@@Rodrigo15x Nothing wrong with it, it's just a chain restaurant, so don't expect fine dining. I'd consider it a half step above Olive Garden / Red Lobster type chains. I personally like it. Definitely try one. Any place that you can order abominations such as "pizza with chicken breast as the crust", is worth visiting.
Oh wow, I haven't seen that meme before! I'm so glad you shared it! 🤣 There is definitely a deficit of walkable places in the US that skews the results. That last study you mentioned is really great, so thanks for that. Pew Research also has data that a little less than 50% of the US population says that they would like to live somewhere within walking distance of shops and restaurants. The fact that this is under 50% has been used by some people to show that Americans prefer the suburbs. But I see two things: First, obviously 50% of neighbourhoods in the US are not like that. So there's clearly a deficit. But second, there are so few good walkable neighbourhoods in the US that many Americans have literally never experienced one, as there are none near them. So even though they have no experience with good urbanism, almost 50% of Americans would like to live somewhere more walkable. That's astonishing. And I suspect that number would be much higher if good urbanism existed in more places in the US, so that more people could experience it.
It’s been my experience that walkable parts of American cities (college areas, new urbanist, pre wwii cores, and century plus old towns not destroyed by highways) are, REALLY expensive due to IMO demand >> supply. Where I live (one of these pockets of nice in an otherwise dreadful car hell metro) this is absolutely the case. The only time that’s not the case Is if the area is deemed “undesirable” (black).
Glenwood Park in Atlanta (of all places) is exactly the type of development I wish we had more of. It was also wildly successful, and actually got some zoning rules changed. Although they fought tooth and nail to get the city and GDOT on board. I wish someone would do a deep dive video into that area.
Your theory tracks, given that less than 50% of Americans have a passport, which implies over half the country has never/will never visit any true walkable communities abroad
I thought of Not Just Bikes when I went to Mackinac Island for the first time just this past weekend. There are thousands of bikes in just a tiny urban area around the docks. Tons of shops and hotels. Everyone pays big money to go to the island. A ferry ticket is $30. Fortunately a bike ticket is only $15, because rentals are more than that. I brought my DIY ebike and it was a wonder to be in a place where cars are banned. The smell of the horses is a bit much, but once you're out in the state park area, there's clean air and tons of trails for cyclists. I was plenty glad to have my e-motor to tackle the hills and distance. I've lived in Michigan my whole life and never been to the island. It's truly worth a trip, for anyone who likes boats, bikes, and nature!
I'm in Ukraine and what's described in this video is positively dystopian - no way I'd ever wanna move there. EDIT: towards the end of the video, there was this "choice" presented between walkable cities and suburbs. But I live in a walkable suburb in Ukraine - is that not even the author of this video is not familiar with? that's really scary and underlines the authors point actually about how bad things are urbanism-wise over there.
There seems to be a self-contradictory argument that "walkable housing is too expensive, therefore we shouldn't build it" whereas 1) the reason it's so expensive is because not enough of it is built and 2) non-walkable housing is even more expensive when you factor in driving costs
Part of the problem seems to be the way it's financed. Fannie, Freddie, landlords, etc. don't care about income vs. (transportation + housing), all they care about is income vs. housing. Fannie and Freddie also don't want units in multiuse developments.
If zoning laws were disbanded and all taxes were replaced by a single land value tax then I'd bet that in 10 years, city design would've changed in large part to being extremely walkable and housing prices likely might have crashed (assuming there is no hyperinflation) but I don't think such polices would ever be implemented in the US anytime soon since most people don't seem to know/care about Henry George & Mlton Friedman's policies anymore...
Yes, let's build more sprawl that offloads transportation/access costs onto the individual and multiplies all the horrible externalities of our poorly conceived transportation system
@@philipwirth3603 Yes, the infrastructure is built with federal money. But the community has to pay for the maintenance. As we all know, they can't afford it. Well, they can. But then they have to increase local taxes, which makes the incentive to live there go away. Hence Ponzi scheme.
We moved cities and made some major changes. We moved from a car-dependent, single-family home to medium-rise apartment in a walkable neighborhood, and we sold both of our cars. We are paying quite a bit more in housing costs. However, we're overall paying less due to saving money on: 1. Depreciation costs of 2 autos 2. Fuel, maintenance, insurance, and tax costs of said autos 3. Other, non-obvious things like: 3a. Gym membership - get decent exercise walking around and cycling 3b. Costco membership - don't feel the need to stockpile when the grocery store is 2 minutes by foot The first 2 alone save well over the price difference in housing. So, our overall monthly costs have declined quite a bit. And, we're happier overall since we don't deal with driving/traffic stress anymore, and getting out and going interesting places is so low-friction. It's refreshing not having to find/pay for a parking space when we arrive!
So many of our walkability issues in the US stem from zoning laws. Areas which are zoned for single family residences don't allow a shop, café, or pub within walking distance. I have this discussion with my British friend all the time. She maintains we're just lazy and I try to explain to her the distances we have to go to get to a grocery store or shopping center. She and her friend went for a walk when visiting Beverly Hills and people literally stopped their cars to ask if they were okay 🤣🤣🤣
I've read stories of visiting foreigners going for walks around residential areas in the USA (something which is perfectly normal anywhere in Europe) and being stopped by the police because somebody has called them to report a suspicious person walking around.
Single family homes aren't necessarily the issue, San Francisco is full of them and still has everything within walking distance. But the single family homes are densely packed and populated... nobody has a giant yard here, and often the single family homes house multiple families. That's unique to SF it seems.
"I’m not against the automobile, but I just feel that the automobile has moved into communities too much. I feel that you can design so that the automobile is there, but still put people back as pedestrians again…. I’d love to work on a project like that.” - Walt Disney
@@Madaboutmada, Celebration was constructed decades after his death. The Walt Disney Company, the organization he founded, has created two cities: Celebration and Val d'Europe. Additionally, Disney is currently creating Cotino, just outside Palm Springs, California. Disney, in fact, used to have a mass-transit division that built monorail and WEDway PeopleMover systems, including the one at Houston Intercontinental Airport.
I enjoyed this video more than the usual "top 10"s, because it seemed to go deeper into a specific problem or subject, as opposed to introducing a thesis and then loading up on surface level examples
@@CityNerd this is true, but there are loads and loads (probably too many) of surface level „urbanist“ TH-camrs out there, and your ability to present complex data (and actual data, not just the same regurgitated opinions) in an entertaining and scientific-rational manner makes you unique. Just my opinion. I think there is a niche out there for explaining and exploring urbanist concepts in a more professional manner. Personally I would love to hear more about socioeconomic aspects that go beyond „suburbs and cars bad, density and transit good“
@@zwischendreistuehlen Have you checked out 'Not Just Bikes', 'RMTransit' and 'City Beautiful'? They have references linked to their videos. But @CityNerd is correct, generally speaking, TH-cam is too often not very scholarly. Viewers too often dond't stick around. On the other hand, there are some great channels that do go deep.
The general idea of "I hate single family houses, but like MY single family house" seems to be overly apparent here. Almost a manifestation of "social progress is awesome, and I recognise it's harm, however any amount of it I see as touching MY life style is intolerable!" Which I see a lot of people follow especially here in Massachusetts. This mindset, however, is wholly destructive. It's similar in character to "well its the southern way of life." It's an avoidance of personal responsibility in understanding that in, fact, change that affects everyone *has and effect on you*
The whole "walkable city" and "preference for cul-de-sac or suburb" are diametrically opposed ideas. All "walkable cities" I have noticed lack space between houses, no yards, often without garages and driveways. I can think of several places like Austin Texas that are counter to this argument, but you gotta admit haha So yeah I agree with you very much so. We get results such as Austin (which I like don't get me wrong) when people cling to the detached home idea whilst attempting to make a compact city. Is the house still attached when the space in between the houses is only like 3 feet?
I can honestly imagine an alternate system where laws are obsolete and people are replaced by robots and AI that are programmed to just walk around and observe everything that was built by a small single group of people, just move them around and throw them wherever like pigs in a small cage. Make them all look and behave identically and remove any trace of consciousness or self-awareness - sounds like a dream nation.
@@kalui96 tbh you can't still have (admittedly smaller) yards/gardens in denser areas. Something like a patio or small patch of grass you can sit out in the evening and maybe room for a barbecue. Just not masses of excess space
i feel like it wouldnt be as bad if we didnt place such an importance in moving out and owning your own house, like in other countries its normal for 3 or 4 generations to all live together. theres also the problem of in my city it costs the same to rent an apartment in a walkable neighborhood as it does to rent a house on the shitty side of town so for the most part only people without kids are going to rent those apartments because the grocery stores and other businesses in those areas are also more expensive.
Until recently,I didn’t know why I disliked walking and riding a bike around my small town. It is that it is designed to be easier for cars. I always love your videos. Thank you.
Yep. Same here. My town has almost nothing to walk to. All the things of interest are at least 2-3 miles away, which your average person isn't going to walk to these days.
In NY state, as well as other Northeastern states, there are plenty of small towns, cities built before cars. A lot of these towns are economically depressed due to manufacturing moving overseas. These places would be ideal for building more walkable, car independent cities if sufficient public transportation systems were built within these cities with connections to larger metro areas via high speed rail. Imagine living in upstate NY and being able to commute daily to NYC for work.
Technically that already happens, but it is more limited than it could be because you are relying on Metro North. However there are a lot of people who use Metro North to commute in (and the LIRR if you're talking about people who live in Suffolk). I guess you were referring to people who live north of Dutchess county however, in which case Metro North really isn't going to cut it. Sure it's a great regional rail by American standards, but it's still standard speed rail. (I live in the city so anything north of White Plains is "upstate" to me lol). There are some who already make that (unholy) commute, but it could be made a lot easier no doubt.
Although beyond the long term goal of HSR within NY state alone, Metro North should run a line on Jersey's side of the Hudson at the very least. It's kinda ridiculous that the train options in NY on the west bank of the Hudson are provided by NJT, and only tangentially so.
Yeah, I think I talk about this a bit in my Regional Rail video, and I do have an idea percolating around urbanist small towns/suburbs. Thanks for the nudge!
4:50 what's wild is that every single major city used to have walkable and transit-dense downtowns before they were almost entirely demolished for parking lots and interstates. Look at an overhead view of Houston in 1950 vs 1970! There's an argument that "we can't just redo our whole city for transportation," but that's exactly how we got in this mess!!
This is what I was thinking while watching. Framing urban sprawl and car-centric culture as some kind of freely emergent preference doesn't make sense given how aggressively subsidized the auto industry and infrastructure has been throughout the 20th century. If people had to pay the actual cost of urban sprawl, there would be far more walkable towns and cities IMO.
I've had this on a list to cover for awhile. Theme parks are so popular in the US exactly for these reasons. Hilarious that Disney world exists in the state with some of the worst walkable places in the world.
It's not surprising at all. When people are on vacation, they are not pressed for time. In our real lives, there is barely enough time for everything. Even with traffic, driving is usually much faster door to door than non-car modes.
Seriously though, it's sad that Disney World, a theme park resort with a huge system of buses, water taxis, Skyliner/cable cars, and monorail, has better transportation than legit cities in the US. AND they're all free to use! You don't even have to stay at a Disney resort to use the transportation Disney and transportation go hand in hand. Walt loved trains and I don't blame him. Disneyland Paris has direct high-speed rail access to Charles de Gaulle International, the rest of France, Amsterdam Centraal, and London St. Pancras as well as RER access to Paris and its suburbs. Hong Kong Disneyland is on MTR's Disneyland Resort Line (plus the trains are adorable). Tokyo Disney Resort has Maihama station on the Keiyō and Musashino Lines. And Shanghai Disneyland is on Line 11 of the Shanghai Metro.
Disney's transit has the advantage that its purpose (moving people from hotels to Disney's theme parks in the morning, and back in the evening) is naturally suited to a hub-and-spoke topology. Hub-and-spoke is also popular with city transit systems, but while it's great for people who work "downtown", it's inefficient for suburb-to-suburb commutes or shopping trips.
The main reason they have these robust transportation systems is to make the paying guests as comfortable as possible to keep them in the parks as long as possible in order to remove as much money as possible from their wallets. If it wasn't furthering their bottom dollar, it wouldn't exist.
Yeah, _but_ it's funded on the basis that you are paying a massive amount of money in their parks, and either significant parking fees, or significant resort fees, or both. It's not "free."
@@richardhasson265 Yes which goes to show that people want to stay in places with good transit. It also shows how transit improves local businesses and is more cost efficient than maintaining copious amounts of roads and carparks which just leads to more traffic and more dissatisfaction due to pollution, stress, etc.
@@danielbishop1863 if the majority of people/hotel goers need to commute to reach services or work it means that there is a possible need for more mixed use development, applied to a real world situation it would mean that more shops and businesses should be mixed in with residential areas so they can walk or cycle to work as to relax pressure on public transport systems
After living in Seville, Spain for years, an extremely walkable city, I have to say the quality of life is far higher there than back in North America.
@@ufinc There's so many reasons that could be possible. They might have a partner or family there. Better job opportunities. Missing other aspects of living in NA, such as food, culture, weather, etc.
@@ufinc what is it ? They touch your sensible spot ? Someone found a better place of your almost third world concrete place and it make feel bad ? Obviously they won't move out from an entire country in an entire snap of the hand but a lot would if they could
It's such a sledgehammer comparison that it really isn't legitimate. There are far more differences between North America and European countries than how 'walkable' a city is, and even European country to European country differences can make a big impact.
as a Canadian, just realised I've taken more vacations in Europe than our closer southern Neighbour, the USA. One reason is because I don't want to go to a place where I have to get a rental car.
Yeah it’s a bit of a bummer getting a rental car because they’re expensive, you have to learn to drive in a new major city and usually have to get some kind of expensive insurance unless it’s included in your credit card because you worry about someone hitting a car that’s not yours. I usually also vacation in the few walkable cities of the USA that have public transport or that I have relatives and then take vacations in England that have public transport. Or I can try Montreal again they have good walk ability
Great post. I paid an absurd price tag for my walkable living situation. Recently bought an ebike for weekend adventures with my son. I will never go back to suburban life. Feels so nice not to have to drive. There are simply so many positives about living almost car free. It’s uplifting.
This reminds me of some decades ago, I drove to Disneyland. I then walked around. Then I went on the Autotopia ride. I went from the freeway to a walking environment to driving toy cars. It was a couple of levels of surrealism.
Subject Request: The disappearance of grocery stores from America’s small towns. I recently spent a month cycling west along the Ohio River. I was stunned by the lack of grocery stores in small town America compared to a similar ride I did in 1980. I checked on the web and sure enough, American smaller towns have turned into grocery deserts where people have to drive 15 minutes to an hour to get groceries. One memorable town, Hamilton, Indiana, was highly walkable and otherwise vibrant with a large base of historic houses and commercial buildings. But the only groceries were Walmart, Kroger, and Aldi clustered on a huge stroad twenty minutes drive from town.
One of my grandfathers and some of his brothers had small family grocery stores in Ohio but they were put out of business by Kroger‘s a few decades later.
Why aren’t people shopping at local stores? Why did they stop? The lure of cheaper prices by the big boys is no doubt a reason but it’s a matter of saying “no”. Now these big boys have put their prices up due to the local stores (competition) are gone.
@@josephj6521 it’s a lot more than pricing. The big players use their superior capital position shape federal, state, and local laws to get the taxpayers to subsidize their operations. Thanks to new laws, we can can use capital and policy making in new ways to reap economic benefits by financing the creation of livable cities and unwind the damage caused by these dinosaurs.
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 This is a sad story indeed. My company works with capital in new ways to unwind the damage done by these behemoths and make life livable again for most Americans. The time spent and hard costs of driving so far for groceries has made food much more expensive. This excess waste and costs have created a great economic opportunity for something new to be rebuilt to replace your family’s stores.
My theory is that walking around on vacation is part of the mentality of taking a break from the regular. Car use is synonymous with the daily grind for most people so an escape from that and the leisurely pace of not having to be somewhere at a defined time truly feels like a vacation. This only lasts for a while though because I've seen tourists and for some of them walking around all day is a real effort.... Really interesting topic and I've subbed for this and also for how you talk with a "Valley girl" cadence....😉 Looking forward to more 😊
I always get the impression that the environment one ends up living in is rather incidental, and the choice is mainly about the cost, availability, proximity to work etc. I suspect few would complain if they ended up in walkable areas, I just doubt many do make deliberate choices about this, especially ahead of other factors. In that regard the US with their endless single-housing-zones just got most people living there because that's the easiest and most readily available choice ... the fast food option of housing, so to speak.
I wouldn't say fast food because that implies it's cheaper and quicker. Suburban sprawl is incredibly expensive to maintain for cities, and denser developments, while having higher startup costs, are much more productive economically and are more sustainable.
I would say all the cheaply built 5-over-1 apartment structures that have popped up over the last 15-20 years are the fast food option of housing. That said, they cost $2500 for a 1 BR here in Seattle, so it's actually more akin to ordering McDonalds via Uber Eats due to the terrible SQFT/$$$ value.
@@macgobhann8712 Almost none of those costs are passed on to the owners or tenants of suburban sprawl, though. Which is similar to how the people who buy fast food aren't paying for the wider social and environmental costs of factory farming and McJobs that the fast food industry relies on to turn a profit.
I don’t know. Seems to me that a large number of folks perceive their American Dream as one that includes a spouse, some kids, pets, decent public schools, as big of a house as they can afford and a nice fenced yard - maybe with a pool. Suburbs are an efficient way to deliver that. Not judging, just saying.
This pretty much sums up what I was about to say. I think primarily on the minds of most people is finding the most home for their money. And unfortunately, the McMansion in the disconnected, car dependent, cul-de sac subdivision is that choice for many people. And I don't even think people even give a lot of thought to proximity to work. People discover after they're moved in that they're 7 miles away from the nearest grocery store and that pleasant Sunday drive they took to go purchase the home becomes a nightmarish, traffic snarled, multi-hour commute. But what frustrates me is that developers and planners don't even try. Just down the road from me is a huge subdivision adjacent to an elementary school and there is absolutely no connection between the two. And I'd like to say that's the only incidence of that phenomenon in this county, but I can't. Don't get me wrong, I love certain aspects of my suburban subdivision home, but some days I really would like to do more than just make a walking circuit of the neighborhood.
