bike infrastructure also has to be worked on in parallel with development plans, rather than as an afterthought. You mentioned the demographics and how these neighborhoods skewed towards having more kids. While on the face of it that means that familys are moving there from elsewhere, I also wonder whether the neighborhood design also affects the birthrate via the social mixing and desirability of having kids in a given place. I would think that any information on that could also be desirable and useful, especially in the case of Europe, where many countries are heading to a decline in population, which of course creates a host of issues.
As far as I am aware (from the two examples in this video that I have directly lived close to), a lot of the newer younger people moving in are either citizens with immigrant background, students and young adults who just entered the workforce and dont own/are dependent on a car yet and a small part rural folk who have moved closer to the city for employment or other reasons (easier access to medical facilities for the eldery, new or better schools for the kids, etc) Overall though its quite mixed and I think the ratio of young to old is mainly skewed by the fact that older people (40 and above), tend to already have a family and/or a house/appartment which they fully own and thus are less inclined to move somewhere new
Chicago recently took five years to approve a 100% affordable development of a hundred homes here, and that was replacing a vacant parking lot next to a metro station with the local alderman in support. If the US wants to fix its housing problems, it needs to be able to build this stuff much more quickly.
I've seen some very nice houses and apartment units that are pre-built in a factory (no weather to deal with), then shipped on-site and assembled like giant Legos. They are also like Lego, in that they can have a fairly wide variety of sizes, shapes, and colors, so you could make some very non-homogenous neighborhoods with them. Still fairly new in USA with only maybe a handful of companies I've seen on TH-cam, but it looks very promising! :)
@@comrade_mikey6138 Or I did ahaha. But yeah in the biz, construction typically takes 20-30 months from site prep to substantial interior completion. Less for simple stuff like tract homes, or anything with a degree of prefabrication. And longer for really big projects. But yeah, typical design build cycle is roughly 5 years. 2-3 of planning, permitting, and finance, and 2-3 for the principle works. Being in architecture has a lot of delayed gratification.
I live in a small rowhouse in the Netherlands. Our north, north-east facing frontyard is 21m^2, with 6-7 of it paved. We have 1 medium tree (a willow), 3 small trees (a Japanese crabapple, a cherry and a Syringa), a lot of shrubs and a 2m^2 area that we seed with flower mixes each year. There's even a commensal fungus near the willow that makes mushrooms twice a year. The trees are all ones that attract a lot of insects, which means a lot of birds being fed. Partially because we are lazy, we leave all the leaves and dead plant matter on the ground, which is great for all sort of critters living in the soil, it regenerates the soil and it protects plants from frostbite (my guess is that the fungus doesn't mind either). It's awesome. I know that it's because of regulations spawned largely from a single man, but I will never get why suburbians are okay with their gardens being so bland. I've never seen anything like our frontyard in an American suburb, and that's a shame. That garden is really a tiny forest, with the ecological impact of one, too. Something that the suburbs could really do with. Just another small reason why that type of development is so bad.
I currently live in a developing neighbourhood in the Polish city of Wrocław and it made so many mistakes. The city decided to extend tram tracks at a later date, so we will be lucky to see them in 20 years. We were lucky to get bus lanes but busses still get stuck in traffic and they are never on time. Parks are 100m wide at most and rare. Besides parks, you only have agricultural fields and post-communist private gardening plots that are enclosed communities.
Living in Årsta south of Stockholm it is interesting that you included Skarpnäcksfältet in your video. The planning for this was started in the mid seventies, in that time I was an architect student at the Royal College of Technology (KTH), we read all the books by Jan Gehl and there were much discussions about this projekt. I remember that I was a bit critical but now I think it turned out quite good. One interesting (?) sidenote is that Skarpnäckfältet is politically very progressive - in the last local election the social democrats got 32%, the left (former communist) party 27% and the green party 8% giving a total of around 67% for the red/green block. I might be a bit tendisious, but one conclusion might be that if you build a community based on common values, people realize that capitalism is not the way forward! (But don´t tell this to the average american, he/she would probarbly reach for a gun...)
I don't really find any incompatibility with common community values and capitalism as it's not necessarily a philosophy and I don't think it would inherently create contrary interests as most humans seek the same things and can merely be a tool for economic growth. I think people are confusing behaviors of altruism and self-interest with socialism and capitalism.
The huge problem in America is the ignorant mindset that there are only two options: dirty, dense, loud noisy city (and they don't realize that the majority of "noise" comes from cars); or spread-out, sprawling, car-centric suburbia. But there are so many more options, and hard data demonstrate countless benefits for following those options, for people and for the environment. If North Americans had the gumption to peak overseas, they'd see all that possibility. (And I'm not using "ignorant" as an insult; I'm using it for its objective meaning of "lack of knowledge or awareness" because that's absolutely applicable for North America.)
Facts. You don't even have to look far to see this mindset in action, there's some people in this very comment section with the attitude of "dense = bad".
It seems to me that denser suburbs could also maybe solve issues of class divide between areas if it's paired with a comprehensive social housing scheme/housing collective systems. You aren't getting areas of the suburbs that are filled with massive and only expensive houses with lawns that are huge and private (that aren't friendly to wildlife like bees because they're literally just plain grass), and they are conducive to walking, cycling and public transport over cars, meaning they're open to lower income people as well as higher income people. Not only this but the denser areas mean you can have a sense of community because your home isn't demarcated away from your neighbors (and they're not far away with those huge and not eco friendly lawns), and there's walking paths unlike some american suburbs that have none with just roads and driveways.
^^Never Expected you to mention my hometown Freiburg xD. I have to say the streetcar system is pretty great here. Though a lot more could be done for our many cyclists. Just a small note though, I think economics is a large contributor to the social benefits. Riselfeld and especially Vauban are pretty expensive neighborhoods that attract a very specific clientele (Vauban people actually kinda have a reputation in the city), while Haslach is a low-income neighborhood.
@@NationalShitpostingAgency Of course that's a factor, but let's also not kid ourselves, these areas weren't built to house low income families. They were built to attract environmentally conscious upper middle class Families. And the social benefits reflect these demographics. If you change the demographic, the social benefits will change with it. Another factor is City funding for community building. Vauban is the poster child of Freiburg, because of that it was, for example, allowed to keep it's anual district festival, while the Haslach district festival was abolished due to budget constraints. Look all I'm saying is, there is much more to the social benefits, than just how Vauban is designed.
Then SolarCity in Linz is a good example. My impression is that it is quite mixed, low and middle income housing and I don't think it is more expensive then the rest of the city. I think you can find many neighborhoods that are more expensive than that.
I hate traffic and I hate driving in it and being part of it and I hate having to drive literally everywhere. Hopefully there will be places like this in the US sooner rather than later.
@@rickb3078 Ah yes, having no options but to drive sounds like great freedom to me, lol. My home is reachable on foot, by bike, _and_ by car, and within about 5-10 minutes walking distance there's a train station, 3 metro stations on 5 lines, a bunch of tram lines, bus services, and I think even more than one stop of a water taxi service. Now there's what I call freedom. You can choose to own and drive a car, as plenty of people in this quiet residential neighbourhood do (it has a parking garage underneath the homes), although traffic is low thanks to people having plenty of alternatives to going by car, which in turn will also make the driving experience more pleasant for people who need or prefer to drive. Having said that, I've never felt the slighest need or desire to own a car, I generally walk (or take a metro line to work if the weather is particularly bad).
@@MatthijsvanDuin The channel is a parody on the arguments to create car dependent cities. I’m hoping it gets more subscribers so I posted it here. The wink was supposed to give it away. The initial statement is satire.
