[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 78 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now closed. Thank you to everyone who applied!




File: maxresdefault.jpg (211 KB, 1280x720)
211 KB
211 KB JPG
I watched this video and I believe his only legitimate criticism of his walk from the hotel is that the sidewalks are inadequate (particularly the fact that there's no easy to way the railroad) and that there's no bike infrastructure (sidewalk is too narrow to accommodate bicycles, no lane on road), both of which can be dealt with by a MUP without too much problems. Everything else just feels like he's just finding the usual urbanist talking points to complain about plus some (the road signs are too big?!).
>>
I'm never going to watch your vlog.
>>
are 'the usual urbanist talking points' not legitimate as well, op?
>>
who the fuck cares about that kind of bullshit? are you gonna remove buildings and redo the city? No, you have no political power whatsoever, fuck off and stay fuck off.
>>
>>1813277
You will look at my 15 off topic urban planning threads that the janny doesn’t delete because I include the phrase “this is transportation related”
>>
>>1813573
I will, because I like urban planning threads. But I won't watch your shitty non-original ranty vlog.
>>
>>1813259
Houston is absolute garbage. Literally gel on earth. It was apparent after being there for like 8 hours
>>
>>1813277
>>1813570
>>1813573

the absolute seethe lol
>>
>>1813259
The criticism is that walking, biking or taking public transit in 95% of America is dangerous and/or unreliable and that's a bad thing for a variety of reasons.

Houston gets worse to live in as it grows larger whereas cities as they were designed in the first half of the 20th century would get better to live in as they grew larger. The reason for that being that people had higher incomes in conjunction with the construction of higher quality public transit (more mobility) and more things to do around you (libraries, museums, parks, etc.). As the city grew larger their opportunities grew as they had access to better schools and a wider variety of trades.

The car-centric approach means that you have less to do (you sit at home watching TV when not at costco or work because the city with all the stuff to do is too far away), you exercise less and become obese (because you don't walk or bike to work and to do errands and you do not have a job that requires a lot of land and physical labor like a farmer), your opportunities are limited because nobody will build world class institutions or a variety of industries to service a suburban community.

It's not that cars should be banned it's that by prioritizing cars when developing you inevitably build poorly laid out cities full of traffic because cars and high population density do not mix well.
>>
>>1813259
Why is the internet filling up with americans forming a personality around some niche politcal/societal issue that they half understand and proceeding to constantly make long rambling posts in every platform that allows comments about it, or make a youtube career out of 'video essays' on the topic?
>>
>>1816640
that's a heck of a run-on sentence
>>
>>1816650
Run on out of here unless youre gonna contribute
>>
>>1813570
>are you gonna remove buildings and redo the city

I mean, if we lived in a functioning society, this wouldn't be a problem
>>
>>1816697
fuck off. history is important.
>>
File: SMART.jpg (90 KB, 1072x1080)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
>>1813259
>MUP
What's that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnyeRlMsTgI
>>
>>1816640
Isn't the one making this video a leaf?
>>
File: source what source.png (102 KB, 895x532)
102 KB
102 KB PNG
>>1816640
anon, midwits want to be seen as "intellectual" in order to fullfill their ego/self-esteem needs but can't be bothered to put in actual effort into forming their own opinions and actually read/do research so they just build their ideologies and worldviews based on whatever video essayist that ends up on the youtube home page
>>1816636
> The car-centric approach means that you have less to do
> source: i made it up
>>
>>1816878
>> The car-centric approach means that you have less to do
>> source: i made it up
What are you going to do when you are living on the edge of town in a mcmansion
>>
>>1816881
go hiking
>>
>>1816883
Where? There's no public parks near you it's just farmland and suburbs because creating public parks is for pussies
>>
>>1816884
there are hiking trails everywhere in the states anon
>>
File: %22hiking%22.png (1.68 MB, 1200x800)
1.68 MB
1.68 MB PNG
>>1816883
(taking a deep breath) Aaahhh. Love to get back to nature. Yup, this is what it's all about
>>
>>1816722
Yes, the historical McDonald's square and the Wal-Mart Avenue
>>
>>1816885
Yes, just a short one hour or more drive away (+return trip). The exact thing that most people get to do once every few months due to logistics.
In a normal place, engaging in things such as -wait for it- walking for pleasure, in your immediate area on a daily basis, is much more desirable.
>>
YouTube urbanists are cancer.

