Trying to decide if these could have data backing them up. Clearly if you look at people who walk/bike to work in our current cities, they will be healthier. But I would assume this is a selection effect? And probably not much less lonely? I was under the impression that loneliness was high everywhere.
Curious if transit systems really are more reliable than the typical car commute. I’ve certainly had missed connections, bus breakdowns, and people jumping in front of trains.
And I didn’t follow why a walkable city will have more green spaces. Surely in a capitalism we’ll still have strong pressure to fill most of that.
It’s not really a “walkable” city if you are getting ass-blastes by the sun in the middle of summer. My small town is definitely a walkable city and has trees lining pretty much every street since something has ro go between the road and the sidewalk.
Trees are ideal because they:
Will stop a car dead in its tracks if it drifts towards the sidewalk
Produce shade to keep the surrounding area cool
Are natural sound insulation (my town is on a busy cargo rail line and i never hear trains in the summer, but hear them frequently in the winter when the trees are bare)
reduce pollution and increase air quality
Any town that is trying to become more walkable will put trees everywhere they are a cheap and easy way to make everything more pleasant.
The most walkable place I’ve lived in had pretty sparse greenery (to be fair, it was quite north). Shade from the sun comes from the residential and commercial buildings stacked high, with relatively narrow streets and alleyways.
I agree trees are great. Just not obvious to me that more walkable designs necessarily include them.
I’m along the south shore of Lake Erie, so trees are a godsend in my town in the summer. I live a block away from the main downtown in a west facing apartment. My apartment would absolutely fry in the summer if it wasn’t for the massive maple tree outside my apartment shading the place. The trees downtown aren’t very large, but if the city were to get rid of the on street parking downtown and focus on pedestrianizing the area, they could absolutely grow some beautiful oaks to offer shade at noon in the summer. They make being outside more pleasant, and if being outside is pleasant, people are going to walk more. My parents live in a 10 year old suburb in Houston with non-existent tree cover and it makes day time walks a
Also, just because i want to keep talking about how much i love my little walkable city, the city government recently started a program where if you have a patch of dead grass/gravel on the roadside next to your home, they will come out and plant a tree there. Residents are also able to take yard trimmings to the waste treatment plant in town and receive free mulch on a first come/first served basis.
That’s wonderful! I was amazed at how green and alive everything was when I went through Michigan, despite getting so dark in the winter.
I agree towns could put in more park space, but they could also put in more seating for restaurants, shops or water features, public service expansions, warehouses, housing, and so on. A good city will split between them, and common green spaces will show up. I’m curious what the range of ratios look like (especially over time).
And my city has a bunch of parking lots scattered aroun town, so it’s not like they need the street parking, PLUS, this is MAGA country so everyone is driving massive trucks that can’t parallel park anyway. But if you threaten to take away a parking space, people freak out. But people freak out whenever you propptany change, so might as well do something that has been shown to improve everyone’s quality of life.
And I didn’t follow why a walkable city will have more green spaces. Surely in a capitalism we’ll still have strong pressure to fill most of that.
Well yes, but a walkable city is already something that doesn’t really align with hardcore capitalism. And if your goal is a walkable city, then you need to make it enjoyable. Most people don’t enjoy walking through endless grey.
Although yes, in Europe, city leaderships that care about that are usually on the left side of the political spectrum.
Point is, a walkable city has no advantage to capitalism. So it’s a safe assumption that a leadership pushing for it is not really that capitalist.
Trying to decide if these could have data backing them up. Clearly if you look at people who walk/bike to work in our current cities, they will be healthier. But I would assume this is a selection effect? And probably not much less lonely? I was under the impression that loneliness was high everywhere.
Curious if transit systems really are more reliable than the typical car commute. I’ve certainly had missed connections, bus breakdowns, and people jumping in front of trains.
And I didn’t follow why a walkable city will have more green spaces. Surely in a capitalism we’ll still have strong pressure to fill most of that.
It’s not really a “walkable” city if you are getting ass-blastes by the sun in the middle of summer. My small town is definitely a walkable city and has trees lining pretty much every street since something has ro go between the road and the sidewalk.
Trees are ideal because they:
Any town that is trying to become more walkable will put trees everywhere they are a cheap and easy way to make everything more pleasant.
The most walkable place I’ve lived in had pretty sparse greenery (to be fair, it was quite north). Shade from the sun comes from the residential and commercial buildings stacked high, with relatively narrow streets and alleyways.
I agree trees are great. Just not obvious to me that more walkable designs necessarily include them.
I’m along the south shore of Lake Erie, so trees are a godsend in my town in the summer. I live a block away from the main downtown in a west facing apartment. My apartment would absolutely fry in the summer if it wasn’t for the massive maple tree outside my apartment shading the place. The trees downtown aren’t very large, but if the city were to get rid of the on street parking downtown and focus on pedestrianizing the area, they could absolutely grow some beautiful oaks to offer shade at noon in the summer. They make being outside more pleasant, and if being outside is pleasant, people are going to walk more. My parents live in a 10 year old suburb in Houston with non-existent tree cover and it makes day time walks a
Also, just because i want to keep talking about how much i love my little walkable city, the city government recently started a program where if you have a patch of dead grass/gravel on the roadside next to your home, they will come out and plant a tree there. Residents are also able to take yard trimmings to the waste treatment plant in town and receive free mulch on a first come/first served basis.
That’s wonderful! I was amazed at how green and alive everything was when I went through Michigan, despite getting so dark in the winter.
I agree towns could put in more park space, but they could also put in more seating for restaurants, shops or water features, public service expansions, warehouses, housing, and so on. A good city will split between them, and common green spaces will show up. I’m curious what the range of ratios look like (especially over time).
And my city has a bunch of parking lots scattered aroun town, so it’s not like they need the street parking, PLUS, this is MAGA country so everyone is driving massive trucks that can’t parallel park anyway. But if you threaten to take away a parking space, people freak out. But people freak out whenever you propptany change, so might as well do something that has been shown to improve everyone’s quality of life.
It’s very difficult to take these questions/criticisms seriously when I live this everyday
That’s great! I’m imagining a data-is-beautiful chart showing the positives. Do you have/know of data on them from your neighborhood/town?
Well yes, but a walkable city is already something that doesn’t really align with hardcore capitalism. And if your goal is a walkable city, then you need to make it enjoyable. Most people don’t enjoy walking through endless grey.
Although yes, in Europe, city leaderships that care about that are usually on the left side of the political spectrum.
Point is, a walkable city has no advantage to capitalism. So it’s a safe assumption that a leadership pushing for it is not really that capitalist.