US Marine and intrepid bicyclist fighting this battle in the US Midwest. Most people think I'm crazy or that I lost my license due to a DUI. Car dependency is a real crisis; we need to build a healthier world for our children. Let's go!
In Paris they've given a lane on the highway to cyclists! It has gone viral here in Europe. In China they have committed to getting the bikes back to. The world will hopefully soon follow.
Problem is our economy runs on oil. We periodically have gone to war for oil. The pollution is mind-boggling when you factor in the manufacture of cars, exhaust, roads etc. Electric cars will pollute also. The same process, manufacture, mining for batteries minerals needed., huge electric power demand., etc. Its endless..
This applies not only to Amsterdam (not even a million inhabitants), but to the whole of the Netherlands. And actually Belgium, Germany and especially Denmark also do a good job in this respect.
Most Americans are way too wrapped up in their cars. That cities bulldozed themselves to create highways and parking lots was the dumbest act of government negligence ever. You look at most US cities and you’ll see block after block of parking lots and many grand old buildings empty. Instead of taxing fuel more and building fewer intrusive highways. Thank god my city of New York didn’t totally get destroyed by the auto. It almost did but shot back in the late 20th century. We’re finally investing in new subways after decades of doing nothing.
Creating pedestrian and cyclist oriented cities and towns makes perfect sense on many levels. The New Urbanists have the right idea. When the US embraced the auto-centric approach to designing their cities, they destroyed vibrant neighbourhoods in the name of much needed "urban renewal." The results of that colossal folly meant a permanent loss of important architecture, walkable places, and attractive town centres. The Dutch have created magic in many of their cities and towns. Curiously, however, they continue to expand the motorway network and urban sprawl. A real disconnect, I think.
@@fivehundrediq5212 Fair point! Many, however, are able to cycle. Indeed, improvement in cycling infrastructure is absolutely requisite in many places in the US.
@@fivehundrediq5212 True. And not everyone is physically (or financially) capable of owning and operating a car. It's not an us vs them argument, it's more like let's make the streets a safer, healthier and more pleasant place for everyone whether they're walking, biking, rolling, driving, playing, socializing, shopping, eating, or just sitting around enjoying the day. We can still have space for driving and parking without dedicating literally 100% of public space to cars. Reclaim 2 or 3% of that space at a time, give it back to people (parks, wider sidewalks, outdoor dining, bike paths, street trees, outdoor markets, etc) and see what a difference it makes in your town. I promise, that 2-3% at a time isn't going to destroy your city or make it impossible to drive
Amsterdam isn't exactly the pinnacle of a bike friendly city in the Netherlands. I find traffic there more chaotic then most Dutch city's. But it's not bad..
Urban design student here: In start of the 1900, are new style called modernisme come through. Architects of the time wanted the architecture to symbolise how far we have come with technology and democracy and equality. Hence why much 1900 architecture look very functional and with no ornamentation that symbolise class differents and religion. They also strived for better cities with more air, light and greenery, which in theory are good but too much ruins the urban landscape. The good thing about this type of architecture: it is very cheap and fast to produce thanks to the new technology. And was even more attractive after the war when there was a housing crisis. Many modern architects also praised the car and saw it as the only way of transportation in the future (spoiler alert it wasn't) and therefor there designs focused on easy access with cars. The big problem with the architects of the time, was they worked with designs there where good theory based, but not focused on the humans who have to live there and what they wanted. It was first in 60-70 urban theory came to light, which focused much more on the human aspects of living in the cities. They saw it in another light, because many of the first theorist was not people who went to architect school and where only taught architect and design theory; they where journalists, sociologists and one of them was and architect who married a psychologist that saw his designs on a human level. If you want to know more look for Corbusier, one of the biggest modern architects who started the modern movement and Jane Jacobs, one of the first urban theorist who saw the problems with the modern movement.
I agree with this wholeheartedly but also realize that most suburban Americans are in a domestic arrangement where daily commuting and transporting dependents would be very difficult. Fifty mile round trip commutes and nothing but "strodes" in their community are a common reality. I lived it. Many suburban Americans are living a sad legacy of greedy auto and oil industries. Hopefully with advocacy such as this video, our generations can make some strides in the direction of people, planet first, then profit as a lower priority. With some creativity, flexibility and effort one can make this happen in the American suburbs.
Part of the problem is that USA is huge compared to Europe and much more spread out to where you live too far from work or school or play to walk or ride a bike. So it would have to be public transportation such as rail. New York City is an example. People often live many miles away and take the trains in and out and walk or bike when in the City or use Taxis.