If they don't live somewhere where everything is 5 minutes away from THEM. Then it's literally hell.

NJB's kids are going to move back to America and own SUVs. I'm sure of it.
>>
>>1816909
>If they don't live somewhere where everything is 5 minutes away from THEM. Then it's literally hell.
yes, and if your option to get to where you where you want to go is by using a car (as opposed to safe, affordable, available transit or even on foot)...
>>
>>1816909
Nice projection fantasies. People are moving back to their respective yuropoor shitholes en masse to escape the living hell NA has become. Yours truly included.
Enjoy your SUV bro lmao
>>
>>1816915
proof? or is it just you
>>
>>1816909
>NJB's kids are going to move back to America and own SUVs
I don't get why anyone would want to move back to the US after following the news.
>>
>>1816982
*what's left of the US
>>
>>1817004
nobody mentioned that. weird
>>
>>1816909
Ironically, they move to those places brocade they think “everything” is accessible to them, but the reality is with that lifestyle some stuff is super accessible to you but a lot of stuff is no longer accessible to you.
>>
>>1817006
still better than a suburb in which absolutely nothing is accessible at all.
>>
>>1817007
Everything is accessible when you own a car
>>
>>1816844
>this video was brought to you by curiosity stream and nebular.
>>
>>1816936
Cities have these things called parks anon
>>
>>1816722
shell every big box store
>>
>>1816722
in an actual city? yes of course. in a shithole nu-city like anything in texas? fucking gut it
>>
>>1817013
Sure but you lose a lot to parking requirements. Everything gets more spread out as a result until you're dependant.
>>
>>1817013
*breaks an arm*
>>
>>1817013
>everything
walmart, fast food and the local strip mall is not "everything"
>>
>>1817536
You can just drive to all the shops in the city. You can even park and walk around.
>>
>>1816697
I think the chinese would do that
>>
>>1817543
*removes your parking*
>>
>>1817744
*removes my business*
>>
>>1813277
There's definitely critiques of NJB but I don't feel like he's anything like your typical annoying vlogger type.
>>
>>1813259
Texas should be nuked and redone all over
>>
>>1813259
I mean, he spends his time sucking off Amsterdam, it's not really surprising that he hates Houston. Ironically, this puts him at odds with a lot of the YIMBY types who love Houston because of it's lack of zoning.

Anyway, I thought this one was actually one of his better videos.
>>
>>1816722
Historical preservation gets abused all the time for unnecessary shit. We've got shitty gas stations getting treated like it's historically relevant.
>>
>>1816878
I've been in small towns and major cities that have more to do and see than most auto-oriented suburbs.
>>
>>1813259
This guy is such a flaming faggot and I bet his kids become trans
>>
>retarded dutchman bleats endlessly about his shitty country
>talks about how its so much better than houston or la or whatever
>gets pushed HARD by jewtube algos
>LA is 2x larger than the entire netherlands IN AREA
>houston is almost as big as the netherlands
>>
>>1816963
well everyone in the expat community he hangs out with has moved, so there!
>>
>>1819020
>The Netherlands has a population of 17 million
>Houston 'Metro Area' only 7 million
>LA 'Metro Area' only 13 million
Seems to me that the Netherlands still fits more people AND isn't some soul destroying wasteland. I know which of the three I'd rather live in.
>>
File: itE28099s_forbidden.jpg (278 KB, 1125x1699)
278 KB
278 KB JPG
>>1813259
>>1816909