@@rickb3078 Ah, I only glanced at the title (and didn't really want to click on it at all since including a link like that without explanation is usually self-promotion). Unfortunately there are people who make these arguments sincerely so the fact you were joking got lost on me, sorry. (And unfortunately, while I can immediately tell ;-) is a wink, 😉 is a yellow blob whose expression is unreadable to me unless I look very closely or zoom in)
I grew up near Freiburg and spend a good part of my adult life there as well. All of this is true. As someone living close to the city but not within the city limits i do have to add that Rieselfeld is probably the most easy suburb of Freiburg to find a parking spot if you want to get there by car. So even for car-owners like me its a very good solution. One thing about Vauban i would like to add is that the area is widely known for heaving a green and "hippie" population. So things like car ownership may only partially below average because of city design but also because the population is not representative for the whole city. BTW: Freiburg is currently planning an entire new neighborhood next to Rieselfeld called Dietenbach - just in case you want to look into this. I personally dont know a lot of details about it though.
I really like the 5bedroom apartments in the Stockholm suburbs. Density in the US is traditionally a response to housing prices, as people would "prefer" the traditional suburban lifestyle with space between homes, a yard, etc. If we were to build/encourage dense suburbs, inevitably you'd see apartments, young people, and an area with less young children, even if it was regulation and not prices encouraging density. Trying to get developers to build 5 bedroom apartments/townhomes on free land and not in response to density is something that will be difficult, and would require a pub-priv partnership, but I'd be interested to see how it would feel in the US.
2 years old but the video makes me so goddamn happy. even if ill never get to experience it, I am genuinely content that such environmental friendly/conscious and human centric housing communities exist
Seeing Galgebakken somehow felt familiar. Then it hit me... it's a kibbutz. It's literally a kibbutz. Looks exactly like the kibbutz my dad grew up in, minus the cows.
I have a suggestion. Look up Minneapolis /St. Paul Minnesota. More specifically St. Paul's "Highland Bridge" project. It's replacing an old Ford auto plant with a similar European approach (AL be it a little American) out side of 26 detached single family homes on the river road I believe it adds 1.5 to 2,000 those and residential unit in row houses, apartments, and condos in a semi car limited, mixed use, neighborhood.
Man, I am a car mechanic but I drove a Taxi full time in Adelaide Australia. I suggest you research it because it had an Australian car factory which has gone and used to have many tram lines. The young people leave in droves and it’s actually losing population because it’s impossible to live in and work in with horrible traffic for a small city. Government has to take money from other states to survive.
That quote about the mere regulation of zoning really strikes me because here, that “private-sector activity” with just a little regulation via zoning is already seen as the “left-wing approach” and many people here think that even that is going “too far”. Even that little regulation is too much government for some people here, so they would probably think that the public-sector led planning with private developers/ builders is completely Soviet. For these people government just can’t be involved, it’s all gotta be private which is how we get vast depressing suburbs and ultra luxury developments that no one can afford and nothing in between.
It’s Ironic because going more “left” would actually solve the problems that zoning based regulation causes, but zoning regulations are already called “communist” so replacing them with something better but involves greater government step in is just unthinkable for half the US population.
I love this video and this channel. So many possibilities, so much hope for a better future, and so much evidence that it is not only possible, but relatively easy to achieve if we make the right choices when designing the society around us.
Just found your channel and I'm really interested. You should do a video about Villa el Salvador and how to "build" suburbs for the poor without condemning them to stay in poverty. It's a really nice place and in constant development by the hands of the people who live there.
The area in Chicago they mention late in the video about former industrial land that could be developed. There are several reasons that prime lakefront land once home to steel mills has sat empty for decades. Developers have shown interest in the land but most doubt the required remediation of the ground is truly adequate. The former owners of the land fulfilled what clean up was required when they shut down their plants. But those decades old standards from the last century are recognized as likely insufficient to render the grounds safe after a century of pollution. New developers would face millions in clean up costs. Secondly, it’s located a fair distance from major roadways, highways and public transit. West of the location is mostly residential and fully developed so wouldn’t be easy to extend an L line to the area. Would have to be a subway tunnel which is prohibitively expensive. And even if this was done, it would be about a :40-60 min trip to downtown. What is happening in Chicago is high density development expanding outward around the downtown area. Increasingly west and south. So you are getting the European density but in an upward direction
The problem isn't that people don't want these sorts of developments in the US and Canada, at least of the people who know they can exist. It's more the people who already own single family low density homes that don't want their property values to drop by increasing supply through density. They also often view density as something for poor people and that will attract crime to the area. If you were to build these in places like the greater Toronto area, the Vancouver area, and the many places in the US with out of control housing costs they would sell very quickly.
16:07 This one really look cozy. The other ones seems much cold to me. There are some similar things in Argentina. If I were to design a community it would be like this... but with a car-free shopping street with lots of cafes, pubs and restaurants.
Yikes! No offense but L.A, much like Houston, has one of the worst city designs and sprawl of any American city. L.A is literally nothing but suburbs and highways.
@@nataliekhanyola5669 pretty much. They're building a metro that's been pretty awesome for east/west travel, you can get from downtown to the beach in like 20 minutes, but not for north/south yet (they're working on it, but of course that takes time) If they didn't rip out the Redcar system in the 40s because they had a boner for cars/weren't racist because Redcar mostly serviced lower income areas and areas with more POCs then this wouldn't really be an issue.
It would be an extremely uphill battle to try and get this done in the US, let alone get it right (limited unsubsidized parking, integration of homes and commercials) The biggest challenge is convincing people that this is good change. Few Americans know what it's like to live in a 15/20 minute community and only know their car as a way to get around. Seeing a development like this happen is more likely to scare people since it's so different to what most have seen. That and private developers not able to make big bucks
Ecko Gecko and Not Just Bikes really opened my eyes to how different it is in US. If somebody was trying to rent/sell me place where I have to drive everywhere from, no public transport access and there's no local convenience store within 5 minute walk I would be like "this is a joke right?"
This is fantastic information. You provide a lot of data, and the only thing that disappoints me is that there aren't commercial entities getting into this.
Thanks for this amazing video! I've had heard of Rieselfeld before, because it's an example in my German geography book. In the city I live in (Koblenz, Germany), I also know some projects, where there built new living space on land with former barracks. I guess this is also quite popular in the rest of Germany.
I recently began a project for college about a proposal for a residential suburb and even though it was a fraction of the land of this projects the team i was working with insisted on single family housing with the same densities as the surrounding sprawl, while i proposed mid rise two family housing. At the end the project wasn't financialy viable due to the number of houses available were not enough to justify its construction (a little bit of why sprawl has to be big on the first place) and after a quick calculations my original proposal was viable but because the paperwork was already done there was no change at the end
Is it weird that I almost don’t like watching these kind of videos? I enjoy the study of urban planning and how expanding methods can be applied to address our growing energy needs, population, and the environment. But I hate seeing how good methods are applied elsewhere, but they will never come to the USA. I’m America, we don’t want these things to happen. We don’t value our environment and prioritize segregation over any kind of meaningful infrastructure. I’m absolutely envy of European urban design. God I wish we could have trains
It's weird, because until the WW2 the US cities urban development was similar to Europe. Then, after WW2, the suburb mania take over and the (often very nice) downtowns get literally "bombed" in favour of ugly parking lots.
i wouldn't be so down. i think if there's enough advocacy and effort put forth to at least educate people we can see results. a lot of american conservatives speak of a 'war on cars', which i think is at least a sign of changing attitudes. i think what makes the whole thing the most unfeasible is the attitude advocates take. they don't think they need to do anything because it won't get put in to practice anyway, and they tell themselves that over and over until it does actually happen.
