Medium density Eco-cities as an answer to suburban sprawl and climate change?

[eclipsenow]

Hi all,
anyone shudder when I mentioned the word density? Everyone love their suburban space and car dependent lifestyles?

I live in suburbia. A nice suburb in Sydney. A SPECIAL suburb that is like a secret, surrounded by bush reserves and only one road in. It's like a country town in the heart of Sydney.

But it could have been so much more - if it had been planned well!

Also - those who fear density? I hear you. There are some SHOCKING examples of density. But before we totally condemn the idea - consider that the average European uses HALF the oil of the average American and Australian. Why? Better urbanism. We know what makes for truly AWFUL density - but attractive density? We’ve got to go to Europe for that. We know suburbia uses 10 TIMES the land it should, creates enormous traffic jams, enormous expense for local councils, higher taxes, an expensive car-dependent life, destroys community, isolates people and shoves the poor to the edges of cities - where they have the highest transport costs. It’s just unfair!

So how to build better than the Europeans do? It’s not rocket science. Build a Metro to an attractive town square surrounded by shops and services like the school, church, Post Office and General Store. But the lifestyle change? All that is just a 5 minute walk to home, which is either eco-city apartments with social spaces (not just ‘flats’) or Seinfeld-like townhouses with trees and parks everywhere. People walk more, talk more, have cleaner air and more time for community. It saves time, energy, land and money!

 

[AV1611VET]

Walt Disney already tried that.

 

[Richard T]

Hi all,
anyone shudder when I mentioned the word density? Everyone love their suburban space and car dependent lifestyles?

I live in suburbia. A nice suburb in Sydney. A SPECIAL suburb that is like a secret, surrounded by bush reserves and only one road in. It's like a country town in the heart of Sydney.

But it could have been so much more - if it had been planned well!

Also - those who fear density? I hear you. There are some SHOCKING examples of density. But before we totally condemn the idea - consider that the average European uses HALF the oil of the average American and Australian. Why? Better urbanism. We know what makes for truly AWFUL density - but attractive density? We’ve got to go to Europe for that. We know suburbia uses 10 TIMES the land it should, creates enormous traffic jams, enormous expense for local councils, higher taxes, an expensive car-dependent life, destroys community, isolates people and shoves the poor to the edges of cities - where they have the highest transport costs. It’s just unfair!

So how to build better than the Europeans do? It’s not rocket science. Build a Metro to an attractive town square surrounded by shops and services like the school, church, Post Office and General Store. But the lifestyle change? All that is just a 5 minute walk to home, which is either eco-city apartments with social spaces (not just ‘flats’) or Seinfeld-like townhouses with trees and parks everywhere. People walk more, talk more, have cleaner air and more time for community. It saves time, energy, land and money!

Just travel to the densest cities in the world to see the biggest traffic jams.
I also should point out that some question the idea that sprawl offers less community. In fact some believe it offers more. "What Civelli, Gaduh, and their coauthors Alexander Rothenberg (Syracuse) and Yao Wang (Ohio State) found in their analysis contradicts some strongly held convictions that pro-density advocates maintain. Namely, higher density reduces trust and community participation. These negative effects were greater for wealthier and more educated individuals." Source" The Effect of Urban Density on Social Capital

Like Australia, many parts of America are not dense at all. You could put all the people in some states bigger than all of the U.K. and you would get just one mid-size city. While I like your zeal, I would prefer freedom in choosing where I live rather than government planned and I will assume subsidized communities. The best way to address energy concerns is to get more renewables installed outside the core metro areas. As to cost, Urban dwellers do pay more in the USA. https://www.key.com/personal/financial-wellness/articles/compare-cost-of-living-city-vs-suburbs.html

 

[AlexB23]

Hi all,
anyone shudder when I mentioned the word density? Everyone love their suburban space and car dependent lifestyles?

I live in suburbia. A nice suburb in Sydney. A SPECIAL suburb that is like a secret, surrounded by bush reserves and only one road in. It's like a country town in the heart of Sydney.

But it could have been so much more - if it had been planned well!

Also - those who fear density? I hear you. There are some SHOCKING examples of density. But before we totally condemn the idea - consider that the average European uses HALF the oil of the average American and Australian. Why? Better urbanism. We know what makes for truly AWFUL density - but attractive density? We’ve got to go to Europe for that. We know suburbia uses 10 TIMES the land it should, creates enormous traffic jams, enormous expense for local councils, higher taxes, an expensive car-dependent life, destroys community, isolates people and shoves the poor to the edges of cities - where they have the highest transport costs. It’s just unfair!