This is the GEOGRAPHICAL expression of all of the ways American civilization has gone wrong in the last 40 years. I grew up and have lived in four American cities, three of which are among the best in this regard, and another of which is almost quintessentially the worst regarding walkability. I am a Chicago native who has also lived in Manhattan, in Boston, and in...Los Angeles. With American civilization and civic life failing almost apocalyptically, I have long ago begun to pine for Europe. But two anecdotes regarding my time in Los Angeles are telling, I think. Soon after arriving in Los Angeles and not yet familiar with it, I hadn't yet fully realized how unlike it was to the REAL cities I was used to. I decided to walk from Culver City, where I was staying, to Venice and Santa Monica. I imagined that since the distance was not that great, that there would be some sort of pedestrian infrastructure that would accommodate my intention. Instead, I found myself walking through tall weeds along the freeway, being gawked at by drivers passing by who regarded me as some sort of alien who had somehow lost his way. Then, shortly thereafter, the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica became one of my favorite places to go. It was and remains a highly popular destination. I very soon realized why: it was four simulated blocks of what a REAL city is supposed to be, with pedestrian life, a varied streetscape of interesting shops, and fellow citizens engaging in a personal way -- a simulacrum of the genuine urban life I was used to. Of course, there were only four blocks of it, as opposed to whole neighborhoods, as in Chicago, Manhattan, and Boston.
Here's the thing, unlike alot of Europe, America's a free country. You're free to leave, you're free to move. Turns out people are allowed to not follow your world view.
@@TheOwenMajor What did Rick Rose say that suggested everyone should live in an urban environment? What he said is that americans like those environments, they're just rare. Also, in case you forgot, those freedoms do not extend to what types of buildings can be built
Retired, living in a Seattle area, 'suburb city', where rent is about double what I'd like to pay. Looking again at Western Europe mid to large cities for walkability, cafe culture, moderate rent, no-car option, mild climate, parks, museums and cultural events. Can't seem to find a place like this now anywhere in the US. Tons of places like this in Western Europe.
@@eo4345 San Francisco is up there too. Both because they have good transit and because they limit development. Make it legal to build more multi-family homes and rents will drop.
Yeah but it's because you are in the land of opportunities right where the unicorns are being built and where the nerds turn into billionaires compared with old glory cities with declining population and the only employment prospective is sell something in the internet
I lived in Germany for 5 years. I came back to the U.S. to a neighborhood that was very walkable, but it was not enough, so I joined the crowd of younger transplants moving to New Orleans (Orleans Parish) not the suburbs. Where I live now is very walkable and bicycle friendly. I still have my car, but maybe only use it once every 2 weeks. There are amazing 5 star restaurants everywhere and no Cheesecake factory anywhere to be found.
@@feuerrabe Because I've done it. It's not bad if the weather is perfect but how often is that? Was walking my Dog today and it was hot as hell. If it's not hot it's probably cold or raining. If it wasn't for walking my Dog I wouldn't walk anywhere. I'v been temporarily without a car a few times and it was a bad experience.
Loved the theory-laden video for something a little more... philosophical in the academic sense? Can't wait to hear your thoughts on real estate as an investment tool
IMO this is a simple supply and demand issue. Building new walkable places is all but illegal in the US which constrains supply. And the high demand for walkablilty is evident in the higher prices of walkable areas. There are only a handful full of truly walkable cities in the US (NYC, SF, Boston etc) and they have the most expensive real estate prices in the country. There are several US cities with walkable sections/ neighborhoods, and these are almost always among the most expensive places to live in town. I'm willing to bet if you could buy an apartment in a walkable city for the same price you can buy a house in a car dependant suburb, there would be a lot less of those suburbs.
We need a more densely gridded rail system to boost this concept, both with communities, as well as connecting other communities as well. The east coast is pretty dense for freight but most metro passenger rail is poorly sited for connectivity to other transportation hubs as well as outside communities. This is true in most large countries including Canada, Russia, Australia, and China. If you can increase rail access the need for vehicles lowers considerably because the service area has expanded to meet people's needs. Make it beautiful and comfortable as well. Trains and railways, as well as walkable/bikable needs to be something you desire rather than an afterthought.
So, we have less expensive low density housing and more expensive dense housing. Sounds like its just one rezoning vote away from the free market fixing the supply issue.
There are two major factors that keep me from buying a home in a walkable neighborhood. The first is affordability, as discussed in the video. I ended up buying a house in a suburban neighborhood that is a small island of housing deep in an industrial area. My friends have commented that it's like I live in a rural area, except there are trucks all around instead of cows. The second reason I wouldn't want buy a home in the walkable areas of my city is crime rates. Violent crime and burglaries are both significantly higher in more walkable areas of the city. The good news is that my city has really good public transit, so I can still live car free. But I would like the option to live in a safe and affordable walkable area.
In some of my darkest moments I ruminate how folks who oppose more density, walkability and transit should be banned from enjoying the vacations or trips in any walkable areas
As someone who grew up in the Detroit metro area, I can definitely say that the idea of a walkable neighborhood is totally foreign to people. I was taught that yeah, one car per adult is just the way that it is. When I entered adolescence, I felt this strong yearning of "I'm too young to play with toys at home all day, but I'm not old enough to drive places, so I'm trapped." Discovering your channel and Not Just Bikes has opened my eyes to the fact that those feelings were not pre-teen nonsense, but rather a totally valid response to living in a suburb that offers no good alternatives to driving. There's also very few public spaces to just "be" in most US suburbs. Older generations (looking at you, boomers) loved to tell me, "when I was your age, I would get home from school and take my bike to the local cafe/soda fountain/restaurant and hang out with my friends." I remember thinking, "yeah, that sounds nice, but WHERE can I do that???" So I stayed home and played video games most days, lol. People love to blame TV or video games or social media for causing millennials/gen z to be overly coddled and lack independence, but I 100% blame cars. I also blame cars for the obesity epidemic. Cars suck!
I like the change of pace in this one, though I enjoy the nerdy statistics-oriented ones just as much. One thing that I fear in the New Urbanism and Walkability movements is that they might ossify into typical ideologies ---- just pseudo-intellectual blather employed by a group of privileged people to impose their will on everyone else. That's how we got into our absurd economy and lifestyle to begin with --- all those 1950s planners were totally convinced that they had it right. I love the ideas the New Urbanists have created, and think they will do much to improve our lives, but I hope I will never lose track of the fact that not everyone wants to live the way I want to live, and that a free and civilized society maximizes choice and variation. I remember how my mom felt trapped and claustrophobic when she could no longer drive, and no amount of walking around a pleasant neighbourhood could allay that anxiety. I've lived most of my life without a car (and Jane Jacobs was a neighbour, living a few blocks away) and it just isn't an issue for me, but unless I can see things from her point of view, I can't claim to truly care about people.
Why would someone feel trapped when beeing unable to drive anymore? Because a car is (perceived as) the only way to get to places? I second your free choice argument, though I would like to add: if you do the less harmful thing (for society/environment)it shouldn't feel like shooting in your one foot. People that want to drive can do so when they pay for the externalities.
@@Jacksparrow4986 We should want to minimize the need for cars- it makes sense to be able to have most of your amenities closeby, your job closeby, whether by foot, bike, or transit. That being said, cars are popular for a reason and it's not sensible to ignore why. A car can let you go anywhere, at anytime, immediately. If you have friends/family to visit far away, if you want to see someplace not on your transit network, if you want to go someplace at 2AM when nothing's running. It's understandable how this can cause anxiety- even a proper transit system is like being on a cruise ship where you have every human need handled but know you're limited by being in a huge yet confined space. This is in part why a lot of people that could be won over by transit programs are skeptical. The fact is that by improving transit we should aim to reduce the need for cars, but understand that there will still be uses for them.
I'm semi-retired, walk to my part-time job in a public market where I also do most of my grocery shopping. I live in a smaller fairly-affordable northeast city surrounded by suburban sprawl. Going completely car-free is mighty tempting, but the lack of public transportation options in the surrounding areas complicates matters. Very happy that I can go several days at a time without driving, though.
Exactly why I moved to the Chicago from the suburbs. Chicago has great (for America) public transit and is very walkable in most neighborhoods. I still have to drive to work in the suburbs but other than that going days in a row without having to drive is a great feeling.
This is another problem. Walkable communities do exist in the US, but they’re bubbles, often without connection to other communities, unless you drive. So you can live car-free in Boston, but you would need a car to go anywhere outside the city that’s not on a bus route or transit line.
At the start of the video, when you posed the question, I tried to theorise my own answer, and I basically came to the conclusion you did. People would love to live in a walkable place, but there's so little of it and it's so expensive, that they've sort of resigned themselves to it not being possible, and so they just kind of make the best of what they have and don't bother complaining enough to actually change things. Bit of a sad state of affairs really.
People generally choose options that are most economically accessible and sensible to them. People are always going to choose places closer to where they work, choose places that they can afford most. Because of the very limited options most Americans have, most people are going to live in suburbs and deal with an hour long commute because they basically have to, they don't have much other choice unless they want to spend 80 percent of their monthly income on rent. That's the only issue I have with the "personal choice" argument, because most people don't live in the burbs because of "personal choice" they live there because they have to, it's the only economically viable solution. I know people have a problem with this idea, but in observing the downtown of my hometown building new apartments, if you build it in high quantities, and are competitive with suburban prices, the people will come. They'll come in droves.
Another aspect of this phenomenon (that this channel helped me appreciate) is that vehicle costs are often seen as inevitable, given the baseline assumption that you need a vehicle to get around anywhere. I'm guessing if most folks did the math, they probably could afford more expensive apartments or condos in walkable urban environments if it meant that they weren't paying for vehicle gas, storage, and maintenance costs.
I think the point about people not considering car costs is relevant, although there is a particular challenge in getting everyone in a multiple worker household appropriately situated to walk/transit to work when they are in different directions. It will get easier with better transit though.
I want so badly to live in an area that actually has sidewalks and pedestrian centered area and walkable spaces! I have looked all over for someone to discuss this in detail. Thank you.
Excellent piece. I nerd out on stuff like this. Personal anecdotal experience includes growing up in a small, isolated town where everybody walked everywhere, so that was my normal, to being an exchange student in a medium-sized city in German in high school (in the late 1970's), again where teens walked or rode mopeds or public transit (took a train to Essen to see Queen in concert, for example), to college at Big State U where I walked everywhere, to living in Boulder (early 1980's) near the Pearl Street Mall, to settling in San Francisco for 15 years. In other words, a life from age 0 to about age 40 of mostly walkable environments. Then, moving to a classic midwestern suburb of a big midwestern metro, where there are no sidewalks, curvy streets with poor lighting and lots of foliage, and lots of old people driving Escalades. Walking is affirmatively dangerous, and even if you do walk, there is nowhere to walk to. We walk for exercise, but not for social interaction nor commerce. The withering ennui of driving into a garage, closing the door, and spending life in a house. No wonder the nation has so much violence.
I'm in the processing of determining where to purchase a home and this video is massively helpful! You are spot on with the duality of walkable neighbors severely lacking either affordability or availability. Even in Seattle, outside central Seattle there are many walkable neighborhoods either. You might be able to stretch further with biking, but the half of the year the weather won't permit it lol.
Hi. I really liked the philosophical and conceptual focus of this video. It feels more substantial than a “10 best/worst” type of video. On the topic, I live in Metro Boston and would love to live in a walkable neighborhood, but the only ones I could afford to live in have the highest crime rates in the metro area. Boston has lots of reasonably safe walkable neighborhoods, but a one-bedroom unit in those neighborhoods is way above my ability to buy or rent, and my household income is in the top quartile for the area.
I live in the burbs north of Boston and take the commuter rail into the city. I’m lucky enough to afford one of the older, more walkable towns on a commuter rail line. But my door to door commuting time is one hour, ten minutes, and that’s without delays. So I’m sacrificing a substantial amount of time to live in a walkable community. I would love to live closer to Boston, but I just can’t afford it.
people who haven't researched this stuff (like us nerds) only know what they've seen in person, and that means what's in their area. even a short vacation doesn't usually have this effect. not just bikes, I think, got orange pilled after moving from london ON to amsterdam
Because thats all people see when they visit a "downtown" of a city. They dont know the neighborhoods around and only get left with an impression of skyscrapers and parking lots.
@@yuriydee Yeah if you're just going to Manhattan, that's what you experience. My last experience going through various boroughs in NYC was completely different as it was closer to how people actually lived in the city.
Hey Ray, I know you read some of these so I figured I'd say as a long-time subscriber (sub-5,000 if I remember? Gotta chase the urbanist youtuber early-subscriber clout) that I would really like to see more of this type of content. As someone from the Front Range Urban Corridor hellscape, you've opened my eyes to seeing there's a better way. Keep up the good work, I hope you can inspire more people my age to rally around more sustainable urban landscapes.
I used to live in a city when i went to college. The big reason people like me leave is the crime. I dont wanna be carrying around a gun all the time but when you get confronted with bad people it ruins your desire to want to be around people. This in turn damages public transport, closer housing and all of the city style of livelihood.
I live in a relatively walkable rust belt city. Finally managed to buy a house a few years back, and had to decide between two. I went with the house than was in the dense urban neighborhood over the newer, nicer house in a (still somewhat walkable) suburb. For the privilege of being able to walk to more than just one grocery store and having bus service that could get me home from my second shift job, I paid roughly 40% more for the house. I'll eventually save the difference by being car free, but that's still a steep upfront cost and only possible due to being in one of cheapest urban housing markets in the country.
I would love to see you compare two places in Czech Republic. Prague (Praha) versus Pilsen (Plzeň). Both have allowed cars into their city streets, yet they have done so differently. Notably in Prague, you step off of a tram, then cross a road to get to the pavement. It makes no sense. Pilsen is too narrow in most of its centre, so the cars must wait, giving trams priority. Your keen eye would probably spot more notable design quirks. As a side note, Czechia has buses (autobusy) and trolleybuses (trolejbusy) integrated too. Also every street has a café, because every street is a destination. No matter where you go (the book shop, the fabric shop, the beer factory, Colours of Warriors...), you'll need somewhere to eat and drink. And if I haven't convinced you to visit yet, they also have gooseberry ice cream.
That study is 100% correct about residential dissonance. In no universe could either Atlanta or Detroit be considered walkable. That is not to say tiny areas within the city aren't, just that they are rare.
I fall squarely in this category. I enjoy a walkable urban-ish area for vacation or a weekend away, but I would never live in one. Walkable towns inherently require density, and I think a love of personal space is ingrained in a lot of americans, myself included. If I can afford it, I will always choose more square footage, no shared walls (*shivers*), and the ability to shop 2-3 weeks at a time instead of carrying groceries home from the store by hand. Keyword there is affordability of course. I'd like to see our urban areas improved, as that's where a lot of our most vulnerable and/or least empowered folks live!
Probably the latter, I made walkability and transit access a priority when I bought my place and even then only could choose between either 30yo buildings with metro access and a decent pedestrian shopping experience or a handful of newer buildings farther away with only bus access and a few nearby strip malls. If I was rich enough to go for whatever I wanted my choices wouldn't have changed much, except maybe having a few more options in the main city rather than an exurb, which still would have required driving to visit friends and family
I currently own the home that my parents had bought in the mid-1980's. It is located in the suburb of a small semi-rural city. My father had a choice between buying this home (and a few others just like it) or a peach farm down the road a bit further which was a bit cheaper. He really liked the idea of the peach farm and really wanted it (after all, he was a country boy and came from farming stock), but instead opted for the suburban home because it was a bit closer to his workplace and my mom was a city-bred girl who didn't understand farm life. In every suburban home we've ever lived in she thought all the trees should be cut down. We never allowed it though. She hated leaves and twigs being on the ground. She thought it looked dirty. Ugh. I love her, but never could understand that view. However, we would never have considered anything closer to a more densified area. We always had large dogs and they needed space, too. A suburban home with a large yard for our dogs was a necessity as far as we were concerned and just as important to us as any school system or shopping district, etc.
The last 18 years (ages 28-46) I've primarily based my housing decisions on walkability. Arlington VA, downtown DC, and now a downtown adjacent neighborhood in the city I live in today. But even as enthusiastic as I am for walkability my idea of the good life would not be an apartment/condo. I did it in DC for 6 years and it was appropriate for where I was in my life at the time but even while enjoying it I never saw it as the long term solution. For me the absolute sweet spot is a neighborhood of gridded streets with sidewalks, rowhouses, alleys instead of personal driveways, and fenced in yards that are modest but allow for some personal outdoor space. If you layer on good public schools to that mix I think many more Americans would also choose this option. Lot size would be 2000-3000 SF. This is not Manhattan density or even Brooklyn. But it is quite a bit denser than suburbs and can support a variety of small format local shops/bodegas/cafes. And on certain corridors can support large format grocery store, etc.. However this really mix of rowhouse density with small yards doesn't get built anymore as new construction in any volume. Just as infill/gentrification to old streetcar neighborhoods. Today when a developer does build a subdivision of townhouses its not on streets that connect to much of any existing city fabric and these homes have no yards at all. Just a rear loading garage in the basement of the house and surrounded by asphalt. There are Americans of course where a rowhouse will be too dense for them but would still value a form that is more walkable than suburbs. For this case I think of the land use of the outer streetcar neighborhoods. Usually detached single family homes on 5000-6000SF lots. Common from the time period this land use was in vogue you will see many Sears kit homes on these lots. This type of neighborhood is denser than today's suburbs. Perhaps not dense enough to support many amenities beyond the basics. But would be dense enough to support bus lines to the CBD. One of the problems with today's suburbs is they don't even have any transit because they are so spread out it makes little sense. And if many voters live in areas where land use decidedly determines transit makes no sense then they aren't going to support candidates who push future transit expansion for their metro.
Love living in DC and Arlington, but once I had kids I was driving everywhere. Even though I lived 1/2 mile from Safeway, I still drove. When I was single I always walked.