Huh, that density of only 3 to 5 stories seems standard for a German city, not just the suburbs. Only difference being that in the centre the buildings tend to stand closely together, no gardens in between. (But large roads that take up space instead...) Great video, as always!
The higher you build the more clearance you need around a "tower". So in reality, while huge skyscrapers might look like "ultra dense development", it often actually isn't. I'd personally be quite happy with having nothing beyond a handful of floors.
As an American, it struck me how similar these suburbs are to many of our college campuses. It makes no sense to me why most Americans accept that dense, walkable neighborhoods are great for college students, but somehow only for them and not any other populations
College campuses are built to facilitate social mixing between residents to help students integrate into the educational establishment of which they're a part. As far as I can tell, American suburbs are built with pretty-much the opposite philosophy in mind.
@@EdamL22 Exactly right. American suburbs were built in order to give white people a place to run away from everyone else, both by cost and by legal fiat, and while that kind of attitude is considered distasteful now, it's still quite influential, and that's not even taking into account how so many of the people in positions of power in the US are older than the civil rights movement.
@@EdamL22 It's almost like Americans want to live like little aristocrats with as big of a house as possible surrounded by a big yard to keep the plebs at a distance. Sort of like your own Feudal estate. It's so weird to find such a classist society in the new world.
Suburbs were designed not necessarily just to segregate people, but segregation was definitely in mind. It’s self perpetuating though because people who grow up in it become anxious and hateful and that’s a recipe for segregation.
@@Bertuzz84 The American suburban design originated in Detroit catering to the car manufacturers there. Detroit was the most robust American city during the great depression, so everyone in the US copied Detroit after WWII with federal backing. Racial segregation and the auto industry were also major reasons for the building of American suburbia.
The more I learn about trams, the more upset I am that they have largely been ripped out of modern western cities.
I never knew until recently that my Utah hometown had them. I would’ve loved to travel on them
And NOW we are bringing them back slowly as we discover it was a mistake. Stupid.
@L M sadly, they’re mostly gone here too
@L M Still, most that had do not
@@marcus9441 I live in Budapest and the city is full of trams, but so is Prague.
I’ve been telling people about the downsides of road-based suburbs and sprawl without being able to give many real examples of what else to do. I’m really glad to see this video :))
@@night6724 yes definitely
@@night6724 someones still salty that the peasants rose up
@@night6724 no u
Not Just Bikes also has some good videos in his Strong Towns series about how road based suburbs and sprawl are unsustainable
@@night6724 lmao nobody cares troll
Great video as always, I've always said that having a lawn is dumb when its better to just share all of that land with neighbors as a huge park instead, you've proven that tenfold
I mean, I personally don’t use my lawn space, so just… let other people use it, y’know? Don’t make it private, that’s what my house itself is for.
@@brennanruiz1803 pragmatically though, even if you did share your lawn, one large green space the size of 100 lawns is way more usable than 100 separate laws divided by driveways and such
Having your own garden and styling it to look different from your neighbours is very common in Germany you don't see grass lawns only like USA subs
Sharing!? Land!?
You're trying to import communism with these *exaggerated quotation fingers* "European methods"
- Sean Carlson or Tucker Hannity or someone
@@Shulwelld yeah, exactly. I’m not using the land, so why have it be private property? Build houses closer together, have more contiguous green space, make it public, and maximize use of the land.
I live in a normal U.S. city neighborhood, with single-family homes and some apartment buildings, with some businesses, the Mississippi, a large park with a falls and close to buses, bike lanes and a train. When I drive out to the suburbs I can't believe the traffic, the sprawl, the absence of bicycles, pedestrians, humans, the ugliness, the asphalt parking lots, the crumby mini-malls, the 'stroads,' the freeways and interchanges. All based on cars, cars, cars.
@@berrysummers4323 Perhaps you have reading difficulties. I already live in the city. Unfortunately for you, the city and suburbs are part of a community, which means what happens in the suburbs affects those in the city and visa versa - financially, environmentally, time wise, etc.
Goal of the video: to get American and Canadians motivated to make better cities and suburbs
Me, an American after watching all these urban planning videos: “why do I still live here” lol
We've got to improve our own places, no one else is going to do it.
@@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920 I don't think it's all that unfair for someone to consider just leaving though. This isn't exactly a huge movement or popular perspective, and it's gonna take time to get it off the ground. Some people just want to live better lives sooner, and can't afford to wait or to invest their spare energy into helping spread the ideal.
@@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920 how though? It seems that the only way to improve things is by having money or leaving.
Here where I live, master planned communities are being built left and right. I wish I had the money to build my own community that resembles the suburbs of this video. But unfortunately, I'm poor. If it were possible for groups of people to come together and build a community like the subjects of this video, then that would be great. Unfortunately, no bank is going to loans millions of dollars to groups of poor people who have no intention of making a profit, just building a place they can raise their kids in that's walkable and livable.
@@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920 sorry, I’m 25. I’d rather not wait for this hick ass country that insists on doing everything in the worst way possible for as long as possible, to transform its entire infrastructure.
@@karinav5778 it’s hard to change the status quo. I just deal with it.
To every fellow North American reading this, whenever suburbanites or suburbanite-minded people complain about density being somehow incompatible with quality life, make this video a must-show to them and spread the word.
@Hobbit Girl no it doesn't
Every single complaint about urbanism and middle density is a projection from the NIMBYs. Low Density suburbs are incompatible with a good quality of life.
Best places I lived - college and military base. Everything I needed was walking distance at that time.
I agree with you completly. I grew up in the burbs, went in the military and then move between big cities (Jersey, phili, DC etc.) What I loved about city life was the easy availablily to make a quick run down the block from work perhaps for food or socializing. Living on base was very much like living in a small city. I miss that. In my current suburb, there is a grocery less than than a 3 min drive from my home. I could walk or bike but we have no side walks. Go figure. So every few days, I drive two minutes to grab a gallon of mile. It makes no sence.
That's exactly what I was thinking actually! "Huh, those just look like really really nice, well maintained military bases" Everything was walkable, for the most part, we all had places to go if we wanted private/quiet time, but there were plenty of amenities, we always had people to be around which was good at easing depression and loneliness, we learned how to interact with all kinds of people which eased anxiety, everywhere on base was walkable and bikeable, and at almost every base I was on there were buses either on and off the base, or right at the gate for easy access to the closest city/town. The only issue was everything being a little run down because the DOD would rather give money to contractors than their actual military personnel.
Oh hey,Freiburg is my hometown. I grew up seeing the construction of Rieselfeld from my balcony. I also remember cycling past the Gaskugel, to the large park full of playgrounds and a BMX park, which are also just in literal spitting distance of Rieselfeld.
I've been living in the North American (semi)-suburbian stroad wasteland for years now, and more and more I'm realizing how much I miss the ability to just hop onto a tram and be anywhere quick and easy. Especially recently having all our vaccine shots, me and friends started meeting in person for D&D games again. And getting together, squeezing a bunch of cars into a driveway, it's the most annoying thing. And if we wanna get something to eat, not wanting to have to spend all the effort and time heading out like we're going on an expedition, we are essentially forced to pay extra to have it all delivered.
Move back to Freiburg, it is a great town
Great to see you highlighting how much land would need to be covered at US densities. Urban Sprawl is psychotic, the idea that anyone could look at such a proposal and greenlight it is deeply worrying.
Yeah it could only really happen to this extent in the US and Canada just because of how sparse the population is compared to large parts of the rest of the world
@@craigstephenson7676 the only reason it’s so sparse is specifically because Jefferson and Jackson had grand dreams of white homesteaders each having their own large plot of farmland to live off of, and decided that the land west of Appalachia was actually “ours” (white capital owners) now. even vast “empty” land still serves an IMMENSE ecological purpose, think about siberia or the sahara. there is no reason other than pure, self centered greed that sprawl like this occurs.