So how to build better than the Europeans do? It’s not rocket science. Build a Metro to an attractive town square surrounded by shops and services like the school, church, Post Office and General Store. But the lifestyle change? All that is just a 5 minute walk to home, which is either eco-city apartments with social spaces (not just ‘flats’) or Seinfeld-like townhouses with trees and parks everywhere. People walk more, talk more, have cleaner air and more time for community. It saves time, energy, land and money!

I like this concept a lot. Anything so that less people buy a Musk-mobile (Tesla) and instead get out and walk more. Walking > Electric Cars. We had this a few hundred years ago, but then everything changed for the worse in the 1940s* when suburbia was invented.

*The 1940s is also when the world reached a critical point: Nukes. In no point during human history, did we ever have the capability to end the world at a push of a button. In other words, the 1940s marked the beginning of the last days of the End Times, but that is for another thread.

 

[eclipsenow]

Just travel to the densest cities in the world to see the biggest traffic jams.

Sure! Any concept can be partially or fully distorted. New Urbanism is different to the Asian and Indonesian super-cities that Rothenberg and Wang seem to be critiquing. (I've only glanced at their work - but even the summaries show we are talking about different things.) That's super-high density towers, a mix of trains and lots of cars.

I'm talking about what are basically clusters of New Urban walking distance villages. Instead driving or catching the train to some mega-mall that serves the local 300,000 strangers - it's a little walk to the local town square that serves only 15 - 30k people (in some plans). It's a connected Mandelbrot with quiet walkable tree lined neighbourhood streets, not the hustle and bustle of struggling through a crowded Central Business District or flat metropolis like Tokyo.

Like Australia, many parts of America are not dense at all. You could put all the people in some states bigger than all of the U.K. and you would get just one mid-size city. While I like your zeal, I would prefer freedom in choosing where I live rather than government planned and I will assume subsidized communities.

I don't think you quite have the picture of New Urbanism yet. I'm not asking anyone to move (yet) but more that any new areas be developed in this model. Especially in the developing world. Then we will see which way people prefer to live.

First you have your neighbourhood, and then 6 to 9 of these are clustered together to form a Town (below).​

Now we scale up - and each circle below is one of the neighbourhoods above.​

The best way to address energy concerns is to get more renewables installed outside the core metro areas. As to cost, Urban dwellers do pay more in the USA. https://www.key.com/personal/financial-wellness/articles/compare-cost-of-living-city-vs-suburbs.html

Is it because these inner cities are gentrified? Basically there are studies that find city cores are what create the economics that subsidises all the extra taxes required for dozens or hundreds of times the roads, footpaths, plumbing, wiring, etc of suburbia compared to these New Urban towns above.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm talking about what are basically clusters of New Urban walking distance villages. Instead driving or catching the train to some mega-mall that serves the local 300,000 strangers - it's a little walk to the local town square that serves only 15 - 30k people (in some plans). It's a connected Mandelbrot with quiet walkable tree lined neighbourhood streets, not the hustle and bustle of struggling through a crowded Central Business District or flat metropolis like Tokyo.

Reverse urban sprawl?

 

[Richard T]

Even if I concede that suburbia might cost more than core city areas, I have seen those high density housing developments in the USA. Those that vote for that kind of planning should be required to live in them. I frankly prefer at least 5 acres. It is not a problem when I live in low density areas. One can have a horse, plant more, have less restrictions, and have more freedom. I guess I should be glad that others like the higher density, eco-friendly parks, where you are sure to still hear neighbors and have high restrictions on parking in the street to bans on a wood fireplace. Those high density developments insure there are lands left for people like me. I miss my last ten acre lot minimum subdivision. I usually had only two cars drive by each day. Every neighbor knew each other and noise pollution was minimal. Sure the nearest store or gas station was at least 5 miles but you stock up so few trips are required.

 

[eclipsenow]

I have seen those high density housing developments in the USA.

Again - not really what I am discussing?

Those that vote for that kind of planning should be required to live in them. frankly prefer at least 5 acres.

That's rural living. Basically if we tried to decant the world's 10 billion people of 2050 like that into nature - we'd pave it over and plough it up. There would be no 'nature' left.

high restrictions on parking in the street

Hopefully they have garages out the back in these mini streets with all the ugly services and rubbish collection. They used to be called Alleyways. The street was a display area, a celebration of the local community culture and values all expressed in architectural forms and appropriate trees (that protected you from the sun in summer and cars on the street). But when did we all agree that we should walk down the street and seen nothing but cars? Uuuuuugly!

Again - let's build our cities around making people happy, not cars happy.

to bans on a wood fireplace.

Yes - for public health. When that many of us live together, we'd choke. I have a wood fire. I used it for a decade or so. But these days - even though I'm allowed to - I don't. I'm considering my neighbours. Also - we have good aircon and can warm our home from solar panels on the roof.