I'm an avid viewer of your and other similar channels. Videos like this are enjoyable to watch, but often sadden me given the state of many US cities like mine (Louisville). I'd love to see a video that provides positive recognition of cities which have in some small way transformed themselves from suburbia wasteland into something walkable and sustainable with public transportation options. Give us seem gleam of hope that we can get out of this mess. Show us there is a way, Obi Wan.
It's not enough to build great urban fabric - it needs to be sustainable from an economic, social and cultural POV, with quality services. Dense, busy urban living can be awesome when it's vital and thriving, but that's a fragile state. Urban planning is only part of the picture. There are plenty of thriving suburbs that are great places to live despite their terrible planning and car-focused culture. There are plenty of classic urban places that have become hell on earth for rich and poor alike. You give Pike Place Market in Seattle as an example of excellent, walkable urban spaces. I grew up in Seattle, and visited Pike Place regularly from the early 70s to late 80s. While Pike Place market was cool during this era, especially when they created the Hill Climb down to the waterfront, it was always more of a (local + out-of-town) tourist spot-to-visit than a place you'd shop and "live in" as a Seattle local, unless you happened to live right downtown and it was really your only convenient option. Seattle has many quasi-suburban neighborhoods in-city - I grew up on the north end of Capitol Hill. Despite being quite close by, we didn't actually shop for essentials at Pike Place Market, as the quality and experience was inferior to both local supermarkets and zero-middleman experiences like Fisherman's Terminal. Produce vendors, e.g., wouldn't let you pick your own fruit/veggies and would keep inferior crap behind the counter and do a bait-and-switch on you. There were a few specialty vendors unique to Seattle that made it worth doing some specialty shopping at Pike Place, but it wasn't a good substitute for "suburban" grocery stores that were 5 minutes away by car or 15 minutes by bus. Keep in mind I'm talking about 70s-80s here. It's been a long time since I've been to Pike Place, but the area has gotten terrible. Over the last 30 years, a wave of poorly mitigated homelessness has ruined the on-street experience from Belltown to Pioneer Square. This is one of the biggest political issues in Seattle and the problem has been critical for over 20 years (obviously more if you go way back in Seattle history to the Skid Road homeless city era, but that's another topic). I lived right next to Pioneer Square from 2003 to 2005, during which time I saw the unique shops close one by one and the sidewalks in the area becoming gauntlets of literal insanity. As a big man, I could pass unmolested, but women friends of mine were constantly harassed on the streets in scary ways. It was horrible to see the distinctive mix of indie street-wall shops, professional services, offices and apartments decline over the decades, despite (or perhaps because of) an influx of residents to the downtown core. Wonderful, walkable cities - the kind you say people want to vacation in - are just as much a consensual hallucination as a built environment. When not enough people share the dream, the city declines. Check out the Fall of Civilizations Podcast channel here on TH-cam for many examples of history's greatest urban centers going from thriving, to war zones, to ruins with sheep grazing in them. This perspective may seem a bit grandiose for a comment on a TH-cam urbanism channel, but consider this: my grandfather was born in 1908 and took the train up Lake Washington to fish in the wilderness that is now the suburban downtown center of Bothell. He lived in the upper-class, quasi-suburb of Laurelhurst from 1938 to 2012 when he died. When he moved in, they had rats because the city dump was in what is now a natural science "park" between Laurelhurst and University of Washington. When my mom was a student at University of Washington, University Way, aka "The Ave" by UoW campus was a wonderful urban shopping strip with department stores, boutiques, and a wide variety of service businesses catering to both locals and students. Now it is a poorly maintained strip of crappy restaurants where people will mug you if you come out of a building that happens to have a pot shop in it. There's no sense at all on The Ave - as far as I can see - of a thriving community of students who are making their own world - not art, not political protests, it's very depressing. Bellingham, a small college town to the north, is much more like the fantasy of culturally thriving, walkable urban centers. But the buildings and urban fabric on The Ave haven't changed. If anything, it's been made more pedestrian-focused, rideable and walkable with a whole gamut of anti-car street design. But it's much, MUCH worse as a place both to visit and live than when I was growing up. It used to be a one-stop shop for services and shopping, now you have to go elsewhere for most things. Local grocery stores within an easy walk of campus have closed (QFC) or become crappy places to grab take-out (Whole Foods). If you want a hopping student community off campus, you need to visit the Starbucks in the ultra-gentrified University Village on the other side of campus where some subset of Asian student cliques hang out. I can't explain all these changes, but I can say they all happened during a period where Seattle urban planning purported to be very pro-pedestrian, pro-density, etc. Driving around Downtown Seattle is definitely a lot harder now than when I grew up. But, ironically, so is walking, shopping and living. It's clear that urban fabric is not the main determinant, unless it turns out that the contemporary approach to the kind of urban design you advocate in this channel paradoxically makes places unlivable (I don't think this is the case). Clearly, economic, cultural and social factors trump urban design in making livable communities.
As a resident of a walkable Atlanta neighborhood I can confirm that the demand is there. Housing construction is booming in midtown and around the Beltline (which is a potential video idea, best converted/mixed use trails?). Anyway, people here want to live in walkable areas there is just very little supply
Fellow ITP ATLien who loves my city. This is a bigger topic that anyone watching these videos is aware of and impacts all cities to different extents but racism, segregation, and white flight are major factors here. There’s a reason Marta does not reach its potential or that there are cute, denser neighborhoods you don’t hear about like East Point in south atl. Anyone who’s stuck OTP and doesn’t want to be due to affordability and availability, I feel for you and I hope we can make this city better. Anyone who went OTP to have a 3 car garage, a 2-hour commute, and keep their taxes in a “safe” neighborhood doesn’t really live in Atlanta. .
I love Top 10 vids as much as the next guy, but I really appreciate this kind of deeper dive and analysis of a topic. My wife and I have absolutely experienced this residential dissonance when we were looking to buy our first home in Nashville back in 2017. We explained to the realtor that we preferred walkability, but there were so few realistic options that even somewhat fit this criteria, that we ended up buying in a location that wasn't walkable at all (we could walk to Shelby Bottoms Park so that was a definite perk but they usually don't sell groceries in the park nor is it a place to hold down a job, etc.). I thought your framing of this topic was on point, with all the walkable urban simulations that we construct so that people can tickle a memory for a few hours or a day or two of what it once was like to be a real bipedal being
Yup, this definitely sounds like my family. One of our frequent vacation spots growing up was the town of Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts on Matha’s Vineyard. Beautiful, walkable town and a great summer destination, but the towns where I was raised weren’t walkable at all. Disney World is a good example, too. Being somewhere walkable with good public transportation is a huge component of the experience there, and that’s part of what draws people to it. I always wondered, why not just move to a walkable community instead of vacationing in one? That’s exactly what I did.
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 I’m in Tucson AZ. It’s one of the oldest cities in the Southwest, so it doesn’t have the sprawl that Phoenix and Vegas have. I live in the University/Downtown area. Great neighborhoods with a streetcar and regular bus service.
I mean it seems to me like the answer is obvious, a vacation is temporary. A lot of people prize space more than anything else because their home is where they spend most of their time. That pretty much requires low density single-family homes. If that means that you need to drive to visit friends, or get food, or really do anything -- so what? It's just a necessary chore, not any different than having to take the bus or train if that option is available. So yeah, living in a hotel (equivalent to a small apartment) for a week while exploring a cute town might be fun as a one off experience, but that's not what they are looking for in their day-to-day. I just don't think most Americans want to live in the kind of walkable urban spaces that people like us desire if it means less space and/or less privacy. If you can give people space and privacy and also provide cute walkable cities, that's a different story, but that's a lot harder to do. There's a reason single family detached homes are so popular! (Of course, we shouldn't basically force everyone into SFHs via zoning either.) To be clear, these aren't my preferences -- these are just the preferences I think most Americans hold.
@@vishaalprasad2020 Oh yeah, I’m not saying single family houses with lots of space and big yards are an inherently bad thing. I wouldn’t want to be stacked on top of tons of people shoulder-to-shoulder either. I would live in a single family house if I could afford it. My main concern is making sure that everyone is connected by public transit to places where they can walk around, interact, and have easy access to at least basic services. Instead of having to choose between space and access to transit, why not have both?
@@vishaalprasad2020 Why not just make bigger/better "apartments"? 1200-2000sqft? Or densify the homes and shrink the streets, to get things closer together? Don't make 2800sqft 2-story homes, make 3 story 3-unit 4800sqft homes - perfect for a few families. Then you only have two "neighbours", not 40 or 110 in your building. With a few small changes, we could probably 3x our density and make significant progress towards walkability and zoning that make sense.
it's honestly just as simple as cost. a ton of sprawling suburbs were built in the 50s-70s to make segregation easier and walkable mixed-use areas were deliberately allowed to decay or were destroyed. so suburbs became cheaper and that drew people in, not that everyone necessarily wanted it.
"Affordable housing" became a house in the suburbs at that point. In reality, it takes a lot of resources to build such spaced out housing when you'd save more maintenance costs sharing units, sewer, pipes, etc. like in the cities. But cities aren't where subsidies for housing goes so when it comes to costs, suburbs tend to draw people in terms of long term costs
This was definitely an awesome one, it’s nice to understand when talking with people who don’t consider walkability important or understand it, why they may feel that way or even what other factors they agree
I really enjoyed this video. I like these kind of deep dives into the American concepts of how our country lives and reacts because it really can show why we still resist the obvious answers to our planning.
He fulfills a different nitch for me compared to the other channels I watch. So that's completely your opinion and what you are watching. CityNerd does things quite different enough from the other urbanists or city planning side that I definitely can't say the same.
Man, that replication of Venice in Las Vegas was so faithful, I couldn’t even tell if it was outside or indoors. The sky was so blue, and the clouds were so white! Reminds me of the movie, A Boy and His Dog. If you really hate American architecture (like I do), check out James Howard Kunstler's,The ghastly tragedy of the suburbs. Bravo CityNerd!
Thank you for getting a bit philosophical about the pursuit of happiness. I felt like it helped me understand how urban living measurably improves people's happiness without denigrating non-urbanists' intelligence for choosing suburbia. Most of my immigrant community fully buys into the idea that suburban living is the "good life", and they are really smart, hardworking people. I don’t want to make fun of them; I want to be able to build more walkable spaces so that people can see others enjoying and appreciating good urbanism.
Everything you need can be walked to. And if you leave the ship, it dumps you into either a very walkable touristy neighbourhood, or to public transit / bus tours where you can go see something cool.
I love how in America walkable urban design is a luxury and thus a commodity to be sold, so much so that people will pay thousands of dollars a month in rent to be in a neighborhood that has good "vibes", but the whole time it's just a walkable, less car dependent neighborhood lol.
And the irony is that, because it's a luxury, we interpret that it's impossible to implement where we live. Supposing you could make your *own* walkable city is like supposing you could bring the beach to your town.
I would love to live in a walkable neighborhood, but in southern California where I live, the walkable neighborhoods close to the coast where the climate doesn't suck are extremely expensive. Of course, beach communities are going to be costly. Therefore, I am doomed to live in the car dominated suburb a short distance inland, near the intersection of two horrific stroads, and if I want to spend some time in a nice walkable neighborhood, I have to drive there and find a place to park. There are walkable communities away from the coast that are a bit less expensive, but for me, nothing is walkable when the temperature is too high. I might consider the city of Vista. It is inland, but not too far from the coast, so the climate isn't as nasty as in Escondido or Temecula, two other inland cities with walkable downtowns. Main Street in Vista is an odd hybrid of normal downtown and lifestyle center. To the east is a normal downtown area with local businesses, restaurants, and bars. There is even a recently built large apartment building with commercial space on the ground floor - the perfect sort of development for a walkable community. Then, to the west, Main Street transitions onto the private land of a small lifestyle center which is a lot more sanitized than the somewhat gritty "real" downtown and has more chain businesses. On the outskirts, south of downtown, is a typical ugly power center with expansive parking lots. The old public downtown is appealing, albeit small, and the lifestyle center portion is somewhat less appealing but still has some businesses worth visiting. I think there is untapped demand for housing in walkable neighborhoods. Not everybody wants to live in a single family home with a yard that has to be maintained. Some of us actually want to live in apartments and enjoy the freedom of not having to worry about constant maintenance and yard work. Downtown neighborhoods with retail on the ground floor and apartments and offices on upper levels would be great for many people.
I liked the change up including some philosophy along with the history and data/statistisc. Human nature will always be a fun topic to discuss and dissect. Per usual I appreciate hearing your observations, insights, and research references. Keep em coming!
This makes me wonder about "Golf Cart Cities" such as The Villages, Sun City, or Peachtree City. They're not urban by any definition but all three communities were built using an urban-planning style a master plan and both have large numbers of golf carts as transportation, i.e. not just for use on a golf course. I know urban is your thing but maybe it's worth looking at suburban communities that buck some trends?
It’s easy to make fun of The Villages, but the carbon footprint of people living there must be relatively low due to getting around by golf carts, biking and walking.
They don’t really have groceries you can get to in The villages by walking or bicycling since all of them are on major highways such as for 441 and 466. Also since the golf paths are used for golf carts to get around and there’s quite extensive ones it’s not quite safe bicycling or walking since the golf carts often go about 20 mph and people get annoyed at the bicycles and some don’t stop where there a stop signs.
I currently live in the poster child community for bad urban planning and suburban, auto-centric sprawl aka Los Angeles. This place seems to get worse every year and there are more cars all the time. Most of the time most streets are choked with traffic, they keep widening the freeways which does nothing and everyone is complaining. In short I can't wait to move to a less crowded, less expensive, less hot more sustainable and walkable community!!
On the topic of universities being super walkable, it would be great to see a video on some of the best college campuses for transit, walkability, or just general urban design. I'm a Georgia Tech student so I'm rooting for them to land a spot on the list, but I think it'd be interesting to see how campuses across the world stack up!
I'm also a GT student! I love how walkable GT is and how many spaces are car-free, but the grocery and laundry options for students living west of campus are pretty limited. I love MARTA train stations being so close for transportation around the city and to/from airport. Wish MARTA busses were more reliable though as it's a long walk from west of campus. GT is so cool for being in the middle of a major city but still having that secluded "campus" feel.
I'm curious to see if this would skew towards those in the middle of a big city the likes of UT Austin, places that are college towns like A&M (College Station), and then whether it'll be newer or older schools. Maybe those factors won't have an effect on anything at all!
@@Jetliner college towns often have good, free public transportation provided by the university, so I wouldn't be surprised if they are equally or even more competitive
I vote yes for the philosophical approach! I appreciate so many things about your presentations, but this one had me feeling more intellectually and emotionally engaged than the others.
There's a really odd "Elephant in the Room" element to living in Walkable Areas. It is that those areas can become co-opted by the city and its promoted interests seemingly at will. It may be (or seem) to be nice to live in such an area for 340 days a year, but when the city uproots it residents' live with street fairs, fireworks shows, Fun Runs, Holiday concerts, et cetera, it maks the prospect of living in such an area challenging. When one lives in such an area he may not even have the option of making a quick drive to a grocery store or enjoying a quiet evening at home. Or even enjoying a quiet weekend morning at home! It becomes a really tough pill to swallow to pay a premium to withstand these challenges ...
sounds like youre talking about marketplaces rather than actual living space. most cities have noise requirements in residential areas for that exact reason. but still, people pay to stay basically on times square still, and that place never seems quiet.
This tells me you have never lived in a city and have a skewed perception of what it is like. I live in a densely populated, very walkable section of Chicago, and I can assure you I have never once not been able to make a quick trip to the grocery store (please note, I just need to walk a few blocks, driving is not necessary). And having anything other than a quiet morning or evening at home is the very much the exception rather than the rule. Events are spread out across the city and usually concentrated on the main commercial streets. The chance that one would disrupt the peace of your home life and everyday routine is very slim.
@@once-upon-a-pixel I was born and lived more than 25 years in Brooklyn, NY, which has three times the population density of Chicago. Many U.S. cities conduct public events in areas of high population density. The fact that it (apparently) does not occur in Chicago does not mean that all or most other Walkable Urban Areas are following suit ...
I think some people who think they want to live in a car-dependent area are really just people who have accepted the dominance of the automobile to the point where they really believe that driving a car everywhere is the only way to access all of the places they need to go. In other words, because there are so many places in the US where cars really _are_ the only way to get a lot of places, people associate "car" with "freedom" to the point that they can't or won't consider the alternative of adjusting how we build our cities. And so, when asked, instead of saying, "Yes, I would like to live somewhere where I can walk to places," they say, "No, I would rather live in a suburb with a car," simply because they can't imagine a place that allows them perfect freedom to get to where they need to go without also requiring that they have a car.
I definitely like this style of video. When we talk about cars vs trains or density vs urban sprawl it often leaves out the fundimental reasons why and how we organize human settlement
4:15 In the LA region at least, most of those outdoor shopping centers were not remodeled malls, but rather old industrial sites and factories. Van Nuys - The Plant - General Motors Downey - Downey Landing - North American Aviation Burbank - Empire Center - Lockheed
I grew up in suburbia, went to college and grad school in urban settings, then lived in suburbia again until I got divorced at 50. I live in a small metro area and had a choice on where to live at that point: country or city. I chose city, mainly b/c I thought it'd be too easy to simply become a hermit if I moved to the country. Worked for about 10 years. Went out a lot and loved being single again. My place in the city was a 2700 sf house on a 5000 sf lot. Lived on a cul-de-sac street with about 18 other houses, similarly packed in pretty tight. Got to know everybody on the street, about half of them well enough that we'd invite each other over spontaneously if we saw each other walking, working in the yard, etc. First time since college I'd been in an environment like that. Neighborhood was close enough to walk to a grocery store and several restaurants. About a year ago, after a decade in the city house, I moved to the country. Now live in a 4000 sf house on 5 acres. Why did I move? Stress reduction. One of my neighbors was nosy, e.g. "Who was over last night?" Another thought it was OK to go on vacation for a week, leave her dogs home (and able to get into her 400 sf backyard where they'd bark incessantly) and have her niece come over once a day to feed them. A couple of my neighbors were basically at war with one another. The proximity to commerce and businesses has the downside of traffic, noise, and smells (think: frying chicken, etc.). For a while, there was a homeless encampment in the neighborhood stormwater catch basin. All of this (and more) got amplified during the pandemic (except that during the first two months of the lockdown in 2020 there was virtually no traffic noise). Out in the country I live a very peaceful life, sleep well and am amazed at the amount of stress reduction.