@@brhim5731 Yup, America's wasteful land use is a legacy of its settler colonial past (and present). Private land ownership was promoted largely to occupy as much land as possible with white people so that the native peoples got displaced further and further west.
Visualizing scale is so important to helping people understand the issues. Ape brain like big picture :)
America and Canada hasn’t populated out yet, they could easily support double the population. Sprawl makes sense, it’s cheaper than building up by about 10X. Also people don’t have kids in cramped apartments, that’s why Europe has a demographic crisis, they’re running out of young people. Every economic system relies on the concept of more people, capitalism communism facism socialism.
Can I just say I love the idea of different kinds of price levels in a single apartment complex. Keeps communities from becoming too segregated, and also for that matter allows you to pick a cheaper or more expensive apartment without having to leave the neighbourhood.
Also mixing resident owned and public housing
Yeah. But you have to change the culture and mindsets of some middle class or up people saying providing cheap homes near them is "bringing the property value down". That sounds like classism and prejudice to the poor too. That comes from middle class and regular people too. Not just rich people.
Great point!
Thank you so much for this video. As an American myself, I agree that American suburbs are horribly inefficient and isolating but I also don’t want to live in an apartment. I want a little more space and privacy than that. This is the first time I’ve seen a housing solution that fits exactly what I would want. There is a solution out there and it makes it all the more frustrating that American cities seem unwilling to try solutions like these.
I know. It's very restricting.
To make you even more frustrated: the predecessor (where you see a lot of the traits these suburbs have but with more car infrastructure and maybe a little bit more private green space) of these kinds of developments are the standard in almost the whole of Europe. America really did it's citizens dirty with how bad their neighborhoods are designed.
You will likely find 2-3 stories tall housing in most European suburbs, and very commonly you will find Terraced houses, where you have an almost non existing front yard and a tiny back yard, and is basically just more dense single family homes.
There are also some real single family housing, but the houses tend to not be larger than the terraced houses and the planned areas for those are not larger than described in the video.
The single family houses slowly gets pushed further and further away as part of gentrification and many of the people living pretty close by the central areas in a 1960's or 1950's house is complaining about the 2-5 story buildings coming up all around until they move or gets bought out and that plot gets the same design change. There are just fewer and fewer in Europe who wants to commute while being stuck in traffic and would much prefer some of those green suburban designs even if it means living an apartment in a 3 story apartment building over a single family home.
As somebody in the planning and architecture profession, a lot of us are annoyed too at the calcified zoning and planing institution unwilling to move to facilitate good projects like the ones stated above. Even more problematically, we've been trying to make stuff like this happen since the 90's, and in some cases, since the 70's. There's people out there doing good work despite this, but there are immense challenges to doing it in the US.
U might want to check out the "missing middle" videos that NotJustBikes & OhTheUrbanity have on TH-cam. They talk about cities that have preserved their neighborhoods (that existed before the automobile) have an interesting mix of housing options.
One really noticeable thing in North American suburbs is how unnecessarily damn wide the streets are, making most of the land paved. They could easily be half the width and one way, which would already densify it 2x, while still keeping single family homes. Another improvement can come by simply deleting half the streets and converting them to foot/bicycle paths (means the owners have to park further). Another possibility is narrow but tall houses (E.g. 4 story).
But then your unnecessarily large SUV and hummer car couldn't fit on either side of the road.
lol
@@nataliekhanyola5669 If I can bring a large commercial vehicle into a narrow street, I think an SUV and pick up could fit as well. The neighborhoods that I find work quite well for some US cities are the stilt houses that have 3 or more floors and allow for traffic to flow out of garages. The homes themselves open up to massive forward facing streets that cars can't access.
@Hobbit Girl ... this very video includes Scandinavian cities. I think they understand the concept of snow and road clearance. Obviously this can be managed.
The city with the most snowfall on earth is actually toyama in japan and they don't have oversized roads so I don't think that that's necessary. There is also a lot of other examples in europe where there's a lot of snow but normal sized roads.
A (relatively good) commuter/regional rail service in my (American) metro area has ample opportunity to grow suburbs like these all around their stations, especially because many of these stations are surrounded by parking lots and, in some cases, empty land. Recently, a private company proposed a plan to one city's council where they want to take the land they own around the city's station (currently occupied by a few offices and roads) and build a walkable, transit-oriented community, complete with grocery stores, small businesses, offices, and even a school. It's met gigantic backlash from local residents, saying that there is "no more room" and that traffic would exponentially increase because, as one commenter put it, "it's nice to think that everyone would ride the train to work, but that won't happen because this isn't NYC, everyone drives. More people means more cars which means less safe roads for our kids." This private company wants to build new, even affordable homes in an area experiencing a housing crisis, and the local residents can't see anything but the possibility of seeing a few more cars speeding down their incredibly wide roads.
I just want to sit all these nay-saying people that, frankly, lack the ability to imagine a life outside their cars down and show them this video. Car-centric communities are a choice, and a choice that is continually made over and over again to the point where it swallows our environment whole. These communities showcased here sound like amazing places to live in, much better than the sterile, car-centric neighborhoods that exist where I live today.
There are naive people or people who say they're too busy taking care of their family to care, but Not Just Bikes talked about that North American law forbids building certain houses near businesses. Not cause everyone wants that. There's American comments on NJB saying they dislike America's city design or want to migrate out.
I have lived in an apartment block in a former Soviet country, and in several typical Swedish apartment suburbs with a somewhat "grey" look. It's a decent way to live. Now I live in a somewhat more aesthetic apartment suburb. Still in a city owned rental apartment. The challenge lies in the affordability. All of these are cheap to build, but all these private developers want to make a good buck on this whole project, which drives up the cost of living in such new developments. They become communities where only upper middle class people live. And the less nice suburbs (but frankly, often quite nice) becomes places where poverty and other social problems are concentrated.
The private developers have been so good at charging more and providing less, that they have decreased productivity over time, so in spite of newer technology and methods, stagnant or lower wages for the people building these projects, they provide less housing for the same amount of money (corrected for inflation). Just as the public could commission this project, I believe, they should also realize it. Else it is simply a breeding ground for corruption, where the people who should make responsible decisions about new development, commission idyllic, but economically inaccessible new developments. We need to fight back against ghettos and elysiums.
I've heard the same from some other residents in post-Soviet countries--private developers vaguely emulate the old Soviet developments, but don't provide as many services while charging more money. I think we have a lot to learn from how the USSR and its bloc built neighborhoods back in the day.
Also the buildings they make are actually kinnda shit as they cut cost everywhere. It looks nice but has flaws all over. I have a friend who is tile layer and he tells me that two out of three new houses when he uses laser to measure out the room for tiles he has to bring a cutter and cut down the tiles because the room itself is not perfectly rectangular.
@@EcoGecko Now that I have lived in Sweden for more than 20 years, is that Sweden could also learn a lot from its own previous successes! I see here a slow motion version of the collapse of basic social functions, which we had in former USSR in the 90s. These things don't happen for no reason, because they happen to be very profitable to some very few (both in former USSR and in Sweden).
If it is of interest, I can say that many cities have a company with "city owned" rental apartments. By registering in these companies queues, you usually get a "point" for every day you are registered in the queue. When an apartment becomes available, you can register your interest for that apartment, and the person with the most points gets the apartment. When you get the apartment, your points are reset to zero. The rents, both in these (at least partially) publicly owned apartments, and in privately owned rental apartments, are regulated, so they need to be in some proportion to the economic abilities of the citizens.