What's wrong with "youtube urbanists"? I recently found NJB's videos and I'm absolutely drinking the kool aid. Being around cars 24/7, requiring cars to get anywhere, and it being objectively unsafe to bike or walk anywhere is really starting to get to me. I walk a lot to get exercise in, and cars need to be a constant factor I pay attention to or I'll get hit...
>>
>>1819131
>durr population is the ONLY way to measure the size of something
>>
>>1819178
you'll understand when you're older
>>
File: size.jpg (107 KB, 1200x673)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
>>1819231
>>
>>1819232
Maybe you'll understand how to contribute to the conversation when you're older
>>
>>1819239
maybe you'll fucking learn to read too
>>
>>1819238
thats san francisco you fucking retard
>>
>>1819358
>doesn't answer the question
>adds no value to thread
>makes personal attack
>continues to bait to derail thread

Well, it's my fault for taking the bait
>>
>>1819238
jesus christ how do you fuck up this badly
>>
>>1816636
>The car-centric approach means that you have less to do (you sit at home watching TV when not at costco or work because the city with all the stuff to do is too far away), you exercise less and become obese (because you don't walk or bike to work and to do errands and you do not have a job that requires a lot of land and physical labor like a farmer), your opportunities are limited because nobody will build world class institutions or a variety of industries to service a suburban community.
I’ve never lived in an urban hellscape and I’ve never lived in a town that didn’t have plenty to do. I just drive ten minutes to the mall or gym or park or bar or shooting range. World class services are a meme 99.99% of Americans will never eat at a Michelin star restaurant.
>>
>those neighbourhoods that are like 30 minutes drive away from ANYTHING
>cars are absolutely needed

why do people do this to themselves
>>
>>1816844
mixed use planning
>>
File: BB01.jpg (37 KB, 474x290)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
>>1817016
Because youtube doesn't allow lewd yet Cardi B's WAP is on high rotation...

>>1816844
Danke
>>
>>1819178
what's wrong is that you should be doing homework but you're posting on 4chan
>>
>>1813259
>walkable cities
>>
>>1816844
Multi-use path to accommodate bicycle traffic and pedestrians.
>>
>>1816878
Hmm, people are more willing to commute for longer when they don't have to sit through traffic!
>>
>>1820263
Actually, they don’t have a choice.
>>
>>1820153
>filename
>out of context janny image
Hello newfaggot, fuck off back to redd*t
>>
>>1817809
Try again, but this time with an actual argument
>>
>>1813570
nigger that’s what they did to make the fucking problem
>>
>>1820153
Gym of life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPUlgSRn6e0
>>
I live in the burbs in the US. I've lived in cities. I've lived in the 'country'. I've had jobs that required 60 minute one-way commutes by car. I now WFH for a company in another state.

People on these boards always get sidelined by intractable positions that make it impossible to concede that either side has valid arguments. It always ends up in strawman or ad hominem arguments. Nothing ever gets accomplished.

I'm and oldfag and have been around a long time. I've been part of the working poor where I had to commute by car a long distance. That took a lot of money out of my pocket that could have gone towards other more important things. I would have loved to had the option of mass transit. Even if it were a longer commute, 60 minutes on light rail or BRT is much more pleasant than 60 minutes losing my shit every second in traffic.

Now that I'm older with more years behind than in front of me, I have the luxury of WFH. I don't have to pay for a car, gas, insurance, or maintenance if I don't want to. But I love cars and choose to have one.

I also love the idea of decent affordable reliable clean mass transit that serves the community and furthers to enrich the area in which I live. Even if I never used it, I would gladly support my tax dollars going towards it. I know the benefit it provides will affect me in indirect ways.