A big thing to look at is how we zone...more specifically how we're allowed to zone. In lots of places in the US you're not allowed to zone mixed use residential/commercial, or build multi-family dwellings. Planners and developers are often forced to make suburban sprawl
To go on a bit of a tangent from the video, being someone who's gone from living relatively rural and driving everywhere I have to go to living on a college campus where driving places is massively optional (technically) I think I can sum up my current thoughts with this... I like driving my car in my hometown. There's very little traffic anywhere and there's plenty of parking no matter where I go. However, there are lots of times where I would just drive somewhere to park where I can walk, like driving to school to walk around at school, or going downtown to get a slugburger and ending up just sitting outside for a while waiting on it in the summer heat. I'd walk around the corner connecting up and downtown after I finished up at the gym on some nights. Honestly I like walking well enough, but I can't just write off cars like that. In my very niche situation in the Mississippi summer sun I'd get my slugburger order, drive 2 minutes to less than half a mile down the road to the park, find a shady parking spot, and eat my slugburger while watching youtube in my air conditioned car and also having a beautiful atmosphere outside around me without having to experience the sweltering heat; I call that a good lunch break. Cars are good for a couple things: independently going where I want to without the need of concerted interest, and transportation of stuff. Living in a semi rural area, going to fishing ever so occasionally or swimming, disc golf, etc.--natural areas-- is made a lot easier if not just possible. Also when I want to go to another major town or city, I can always haul more than myself and whatever my sorry ass can carry in a couple of bags thanks to my car. Still tho, I don't need to do either of these other things super often, so yeah I think I could handle a more urban area if it meant I didn't have to use my car as often. Honestly there's upsides to rural and urban areas, and I believe both can continue their completely separate existence and different styles of infrastructure. Suburbs are always labeled as the problem and I can see why. They basically take the wastefulness of constant use of cars from rural areas and say, "because you're an accessory to a city of some kind, you're going to have to drive into a location where getting in and just parking somewhere can be a hassle just so you can get out and walk somewhere." Public transport or nearby merchants seem like way better options. America needs to better define and narrow the line between an area that has plenty of space for car centric infrastructure and areas where pedestrian infrastructure would save time and money.
I think that's fair, and I bet most urbanists would agree. Rural areas are where the food production happens and are necessarily low density. Cars/trucks will always be there and they serve a useful purpose. Rural areas are also not going to be super intense on infrastructure since there aren't many people and don't demand city level services. Dense walkable urban areas are also a good idea since they provide the most conveniences for people without massive mobility overhead, efficient use of public space, and efficient use of infrastructure. The density also makes public transportation more viable. And then we have suburbs. It's this weird in-between that doesn't do anything well while being super wasteful. They are not dense enough to be walkable so require cars, but also dense enough to have crappy traffic. They also require city level services so are pretty intense on infrastructure but not dense enough to make efficient use of said infrastructure. Most of my friends who grew up or had children in the suburbs did not like the experience at all, and I can understand why.
I just remembered a development outside of downtown Atlanta called Glenwood Park that has all the elements of walkability. It was completed in 2010 and actually lead the city to chane the code to allow narrower streets. They also had to get variances for mixed use. It was wildly successful, so I wonder why more like it have not been built. Therte is a video about it's creation th-cam.com/video/XoVXoB6x3vM/w-d-xo.html
Walkable neighborhoods are in such short supply in the US that any walkable area that is reasonably safe was either always wealthy, gentrified, or gentrifying. It makes me sad because I believe walkability should be for everybody, but also because it makes these areas surprisingly homogenous (not to mention insufferably bougie). If you’ve ever been to a neighborhood that has one or more stores selling greeting cards for $6 and up you know what I’m talking about.
That last part was important. For the most part, walkable neighborhoods tend to be very pricey--unless they are located in dangerous parts of town. By pricey, I mean that a large house suitable for a family with kids, with a big yard, is going to cost a fortune. I live in a two-bedroom condo in a major east coast city. It's about 1,000 square feet. That's ample for me, but many (including the growing family who sold it to me) need more space for the kids. Single people like me, and childless couples, tend to prefer living in walkable neighborhoods, while families are more likely to prefer suburban housing developments with lots of space. Generally, the bigger the family, the farther out they tend to live.
Agree. When you have kids it is tough to walk for groceries and the schools have to be good, those things override walk-ability. When my kids are grown I will live in a walk-able area again.
If you sit down and think about it, it's crazy how many places you 'love the vibe' of are somehow filling this innate hunger for walkability. Even airports, something one should hate for its high stress environment and long lines... people often state they love the vibe of airports and I'd argue it's because they're walkable areas with lots of people and stores, something that we just don't get enough of in suburban life. Side note: it's sad in itself that an airport is one of the more dependable places to find a variety of shops and food in America, albeit not the highest quality dining (pan to Cheesecake factory)
Great video! People need to understand that denser, walkable places aren't expensive by nature, they are expensive because people really prefer them that much more, and there aren't enough to go around. Maybe a companion/follow-up video could be a look at cities that are working the hardest to rebalance their housing diversity (that is, car-dependent cities that are cranking out more walkable neighborhoods)
Tangential, but one thing I like to do is help tourist looking to visit the large city I live near find things to do in the city. I regularly tell them things like "Oh, just park your car at x location and walk several miles hitting these attractions (public gardens, museums, historical sites) along the way", and I quite regularly will get messages back from, like, people from Texas talking about how much fun they had following my recommendations, and lamenting that their home city is so much less interesting. I bite my tongue, but man do I think about how much of the difference really just is "Get out of your car once in a while".
The conclusion is kind of backwards. Its not that people choose to live in unwalkable places, its that those are the kinds of places that have residential districts. Your average person cannot choose to live near disneyland or las vegas. You go where there is even remotely affordable housing, and that is usually so far from a walkable commercial area that you HAVE to drive in order to get to it. People want to live in spaces where they don't have to drive to get anywhere, we are not given a choice. Plenty of city planning focused channels have already explained this in detail- it is borderline illegal to create the kind of environments that people both want and need because it impacts fossil fuel, automotive, and related industries who want to keep the entire country dependent on their services.
Planners would disagree. Dense development has been trumpeted by planners for two decades at least, and advantaged in my area for nearly that long. But it takes time to develop, and there's a constant tension between attracting demand, keeping the product affordable, and exceeding the carrying capacity for undesirables. Both the planned town centers in the suburbs of my metro area have troubled middle schools. They were already on the downslope when they were three-quarters built out...
@@josephfisher426 I feel like you ran into a major point when you used the word 'undesirables'. Because even if this is not your intended use of the term, historically 'undesirables' refers to 'the poor', and any social minority like non cishet people, racial/ethnic minorities, and religious minorities. And the system we created- even if there are no prejudiced people running them- operate with goal of preventing these kinds of people from feeling like they have access to anything nice and useful that is built. We built a nation that functions on the ideal that one type of person is better than the rest and are the only ones who should have access to the nice things we build and we prevent policies and production which might benefit all citizens equally because of these biases built directly into our legal system including land development.
@@Sumguyinavan_ I used the term deliberately. There are indeed people who are undesirable by someone else's choice: a minority or the merely poor. That can be avoided (in the US discrimination against a social minority is not as hard to avoid as it seems to be in Europe), though I agree that systems are often still not set up to serve them well. There also are troublemakers: addicts, thieves, the chronically unemployed. They make success at life more challenging for the honest poor in particular, because they are poor themselves and thus likely to be the neighbors of the honest poor... especially if located via subsidy in one of these nice new deliberately constructed urban areas. Anyway my point was that they struggle, and too soon in the life cycle of a new community.
The problem in America is that living in city centers now adays is considered a luxury with ridiculous rent or housing prices in which only the top 20% earners can afford
I've been binge-watching your content for the past week or so and this is the most interesting of your videos I've seen so far. I actually got in an argument with some friends about urbanism recently. I've been sufficiently orangepilled by urbanist TH-cam but also by my life experiences: I grew up in car-dependent suburbia in Maryland where my neighborhood was literally cut off from the rest of the world. My 76-unit townhouse development was built off a two-lane road with posted 35mph speed limits where people regularly drove 50mph and there were no sidewalks connecting my street with anywhere else. There were literally zero meaningful places for me to walk to as a child other than the playground and basketball court on my street. Fast forward to adult life where, after living and working in suburbia for a while, I moved to South Korea and went car-free for seven years. I've seen much of Asia and now live in Europe, and the benefits of being car-free in a denser area with more walkability and functional public transport are so essential to me now that I can't imagine ever opting to go back to isolated, car-dependent suburban dystopia. But, my friends who have never experienced otherwise were adamant about liking that lifestyle. They love the independence of having a car, and the peace and quiet of the suburbs. They came up with so many arguments for choosing that lifestyle, but they've never really actually had a choice as there's no affordable alternative to that lifestyle in the parts of the US where they live. As this video does an excellent job illustrating, the freedom and choice Americans living in car-centric suburbia believe they are exercising is all an illusion.
I feel like there's a missing middle-ground here that's not being discussed. There are lots of walkable neighborhoods in the U.S. that are, essentially, local tourist attractions. These are legacy downtowns, not ersatz life-style centers, but a lot of the old-school shops have been replaced by dining and entertainment. The downtown neighborhood in my town (Ann Arbor) is like this. It was ranked as the most walkable neighborhood in a mid-sized midwestern city (or something like that). And the businesses downtown are patronized by people living in the neighborhood, but most people walking around on a busy Friday night have come in from surrounding neighborhoods or communities. They've probably driven in, but not very far, and the downtown is far more vibrant than it would have been if it catered mostly to just residents within walking range. People enjoy the walkable downtown but don't feel compelled to live in it (nor is there enough space for all of them, nor could they afford it). Is this kind of 'traditional downtown as a local destination' desirable?
Lifestyle Centers = "Outdoor shopping malls" and aren't really the same because once you've eaten and you've went to the one store you might enjoy... what else are you supposed to do? Coffee shop maybe, then a bar... but they're the sorts of places that have to charge enough to afford the same rent as the Zara or the Coach store in the mall there so it's gonna be expensive and not some place to just hangout for a few hours without dropping >$100. But in Europe you can stroll down a street, take some selfies with vines on old brick, find a wine bar with a wine flight and good charcuterie board for 20-40euro and just hangout and talk with your friends or read a book and there isn't a line of 30 people rushing you and wanting your table.
Really loved this topic choice. I’m a liberal arts cult member so the philosophical/linguistic/borderline ethereal discussion is my jam. Not to mention, if your goal is inducing positive change over time, I really think you have to understand how the average person is thinking about this stuff; implicitly or explicitly. I am curious whether this residential dissonance is getting more or less intense as suburban kids who maybe never knew what it was like to live in a walkable place (didn’t go to college, never moved to a city, never had a profession that encouraged them to live there) grow up and start to enter the housing market. I can’t even say I made the decision to live in the walkable car-light neighborhood that I do because I *knew* it would be walkable/car-light. I more made a decision on the perception that parking would be more difficult and owning my car was becoming too expensive. So I sold my car and bought an e-assist bike. I wasn’t trying to live an ideal life, I was trying to live an economical life.
I really enjoyed your objectiveness, the research, and somewhat the philosophy. The problem is that we live in the US and most viewers may not know how to appreciate it too = fewer views :-(
NO! I'm on campus because I have no reason to leave! All the food is there, all the hot girls are my age, and they are tanning on the lawn!!! Why leave college?
The best car free place I ever lived was Old Town Alexandria, VA. Didn’t have a car for several years, took transport or biked into DC for work. The thing that really killed it, besides cost, was if you wanted to have kids it sucked. There are a lot of uber wealthy people there, so their kids go to private school, so the public schools suck. That ultimately was what drove me more suburban, that I could move not far away and get excellent public schools. It does not look to be an uncommon problem with very high housing cost areas.
I enjoy the philosophical discussions. The main driving factor for us when we moved out of Philly and into the suburbs is public school. Philly schools aren't great, and we wanted to give the best to our child. But now that we are here, we do see problems with walk-ability. I would never let my kid walk to the library because of the streets just aren't safe. But now that I see these problems I'm getting involved in local politics to change this.
I've wondered if improving the reputation of urban public schools could really level the playing field in preferences. I hear "schools" frequently cited as a factor for families choosing the suburbs..
Thanks for the more theoretical and philosophical topic. Our Changing Climate addressed the Colonial/Settler cultural legacy in a recent video. There is a fine line between and an outward sense of freedom and an inner anxiety. Suburban planning exploits this dialectic. An educated minority can overcome anxiety over walkable urbanism which creates a supply shortfall In economically vibrant urban cores. Recreating urbanism in conurbations and rust belt cities and towns is the great challenge because we can’t keep clearing agricultural land and degraded habitats endlessly. Try and find a majority in these locations who trust government. So the cycle continues.
Love the channel! If haven't already, should do a video on top edge cities to major cities. Like Arlington to DC (even though it's technically a county), Oakland to San Fran, Jersey City to NYC, etc!
Walkable neighborhoods are often in cities but there's a reluctance or even aversion to sending one's children to "urban" schools. Our inequitable educational system plays a big role in where people choose to live.
I thought there's a loud narrative about "millennials are not having kids" and the birthrate among native-born Americans at historic low and below replacement level. The fact is most people are basing their living situation on cost, opportunities and safety, whether they have kids or not. Decentralizing where people live and work is how we reduce the cost of living for all.
In and around most US cities, land is often zoned for a particular function, such as residential, commercial, industrial, etc. Mixed-use zoning is less common. We're forced to drive our cars from our homes to our work and places to shop, since public transportation isn't available in many areas. My idea of a perfect place to live would be where I could walk from my home to my workplace and to the stores that I most commonly frequent. I would also want public transportation available so I could visit other neighborhoods without a car.
Great video, to comment on the Atlanta comparison as an Atlanta area resident. It is true, the Atlanta area is not walkable and unfortunately the majority of new developments are still very car-centric. However, similar to the Seattle comparison, the walkable parts of Atlanta (City of Atlanta, Serenbe, Historic Alpharetta/Avalon, Historic Marietta, and the other bedroom community historic districts) are very expensive, and the prices aren't slowing down. If more walkability is built, then it'll sell. It blows my mind that city planners (or unincorporated county planners in this instance) and developers aren't thinking outside the box.
I live in Decatur near Emory, it was very walkable , but you are right, any place like that is going to be very expensive. Developers can only develop the land they own, the government has to do it.
Here in northern California we have very nice walkable towns like Walnut Creek, Concord, Lafayette, Nevada City, Grass Valley, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Pleasanton , Livermore, Davis and Berkeley. The affordable single family homes tend to be farther out in the suburban tracks. If you are open to condo or townhouse living then you may not have to move too far out. There are also great older towns like Turlock, Patterson, Tracy that have great potential with older main street areas.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.910 | 22 ก.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4TR3MVpOiw8/mqdefault.jpg)
The line about "fine dining options" as the camera pans over a cheesecake factory was perfect. No notes, 10/10
I think that was a joke, but malls like this will have nice places to eat. The one by me in NJ does
The fact that it recurs multiple times in the video makes it even better.
Is Cheesecake Factory bad? It looks pretty good and Ive always wanted to go to one.
@@Rodrigo15x Nothing wrong with it, it's just a chain restaurant, so don't expect fine dining. I'd consider it a half step above Olive Garden / Red Lobster type chains. I personally like it. Definitely try one. Any place that you can order abominations such as "pizza with chicken breast as the crust", is worth visiting.
Cheesecake Factory is fine, but hardly what someone might look for in an authentic European urban experience.
Oh wow, I haven't seen that meme before! I'm so glad you shared it! 🤣
There is definitely a deficit of walkable places in the US that skews the results. That last study you mentioned is really great, so thanks for that.
Pew Research also has data that a little less than 50% of the US population says that they would like to live somewhere within walking distance of shops and restaurants. The fact that this is under 50% has been used by some people to show that Americans prefer the suburbs. But I see two things:
First, obviously 50% of neighbourhoods in the US are not like that. So there's clearly a deficit.
But second, there are so few good walkable neighbourhoods in the US that many Americans have literally never experienced one, as there are none near them. So even though they have no experience with good urbanism, almost 50% of Americans would like to live somewhere more walkable. That's astonishing. And I suspect that number would be much higher if good urbanism existed in more places in the US, so that more people could experience it.
It’s been my experience that walkable parts of American cities (college areas, new urbanist, pre wwii cores, and century plus old towns not destroyed by highways) are, REALLY expensive due to IMO demand >> supply.
Where I live (one of these pockets of nice in an otherwise dreadful car hell metro) this is absolutely the case.
The only time that’s not the case Is if the area is deemed “undesirable” (black).
Glenwood Park in Atlanta (of all places) is exactly the type of development I wish we had more of. It was also wildly successful, and actually got some zoning rules changed. Although they fought tooth and nail to get the city and GDOT on board. I wish someone would do a deep dive video into that area.
Your theory tracks, given that less than 50% of Americans have a passport, which implies over half the country has never/will never visit any true walkable communities abroad
I thought of Not Just Bikes when I went to Mackinac Island for the first time just this past weekend. There are thousands of bikes in just a tiny urban area around the docks. Tons of shops and hotels. Everyone pays big money to go to the island. A ferry ticket is $30. Fortunately a bike ticket is only $15, because rentals are more than that. I brought my DIY ebike and it was a wonder to be in a place where cars are banned. The smell of the horses is a bit much, but once you're out in the state park area, there's clean air and tons of trails for cyclists. I was plenty glad to have my e-motor to tackle the hills and distance. I've lived in Michigan my whole life and never been to the island. It's truly worth a trip, for anyone who likes boats, bikes, and nature!
I'm in Ukraine and what's described in this video is positively dystopian - no way I'd ever wanna move there.