So far so good, but the issue lies in the fact that there are not enough apartments in relation to demand, so more and more people, who have the means, are pushed in to buying an apartment or a house in the suburban sprawl. They have though recently made rents unregulated for new developments. They also tried to do the same for old apartments, but luckily that didn't go through. The argument is that if it is more profitable to build rental apartments, there will be more rental apartments built. We haven't seen that so far. In reality it is easier to increase the rents, rather than to build new apartments. And if you build new more expensive rental apartments, then only upper middle class people will be able to afford them, and they don't want to waste all that money on rent. They will for the same amount of money buy an apartment or a house.
@@Turtle1631991 In the last apartment I lived in, just before we moved in, they had to redo a bathroom, because when the original bathroom was built, local companies competed (because competition is always a good thing?) amongst themselves, trying to determine who could finish most bathrooms in a given period of time. So that bathroom wasn't properly done, and there was extensive water damage.
@@dempa3 We have a somewhat similar system in Denmark where you have to pay a yearly fee to be in the queue for housing. As every city has its own queue (and sometimes multiple queues) it can get quite expensive if you want to keep opportunities open in all major cities.
That has pushed a lot of people into either owning their own apartments or moving into the suburbs, leading to the usual problems with the slow migration of people out of the city and gentrification of more and more areas. Getting an apartment within the five major cities is now a pipe dream for many. There aren't enough apartments to begin with, and while new ones are being build they're privately financed which ensures that the rent is too high for many of us. And now the same process is being seen in other cities around the country.
The government has promised to build more affordable housing for a long time, but little is being done. Meanwhile, private companies are building and building and building... Sometimes it makes me wonder just how much large companies like Blackstone are "greasing the wheels"...
There is a growing resistance to this as the gap between owners and renters is growing bigger, but it's nowhere near enough to force the government to change their policy.
I basically spent my whole childhood in Rieselfeld, Freiburg and only moved out of my parent's house last year to study in a different city. I remember having a great time playing tag and "cops and robber" (Räuber und Gendarm) with 10 to 20 other kids in the whole city district all day long since we weren't frightened by the sparse traffic which is limited to 30 km/h. The school, grocery stores, your local kabap, even the forest was within a walkable distance, if you had a bike (which most of us did) it was a matter of 1-3 minutes. The only thing that took me way to long to figure was that the tram was the least efficient way to travel to the city centre for me and once I used my bike it took me only 20min and saved me 10-15min and 2,40€ (2,70$) per trip. However in my experience most car owners will use their vehicle even for short distance trips because it (sadly) is still the most convenient and fastest way to travel in and out of Rieselfeld.
Most Americans in my opinion, don't even use all the space they have in their homes or land their homes are on. Most of the time, if not all the time, they spends their time in a few rooms in the house, and rarely go outside in the back yard or the front yard.
Im mind blown. This is like the channel "Not Just Bikes" but very pleasant and more informative.
Yea not just bikes only talks about the problems
@@liegemkw And when he talks about the positives it’s almost always just simping for the Netherlands. But he did do a good video on streetcar suburbs which was nice.
@@liegemkw Not Just Bikes gives lot of solutions.
@@justanotheryoutubechannel I didn't get Not Just Bikes overhyping the Netherlands. And if their city design is good and accommodates other modes of transportation like walking, biking, and public transportation why shouldn't use that as a shining example?
I like how I grew up in neighbourhoods like these and just assumed this was how you normally build a city, the fact that other countries are NOT doing that is kind of baffling to me
Unfortunately, like Not Just Bikes talked about, some North Americans are naive and think cars equals "advancement, culture, identity, pride, or the safest". Or think accommodating other modes of transportation is expensive. When America gives too much taxes to the military, among other things. Some people are just stuck in what they're used to.
NJB also talked about how some North Americans bully bikers or people who don't drive. There's punishment passes which drivers punish bikers (or even pedestrians) by driving too close to them, even touching some of them, or blowing car smoke in their faces. NJB showed videos of that as well. Public transportation there is also belittled, and thus unreliable.
oh boy oh boy this is is gonna be a good one
update: it was a good one
This is rather depressing when comparing these developments to new housing developments here in Australia. Almost entirely car-dependent sprawl.
Australia has a similar problem to North America, cities with endlessly sprawling suburbs.
@@nataliekhanyola5669 seems like an easy fix. Just add more walking areas and more public transport and more things that are closer together.
@@berrysummers4323 Although most of our cities consist mainly of suburbs, the good thing about Australian cities is that there tends to be denser mixed used developments near public transport hubs, even deep in suburbia. Although I agree that having a house and backyard is great, and I personally prefer it, zoning laws in the US should be relaxed a bit outside city centres to at least allow those who want to live in denser areas more choices, instead of only building single family homes. For example here in Australia, townhouses, duplexes and small units are generally allowed to be built next to houses.
Omg so hyped for this video. Welcome back Eco Gecko!! Been a long time without videos roasting suburbia
@@night6724 okay lous the XIV
@@night6724 Do you support the suburban lifestyle? Or just disagree with his point of view on walkable cities and generally denser development?
@@night6724 lol
@@night6724 My magesty, your Versailles castle housed between 3 000 (at the begenning) up to 10 000 (at his current size) during your reign. Even a high man of culture as yourself is a living proof that density is preferable to suburban spall.
@@night6724 lmfaooooooo
Wake up comrade, new Eco Gecko just dropped!
Nice video. A friend of mine and me will be holding a presentation about the downsides of suburbs based and inspired by you.
That's amazing to hear! I'd be curious to hear how it turns out. If they need any help with sources or anything like that, I'd be happy to help, tell them to feel free to DM me on Twitter or send me an email if they'd like.
@@EcoGecko Oh, sorry I replied so late, we already held it, but your video descriptions were our main way of getting good sources, so thank you for that. The presentation went pretty well.
Daly City, CA a suburb of San Francisco is a good example of a dense suburb in the US. Composed of small single family homes glued next to each other. Daly City is also centered around BART.
I’d love to see more videos about how developing countries should best develop their towns/cities and what current governments/companies are doing wrong.
In my (developing) country, residential development is basically directed by real estate developers that only builds two types of housing: gated community rowhouses for families or
This has always been my concern, this sustainable development is only possible in developed nations.
@Anel Zukic Nah it is absolutely possible to build in a country where money is tight. I'm typing this from my 3 bedroom apartment in Kenya (4 story building), in a 4,000 ish housing development just like those in this video. The project was government driven, in an area a few clicks behind an old warehouse district, only 12 km from the city centre. And it's far from the such "estate" around here, there's quite a few.
The biggest problem for us is public transit, which is a hilarious mess. Cycling is only for the incredibly brave (though its a very popular hobby for many), but the government is trying, albeit very slowly to remedy that.
@Anel Zukic Maybe I wasn't clear, but my place isn't in a new development. It was built in 1997. And there is public transport, just a minute's walk from my apartment actually. But public transport throughout the city, and country for that matter is seriously unappealing, only to be used if you absolutely must (you can search 'Kenya public transport' if you want to see what I mean). So I drive or take a taxi whenever I need to move around. Yeah ofcourse prices closer to the city centre are higher here as well, my previous 3 bedroom apartment a short walk from the city centre was about 3000 USD/month.
The point that I was making in my previous post is that yes, there are several housing developments like those shown in this video in my developing country. They are very possible as long as there is government will.
I'm curious though, in Sarajevo the local government is responsible for financing infrastructure?? Here in Kenya the central gvt builds, and then the local gvt is responsible for maintenance.
It's extremely important to build affordable family-friendly housing in a time of global aging caused by low birth rates. It's unfortunate that so few people take this threat seriously.
Great projects and great video!