Those high density developments insure there are lands left for people like me.

You sound like just the sort of rural person we need to feed the cities! That's great. And people like myself would probably love to come out and rent a room if you ever opened a B&B and ran tours of the farm. We did that a while back when the kids were little, and they loved it!

I miss my last ten acre lot minimum subdivision.

Sad to hear.

I usually had only two cars drive by each day. Every neighbor knew each other and noise pollution was minimal. Sure the nearest store or gas station was at least 5 miles but you stock up so few trips are required.

Sounds idyllic. I don't know how long many rural areas have - as so much of agriculture could be about to change. But that's a whole other subject. (Google Precision Fermentation to find out more.) But we should always need fruit and veggies and maybe some cereal crops (for texture more than anything?) and herbs and spices. Just maybe not the bulk crops that give us carbs and protein, as PF will probably replace those - let alone MEAT! Livestock destroy about 34% of the non-ice land on earth. Meat has got to stop. But again - that's another subject.

 

[Hamlet7768]

It's a great idea, but I think there are few places that could be developed from the ground up with this in mind. We may have to think in terms of repairing/condensing the sprawl that exists. Though I am blessed to be moving to a place that was established along similar philosophical lines back in the '60s, called Reston. From my new home, I will able to walk to: two churches (one of which will be my church), a retail center that has a small Hispanic grocery with fresh meat and veggies, several other housing "clusters" formed of low-rise apartments and townhomes, and many, many outdoor parks and recreational services. I'll be able to bike to at least one mainstream chain grocery and the shopping center near it, and I'll be able to reach the W&OD Trail or the DC Metro. And all of this walkable space is largely composed of trails and sidewalks set among rolling hills and hundreds of trails.

I can't wait.

 

[eclipsenow]

It's a great idea, but I think there are few places that could be developed from the ground up with this in mind. We may have to think in terms of repairing/condensing the sprawl that exists. Though I am blessed to be moving to a place that was established along similar philosophical lines back in the '60s, called Reston. From my new home, I will able to walk to: two churches (one of which will be my church), a retail center that has a small Hispanic grocery with fresh meat and veggies, several other housing "clusters" formed of low-rise apartments and townhomes, and many, many outdoor parks and recreational services. I'll be able to bike to at least one mainstream chain grocery and the shopping center near it, and I'll be able to reach the W&OD Trail or the DC Metro. And all of this walkable space is largely composed of trails and sidewalks set among rolling hills and hundreds of trails.

I can't wait.

I have read (a while back) that many move to Portland because they have some areas that are walkable and good public transport. But I hear you.
How do you fix this?

The Ecocity dream I am proposing is so radically different to American Suburbia - especially Exurbia - that I'm just talking about how to build any new places. So how do we fund this?

Studies really have shown that city centres subsidise the extra expenses of the fantastically amplified infrastructure costs spread across 5 to 10 TIMES the land.

It is just a fact that suburbia has vastly more road and pavement and gutters and plumbing and wiring and infrastructure to maintain per tax payer. So after the first few New Urban or Ecocities were built - I'm guessing the taxpayers there would still be paying the same taxes. But with vastly less infrastructure to maintain, there would be savings to fund what I am about to propose.

Personally I think some whole areas just cannot be retrofitted as they are. If the culture changes and sees what happens in a few successful Ecocity developments, laws can be passed that enact this next scenario to occur over time. Basically, some suburbs are such vast areas of wall-to-wall McMansions that we should let the housing stock age out. The government could compensate owners at a fair market valuation as they retired and moved into care. Their home would be demolished (with the materials salvaged and recycled as whatever future tech allows!) As Ecocities only need a fifth or even a tenth of the land - the majority of land could be rehabilitated and turned into local farms, parks, forests, nature preservations and wildlife parks! And when one considers the financial cost of the time lost to traffic, the fact that the average stressed worker takes about half an hour to recover from bad traffic and really get productive, let alone the health and lives lost in traffic accidents and pollution, let alone the health care costs of stressful driving when we could be enjoying more steps and burning more calories as a part of our trip to work - it all adds up. Even EV's will not save us from pollution. They are heavier than oil cars and put more stress on the tyres which means MORE tyre particulates which can be as bad as diesel pollution.

Really - Ecocities are just a nicer, healthier, cheaper way to go that is fairer on the poor when done right. It's time for a revolution!

 

[rambot]

This simple design somehow managed to get completely misunderstood as some kind of method of "controlling' people when really it's just about making things convenient and then assuming people would choose convenience more often.

It's not "Passports to get across town???? Over my deAd bBody!?"