EDIT: towards the end of the video, there was this "choice" presented between walkable cities and suburbs. But I live in a walkable suburb in Ukraine - is that not even the author of this video is not familiar with? that's really scary and underlines the authors point actually about how bad things are urbanism-wise over there.
There seems to be a self-contradictory argument that "walkable housing is too expensive, therefore we shouldn't build it" whereas 1) the reason it's so expensive is because not enough of it is built and 2) non-walkable housing is even more expensive when you factor in driving costs
Part of the problem seems to be the way it's financed. Fannie, Freddie, landlords, etc. don't care about income vs. (transportation + housing), all they care about is income vs. housing. Fannie and Freddie also don't want units in multiuse developments.
If zoning laws were disbanded and all taxes were replaced by a single land value tax then I'd bet that in 10 years, city design would've changed in large part to being extremely walkable and housing prices likely might have crashed (assuming there is no hyperinflation) but I don't think such polices would ever be implemented in the US anytime soon since most people don't seem to know/care about Henry George & Mlton Friedman's policies anymore...
Yes, let's build more sprawl that offloads transportation/access costs onto the individual and multiplies all the horrible externalities of our poorly conceived transportation system
@@philipwirth3603 Yes, the infrastructure is built with federal money. But the community has to pay for the maintenance. As we all know, they can't afford it. Well, they can. But then they have to increase local taxes, which makes the incentive to live there go away. Hence Ponzi scheme.
We moved cities and made some major changes. We moved from a car-dependent, single-family home to medium-rise apartment in a walkable neighborhood, and we sold both of our cars.
We are paying quite a bit more in housing costs. However, we're overall paying less due to saving money on:
1. Depreciation costs of 2 autos
2. Fuel, maintenance, insurance, and tax costs of said autos
3. Other, non-obvious things like:
3a. Gym membership - get decent exercise walking around and cycling
3b. Costco membership - don't feel the need to stockpile when the grocery store is 2 minutes by foot
The first 2 alone save well over the price difference in housing. So, our overall monthly costs have declined quite a bit.
And, we're happier overall since we don't deal with driving/traffic stress anymore, and getting out and going interesting places is so low-friction. It's refreshing not having to find/pay for a parking space when we arrive!
So many of our walkability issues in the US stem from zoning laws. Areas which are zoned for single family residences don't allow a shop, café, or pub within walking distance. I have this discussion with my British friend all the time. She maintains we're just lazy and I try to explain to her the distances we have to go to get to a grocery store or shopping center. She and her friend went for a walk when visiting Beverly Hills and people literally stopped their cars to ask if they were okay 🤣🤣🤣
I've read stories of visiting foreigners going for walks around residential areas in the USA (something which is perfectly normal anywhere in Europe) and being stopped by the police because somebody has called them to report a suspicious person walking around.
Single family homes aren't necessarily the issue, San Francisco is full of them and still has everything within walking distance. But the single family homes are densely packed and populated... nobody has a giant yard here, and often the single family homes house multiple families. That's unique to SF it seems.
@@DavidWest2I disagree. If single family homes arent an issue, why as you say, are they so 'packed full'?
"I’m not against the automobile, but I just feel that the automobile has moved into communities too much. I feel that you can design so that the automobile is there, but still put people back as pedestrians again…. I’d love to work on a project like that.”
- Walt Disney
Dang, maybe he should have built his utopian swamp city after all lol
Well, that Walt Disney comment, too bad more urban designers around that time didn’t take it seriously.
EPCOT was a bit too communist for 1960's America. He had some good ideas though.
@@missybarbour6885 He did. It's called Celebration, FL
@@Madaboutmada, Celebration was constructed decades after his death.
The Walt Disney Company, the organization he founded, has created two cities: Celebration and Val d'Europe.
Additionally, Disney is currently creating Cotino, just outside Palm Springs, California.
Disney, in fact, used to have a mass-transit division that built monorail and WEDway PeopleMover systems, including the one at Houston Intercontinental Airport.
I enjoyed this video more than the usual "top 10"s, because it seemed to go deeper into a specific problem or subject, as opposed to introducing a thesis and then loading up on surface level examples
Surface level examples are the bread and butter of TH-cam
.
.
.
.
(good comment!)
Yes, definitely do more these types of videos!
@@CityNerd this is true, but there are loads and loads (probably too many) of surface level „urbanist“ TH-camrs out there, and your ability to present complex data (and actual data, not just the same regurgitated opinions) in an entertaining and scientific-rational manner makes you unique. Just my opinion.
I think there is a niche out there for explaining and exploring urbanist concepts in a more professional manner. Personally I would love to hear more about socioeconomic aspects that go beyond „suburbs and cars bad, density and transit good“
This is a very "meta" comment on a video about walkable areas in America. When something is novel (to us) and uncommon, we place more value on it!
@@zwischendreistuehlen Have you checked out 'Not Just Bikes', 'RMTransit' and 'City Beautiful'? They have references linked to their videos. But @CityNerd is correct, generally speaking, TH-cam is too often not very scholarly. Viewers too often dond't stick around. On the other hand, there are some great channels that do go deep.
The general idea of "I hate single family houses, but like MY single family house" seems to be overly apparent here. Almost a manifestation of "social progress is awesome, and I recognise it's harm, however any amount of it I see as touching MY life style is intolerable!" Which I see a lot of people follow especially here in Massachusetts. This mindset, however, is wholly destructive. It's similar in character to "well its the southern way of life." It's an avoidance of personal responsibility in understanding that in, fact, change that affects everyone *has and effect on you*
The whole "walkable city" and "preference for cul-de-sac or suburb" are diametrically opposed ideas. All "walkable cities" I have noticed lack space between houses, no yards, often without garages and driveways. I can think of several places like Austin Texas that are counter to this argument, but you gotta admit haha
So yeah I agree with you very much so. We get results such as Austin (which I like don't get me wrong) when people cling to the detached home idea whilst attempting to make a compact city. Is the house still attached when the space in between the houses is only like 3 feet?
the NIMBY mindset
I can honestly imagine an alternate system where laws are obsolete and people are replaced by robots and AI that are programmed to just walk around and observe everything that was built by a small single group of people, just move them around and throw them wherever like pigs in a small cage. Make them all look and behave identically and remove any trace of consciousness or self-awareness - sounds like a dream nation.
@@kalui96 tbh you can't still have (admittedly smaller) yards/gardens in denser areas. Something like a patio or small patch of grass you can sit out in the evening and maybe room for a barbecue. Just not masses of excess space
i feel like it wouldnt be as bad if we didnt place such an importance in moving out and owning your own house, like in other countries its normal for 3 or 4 generations to all live together. theres also the problem of in my city it costs the same to rent an apartment in a walkable neighborhood as it does to rent a house on the shitty side of town so for the most part only people without kids are going to rent those apartments because the grocery stores and other businesses in those areas are also more expensive.
Until recently,I didn’t know why I disliked walking and riding a bike around my small town. It is that it is designed to be easier for cars. I always love your videos. Thank you.
Yep. Same here. My town has almost nothing to walk to. All the things of interest are at least 2-3 miles away, which your average person isn't going to walk to these days.
In NY state, as well as other Northeastern states, there are plenty of small towns, cities built before cars. A lot of these towns are economically depressed due to manufacturing moving overseas. These places would be ideal for building more walkable, car independent cities if sufficient public transportation systems were built within these cities with connections to larger metro areas via high speed rail. Imagine living in upstate NY and being able to commute daily to NYC for work.
the momentum behind this idea is happening, but it needs more public push, money, and of course time.
Technically that already happens, but it is more limited than it could be because you are relying on Metro North. However there are a lot of people who use Metro North to commute in (and the LIRR if you're talking about people who live in Suffolk).
I guess you were referring to people who live north of Dutchess county however, in which case Metro North really isn't going to cut it. Sure it's a great regional rail by American standards, but it's still standard speed rail. (I live in the city so anything north of White Plains is "upstate" to me lol).
There are some who already make that (unholy) commute, but it could be made a lot easier no doubt.
Although beyond the long term goal of HSR within NY state alone, Metro North should run a line on Jersey's side of the Hudson at the very least. It's kinda ridiculous that the train options in NY on the west bank of the Hudson are provided by NJT, and only tangentially so.
@@VillainousHanacha Metro North definitely needs to speed up. The 30-30-30 plan in CT is exciting but who knows how many years away that is
Yeah, I think I talk about this a bit in my Regional Rail video, and I do have an idea percolating around urbanist small towns/suburbs. Thanks for the nudge!
4:50 what's wild is that every single major city used to have walkable and transit-dense downtowns before they were almost entirely demolished for parking lots and interstates. Look at an overhead view of Houston in 1950 vs 1970! There's an argument that "we can't just redo our whole city for transportation," but that's exactly how we got in this mess!!
This is what I was thinking while watching. Framing urban sprawl and car-centric culture as some kind of freely emergent preference doesn't make sense given how aggressively subsidized the auto industry and infrastructure has been throughout the 20th century. If people had to pay the actual cost of urban sprawl, there would be far more walkable towns and cities IMO.
I've had this on a list to cover for awhile. Theme parks are so popular in the US exactly for these reasons. Hilarious that Disney world exists in the state with some of the worst walkable places in the world.
It's not surprising at all. When people are on vacation, they are not pressed for time. In our real lives, there is barely enough time for everything. Even with traffic, driving is usually much faster door to door than non-car modes.
Seriously though, it's sad that Disney World, a theme park resort with a huge system of buses, water taxis, Skyliner/cable cars, and monorail, has better transportation than legit cities in the US. AND they're all free to use! You don't even have to stay at a Disney resort to use the transportation
Disney and transportation go hand in hand. Walt loved trains and I don't blame him. Disneyland Paris has direct high-speed rail access to Charles de Gaulle International, the rest of France, Amsterdam Centraal, and London St. Pancras as well as RER access to Paris and its suburbs. Hong Kong Disneyland is on MTR's Disneyland Resort Line (plus the trains are adorable). Tokyo Disney Resort has Maihama station on the Keiyō and Musashino Lines. And Shanghai Disneyland is on Line 11 of the Shanghai Metro.
Disney's transit has the advantage that its purpose (moving people from hotels to Disney's theme parks in the morning, and back in the evening) is naturally suited to a hub-and-spoke topology. Hub-and-spoke is also popular with city transit systems, but while it's great for people who work "downtown", it's inefficient for suburb-to-suburb commutes or shopping trips.
The main reason they have these robust transportation systems is to make the paying guests as comfortable as possible to keep them in the parks as long as possible in order to remove as much money as possible from their wallets. If it wasn't furthering their bottom dollar, it wouldn't exist.
Yeah, _but_ it's funded on the basis that you are paying a massive amount of money in their parks, and either significant parking fees, or significant resort fees, or both. It's not "free."
@@richardhasson265 Yes which goes to show that people want to stay in places with good transit. It also shows how transit improves local businesses and is more cost efficient than maintaining copious amounts of roads and carparks which just leads to more traffic and more dissatisfaction due to pollution, stress, etc.
@@danielbishop1863 if the majority of people/hotel goers need to commute to reach services or work it means that there is a possible need for more mixed use development, applied to a real world situation it would mean that more shops and businesses should be mixed in with residential areas so they can walk or cycle to work as to relax pressure on public transport systems
After living in Seville, Spain for years, an extremely walkable city, I have to say the quality of life is far higher there than back in North America.
Then why the hell didn't you just stay there if it's sooooo much better than here??? 🙄🙄🙄
@@ufinc There's so many reasons that could be possible. They might have a partner or family there. Better job opportunities. Missing other aspects of living in NA, such as food, culture, weather, etc.
@@ufinc what is it ? They touch your sensible spot ? Someone found a better place of your almost third world concrete place and it make feel bad ? Obviously they won't move out from an entire country in an entire snap of the hand but a lot would if they could
@@ufinc lmao mad
It's such a sledgehammer comparison that it really isn't legitimate.
There are far more differences between North America and European countries than how 'walkable' a city is, and even European country to European country differences can make a big impact.
as a Canadian, just realised I've taken more vacations in Europe than our closer southern Neighbour, the USA. One reason is because I don't want to go to a place where I have to get a rental car.
Yeah it’s a bit of a bummer getting a rental car because they’re expensive, you have to learn to drive in a new major city and usually have to get some kind of expensive insurance unless it’s included in your credit card because you worry about someone hitting a car that’s not yours.
I usually also vacation in the few walkable cities of the USA that have public transport or that I have relatives and then take vacations in England that have public transport. Or I can try Montreal again they have good walk ability
@@blorpblorpblorp Amen!
@@blorpblorpblorp
Axe, hatchet and arrows are so much better.
You could always try Mexico...
@@blorpblorpblorp majority of murders are by people who knew each other. You don’t have to worry about firearm based violence from strangers.
My family loves to road trip. I've seen 38 states.
Great post. I paid an absurd price tag for my walkable living situation. Recently bought an ebike for weekend adventures with my son. I will never go back to suburban life. Feels so nice not to have to drive. There are simply so many positives about living almost car free. It’s uplifting.
This reminds me of some decades ago, I drove to Disneyland. I then walked around. Then I went on the Autotopia ride. I went from the freeway to a walking environment to driving toy cars. It was a couple of levels of surrealism.
Subject Request: The disappearance of grocery stores from America’s small towns.
I recently spent a month cycling west along the Ohio River. I was stunned by the lack of grocery stores in small town America compared to a similar ride I did in 1980. I checked on the web and sure enough, American smaller towns have turned into grocery deserts where people have to drive 15 minutes to an hour to get groceries. One memorable town, Hamilton, Indiana, was highly walkable and otherwise vibrant with a large base of historic houses and commercial buildings. But the only groceries were Walmart, Kroger, and Aldi clustered on a huge stroad twenty minutes drive from town.
Larger cities have also lost grocery stores.
One of my grandfathers and some of his brothers had small family grocery stores in Ohio but they were put out of business by Kroger‘s a few decades later.
Why aren’t people shopping at local stores? Why did they stop? The lure of cheaper prices by the big boys is no doubt a reason but it’s a matter of saying “no”. Now these big boys have put their prices up due to the local stores (competition) are gone.
@@josephj6521 it’s a lot more than pricing. The big players use their superior capital position shape federal, state, and local laws to get the taxpayers to subsidize their operations.
Thanks to new laws, we can can use capital and policy making in new ways to reap economic benefits by financing the creation of livable cities and unwind the damage caused by these dinosaurs.
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 This is a sad story indeed. My company works with capital in new ways to unwind the damage done by these behemoths and make life livable again for most Americans. The time spent and hard costs of driving so far for groceries has made food much more expensive. This excess waste and costs have created a great economic opportunity for something new to be rebuilt to replace your family’s stores.
My theory is that walking around on vacation is part of the mentality of taking a break from the regular. Car use is synonymous with the daily grind for most people so an escape from that and the leisurely pace of not having to be somewhere at a defined time truly feels like a vacation. This only lasts for a while though because I've seen tourists and for some of them walking around all day is a real effort....
Really interesting topic and I've subbed for this and also for how you talk with a "Valley girl" cadence....😉
Looking forward to more 😊
But then you have road trips.
Difference is as a tourist you’d be walking around the entirety of the day
I always get the impression that the environment one ends up living in is rather incidental, and the choice is mainly about the cost, availability, proximity to work etc. I suspect few would complain if they ended up in walkable areas, I just doubt many do make deliberate choices about this, especially ahead of other factors.
In that regard the US with their endless single-housing-zones just got most people living there because that's the easiest and most readily available choice ... the fast food option of housing, so to speak.
I wouldn't say fast food because that implies it's cheaper and quicker. Suburban sprawl is incredibly expensive to maintain for cities, and denser developments, while having higher startup costs, are much more productive economically and are more sustainable.
I would say all the cheaply built 5-over-1 apartment structures that have popped up over the last 15-20 years are the fast food option of housing. That said, they cost $2500 for a 1 BR here in Seattle, so it's actually more akin to ordering McDonalds via Uber Eats due to the terrible SQFT/$$$ value.
@@macgobhann8712 Almost none of those costs are passed on to the owners or tenants of suburban sprawl, though. Which is similar to how the people who buy fast food aren't paying for the wider social and environmental costs of factory farming and McJobs that the fast food industry relies on to turn a profit.
I don’t know. Seems to me that a large number of folks perceive their American Dream as one that includes a spouse, some kids, pets, decent public schools, as big of a house as they can afford and a nice fenced yard - maybe with a pool. Suburbs are an efficient way to deliver that. Not judging, just saying.
This pretty much sums up what I was about to say. I think primarily on the minds of most people is finding the most home for their money. And unfortunately, the McMansion in the disconnected, car dependent, cul-de sac subdivision is that choice for many people. And I don't even think people even give a lot of thought to proximity to work. People discover after they're moved in that they're 7 miles away from the nearest grocery store and that pleasant Sunday drive they took to go purchase the home becomes a nightmarish, traffic snarled, multi-hour commute.
But what frustrates me is that developers and planners don't even try. Just down the road from me is a huge subdivision adjacent to an elementary school and there is absolutely no connection between the two. And I'd like to say that's the only incidence of that phenomenon in this county, but I can't. Don't get me wrong, I love certain aspects of my suburban subdivision home, but some days I really would like to do more than just make a walking circuit of the neighborhood.
This is the GEOGRAPHICAL expression of all of the ways American civilization has gone wrong in the last 40 years. I grew up and have lived in four American cities, three of which are among the best in this regard, and another of which is almost quintessentially the worst regarding walkability. I am a Chicago native who has also lived in Manhattan, in Boston, and in...Los Angeles. With American civilization and civic life failing almost apocalyptically, I have long ago begun to pine for Europe. But two anecdotes regarding my time in Los Angeles are telling, I think.
Soon after arriving in Los Angeles and not yet familiar with it, I hadn't yet fully realized how unlike it was to the REAL cities I was used to. I decided to walk from Culver City, where I was staying, to Venice and Santa Monica. I imagined that since the distance was not that great, that there would be some sort of pedestrian infrastructure that would accommodate my intention. Instead, I found myself walking through tall weeds along the freeway, being gawked at by drivers passing by who regarded me as some sort of alien who had somehow lost his way.