Riding bikes for transportation works in certain places! Here in Phoenix, Arizona downtown area is being built for such people and not the computer traveling into Phoenix.
@@winstonsolipsist1741 the solution is microcars! NotJustBikes has a great video explaining them. They are small and slower therefore can be treated as bikes
Thats how you breed school shooters and depressed suicidal maniacs. You need friends, everyone deals with anxiety but not everyone lets it control their whole life
If we build attractive, creative buildings with proper density and with access to good transport (TODs), many can live in a city. We need to make better use of our space than we do. Increasing urban sprawl is not the answer.
@@paulairola7041 I understand. I grew up in Palo Alto although I am a Dutchman. (I live now in the Netherlands.) Nevertheless, as I understand, the city centre of Phoenix is becoming transit oriented and pedestrian/cyclist friendly. That is a good start, Paul.
@@paulairola7041 To be fair, Phoenix literally should not exist and is basically an urban hellscape. Arizona in general is approaching a huge shitstorm as you guys literally built massive cities of unsustainable suburbs on literal desert with limited water supply in a place humans should literally not be living in the first place...
@@benw3864 I love and admire dreamers who think or believe rich people will pay for everything! In you society it's rich who paid to make your city great, without them it would Cuba!
Most of the US wasn't built for bikes and walking. Most cities are too spread out and set up with well separated residential areas, commercial areas and industrial areas. As she says, "Go back to being a city for people". Some cities were never built for people. Most European cities were developed long before cars and so are better set up to be converted back to non-car oriented. Older American cities might be able to move away from cars like Philadelphia and Boston but cities like Dallas and Los Angeles are too spread out making biking to work or for groceries much more difficult.
Many cities were built for bikes and walking....until the federal govt prioritized automobiles and with the Federal Highway Act, paved the way for downtowns to be bulldozed to build expressways and parking lots. It can be reversed, but you people choose not to.
Then who's stopping urban planners to design Dutch inspired new cities in America? The keep building same type of sprawls with single family homes and nothing else.
The fact: There are rich people who own cars, drive cars, fossil fuel must be used in some cases. And American cities weren't designed for non-fossil fuel!
It's kinda of funny that the canadians are the ones exporting dutch bicycle culture, with @notjustbikes I have been jumping through cyclism and urbanism channels to different ted talks about it.
US Marine and intrepid bicyclist fighting this battle in the US Midwest. Most people think I'm crazy or that I lost my license due to a DUI. Car dependency is a real crisis; we need to build a healthier world for our children. Let's go!
Yeah,Its almost impossible for a kid to play outside cause of this damm cars.
In Paris they've given a lane on the highway to cyclists! It has gone viral here in Europe. In China they have committed to getting the bikes back to. The world will hopefully soon follow.
Semper Fi👍
Making the midwest bikeable is a herculean effort. Lets fuckn do it. I actually kinda want to become an urban planner to contribute.
Problem is our economy runs on oil. We periodically have gone to war for oil. The pollution is mind-boggling when you factor in the manufacture of cars, exhaust, roads etc. Electric cars will pollute also. The same process, manufacture, mining for batteries minerals needed., huge electric power demand., etc. Its endless..
As someone who likes walking places and doesn't like being in cars, I support this full heartedly
"The city no longer feels like a parking lot." Can we emphasize how important this is as the topic sentence?
This applies not only to Amsterdam (not even a million inhabitants), but to the whole of the Netherlands. And actually Belgium, Germany and especially Denmark also do a good job in this respect.
London and Paris are on board now. Critical mass in Europe is here!
In the Netherlands it's the whole country, the rest of Europe it's just a few cities.
This one is CRIMINALLY underrated
Most Americans are way too wrapped up in their cars. That cities bulldozed themselves to create highways and parking lots was the dumbest act of government negligence ever. You look at most US cities and you’ll see block after block of parking lots and many grand old buildings empty. Instead of taxing fuel more and building fewer intrusive highways. Thank god my city of New York didn’t totally get destroyed by the auto. It almost did but shot back in the late 20th century. We’re finally investing in new subways after decades of doing nothing.
If you guys didnt fight Robert Moses, youd be LA
Please let a massive shift away from cars and car culture become popular. It's all I want for Christmas.
Bicycle parking: What a nice problem for a city to have.
Here in the US, drivers think they have a right to drive everyhwere.
They do
@@rareview362 They don't.