It's important to make living affordable _in general_ if you want people to stay alive. But I don't think the US is too concerned about that considering the kinds of people who are disproportionally affected by poverty and homelessness.
Return of the King
As someone who just moved to Freiburg from America i am astonished at how much better it is than everywhere I've lived in america.
21:58 Suomi mainittu!
Suomalainen mainittu
Ahhhh Freiburg, the most cited and cherished city by urbanism students all around europe.
Freiburg... the name means freedom fortress right?
@@vaiyaktikasolarbeam1906 ?
@@sm3675 frei= free and burg= castle
I was in Freiburg just a few months ago. It's a beautiful and walkable city. They sustained a lot of damage in WWII, but decided to rebuild along the original medieval streetplan.
Were they hit by the recent flooding at all? Have they recovered?
wtf he is talking about my hometown, that's definitely a surprise! Love Freiburg, best city in Germany
Hab Mal dort an der Uni studiert (komme aus Kanada) und die ganze Umgebung war unglaublich schön
Freiburgliebe!!!
The best hidden gem on TH-cam posts again :D
Only 5 minutes in and I have to add something, seeing as I live in Denmark quite close to Galgebakken.
There are 3 bus routes to the area and it is fast and easy to reach by bike as well, so cars are unnecessary.
It is also technically not located in Copenhagen but in Albertslund, which is a smaller city almost on the edge of greater Copenhagen (it's called storkøbenhavn and includes 12~18 municipalities)
Super cool to see Denmark in a video like this.
I can totally see why there seems to be no difference between Copenhagen and Albertslund from an outside perspective, but they are separated by like 5 cities.
It's a funny little tongue in cheek insult to call most of eastern Zealand Copenhagen.
Sorry for the rant, I'm just excited to see Copenhagen pop up like this ❤
Thank you for letting me know! I think the source I used for Galgebakken is a bit outdated so I missed that information.
@@EcoGecko Greater Copenhagen is somewhat similar to how Greater London is.
The "city" sort of endlessly continues and only the signs says that you entered a new municipality and only your postal code says that you are in a new city.
The actual Copenhagen municipality mostly contains the city center area, but it also covers a few actual suburban areas a little further out of the center. And the only type of public transport to stay inside the Copehagen municipality is the metro, so the neighbouring municipalities are fully connected and basically just more suburban design.
Hamburg is another city that have somehow merged together varies smaller cities so there are many "sub cities" in the continous suburban area.
This is great information, thanks!
Another absolutely fantastic video! Thank you for putting this together, super informative. Now to figure out what to do with this knowledge in my city.
@@night6724 proud patron supporter of this channel. Tbh I’m thinking about raising the donation. I’ve learned so much from this channel and am beginning to put some zoning pressure on the leaders in my city as a direct result. Love me some EcoGecko.
@@night6724 lol what. I’m not aware of any lies. Care to cite some sources on that? The channel author has extensively. Some extremely fine scholarship by TH-cam standards.
@@night6724 then you will have no problem offering them up. Or are you using the MyPillow guy tactic? Saying you have plenty of sources and never produce any of them. Plus Eco's sources are used in the video when he highlights specific numbers.
@@night6724 can you please share parts of the video you consider to be a lie? I'm very curious to be honest ;)
@@night6724 it’s been 10 hours and you’ve yet to show them. Let’s see your sources
Another option is to reduce minimum sq ft requirements for SFH. My city requires a minimum of 2,400 sq ft. There are parking requirements, setback and lot lines that reduce density and add costs.
In addition to the ideas suggested here build SFH with no basement, no garage, remove seatback requirements and reduce user fees. To build a SFH in my City you add on over $25,000 in City fees.
While I agree that our idea of zoning being intended to separate land uses is incredibly unhelpful, I feel that the issue is more that that's the focus, rather than the extent of its power the way you depict. We absolutely should have zoning be utilized such that neighborhoods can have cafes and small stores a short walk away through the neighborhood, but planners also need to be able to utilize FARs (floor area ratios) and setbacks more flexibly than they have so far. Public transit and pedestrian/bike infrastructure also has to be worked on in parallel with development plans, rather than as an afterthought.
You mentioned the demographics and how these neighborhoods skewed towards having more kids. While on the face of it that means that familys are moving there from elsewhere, I also wonder whether the neighborhood design also affects the birthrate via the social mixing and desirability of having kids in a given place. I would think that any information on that could also be desirable and useful, especially in the case of Europe, where many countries are heading to a decline in population, which of course creates a host of issues.
As far as I am aware (from the two examples in this video that I have directly lived close to), a lot of the newer younger people moving in are either citizens with immigrant background, students and young adults who just entered the workforce and dont own/are dependent on a car yet and a small part rural folk who have moved closer to the city for employment or other reasons (easier access to medical facilities for the eldery, new or better schools for the kids, etc)
Overall though its quite mixed and I think the ratio of young to old is mainly skewed by the fact that older people (40 and above), tend to already have a family and/or a house/appartment which they fully own and thus are less inclined to move somewhere new
the fact they plopped that development in 5 years is inspiring
Chicago recently took five years to approve a 100% affordable development of a hundred homes here, and that was replacing a vacant parking lot next to a metro station with the local alderman in support. If the US wants to fix its housing problems, it needs to be able to build this stuff much more quickly.
I've seen some very nice houses and apartment units that are pre-built in a factory (no weather to deal with), then shipped on-site and assembled like giant Legos. They are also like Lego, in that they can have a fairly wide variety of sizes, shapes, and colors, so you could make some very non-homogenous neighborhoods with them. Still fairly new in USA with only maybe a handful of companies I've seen on TH-cam, but it looks very promising! :)
Most construction doesn't actually take that long. These things were probably in planning for 5-10 years.
@@comeradecoyote it says from finding a proposal from various architects until completion it was 5 years it seems. maybe I misunderstood.
@@comrade_mikey6138 Or I did ahaha. But yeah in the biz, construction typically takes 20-30 months from site prep to substantial interior completion. Less for simple stuff like tract homes, or anything with a degree of prefabrication. And longer for really big projects. But yeah, typical design build cycle is roughly 5 years. 2-3 of planning, permitting, and finance, and 2-3 for the principle works. Being in architecture has a lot of delayed gratification.
I live in a small rowhouse in the Netherlands. Our north, north-east facing frontyard is 21m^2, with 6-7 of it paved. We have 1 medium tree (a willow), 3 small trees (a Japanese crabapple, a cherry and a Syringa), a lot of shrubs and a 2m^2 area that we seed with flower mixes each year. There's even a commensal fungus near the willow that makes mushrooms twice a year. The trees are all ones that attract a lot of insects, which means a lot of birds being fed. Partially because we are lazy, we leave all the leaves and dead plant matter on the ground, which is great for all sort of critters living in the soil, it regenerates the soil and it protects plants from frostbite (my guess is that the fungus doesn't mind either). It's awesome.
I know that it's because of regulations spawned largely from a single man, but I will never get why suburbians are okay with their gardens being so bland. I've never seen anything like our frontyard in an American suburb, and that's a shame. That garden is really a tiny forest, with the ecological impact of one, too. Something that the suburbs could really do with. Just another small reason why that type of development is so bad.
NEW ECO GECKO wooooo
I currently live in a developing neighbourhood in the Polish city of Wrocław and it made so many mistakes.
The city decided to extend tram tracks at a later date, so we will be lucky to see them in 20 years. We were lucky to get bus lanes but busses still get stuck in traffic and they are never on time.
Parks are 100m wide at most and rare. Besides parks, you only have agricultural fields and post-communist private gardening plots that are enclosed communities.