Then, shortly thereafter, the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica became one of my favorite places to go. It was and remains a highly popular destination. I very soon realized why: it was four simulated blocks of what a REAL city is supposed to be, with pedestrian life, a varied streetscape of interesting shops, and fellow citizens engaging in a personal way -- a simulacrum of the genuine urban life I was used to. Of course, there were only four blocks of it, as opposed to whole neighborhoods, as in Chicago, Manhattan, and Boston.
Here's the thing, unlike alot of Europe, America's a free country. You're free to leave, you're free to move.
Turns out people are allowed to not follow your world view.
@@TheOwenMajor What did Rick Rose say that suggested everyone should live in an urban environment? What he said is that americans like those environments, they're just rare.
Also, in case you forgot, those freedoms do not extend to what types of buildings can be built
Yeah, Third Street has always been really nicely done.
Retired, living in a Seattle area, 'suburb city', where rent is about double what I'd like to pay. Looking again at Western Europe mid to large cities for walkability, cafe culture, moderate rent, no-car option, mild climate, parks, museums and cultural events. Can't seem to find a place like this now anywhere in the US. Tons of places like this in Western Europe.
that bad for an retiré ? Here we have like neighbourhoods for the elderly but imo they aren't really a walkable distant from the nearest store
NYC is the only one. Most expensive place in the US and world
good luck for less rent
@@eo4345 San Francisco is up there too. Both because they have good transit and because they limit development. Make it legal to build more multi-family homes and rents will drop.
Yeah but it's because you are in the land of opportunities right where the unicorns are being built and where the nerds turn into billionaires compared with old glory cities with declining population and the only employment prospective is sell something in the internet
I lived in Germany for 5 years. I came back to the U.S. to a neighborhood that was very walkable, but it was not enough, so I joined the crowd of younger transplants moving to New Orleans (Orleans Parish) not the suburbs. Where I live now is very walkable and bicycle friendly. I still have my car, but maybe only use it once every 2 weeks. There are amazing 5 star restaurants everywhere and no Cheesecake factory anywhere to be found.
@@BartholomewSmutz Why are you assuming walking isn't comfortable or enjoyable?
@@feuerrabe Because I've done it. It's not bad if the weather is perfect but how often is that? Was walking my Dog today and it was hot as hell. If it's not hot it's probably cold or raining. If it wasn't for walking my Dog I wouldn't walk anywhere. I'v been temporarily without a car a few times and it was a bad experience.
@@BartholomewSmutz Do you know the concept of a weather proof jacket or an umbrella?
@@BartholomewSmutz The best walkable areas have tree cover. No hot sun and rain is much lighter.
@@sillubean5124 Yes a leisurely stroll can be enjoyable if everything is just right.
Loved the theory-laden video for something a little more... philosophical in the academic sense? Can't wait to hear your thoughts on real estate as an investment tool
Oh interesting
That would be an interesting video
IMO this is a simple supply and demand issue. Building new walkable places is all but illegal in the US which constrains supply. And the high demand for walkablilty is evident in the higher prices of walkable areas. There are only a handful full of truly walkable cities in the US (NYC, SF, Boston etc) and they have the most expensive real estate prices in the country. There are several US cities with walkable sections/ neighborhoods, and these are almost always among the most expensive places to live in town. I'm willing to bet if you could buy an apartment in a walkable city for the same price you can buy a house in a car dependant suburb, there would be a lot less of those suburbs.
We need a more densely gridded rail system to boost this concept, both with communities, as well as connecting other communities as well. The east coast is pretty dense for freight but most metro passenger rail is poorly sited for connectivity to other transportation hubs as well as outside communities. This is true in most large countries including Canada, Russia, Australia, and China.
If you can increase rail access the need for vehicles lowers considerably because the service area has expanded to meet people's needs.
Make it beautiful and comfortable as well. Trains and railways, as well as walkable/bikable needs to be something you desire rather than an afterthought.
So, we have less expensive low density housing and more expensive dense housing. Sounds like its just one rezoning vote away from the free market fixing the supply issue.
Bingo
There needs to be a movement to get local governments to change the law so walk-able/transit-able communities are allowed to be built.
Friendly reminder that Chicago exists and defies all stereotypes about walkable/urban areas and major cities being absurdly expensive in the US
And people wonder why rent is so expensive in the half dozen walkable cities in North America..... it's because there's a half dozen of them.
There are two major factors that keep me from buying a home in a walkable neighborhood. The first is affordability, as discussed in the video. I ended up buying a house in a suburban neighborhood that is a small island of housing deep in an industrial area. My friends have commented that it's like I live in a rural area, except there are trucks all around instead of cows.
The second reason I wouldn't want buy a home in the walkable areas of my city is crime rates. Violent crime and burglaries are both significantly higher in more walkable areas of the city.
The good news is that my city has really good public transit, so I can still live car free. But I would like the option to live in a safe and affordable walkable area.
Which city?
@@info781 Portland, OR, USA
In some of my darkest moments I ruminate how folks who oppose more density, walkability and transit should be banned from enjoying the vacations or trips in any walkable areas
Keep dreaming.
As someone who grew up in the Detroit metro area, I can definitely say that the idea of a walkable neighborhood is totally foreign to people. I was taught that yeah, one car per adult is just the way that it is. When I entered adolescence, I felt this strong yearning of "I'm too young to play with toys at home all day, but I'm not old enough to drive places, so I'm trapped." Discovering your channel and Not Just Bikes has opened my eyes to the fact that those feelings were not pre-teen nonsense, but rather a totally valid response to living in a suburb that offers no good alternatives to driving. There's also very few public spaces to just "be" in most US suburbs. Older generations (looking at you, boomers) loved to tell me, "when I was your age, I would get home from school and take my bike to the local cafe/soda fountain/restaurant and hang out with my friends." I remember thinking, "yeah, that sounds nice, but WHERE can I do that???" So I stayed home and played video games most days, lol. People love to blame TV or video games or social media for causing millennials/gen z to be overly coddled and lack independence, but I 100% blame cars. I also blame cars for the obesity epidemic. Cars suck!
Yet Michiganders have visited Mackinac Island which has no cars except for emergency vehicles.
I like the change of pace in this one, though I enjoy the nerdy statistics-oriented ones just as much. One thing that I fear in the New Urbanism and Walkability movements is that they might ossify into typical ideologies ---- just pseudo-intellectual blather employed by a group of privileged people to impose their will on everyone else. That's how we got into our absurd economy and lifestyle to begin with --- all those 1950s planners were totally convinced that they had it right. I love the ideas the New Urbanists have created, and think they will do much to improve our lives, but I hope I will never lose track of the fact that not everyone wants to live the way I want to live, and that a free and civilized society maximizes choice and variation. I remember how my mom felt trapped and claustrophobic when she could no longer drive, and no amount of walking around a pleasant neighbourhood could allay that anxiety. I've lived most of my life without a car (and Jane Jacobs was a neighbour, living a few blocks away) and it just isn't an issue for me, but unless I can see things from her point of view, I can't claim to truly care about people.
Why would someone feel trapped when beeing unable to drive anymore? Because a car is (perceived as) the only way to get to places? I second your free choice argument, though I would like to add: if you do the less harmful thing (for society/environment)it shouldn't feel like shooting in your one foot. People that want to drive can do so when they pay for the externalities.
@@Jacksparrow4986 Yes, a car is the only way to get places when you live in a country that doesn't value mass transit on any level.
@@Not_Always well there are always bikes... but they don't fit well in carinfested suburbia.
@@Jacksparrow4986 We should want to minimize the need for cars- it makes sense to be able to have most of your amenities closeby, your job closeby, whether by foot, bike, or transit. That being said, cars are popular for a reason and it's not sensible to ignore why. A car can let you go anywhere, at anytime, immediately. If you have friends/family to visit far away, if you want to see someplace not on your transit network, if you want to go someplace at 2AM when nothing's running. It's understandable how this can cause anxiety- even a proper transit system is like being on a cruise ship where you have every human need handled but know you're limited by being in a huge yet confined space.
This is in part why a lot of people that could be won over by transit programs are skeptical. The fact is that by improving transit we should aim to reduce the need for cars, but understand that there will still be uses for them.
There will always be people who have to rely on automobiles. Ambulances are a good example.
I'm semi-retired, walk to my part-time job in a public market where I also do most of my grocery shopping. I live in a smaller fairly-affordable northeast city surrounded by suburban sprawl. Going completely car-free is mighty tempting, but the lack of public transportation options in the surrounding areas complicates matters. Very happy that I can go several days at a time without driving, though.
Exactly why I moved to the Chicago from the suburbs. Chicago has great (for America) public transit and is very walkable in most neighborhoods. I still have to drive to work in the suburbs but other than that going days in a row without having to drive is a great feeling.
This is another problem. Walkable communities do exist in the US, but they’re bubbles, often without connection to other communities, unless you drive. So you can live car-free in Boston, but you would need a car to go anywhere outside the city that’s not on a bus route or transit line.
At the start of the video, when you posed the question, I tried to theorise my own answer, and I basically came to the conclusion you did. People would love to live in a walkable place, but there's so little of it and it's so expensive, that they've sort of resigned themselves to it not being possible, and so they just kind of make the best of what they have and don't bother complaining enough to actually change things. Bit of a sad state of affairs really.
so true (Atlanta suburb dissonant resident)
People generally choose options that are most economically accessible and sensible to them. People are always going to choose places closer to where they work, choose places that they can afford most. Because of the very limited options most Americans have, most people are going to live in suburbs and deal with an hour long commute because they basically have to, they don't have much other choice unless they want to spend 80 percent of their monthly income on rent. That's the only issue I have with the "personal choice" argument, because most people don't live in the burbs because of "personal choice" they live there because they have to, it's the only economically viable solution.
I know people have a problem with this idea, but in observing the downtown of my hometown building new apartments, if you build it in high quantities, and are competitive with suburban prices, the people will come. They'll come in droves.
Another aspect of this phenomenon (that this channel helped me appreciate) is that vehicle costs are often seen as inevitable, given the baseline assumption that you need a vehicle to get around anywhere. I'm guessing if most folks did the math, they probably could afford more expensive apartments or condos in walkable urban environments if it meant that they weren't paying for vehicle gas, storage, and maintenance costs.
I think the point about people not considering car costs is relevant, although there is a particular challenge in getting everyone in a multiple worker household appropriately situated to walk/transit to work when they are in different directions. It will get easier with better transit though.
the US is the most propagandized country in the world. especially regarding the "american dream"
I want so badly to live in an area that actually has sidewalks and pedestrian centered area and walkable spaces! I have looked all over for someone to discuss this in detail. Thank you.
ME TOO😊
Excellent piece. I nerd out on stuff like this. Personal anecdotal experience includes growing up in a small, isolated town where everybody walked everywhere, so that was my normal, to being an exchange student in a medium-sized city in German in high school (in the late 1970's), again where teens walked or rode mopeds or public transit (took a train to Essen to see Queen in concert, for example), to college at Big State U where I walked everywhere, to living in Boulder (early 1980's) near the Pearl Street Mall, to settling in San Francisco for 15 years. In other words, a life from age 0 to about age 40 of mostly walkable environments. Then, moving to a classic midwestern suburb of a big midwestern metro, where there are no sidewalks, curvy streets with poor lighting and lots of foliage, and lots of old people driving Escalades. Walking is affirmatively dangerous, and even if you do walk, there is nowhere to walk to. We walk for exercise, but not for social interaction nor commerce. The withering ennui of driving into a garage, closing the door, and spending life in a house. No wonder the nation has so much violence.
Great comment. Thanks! Queen in Essen?? Sounds amazing
I'm in the processing of determining where to purchase a home and this video is massively helpful! You are spot on with the duality of walkable neighbors severely lacking either affordability or availability. Even in Seattle, outside central Seattle there are many walkable neighborhoods either. You might be able to stretch further with biking, but the half of the year the weather won't permit it lol.
Hi. I really liked the philosophical and conceptual focus of this video. It feels more substantial than a “10 best/worst” type of video. On the topic, I live in Metro Boston and would love to live in a walkable neighborhood, but the only ones I could afford to live in have the highest crime rates in the metro area. Boston has lots of reasonably safe walkable neighborhoods, but a one-bedroom unit in those neighborhoods is way above my ability to buy or rent, and my household income is in the top quartile for the area.
I live in the burbs north of Boston and take the commuter rail into the city. I’m lucky enough to afford one of the older, more walkable towns on a commuter rail line. But my door to door commuting time is one hour, ten minutes, and that’s without delays. So I’m sacrificing a substantial amount of time to live in a walkable community. I would love to live closer to Boston, but I just can’t afford it.
Its definitely the whole "all big cities are massive skyscrapers, no trees, traffic jams, noise, crime and pollution" myth that's the real problem.
people who haven't researched this stuff (like us nerds) only know what they've seen in person, and that means what's in their area. even a short vacation doesn't usually have this effect. not just bikes, I think, got orange pilled after moving from london ON to amsterdam
Because thats all people see when they visit a "downtown" of a city. They dont know the neighborhoods around and only get left with an impression of skyscrapers and parking lots.
@@yuriydee Yeah if you're just going to Manhattan, that's what you experience. My last experience going through various boroughs in NYC was completely different as it was closer to how people actually lived in the city.
Hey Ray, I know you read some of these so I figured I'd say as a long-time subscriber (sub-5,000 if I remember? Gotta chase the urbanist youtuber early-subscriber clout) that I would really like to see more of this type of content. As someone from the Front Range Urban Corridor hellscape, you've opened my eyes to seeing there's a better way. Keep up the good work, I hope you can inspire more people my age to rally around more sustainable urban landscapes.
Thanks for letting me know what you wanna see, and thanks for being an early subscriber! Respect
I used to live in a city when i went to college. The big reason people like me leave is the crime. I dont wanna be carrying around a gun all the time but when you get confronted with bad people it ruins your desire to want to be around people. This in turn damages public transport, closer housing and all of the city style of livelihood.
I live in a relatively walkable rust belt city. Finally managed to buy a house a few years back, and had to decide between two.
I went with the house than was in the dense urban neighborhood over the newer, nicer house in a (still somewhat walkable) suburb. For the privilege of being able to walk to more than just one grocery store and having bus service that could get me home from my second shift job, I paid roughly 40% more for the house.
I'll eventually save the difference by being car free, but that's still a steep upfront cost and only possible due to being in one of cheapest urban housing markets in the country.
What city do you live in if you don’t mind me asking?
@@technojunkie123 I'm in Pittsburgh (city proper), the house I didn't buy was in the nearby borough of Swissvale.
I would love to see you compare two places in Czech Republic. Prague (Praha) versus Pilsen (Plzeň). Both have allowed cars into their city streets, yet they have done so differently. Notably in Prague, you step off of a tram, then cross a road to get to the pavement. It makes no sense. Pilsen is too narrow in most of its centre, so the cars must wait, giving trams priority. Your keen eye would probably spot more notable design quirks.
As a side note, Czechia has buses (autobusy) and trolleybuses (trolejbusy) integrated too. Also every street has a café, because every street is a destination. No matter where you go (the book shop, the fabric shop, the beer factory, Colours of Warriors...), you'll need somewhere to eat and drink.
And if I haven't convinced you to visit yet, they also have gooseberry ice cream.
Will have to do a site visit!
That study is 100% correct about residential dissonance. In no universe could either Atlanta or Detroit be considered walkable. That is not to say tiny areas within the city aren't, just that they are rare.
I think you nailed it with "people in Seattle are weirdos".
I resemble that remark
@@CityNerd I've been called worse. :)
I fall squarely in this category. I enjoy a walkable urban-ish area for vacation or a weekend away, but I would never live in one. Walkable towns inherently require density, and I think a love of personal space is ingrained in a lot of americans, myself included. If I can afford it, I will always choose more square footage, no shared walls (*shivers*), and the ability to shop 2-3 weeks at a time instead of carrying groceries home from the store by hand.
Keyword there is affordability of course. I'd like to see our urban areas improved, as that's where a lot of our most vulnerable and/or least empowered folks live!
I don't know if home buyers "choose" houses in sprawling, unwalkable suburbs or if that's what they're mainly offered in their price ranges.
Probably the latter, I made walkability and transit access a priority when I bought my place and even then only could choose between either 30yo buildings with metro access and a decent pedestrian shopping experience or a handful of newer buildings farther away with only bus access and a few nearby strip malls. If I was rich enough to go for whatever I wanted my choices wouldn't have changed much, except maybe having a few more options in the main city rather than an exurb, which still would have required driving to visit friends and family
I currently own the home that my parents had bought in the mid-1980's. It is located in the suburb of a small semi-rural city. My father had a choice between buying this home (and a few others just like it) or a peach farm down the road a bit further which was a bit cheaper. He really liked the idea of the peach farm and really wanted it (after all, he was a country boy and came from farming stock), but instead opted for the suburban home because it was a bit closer to his workplace and my mom was a city-bred girl who didn't understand farm life. In every suburban home we've ever lived in she thought all the trees should be cut down. We never allowed it though. She hated leaves and twigs being on the ground. She thought it looked dirty. Ugh. I love her, but never could understand that view. However, we would never have considered anything closer to a more densified area. We always had large dogs and they needed space, too. A suburban home with a large yard for our dogs was a necessity as far as we were concerned and just as important to us as any school system or shopping district, etc.
@@laurie7689 Dogs don't work in high density areas, cats could work, or a dog you can fit in your purse.
@@info781 So, basically, densified places are for cat people only. Dog people need not apply.
The last 18 years (ages 28-46) I've primarily based my housing decisions on walkability. Arlington VA, downtown DC, and now a downtown adjacent neighborhood in the city I live in today. But even as enthusiastic as I am for walkability my idea of the good life would not be an apartment/condo. I did it in DC for 6 years and it was appropriate for where I was in my life at the time but even while enjoying it I never saw it as the long term solution. For me the absolute sweet spot is a neighborhood of gridded streets with sidewalks, rowhouses, alleys instead of personal driveways, and fenced in yards that are modest but allow for some personal outdoor space. If you layer on good public schools to that mix I think many more Americans would also choose this option. Lot size would be 2000-3000 SF. This is not Manhattan density or even Brooklyn. But it is quite a bit denser than suburbs and can support a variety of small format local shops/bodegas/cafes. And on certain corridors can support large format grocery store, etc..