@@rareview362 should someone drive into your house?
@@AlexCab_49 they do on public property
I mean like we really don't need all that extra space considering how much smaller we are then cars
Creating pedestrian and cyclist oriented cities and towns makes perfect sense on many levels. The New Urbanists have the right idea. When the US embraced the auto-centric approach to designing their cities, they destroyed vibrant neighbourhoods in the name of much needed "urban renewal." The results of that colossal folly meant a permanent loss of important architecture, walkable places, and attractive town centres. The Dutch have created magic in many of their cities and towns. Curiously, however, they continue to expand the motorway network and urban sprawl. A real disconnect, I think.
Not everybody is physically capable of riding a bike
@@fivehundrediq5212 Fair point! Many, however, are able to cycle. Indeed, improvement in cycling infrastructure is absolutely requisite in many places in the US.
@@fivehundrediq5212 True. And not everyone is physically (or financially) capable of owning and operating a car.
It's not an us vs them argument, it's more like let's make the streets a safer, healthier and more pleasant place for everyone whether they're walking, biking, rolling, driving, playing, socializing, shopping, eating, or just sitting around enjoying the day. We can still have space for driving and parking without dedicating literally 100% of public space to cars. Reclaim 2 or 3% of that space at a time, give it back to people (parks, wider sidewalks, outdoor dining, bike paths, street trees, outdoor markets, etc) and see what a difference it makes in your town. I promise, that 2-3% at a time isn't going to destroy your city or make it impossible to drive
Same story with Copenhagen. It used to be extremely car oriented. Today it's quite impossible to imagine.
Amsterdam isn't exactly the pinnacle of a bike friendly city in the Netherlands. I find traffic there more chaotic then most Dutch city's. But it's not bad..
But because it is more chaotic, it's generating less accidents :P
Other great Dutch cities that I like for these reasons:
Rotterdam and Groningen!
Rotterdam is one of the cities that have more cars here. The architecture is beautiful tho.
Nice job! Excellent presentation.
Way forward!
Why Did the 50s and 40s happen
this way. It was the worst years for cities.
Urban design student here:
In start of the 1900, are new style called modernisme come through.
Architects of the time wanted the architecture to symbolise how far we have come with technology and democracy and equality. Hence why much 1900 architecture look very functional and with no ornamentation that symbolise class differents and religion.
They also strived for better cities with more air, light and greenery, which in theory are good but too much ruins the urban landscape.
The good thing about this type of architecture: it is very cheap and fast to produce thanks to the new technology. And was even more attractive after the war when there was a housing crisis.
Many modern architects also praised the car and saw it as the only way of transportation in the future (spoiler alert it wasn't) and therefor there designs focused on easy access with cars.
The big problem with the architects of the time, was they worked with designs there where good theory based, but not focused on the humans who have to live there and what they wanted.
It was first in 60-70 urban theory came to light, which focused much more on the human aspects of living in the cities. They saw it in another light, because many of the first theorist was not people who went to architect school and where only taught architect and design theory; they where journalists, sociologists and one of them was and architect who married a psychologist that saw his designs on a human level.
If you want to know more look for Corbusier, one of the biggest modern architects who started the modern movement and Jane Jacobs, one of the first urban theorist who saw the problems with the modern movement.
Texel: bicyckle paradise
Good question! A city will probably be built for non-cars, not turned into. Which is happening now on the ASU campus about the size of a city block1
Could somebody at TED replace this video with one where the sound is mixed properly? I can barely hear this one without maxing out my volume settings.
🙌🏽 that was a good video!
I agree with this wholeheartedly but also realize that most suburban Americans are in a domestic arrangement where daily commuting and transporting dependents would be very difficult. Fifty mile round trip commutes and nothing but "strodes" in their community are a common reality. I lived it.
Many suburban Americans are living a sad legacy of greedy auto and oil industries. Hopefully with advocacy such as this video, our generations can make some strides in the direction of people, planet first, then profit as a lower priority. With some creativity, flexibility and effort one can make this happen in the American suburbs.
It still feels like mostly cars today
Americans planners watching this like : 👨🦯👨🦯👨🦯 oh to see without my eyes
Part of the problem is that USA is huge compared to Europe and much more spread out to where you live too far from work or school or play to walk or ride a bike. So it would have to be public transportation such as rail. New York City is an example. People often live many miles away and take the trains in and out and walk or bike when in the City or use Taxis.
Just stop building cities like that then.