Living in Årsta south of Stockholm it is interesting that you included Skarpnäcksfältet in your video. The planning for this was started in the mid seventies, in that time I was an architect student at the Royal College of Technology (KTH), we read all the books by Jan Gehl and there were much discussions about this projekt. I remember that I was a bit critical but now I think it turned out quite good.
One interesting (?) sidenote is that Skarpnäckfältet is politically very progressive - in the last local election the social democrats got 32%, the left (former communist) party 27% and the green party 8% giving a total of around 67% for the red/green block. I might be a bit tendisious, but one conclusion might be that if you build a community based on common values, people realize that capitalism is not the way forward! (But don´t tell this to the average american, he/she would probarbly reach for a gun...)
I don't really find any incompatibility with common community values and capitalism as it's not necessarily a philosophy and I don't think it would inherently create contrary interests as most humans seek the same things and can merely be a tool for economic growth. I think people are confusing behaviors of altruism and self-interest with socialism and capitalism.
The huge problem in America is the ignorant mindset that there are only two options: dirty, dense, loud noisy city (and they don't realize that the majority of "noise" comes from cars); or spread-out, sprawling, car-centric suburbia. But there are so many more options, and hard data demonstrate countless benefits for following those options, for people and for the environment. If North Americans had the gumption to peak overseas, they'd see all that possibility.
(And I'm not using "ignorant" as an insult; I'm using it for its objective meaning of "lack of knowledge or awareness" because that's absolutely applicable for North America.)
Facts. You don't even have to look far to see this mindset in action, there's some people in this very comment section with the attitude of "dense = bad".
It seems to me that denser suburbs could also maybe solve issues of class divide between areas if it's paired with a comprehensive social housing scheme/housing collective systems. You aren't getting areas of the suburbs that are filled with massive and only expensive houses with lawns that are huge and private (that aren't friendly to wildlife like bees because they're literally just plain grass), and they are conducive to walking, cycling and public transport over cars, meaning they're open to lower income people as well as higher income people.
Not only this but the denser areas mean you can have a sense of community because your home isn't demarcated away from your neighbors (and they're not far away with those huge and not eco friendly lawns), and there's walking paths unlike some american suburbs that have none with just roads and driveways.
^^Never Expected you to mention my hometown Freiburg xD. I have to say the streetcar system is pretty great here. Though a lot more could be done for our many cyclists.
Just a small note though, I think economics is a large contributor to the social benefits. Riselfeld and especially Vauban are pretty expensive neighborhoods that attract a very specific clientele (Vauban people actually kinda have a reputation in the city), while Haslach is a low-income neighborhood.
Could they be expensive because the demand is high for areas like that?
@@NationalShitpostingAgency
Of course that's a factor, but let's also not kid ourselves, these areas weren't built to house low income families.
They were built to attract environmentally conscious upper middle class Families. And the social benefits reflect these demographics.
If you change the demographic, the social benefits will change with it.
Another factor is City funding for community building. Vauban is the poster child of Freiburg, because of that it was, for example, allowed to keep it's anual district festival, while the Haslach district festival was abolished due to budget constraints.
Look all I'm saying is, there is much more to the social benefits, than just how Vauban is designed.
Then SolarCity in Linz is a good example. My impression is that it is quite mixed, low and middle income housing and I don't think it is more expensive then the rest of the city. I think you can find many neighborhoods that are more expensive than that.
@@Persimontree Hi. Could you explain what you mean by social benefits?
@@ukrytykrytyk8477 What Eco Gecko says at 8:18
I hate traffic and I hate driving in it and being part of it and I hate having to drive literally everywhere. Hopefully there will be places like this in the US sooner rather than later.
Sorry to see you hate freedom so much 😉
th-cam.com/channels/CKf-xHM6KSw67qvgkqAcnQ.html
@@rickb3078 Ah yes, having no options but to drive sounds like great freedom to me, lol. My home is reachable on foot, by bike, _and_ by car, and within about 5-10 minutes walking distance there's a train station, 3 metro stations on 5 lines, a bunch of tram lines, bus services, and I think even more than one stop of a water taxi service. Now there's what I call freedom. You can choose to own and drive a car, as plenty of people in this quiet residential neighbourhood do (it has a parking garage underneath the homes), although traffic is low thanks to people having plenty of alternatives to going by car, which in turn will also make the driving experience more pleasant for people who need or prefer to drive. Having said that, I've never felt the slighest need or desire to own a car, I generally walk (or take a metro line to work if the weather is particularly bad).
@@MatthijsvanDuin The channel is a parody on the arguments to create car dependent cities. I’m hoping it gets more subscribers so I posted it here.
The wink was supposed to give it away. The initial statement is satire.
@@rickb3078 Ah, I only glanced at the title (and didn't really want to click on it at all since including a link like that without explanation is usually self-promotion). Unfortunately there are people who make these arguments sincerely so the fact you were joking got lost on me, sorry.
(And unfortunately, while I can immediately tell ;-) is a wink, 😉 is a yellow blob whose expression is unreadable to me unless I look very closely or zoom in)
This really gives me hope. We need more homes like this
Ooooo, my favorite youtuber strikes again!
I grew up near Freiburg and spend a good part of my adult life there as well.
All of this is true. As someone living close to the city but not within the city limits i do have to add that Rieselfeld is probably the most easy suburb of Freiburg to find a parking spot if you want to get there by car. So even for car-owners like me its a very good solution.
One thing about Vauban i would like to add is that the area is widely known for heaving a green and "hippie" population. So things like car ownership may only partially below average because of city design but also because the population is not representative for the whole city.
BTW: Freiburg is currently planning an entire new neighborhood next to Rieselfeld called Dietenbach - just in case you want to look into this. I personally dont know a lot of details about it though.
I really like the 5bedroom apartments in the Stockholm suburbs. Density in the US is traditionally a response to housing prices, as people would "prefer" the traditional suburban lifestyle with space between homes, a yard, etc. If we were to build/encourage dense suburbs, inevitably you'd see apartments, young people, and an area with less young children, even if it was regulation and not prices encouraging density. Trying to get developers to build 5 bedroom apartments/townhomes on free land and not in response to density is something that will be difficult, and would require a pub-priv partnership, but I'd be interested to see how it would feel in the US.
2 years old but the video makes me so goddamn happy. even if ill never get to experience it, I am genuinely content that such environmental friendly/conscious and human centric housing communities exist
Suburbs are actually great if they are built like this
I love the suburbs, but not American or Middle Eastern suburbs...
Seeing Galgebakken somehow felt familiar. Then it hit me... it's a kibbutz. It's literally a kibbutz. Looks exactly like the kibbutz my dad grew up in, minus the cows.
This was incredible. Welcome back! Amazing work once again. This is such an important subject!!!
Fancy seeing a new video from you.
As someone living close to Freiburg I can say that it is a great city to live in.
I have a suggestion. Look up Minneapolis /St. Paul Minnesota. More specifically St. Paul's "Highland Bridge" project. It's replacing an old Ford auto plant with a similar European approach (AL be it a little American) out side of 26 detached single family homes on the river road I believe it adds 1.5 to 2,000 those and residential unit in row houses, apartments, and condos in a semi car limited, mixed use, neighborhood.
Hey, I lived in the Twin Cities briefly! Thanks for letting me know about Highland Bridge, it's always cool to learn about these projects.
I feel more positive emotional attachment to this TH-cam community than my national one
YESSSS KINGS/QUEENS BACK 😈😈
This was absolutely phenomenal and inspiring!! Thanks so much for putting all of this together!!!
Fantastic video, also really enjoy the use of Mozart behind a video with lots of Vienna. Haha
Fantastic! Thank you for the examples!
Also, as every time, I am awestruck by how spread out the US suburbs are.
Americans like space.