However this really mix of rowhouse density with small yards doesn't get built anymore as new construction in any volume. Just as infill/gentrification to old streetcar neighborhoods. Today when a developer does build a subdivision of townhouses its not on streets that connect to much of any existing city fabric and these homes have no yards at all. Just a rear loading garage in the basement of the house and surrounded by asphalt.
There are Americans of course where a rowhouse will be too dense for them but would still value a form that is more walkable than suburbs. For this case I think of the land use of the outer streetcar neighborhoods. Usually detached single family homes on 5000-6000SF lots. Common from the time period this land use was in vogue you will see many Sears kit homes on these lots. This type of neighborhood is denser than today's suburbs. Perhaps not dense enough to support many amenities beyond the basics. But would be dense enough to support bus lines to the CBD. One of the problems with today's suburbs is they don't even have any transit because they are so spread out it makes little sense. And if many voters live in areas where land use decidedly determines transit makes no sense then they aren't going to support candidates who push future transit expansion for their metro.
Love living in DC and Arlington, but once I had kids I was driving everywhere. Even though I lived 1/2 mile from Safeway, I still drove. When I was single I always walked.
I'm an avid viewer of your and other similar channels. Videos like this are enjoyable to watch, but often sadden me given the state of many US cities like mine (Louisville).
I'd love to see a video that provides positive recognition of cities which have in some small way transformed themselves from suburbia wasteland into something walkable and sustainable with public transportation options.
Give us seem gleam of hope that we can get out of this mess. Show us there is a way, Obi Wan.
It's not enough to build great urban fabric - it needs to be sustainable from an economic, social and cultural POV, with quality services. Dense, busy urban living can be awesome when it's vital and thriving, but that's a fragile state. Urban planning is only part of the picture. There are plenty of thriving suburbs that are great places to live despite their terrible planning and car-focused culture. There are plenty of classic urban places that have become hell on earth for rich and poor alike.
You give Pike Place Market in Seattle as an example of excellent, walkable urban spaces. I grew up in Seattle, and visited Pike Place regularly from the early 70s to late 80s. While Pike Place market was cool during this era, especially when they created the Hill Climb down to the waterfront, it was always more of a (local + out-of-town) tourist spot-to-visit than a place you'd shop and "live in" as a Seattle local, unless you happened to live right downtown and it was really your only convenient option. Seattle has many quasi-suburban neighborhoods in-city - I grew up on the north end of Capitol Hill. Despite being quite close by, we didn't actually shop for essentials at Pike Place Market, as the quality and experience was inferior to both local supermarkets and zero-middleman experiences like Fisherman's Terminal. Produce vendors, e.g., wouldn't let you pick your own fruit/veggies and would keep inferior crap behind the counter and do a bait-and-switch on you. There were a few specialty vendors unique to Seattle that made it worth doing some specialty shopping at Pike Place, but it wasn't a good substitute for "suburban" grocery stores that were 5 minutes away by car or 15 minutes by bus. Keep in mind I'm talking about 70s-80s here.
It's been a long time since I've been to Pike Place, but the area has gotten terrible. Over the last 30 years, a wave of poorly mitigated homelessness has ruined the on-street experience from Belltown to Pioneer Square. This is one of the biggest political issues in Seattle and the problem has been critical for over 20 years (obviously more if you go way back in Seattle history to the Skid Road homeless city era, but that's another topic). I lived right next to Pioneer Square from 2003 to 2005, during which time I saw the unique shops close one by one and the sidewalks in the area becoming gauntlets of literal insanity. As a big man, I could pass unmolested, but women friends of mine were constantly harassed on the streets in scary ways. It was horrible to see the distinctive mix of indie street-wall shops, professional services, offices and apartments decline over the decades, despite (or perhaps because of) an influx of residents to the downtown core.
Wonderful, walkable cities - the kind you say people want to vacation in - are just as much a consensual hallucination as a built environment. When not enough people share the dream, the city declines. Check out the Fall of Civilizations Podcast channel here on TH-cam for many examples of history's greatest urban centers going from thriving, to war zones, to ruins with sheep grazing in them.
This perspective may seem a bit grandiose for a comment on a TH-cam urbanism channel, but consider this: my grandfather was born in 1908 and took the train up Lake Washington to fish in the wilderness that is now the suburban downtown center of Bothell. He lived in the upper-class, quasi-suburb of Laurelhurst from 1938 to 2012 when he died. When he moved in, they had rats because the city dump was in what is now a natural science "park" between Laurelhurst and University of Washington. When my mom was a student at University of Washington, University Way, aka "The Ave" by UoW campus was a wonderful urban shopping strip with department stores, boutiques, and a wide variety of service businesses catering to both locals and students. Now it is a poorly maintained strip of crappy restaurants where people will mug you if you come out of a building that happens to have a pot shop in it. There's no sense at all on The Ave - as far as I can see - of a thriving community of students who are making their own world - not art, not political protests, it's very depressing. Bellingham, a small college town to the north, is much more like the fantasy of culturally thriving, walkable urban centers. But the buildings and urban fabric on The Ave haven't changed. If anything, it's been made more pedestrian-focused, rideable and walkable with a whole gamut of anti-car street design. But it's much, MUCH worse as a place both to visit and live than when I was growing up. It used to be a one-stop shop for services and shopping, now you have to go elsewhere for most things. Local grocery stores within an easy walk of campus have closed (QFC) or become crappy places to grab take-out (Whole Foods). If you want a hopping student community off campus, you need to visit the Starbucks in the ultra-gentrified University Village on the other side of campus where some subset of Asian student cliques hang out.
I can't explain all these changes, but I can say they all happened during a period where Seattle urban planning purported to be very pro-pedestrian, pro-density, etc. Driving around Downtown Seattle is definitely a lot harder now than when I grew up. But, ironically, so is walking, shopping and living. It's clear that urban fabric is not the main determinant, unless it turns out that the contemporary approach to the kind of urban design you advocate in this channel paradoxically makes places unlivable (I don't think this is the case). Clearly, economic, cultural and social factors trump urban design in making livable communities.
As a resident of a walkable Atlanta neighborhood I can confirm that the demand is there. Housing construction is booming in midtown and around the Beltline (which is a potential video idea, best converted/mixed use trails?). Anyway, people here want to live in walkable areas there is just very little supply
Fellow ITP ATLien who loves my city. This is a bigger topic that anyone watching these videos is aware of and impacts all cities to different extents but racism, segregation, and white flight are major factors here. There’s a reason Marta does not reach its potential or that there are cute, denser neighborhoods you don’t hear about like East Point in south atl. Anyone who’s stuck OTP and doesn’t want to be due to affordability and availability, I feel for you and I hope we can make this city better. Anyone who went OTP to have a 3 car garage, a 2-hour commute, and keep their taxes in a “safe” neighborhood doesn’t really live in Atlanta. .
I love Top 10 vids as much as the next guy, but I really appreciate this kind of deeper dive and analysis of a topic. My wife and I have absolutely experienced this residential dissonance when we were looking to buy our first home in Nashville back in 2017. We explained to the realtor that we preferred walkability, but there were so few realistic options that even somewhat fit this criteria, that we ended up buying in a location that wasn't walkable at all (we could walk to Shelby Bottoms Park so that was a definite perk but they usually don't sell groceries in the park nor is it a place to hold down a job, etc.).
I thought your framing of this topic was on point, with all the walkable urban simulations that we construct so that people can tickle a memory for a few hours or a day or two of what it once was like to be a real bipedal being
Yup, this definitely sounds like my family. One of our frequent vacation spots growing up was the town of Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts on Matha’s Vineyard. Beautiful, walkable town and a great summer destination, but the towns where I was raised weren’t walkable at all. Disney World is a good example, too. Being somewhere walkable with good public transportation is a huge component of the experience there, and that’s part of what draws people to it. I always wondered, why not just move to a walkable community instead of vacationing in one? That’s exactly what I did.
Where did you find that walkable community if you don’t mind sharing? I’m still looking for mine.
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 I’m in Tucson AZ. It’s one of the oldest cities in the Southwest, so it doesn’t have the sprawl that Phoenix and Vegas have. I live in the University/Downtown area. Great neighborhoods with a streetcar and regular bus service.
I mean it seems to me like the answer is obvious, a vacation is temporary. A lot of people prize space more than anything else because their home is where they spend most of their time. That pretty much requires low density single-family homes. If that means that you need to drive to visit friends, or get food, or really do anything -- so what? It's just a necessary chore, not any different than having to take the bus or train if that option is available. So yeah, living in a hotel (equivalent to a small apartment) for a week while exploring a cute town might be fun as a one off experience, but that's not what they are looking for in their day-to-day.
I just don't think most Americans want to live in the kind of walkable urban spaces that people like us desire if it means less space and/or less privacy. If you can give people space and privacy and also provide cute walkable cities, that's a different story, but that's a lot harder to do. There's a reason single family detached homes are so popular! (Of course, we shouldn't basically force everyone into SFHs via zoning either.)
To be clear, these aren't my preferences -- these are just the preferences I think most Americans hold.
@@vishaalprasad2020 Oh yeah, I’m not saying single family houses with lots of space and big yards are an inherently bad thing. I wouldn’t want to be stacked on top of tons of people shoulder-to-shoulder either. I would live in a single family house if I could afford it. My main concern is making sure that everyone is connected by public transit to places where they can walk around, interact, and have easy access to at least basic services. Instead of having to choose between space and access to transit, why not have both?
@@vishaalprasad2020 Why not just make bigger/better "apartments"? 1200-2000sqft? Or densify the homes and shrink the streets, to get things closer together? Don't make 2800sqft 2-story homes, make 3 story 3-unit 4800sqft homes - perfect for a few families. Then you only have two "neighbours", not 40 or 110 in your building. With a few small changes, we could probably 3x our density and make significant progress towards walkability and zoning that make sense.
it's honestly just as simple as cost. a ton of sprawling suburbs were built in the 50s-70s to make segregation easier and walkable mixed-use areas were deliberately allowed to decay or were destroyed. so suburbs became cheaper and that drew people in, not that everyone necessarily wanted it.
"Affordable housing" became a house in the suburbs at that point. In reality, it takes a lot of resources to build such spaced out housing when you'd save more maintenance costs sharing units, sewer, pipes, etc. like in the cities. But cities aren't where subsidies for housing goes so when it comes to costs, suburbs tend to draw people in terms of long term costs
This was definitely an awesome one, it’s nice to understand when talking with people who don’t consider walkability important or understand it, why they may feel that way or even what other factors they agree
I really enjoyed this video. I like these kind of deep dives into the American concepts of how our country lives and reacts because it really can show why we still resist the obvious answers to our planning.
I find it has a very limited range of subjects and ignores other areas...
@@b_uppy not every video needs to be broad. Some diving in is always nice every once in a while. Showing us in-depth concepts.
@@Klasher07
Except this channel's content is very similar to other channels of the same ilk. It's copy-paste with this channels...
He fulfills a different nitch for me compared to the other channels I watch. So that's completely your opinion and what you are watching. CityNerd does things quite different enough from the other urbanists or city planning side that I definitely can't say the same.
@@Klasher07
Lol.
Man, that replication of Venice in Las Vegas was so faithful, I couldn’t even tell if it was outside or indoors. The sky was so blue, and the clouds were so white! Reminds me of the movie, A Boy and His Dog. If you really hate American architecture (like I do), check out James Howard Kunstler's,The ghastly tragedy of the suburbs. Bravo CityNerd!
Thank you for getting a bit philosophical about the pursuit of happiness. I felt like it helped me understand how urban living measurably improves people's happiness without denigrating non-urbanists' intelligence for choosing suburbia. Most of my immigrant community fully buys into the idea that suburban living is the "good life", and they are really smart, hardworking people. I don’t want to make fun of them; I want to be able to build more walkable spaces so that people can see others enjoying and appreciating good urbanism.
“Cruises are urbanism” is a take out of left-field, but it’s definitely interesting
Everything you need can be walked to. And if you leave the ship, it dumps you into either a very walkable touristy neighbourhood, or to public transit / bus tours where you can go see something cool.
I love how in America walkable urban design is a luxury and thus a commodity to be sold, so much so that people will pay thousands of dollars a month in rent to be in a neighborhood that has good "vibes", but the whole time it's just a walkable, less car dependent neighborhood lol.
And the irony is that, because it's a luxury, we interpret that it's impossible to implement where we live. Supposing you could make your *own* walkable city is like supposing you could bring the beach to your town.
I would love to live in a walkable neighborhood, but in southern California where I live, the walkable neighborhoods close to the coast where the climate doesn't suck are extremely expensive. Of course, beach communities are going to be costly. Therefore, I am doomed to live in the car dominated suburb a short distance inland, near the intersection of two horrific stroads, and if I want to spend some time in a nice walkable neighborhood, I have to drive there and find a place to park.
There are walkable communities away from the coast that are a bit less expensive, but for me, nothing is walkable when the temperature is too high. I might consider the city of Vista. It is inland, but not too far from the coast, so the climate isn't as nasty as in Escondido or Temecula, two other inland cities with walkable downtowns. Main Street in Vista is an odd hybrid of normal downtown and lifestyle center. To the east is a normal downtown area with local businesses, restaurants, and bars. There is even a recently built large apartment building with commercial space on the ground floor - the perfect sort of development for a walkable community. Then, to the west, Main Street transitions onto the private land of a small lifestyle center which is a lot more sanitized than the somewhat gritty "real" downtown and has more chain businesses. On the outskirts, south of downtown, is a typical ugly power center with expansive parking lots. The old public downtown is appealing, albeit small, and the lifestyle center portion is somewhat less appealing but still has some businesses worth visiting.
I think there is untapped demand for housing in walkable neighborhoods. Not everybody wants to live in a single family home with a yard that has to be maintained. Some of us actually want to live in apartments and enjoy the freedom of not having to worry about constant maintenance and yard work. Downtown neighborhoods with retail on the ground floor and apartments and offices on upper levels would be great for many people.
I liked the change up including some philosophy along with the history and data/statistisc. Human nature will always be a fun topic to discuss and dissect. Per usual I appreciate hearing your observations, insights, and research references. Keep em coming!
I love your deadpan sarcasm, its my favorite part of the entire channel
This makes me wonder about "Golf Cart Cities" such as The Villages, Sun City, or Peachtree City. They're not urban by any definition but all three communities were built using an urban-planning style a master plan and both have large numbers of golf carts as transportation, i.e. not just for use on a golf course. I know urban is your thing but maybe it's worth looking at suburban communities that buck some trends?
They could certainly add walkability/bikability and trams to those.
It’s easy to make fun of The Villages, but the carbon footprint of people living there must be relatively low due to getting around by golf carts, biking and walking.
@@ThreeRunHomer
The walkability/bikability is debatable but golf carts are definitely less impactful...
They don’t really have groceries you can get to in The villages by walking or bicycling since all of them are on major highways such as for 441 and 466.
Also since the golf paths are used for golf carts to get around and there’s quite extensive ones it’s not quite safe bicycling or walking since the golf carts often go about 20 mph and people get annoyed at the bicycles and some don’t stop where there a stop signs.
I currently live in the poster child community for bad urban planning and suburban, auto-centric sprawl aka Los Angeles. This place seems to get worse every year and there are more cars all the time. Most of the time most streets are choked with traffic, they keep widening the freeways which does nothing and everyone is complaining. In short I can't wait to move to a less crowded, less expensive, less hot more sustainable and walkable community!!
On the topic of universities being super walkable, it would be great to see a video on some of the best college campuses for transit, walkability, or just general urban design. I'm a Georgia Tech student so I'm rooting for them to land a spot on the list, but I think it'd be interesting to see how campuses across the world stack up!
I'm also a GT student! I love how walkable GT is and how many spaces are car-free, but the grocery and laundry options for students living west of campus are pretty limited. I love MARTA train stations being so close for transportation around the city and to/from airport. Wish MARTA busses were more reliable though as it's a long walk from west of campus.
GT is so cool for being in the middle of a major city but still having that secluded "campus" feel.
I'm curious to see if this would skew towards those in the middle of a big city the likes of UT Austin, places that are college towns like A&M (College Station), and then whether it'll be newer or older schools. Maybe those factors won't have an effect on anything at all!
@@Jetliner college towns often have good, free public transportation provided by the university, so I wouldn't be surprised if they are equally or even more competitive
I vote yes for the philosophical approach! I appreciate so many things about your presentations, but this one had me feeling more intellectually and emotionally engaged than the others.
There's a really odd "Elephant in the Room" element to living in Walkable Areas. It is that those areas can become co-opted by the city and its promoted interests seemingly at will. It may be (or seem) to be nice to live in such an area for 340 days a year, but when the city uproots it residents' live with street fairs, fireworks shows, Fun Runs, Holiday concerts, et cetera, it maks the prospect of living in such an area challenging.
When one lives in such an area he may not even have the option of making a quick drive to a grocery store or enjoying a quiet evening at home. Or even enjoying a quiet weekend morning at home! It becomes a really tough pill to swallow to pay a premium to withstand these challenges ...
sounds like youre talking about marketplaces rather than actual living space. most cities have noise requirements in residential areas for that exact reason. but still, people pay to stay basically on times square still, and that place never seems quiet.
This tells me you have never lived in a city and have a skewed perception of what it is like. I live in a densely populated, very walkable section of Chicago, and I can assure you I have never once not been able to make a quick trip to the grocery store (please note, I just need to walk a few blocks, driving is not necessary). And having anything other than a quiet morning or evening at home is the very much the exception rather than the rule. Events are spread out across the city and usually concentrated on the main commercial streets. The chance that one would disrupt the peace of your home life and everyday routine is very slim.
@@once-upon-a-pixel I was born and lived more than 25 years in Brooklyn, NY, which has three times the population density of Chicago. Many U.S. cities conduct public events in areas of high population density. The fact that it (apparently) does not occur in Chicago does not mean that all or most other Walkable Urban Areas are following suit ...