Distance just makes itore crazy to make people drive when that distance could be covered so much quicker on a train.
Public transport? Less car centric Urban Planning?
Making our cities so sprawled out dooms us to be dependent on cars. American car companies made sure of that.
Riding bikes for transportation works in certain places! Here in Phoenix, Arizona downtown area is being built for such people and not the computer traveling into Phoenix.
my City (Berlin) was made for Trains and Rails
At least those can be easily integrated into walkable neighbourhoods
Better than cars. We need walking, trains as well as bikes and some motor vehicles.
Put the camera on the slides not the speaker.
Such low audio level (:-(
I hope these changes will take into account the stories I hear from disabled people about how much harder their lives become when cars are restricted.
Why would there be no solutions for them? Do you think Amsterdam or other bike cities haven't solves this?
@@th5841 Maybe they have but if so, I have not seen those solutions.
@@winstonsolipsist1741 the solution is microcars! NotJustBikes has a great video explaining them. They are small and slower therefore can be treated as bikes
More public transport elevates this, it also provides streets with more opportunities to rest, with bench's, squares etc so you can stop frequently.
as someone with crippling and constant social anxiety I would rather maintain cars so I won't have to interact with other people
Thats how you breed school shooters and depressed suicidal maniacs. You need friends, everyone deals with anxiety but not everyone lets it control their whole life
Is that a Calgary accent?
No
I, too, detect a Dutch accent. There is a story here. "Ik ben ook Nederlander."
.nd snows riding a bike will not work!lol get in to reality
Ivy league trust fund kids give lecture after lecture against cars. You have to need to go to a job before you appreciate cars.
This talk is all beautiful and all but we need to sell them damn cars to meet our quota and make our sales
Shut up
The problem I see we can't all live within two miles of our job!
If we build attractive, creative buildings with proper density and with access to good transport (TODs), many can live in a city. We need to make better use of our space than we do. Increasing urban sprawl is not the answer.
@@marcelmoulin3335 All you mentioned is not possible in Phoenix
@@paulairola7041 I understand. I grew up in Palo Alto although I am a Dutchman. (I live now in the Netherlands.) Nevertheless, as I understand, the city centre of Phoenix is becoming transit oriented and pedestrian/cyclist friendly. That is a good start, Paul.
@@paulairola7041 To be fair, Phoenix literally should not exist and is basically an urban hellscape. Arizona in general is approaching a huge shitstorm as you guys literally built massive cities of unsustainable suburbs on literal desert with limited water supply in a place humans should literally not be living in the first place...
@@benw3864 I love and admire dreamers who think or believe rich people will pay for everything! In you society it's rich who paid to make your city great, without them it would Cuba!
Most of the US wasn't built for bikes and walking. Most cities are too spread out and set up with well separated residential areas, commercial areas and industrial areas. As she says, "Go back to being a city for people". Some cities were never built for people. Most European cities were developed long before cars and so are better set up to be converted back to non-car oriented. Older American cities might be able to move away from cars like Philadelphia and Boston but cities like Dallas and Los Angeles are too spread out making biking to work or for groceries much more difficult.
Not necessarily, if you end single family zoning shops can get back into neighborhoods. That's what's making the distances seem so large.
Many cities were built for bikes and walking....until the federal govt prioritized automobiles and with the Federal Highway Act, paved the way for downtowns to be bulldozed to build expressways and parking lots.
It can be reversed, but you people choose not to.
Then who's stopping urban planners to design Dutch inspired new cities in America? The keep building same type of sprawls with single family homes and nothing else.
@@ramochai communities hellbent on retaining single family homes in their areas, with backing from powerful NIMBY politicians.
@@ramochai The Netherlands isn’t Uptopia
The fact: There are rich people who own cars, drive cars, fossil fuel must be used in some cases. And American cities weren't designed for non-fossil fuel!
Meaning?
Did you watch the video? You see how Amsterdam changed its design as well in order to bettet accomodate the non-car driving public.
It's kinda of funny that the canadians are the ones exporting dutch bicycle culture, with @notjustbikes I have been jumping through cyclism and urbanism channels to different ted talks about it.
Cars are essential but like when to go to a long distance grocery store .
But without cars there are local grocery stores.
yooooo lowkey she cant afford a car so she hella salteddd.
Nah
@@kirbyarroyo2118 even if that was true, should people be forced to buy a car just so they can move around? People really should have more choices.
Dumbest comment ever
Well, it's great not to think of maintenance expenses and oil price hikes all the time.