Thank you for this video, and your channel in general! Concern over suburbs and urban sprawl is a rather niche subject but one that I'm invested in :)
Man, I am a car mechanic but I drove a Taxi full time in Adelaide Australia. I suggest you research it because it had an Australian car factory which has gone and used to have many tram lines. The young people leave in droves and it’s actually losing population because it’s impossible to live in and work in with horrible traffic for a small city. Government has to take money from other states to survive.
That quote about the mere regulation of zoning really strikes me because here, that “private-sector activity” with just a little regulation via zoning is already seen as the “left-wing approach” and many people here think that even that is going “too far”. Even that little regulation is too much government for some people here, so they would probably think that the public-sector led planning with private developers/ builders is completely Soviet. For these people government just can’t be involved, it’s all gotta be private which is how we get vast depressing suburbs and ultra luxury developments that no one can afford and nothing in between.
It’s Ironic because going more “left” would actually solve the problems that zoning based regulation causes, but zoning regulations are already called “communist” so replacing them with something better but involves greater government step in is just unthinkable for half the US population.
I love this video and this channel. So many possibilities, so much hope for a better future, and so much evidence that it is not only possible, but relatively easy to achieve if we make the right choices when designing the society around us.
Just found your channel and I'm really interested.
You should do a video about Villa el Salvador and how to "build" suburbs for the poor without condemning them to stay in poverty.
It's a really nice place and in constant development by the hands of the people who live there.
I personally would love to see a video about this!
Based and hope-pilled
RARE ECO GECKO DROP
The area in Chicago they mention late in the video about former industrial land that could be developed.
There are several reasons that prime lakefront land once home to steel mills has sat empty for decades.
Developers have shown interest in the land but most doubt the required remediation of the ground is truly adequate. The former owners of the land fulfilled what clean up was required when they shut down their plants. But those decades old standards from the last century are recognized as likely insufficient to render the grounds safe after a century of pollution. New developers would face millions in clean up costs.
Secondly, it’s located a fair distance from major roadways, highways and public transit. West of the location is mostly residential and fully developed so wouldn’t be easy to extend an L line to the area. Would have to be a subway tunnel which is prohibitively expensive. And even if this was done, it would be about a :40-60 min trip to downtown.
What is happening in Chicago is high density development expanding outward around the downtown area. Increasingly west and south. So you are getting the European density but in an upward direction
LET'S GO!!!
The problem isn't that people don't want these sorts of developments in the US and Canada, at least of the people who know they can exist. It's more the people who already own single family low density homes that don't want their property values to drop by increasing supply through density. They also often view density as something for poor people and that will attract crime to the area.
If you were to build these in places like the greater Toronto area, the Vancouver area, and the many places in the US with out of control housing costs they would sell very quickly.
Not Just Bikes made video about how property value in the old pre-war streetcar suburbs shot up because the demand is so high for that kind of living.
Oh awesome! A new upload. It’ll have to wait for my exams to be over though. Excited
16:07 This one really look cozy. The other ones seems much cold to me.
There are some similar things in Argentina.
If I were to design a community it would be like this... but with a car-free shopping street with lots of cafes, pubs and restaurants.
Freiburg based af.
Sincerely,
An LA native 😭
Yikes! No offense but L.A, much like Houston, has one of the worst city designs and sprawl of any American city. L.A is literally nothing but suburbs and highways.
@@nataliekhanyola5669 pretty much. They're building a metro that's been pretty awesome for east/west travel, you can get from downtown to the beach in like 20 minutes, but not for north/south yet (they're working on it, but of course that takes time)
If they didn't rip out the Redcar system in the 40s because they had a boner for cars/weren't racist because Redcar mostly serviced lower income areas and areas with more POCs then this wouldn't really be an issue.
This is my new FAVORITE video!
solar city… meanwhile in the USA neighbors are having christmas light competitions
I see the thumbnail and think, weird, looks like Vauban. I click on the video and you're actually discussing my hometown Freiburg!! Much love!!
Jeez, i whish the developers and politicians in my country see this video. 100% interesting.
Amazing work man. one suggestion, 1080p and higher would be much appreciated.
Great research. Great video.
Finally Eco Geko
I wish the US had something like this.
Very informative, brilliant video!!
Thanks for showing all the research sources as well. I downloaded most of them to read later.
It would be an extremely uphill battle to try and get this done in the US, let alone get it right (limited unsubsidized parking, integration of homes and commercials)
The biggest challenge is convincing people that this is good change. Few Americans know what it's like to live in a 15/20 minute community and only know their car as a way to get around. Seeing a development like this happen is more likely to scare people since it's so different to what most have seen. That and private developers not able to make big bucks
Ecko Gecko and Not Just Bikes really opened my eyes to how different it is in US.
If somebody was trying to rent/sell me place where I have to drive everywhere from, no public transport access and there's no local convenience store within 5 minute walk I would be like "this is a joke right?"
This gives me hope for town planning.
These places are amazing I wish I could afford to live somewhere like that
Been looking for this video for a few months after I first watched it, glad I found it again
I hope suburbs like these will mean more open space and greenery.
This is fantastic information. You provide a lot of data, and the only thing that disappoints me is that there aren't commercial entities getting into this.
Thanks for this amazing video!
I've had heard of Rieselfeld before, because it's an example in my German geography book.
In the city I live in (Koblenz, Germany), I also know some projects, where there built new living space on land with former barracks. I guess this is also quite popular in the rest of Germany.
I recently began a project for college about a proposal for a residential suburb and even though it was a fraction of the land of this projects the team i was working with insisted on single family housing with the same densities as the surrounding sprawl, while i proposed mid rise two family housing. At the end the project wasn't financialy viable due to the number of houses available were not enough to justify its construction (a little bit of why sprawl has to be big on the first place) and after a quick calculations my original proposal was viable but because the paperwork was already done there was no change at the end
Watching this after the Vaush stream, another banger of a video!
Woo-hoo! He's still alive and kicking!! Mondo-kewl video my dude!
Is it weird that I almost don’t like watching these kind of videos?
I enjoy the study of urban planning and how expanding methods can be applied to address our growing energy needs, population, and the environment. But I hate seeing how good methods are applied elsewhere, but they will never come to the USA. I’m America, we don’t want these things to happen. We don’t value our environment and prioritize segregation over any kind of meaningful infrastructure.
I’m absolutely envy of European urban design. God I wish we could have trains
Yup pretty much. USA, where everyone doesn't give a fuck about anyone else and lives in their own fuedal manor.
It's weird, because until the WW2 the US cities urban development was similar to Europe. Then, after WW2, the suburb mania take over and the (often very nice) downtowns get literally "bombed" in favour of ugly parking lots.
i wouldn't be so down. i think if there's enough advocacy and effort put forth to at least educate people we can see results. a lot of american conservatives speak of a 'war on cars', which i think is at least a sign of changing attitudes. i think what makes the whole thing the most unfeasible is the attitude advocates take. they don't think they need to do anything because it won't get put in to practice anyway, and they tell themselves that over and over until it does actually happen.
New Eco Gecko, always a good day
also the more i watch these video’s the more I want to move to a walkable city (I’ve only known suburbs and my goodness its rough)
amazing work, as usual
Huh, that density of only 3 to 5 stories seems standard for a German city, not just the suburbs. Only difference being that in the centre the buildings tend to stand closely together, no gardens in between. (But large roads that take up space instead...)
Great video, as always!
The higher you build the more clearance you need around a "tower". So in reality, while huge skyscrapers might look like "ultra dense development", it often actually isn't. I'd personally be quite happy with having nothing beyond a handful of floors.
Could use that clearance space for parks though. I'd quite like a bit more green around.
Beautiful and wonderfully researched. Fantastic as always.