I absolutely enjoyed this type of topic and approach, more than just the top/bottom 10 videos.
I think some people who think they want to live in a car-dependent area are really just people who have accepted the dominance of the automobile to the point where they really believe that driving a car everywhere is the only way to access all of the places they need to go. In other words, because there are so many places in the US where cars really _are_ the only way to get a lot of places, people associate "car" with "freedom" to the point that they can't or won't consider the alternative of adjusting how we build our cities. And so, when asked, instead of saying, "Yes, I would like to live somewhere where I can walk to places," they say, "No, I would rather live in a suburb with a car," simply because they can't imagine a place that allows them perfect freedom to get to where they need to go without also requiring that they have a car.
Nailed it.
@@archimetropolis I'm glad somebody thinks so :)
Love the deadpan way you've given in to our meme overlords ;D Great channel - can't wait to binge more of this.
I definitely like this style of video. When we talk about cars vs trains or density vs urban sprawl it often leaves out the fundimental reasons why and how we organize human settlement
0:08 *cue Alan Fisher shouting BUILD MORE TRAINS*
4:15 In the LA region at least, most of those outdoor shopping centers were not remodeled malls, but rather old industrial sites and factories.
Van Nuys - The Plant - General Motors
Downey - Downey Landing - North American Aviation
Burbank - Empire Center - Lockheed
I grew up in suburbia, went to college and grad school in urban settings, then lived in suburbia again until I got divorced at 50. I live in a small metro area and had a choice on where to live at that point: country or city. I chose city, mainly b/c I thought it'd be too easy to simply become a hermit if I moved to the country. Worked for about 10 years. Went out a lot and loved being single again.
My place in the city was a 2700 sf house on a 5000 sf lot. Lived on a cul-de-sac street with about 18 other houses, similarly packed in pretty tight. Got to know everybody on the street, about half of them well enough that we'd invite each other over spontaneously if we saw each other walking, working in the yard, etc. First time since college I'd been in an environment like that. Neighborhood was close enough to walk to a grocery store and several restaurants. About a year ago, after a decade in the city house, I moved to the country. Now live in a 4000 sf house on 5 acres.
Why did I move?
Stress reduction. One of my neighbors was nosy, e.g. "Who was over last night?" Another thought it was OK to go on vacation for a week, leave her dogs home (and able to get into her 400 sf backyard where they'd bark incessantly) and have her niece come over once a day to feed them. A couple of my neighbors were basically at war with one another. The proximity to commerce and businesses has the downside of traffic, noise, and smells (think: frying chicken, etc.). For a while, there was a homeless encampment in the neighborhood stormwater catch basin. All of this (and more) got amplified during the pandemic (except that during the first two months of the lockdown in 2020 there was virtually no traffic noise).
Out in the country I live a very peaceful life, sleep well and am amazed at the amount of stress reduction.
A big thing to look at is how we zone...more specifically how we're allowed to zone. In lots of places in the US you're not allowed to zone mixed use residential/commercial, or build multi-family dwellings. Planners and developers are often forced to make suburban sprawl
To go on a bit of a tangent from the video, being someone who's gone from living relatively rural and driving everywhere I have to go to living on a college campus where driving places is massively optional (technically) I think I can sum up my current thoughts with this...
I like driving my car in my hometown. There's very little traffic anywhere and there's plenty of parking no matter where I go. However, there are lots of times where I would just drive somewhere to park where I can walk, like driving to school to walk around at school, or going downtown to get a slugburger and ending up just sitting outside for a while waiting on it in the summer heat. I'd walk around the corner connecting up and downtown after I finished up at the gym on some nights. Honestly I like walking well enough, but I can't just write off cars like that. In my very niche situation in the Mississippi summer sun I'd get my slugburger order, drive 2 minutes to less than half a mile down the road to the park, find a shady parking spot, and eat my slugburger while watching youtube in my air conditioned car and also having a beautiful atmosphere outside around me without having to experience the sweltering heat; I call that a good lunch break.
Cars are good for a couple things: independently going where I want to without the need of concerted interest, and transportation of stuff. Living in a semi rural area, going to fishing ever so occasionally or swimming, disc golf, etc.--natural areas-- is made a lot easier if not just possible. Also when I want to go to another major town or city, I can always haul more than myself and whatever my sorry ass can carry in a couple of bags thanks to my car. Still tho, I don't need to do either of these other things super often, so yeah I think I could handle a more urban area if it meant I didn't have to use my car as often.
Honestly there's upsides to rural and urban areas, and I believe both can continue their completely separate existence and different styles of infrastructure. Suburbs are always labeled as the problem and I can see why. They basically take the wastefulness of constant use of cars from rural areas and say, "because you're an accessory to a city of some kind, you're going to have to drive into a location where getting in and just parking somewhere can be a hassle just so you can get out and walk somewhere." Public transport or nearby merchants seem like way better options. America needs to better define and narrow the line between an area that has plenty of space for car centric infrastructure and areas where pedestrian infrastructure would save time and money.
I think that's fair, and I bet most urbanists would agree.
Rural areas are where the food production happens and are necessarily low density. Cars/trucks will always be there and they serve a useful purpose. Rural areas are also not going to be super intense on infrastructure since there aren't many people and don't demand city level services.
Dense walkable urban areas are also a good idea since they provide the most conveniences for people without massive mobility overhead, efficient use of public space, and efficient use of infrastructure. The density also makes public transportation more viable.
And then we have suburbs. It's this weird in-between that doesn't do anything well while being super wasteful. They are not dense enough to be walkable so require cars, but also dense enough to have crappy traffic. They also require city level services so are pretty intense on infrastructure but not dense enough to make efficient use of said infrastructure. Most of my friends who grew up or had children in the suburbs did not like the experience at all, and I can understand why.
I just remembered a development outside of downtown Atlanta called Glenwood Park that has all the elements of walkability. It was completed in 2010 and actually lead the city to chane the code to allow narrower streets. They also had to get variances for mixed use. It was wildly successful, so I wonder why more like it have not been built. Therte is a video about it's creation th-cam.com/video/XoVXoB6x3vM/w-d-xo.html
Glenwood Park is a great example!
I absolutely love these kinds of videos
Walkable neighborhoods are in such short supply in the US that any walkable area that is reasonably safe was either always wealthy, gentrified, or gentrifying. It makes me sad because I believe walkability should be for everybody, but also because it makes these areas surprisingly homogenous (not to mention insufferably bougie). If you’ve ever been to a neighborhood that has one or more stores selling greeting cards for $6 and up you know what I’m talking about.
My old walkable neighborhood priced out everything but bars.
So glad you're adressing this! It feels like cities can only imagine walkable spaces if they're proposed by developers.
That last part was important. For the most part, walkable neighborhoods tend to be very pricey--unless they are located in dangerous parts of town. By pricey, I mean that a large house suitable for a family with kids, with a big yard, is going to cost a fortune.
I live in a two-bedroom condo in a major east coast city. It's about 1,000 square feet. That's ample for me, but many (including the growing family who sold it to me) need more space for the kids. Single people like me, and childless couples, tend to prefer living in walkable neighborhoods, while families are more likely to prefer suburban housing developments with lots of space. Generally, the bigger the family, the farther out they tend to live.
Agree. When you have kids it is tough to walk for groceries and the schools have to be good, those things override walk-ability. When my kids are grown I will live in a walk-able area again.
@@info781 It is sad, that you have to chose one OR another.
@@fumanchu4785 True but dogs need a lot of space unless it is a very small purse dog. I hate to see a dog in a tiny yard all day.
If you sit down and think about it, it's crazy how many places you 'love the vibe' of are somehow filling this innate hunger for walkability. Even airports, something one should hate for its high stress environment and long lines... people often state they love the vibe of airports and I'd argue it's because they're walkable areas with lots of people and stores, something that we just don't get enough of in suburban life.
Side note: it's sad in itself that an airport is one of the more dependable places to find a variety of shops and food in America, albeit not the highest quality dining (pan to Cheesecake factory)
Great video! People need to understand that denser, walkable places aren't expensive by nature, they are expensive because people really prefer them that much more, and there aren't enough to go around. Maybe a companion/follow-up video could be a look at cities that are working the hardest to rebalance their housing diversity (that is, car-dependent cities that are cranking out more walkable neighborhoods)
Tangential, but one thing I like to do is help tourist looking to visit the large city I live near find things to do in the city. I regularly tell them things like "Oh, just park your car at x location and walk several miles hitting these attractions (public gardens, museums, historical sites) along the way", and I quite regularly will get messages back from, like, people from Texas talking about how much fun they had following my recommendations, and lamenting that their home city is so much less interesting. I bite my tongue, but man do I think about how much of the difference really just is "Get out of your car once in a while".
The conclusion is kind of backwards. Its not that people choose to live in unwalkable places, its that those are the kinds of places that have residential districts. Your average person cannot choose to live near disneyland or las vegas. You go where there is even remotely affordable housing, and that is usually so far from a walkable commercial area that you HAVE to drive in order to get to it. People want to live in spaces where they don't have to drive to get anywhere, we are not given a choice. Plenty of city planning focused channels have already explained this in detail- it is borderline illegal to create the kind of environments that people both want and need because it impacts fossil fuel, automotive, and related industries who want to keep the entire country dependent on their services.
Planners would disagree. Dense development has been trumpeted by planners for two decades at least, and advantaged in my area for nearly that long. But it takes time to develop, and there's a constant tension between attracting demand, keeping the product affordable, and exceeding the carrying capacity for undesirables. Both the planned town centers in the suburbs of my metro area have troubled middle schools. They were already on the downslope when they were three-quarters built out...
@@josephfisher426 I feel like you ran into a major point when you used the word 'undesirables'. Because even if this is not your intended use of the term, historically 'undesirables' refers to 'the poor', and any social minority like non cishet people, racial/ethnic minorities, and religious minorities. And the system we created- even if there are no prejudiced people running them- operate with goal of preventing these kinds of people from feeling like they have access to anything nice and useful that is built. We built a nation that functions on the ideal that one type of person is better than the rest and are the only ones who should have access to the nice things we build and we prevent policies and production which might benefit all citizens equally because of these biases built directly into our legal system including land development.
@@Sumguyinavan_ I used the term deliberately. There are indeed people who are undesirable by someone else's choice: a minority or the merely poor. That can be avoided (in the US discrimination against a social minority is not as hard to avoid as it seems to be in Europe), though I agree that systems are often still not set up to serve them well. There also are troublemakers: addicts, thieves, the chronically unemployed. They make success at life more challenging for the honest poor in particular, because they are poor themselves and thus likely to be the neighbors of the honest poor... especially if located via subsidy in one of these nice new deliberately constructed urban areas.
Anyway my point was that they struggle, and too soon in the life cycle of a new community.
The problem in America is that living in city centers now adays is considered a luxury with ridiculous rent or housing prices in which only the top 20% earners can afford
I've been binge-watching your content for the past week or so and this is the most interesting of your videos I've seen so far. I actually got in an argument with some friends about urbanism recently. I've been sufficiently orangepilled by urbanist TH-cam but also by my life experiences: I grew up in car-dependent suburbia in Maryland where my neighborhood was literally cut off from the rest of the world. My 76-unit townhouse development was built off a two-lane road with posted 35mph speed limits where people regularly drove 50mph and there were no sidewalks connecting my street with anywhere else. There were literally zero meaningful places for me to walk to as a child other than the playground and basketball court on my street. Fast forward to adult life where, after living and working in suburbia for a while, I moved to South Korea and went car-free for seven years. I've seen much of Asia and now live in Europe, and the benefits of being car-free in a denser area with more walkability and functional public transport are so essential to me now that I can't imagine ever opting to go back to isolated, car-dependent suburban dystopia.
But, my friends who have never experienced otherwise were adamant about liking that lifestyle. They love the independence of having a car, and the peace and quiet of the suburbs. They came up with so many arguments for choosing that lifestyle, but they've never really actually had a choice as there's no affordable alternative to that lifestyle in the parts of the US where they live. As this video does an excellent job illustrating, the freedom and choice Americans living in car-centric suburbia believe they are exercising is all an illusion.
I feel like there's a missing middle-ground here that's not being discussed. There are lots of walkable neighborhoods in the U.S. that are, essentially, local tourist attractions. These are legacy downtowns, not ersatz life-style centers, but a lot of the old-school shops have been replaced by dining and entertainment. The downtown neighborhood in my town (Ann Arbor) is like this. It was ranked as the most walkable neighborhood in a mid-sized midwestern city (or something like that). And the businesses downtown are patronized by people living in the neighborhood, but most people walking around on a busy Friday night have come in from surrounding neighborhoods or communities. They've probably driven in, but not very far, and the downtown is far more vibrant than it would have been if it catered mostly to just residents within walking range. People enjoy the walkable downtown but don't feel compelled to live in it (nor is there enough space for all of them, nor could they afford it). Is this kind of 'traditional downtown as a local destination' desirable?
Lifestyle Centers = "Outdoor shopping malls" and aren't really the same because once you've eaten and you've went to the one store you might enjoy... what else are you supposed to do? Coffee shop maybe, then a bar... but they're the sorts of places that have to charge enough to afford the same rent as the Zara or the Coach store in the mall there so it's gonna be expensive and not some place to just hangout for a few hours without dropping >$100. But in Europe you can stroll down a street, take some selfies with vines on old brick, find a wine bar with a wine flight and good charcuterie board for 20-40euro and just hangout and talk with your friends or read a book and there isn't a line of 30 people rushing you and wanting your table.
Really loved this topic choice. I’m a liberal arts cult member so the philosophical/linguistic/borderline ethereal discussion is my jam. Not to mention, if your goal is inducing positive change over time, I really think you have to understand how the average person is thinking about this stuff; implicitly or explicitly.
I am curious whether this residential dissonance is getting more or less intense as suburban kids who maybe never knew what it was like to live in a walkable place (didn’t go to college, never moved to a city, never had a profession that encouraged them to live there) grow up and start to enter the housing market. I can’t even say I made the decision to live in the walkable car-light neighborhood that I do because I *knew* it would be walkable/car-light. I more made a decision on the perception that parking would be more difficult and owning my car was becoming too expensive. So I sold my car and bought an e-assist bike. I wasn’t trying to live an ideal life, I was trying to live an economical life.
I really enjoyed your objectiveness, the research, and somewhat the philosophy.
The problem is that we live in the US and most viewers may not know how to appreciate it too = fewer views :-(
NO! I'm on campus because I have no reason to leave! All the food is there, all the hot girls are my age, and they are tanning on the lawn!!! Why leave college?
Because you're not staying the same age as those hot girls there forever
The best car free place I ever lived was Old Town Alexandria, VA. Didn’t have a car for several years, took transport or biked into DC for work. The thing that really killed it, besides cost, was if you wanted to have kids it sucked. There are a lot of uber wealthy people there, so their kids go to private school, so the public schools suck. That ultimately was what drove me more suburban, that I could move not far away and get excellent public schools. It does not look to be an uncommon problem with very high housing cost areas.
I enjoy the philosophical discussions. The main driving factor for us when we moved out of Philly and into the suburbs is public school. Philly schools aren't great, and we wanted to give the best to our child. But now that we are here, we do see problems with walk-ability. I would never let my kid walk to the library because of the streets just aren't safe. But now that I see these problems I'm getting involved in local politics to change this.
I've wondered if improving the reputation of urban public schools could really level the playing field in preferences. I hear "schools" frequently cited as a factor for families choosing the suburbs..
Thanks for the more theoretical and philosophical topic. Our Changing Climate addressed the Colonial/Settler cultural legacy in a recent video. There is a fine line between and an outward sense of freedom and an inner anxiety. Suburban planning exploits this dialectic. An educated minority can overcome anxiety over walkable urbanism which creates a supply shortfall In economically vibrant urban cores. Recreating urbanism in conurbations and rust belt cities and towns is the great challenge because we can’t keep clearing agricultural land and degraded habitats endlessly. Try and find a majority in these locations who trust government. So the cycle continues.
Great comment
Love the channel! If haven't already, should do a video on top edge cities to major cities. Like Arlington to DC (even though it's technically a county), Oakland to San Fran, Jersey City to NYC, etc!
Walkable neighborhoods are often in cities but there's a reluctance or even aversion to sending one's children to "urban" schools. Our inequitable educational system plays a big role in where people choose to live.
I thought there's a loud narrative about "millennials are not having kids" and the birthrate among native-born Americans at historic low and below replacement level. The fact is most people are basing their living situation on cost, opportunities and safety, whether they have kids or not. Decentralizing where people live and work is how we reduce the cost of living for all.
In and around most US cities, land is often zoned for a particular function, such as residential, commercial, industrial, etc. Mixed-use zoning is less common. We're forced to drive our cars from our homes to our work and places to shop, since public transportation isn't available in many areas. My idea of a perfect place to live would be where I could walk from my home to my workplace and to the stores that I most commonly frequent. I would also want public transportation available so I could visit other neighborhoods without a car.
Because mixed-use is illegal in most of the US.
We need a part 2 of this. This was my favorite video you put out and the video I will be sharing to all my friends about urbanism.
I greatly appreciate the theory and data behind modern research in urban development theory!
Great video, to comment on the Atlanta comparison as an Atlanta area resident. It is true, the Atlanta area is not walkable and unfortunately the majority of new developments are still very car-centric. However, similar to the Seattle comparison, the walkable parts of Atlanta (City of Atlanta, Serenbe, Historic Alpharetta/Avalon, Historic Marietta, and the other bedroom community historic districts) are very expensive, and the prices aren't slowing down.
If more walkability is built, then it'll sell. It blows my mind that city planners (or unincorporated county planners in this instance) and developers aren't thinking outside the box.
I live in Decatur near Emory, it was very walkable , but you are right, any place like that is going to be very expensive. Developers can only develop the land they own, the government has to do it.
Here in northern California we have very nice walkable towns like Walnut Creek, Concord, Lafayette, Nevada City, Grass Valley, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Pleasanton , Livermore, Davis and Berkeley. The affordable single family homes tend to be farther out in the suburban tracks. If you are open to condo or townhouse living then you may not have to move too far out. There are also great older towns like Turlock, Patterson, Tracy that have great potential with older main street areas.