People look at mass transit, buses mainly, as dirty and "for the poor". I'm not a fan of buses though some executions of BRT are pretty damn cool (segregated throughways/separate infrastructure). I wish people would look at mass transit less of a business and more of a service akin to a utility. (for that matter...regulate Internet like a utility too).
>>
>>1821172
Supreme post.
It's unfortunate that so many people seem to think the only options are "only cars" or "abolish all cars". The more reasonable position, in my arrogant opinion, is:
>primarily mid-density cities
>low density goes out in the country and has less public services
>in the mid density area, have good public transit and walkable areas to encourage people to walk or take transit for more/most of their trips
>people in the low density area continue using cars because it's the only thing that makes sense in the countryside
>people in the mid density area can still own cars, but primarily use them for trips to the countryside or other niche areas
>those who still want to/need to drive can enjoy less car traffic

Pure carfree is bad because it doesnt service low density areas, and because some people are disabled and cannot walk.
Pure cars is bad because it's inefficient in most measures, and becuase some people are disabled and cannot drive.
>>
>>1821231
>It's unfortunate that so many people seem to think the only options are "only cars" or "abolish all cars".>
This. This is what keeps us from finding common ground. People with the incorrect position that our binary choices are zero sum. In order for my position to be right, yours has to be wrong. I'm tired of this juvenile fist pounding and foot stomping.

Why can't we have both great transit and acceptable automotive related infrastructure?
>>
File: 3 (5).jpg (498 KB, 1750x2032)
498 KB
498 KB JPG
>>1821290
>People with the incorrect position that our binary choices are zero sum.
Only USAians are like that.
>>
>>1821172
>I live in the burbs in the US. I've lived in cities. I've lived in the 'country'. I've had jobs that required 60 minute one-way commutes by car. I now WFH for a company in another state.

Same here. People gush over Boston and it's supposedly wonderful public transportation but you had to be very strategic about where you lived if you wanted to use it. Pretty much having convenient access to a train meant paying enough in rent you could probably just as well own and use a car. Anything near a Red or Orange Line stop was very, very expensive. The Green Line is a joke outside of the D Line, and the D line runs through the areas where doctors work and live, so again, ultra-expensive. In the winter, everything goes to shit anyway no matter where you live.
I'm WFH now going on 4-5 years, you probably couldn't pay me enough to go back to an office commute.
>>
>>1821290
>Why can't we have both great transit and acceptable automotive related infrastructure?
Transit needs larger usership to be viable.
To get that usership in car-centric places, you need people to drive considerably less often.
To get people to drive a lot less you need to make driving worse for them.

In MY opinion that is still possible while maintaining 'acceptable' automotive infrastructure, but that is not how anyone who is disincentivised from driving will see it. It literally has to become worse for them to drive. You have to also offer good alternatives but it has to be worse to drive. Slower, more expensive, more social stigma, etc, worse. This is almost never going to be seen as a 'compromise'
>>
>>1821502
>To get people to drive a lot less you need to make driving worse for them.
Not him. You're not wrong at all, I believe that it's a necessary evil. After all, cities were made less walkable and "transitable" to be more driveable.
Changing the perspective, if possible, from "anti-driving design" to "human-centered design" is a worthwhile task, then. There are clear benefits for everyone, including drivers, if a city, and even suburban and rural areas, adopt these "human-centered designs".

Naturally in Burger Town it's probably going to be impossible to make such a change overnight, but we have millions of zoomers who are open to the Communist ideas of not paying for gas and riding human-powered vehicles. Especially in this economy.
>>
>>1821553
I agree it's often best to frame things positively, and to be constructive like that, but conservative people will just read that as bullshit and on many levels it is.

Also, I think one of the reasons you have 'millions of zoomers' who are actively anti-car is that it is a positive position, they're enfranchising themselves, they're framing their thinking in a way where their goals and really, a required outcome from climate commitments, isn't something which impacts them negatively, whereas probably you, I, conservatives, and boomers, we like cars, like driving and see change in part as a sacrifice, or, want to pretend it doesn't have to be when it does. In many ways, a staunchly anti-car position is putting a positive spin on your thinking, whether that's delusional or not.
I think it's kind of the same as neets on this board who are anti-car because they never got a license or can't afford a car. It's a literal cope, but having coping strategies in life is constructive. It's better to cope and be delusional about not having the freedom of cars than to cope and watch the planet burn and have shit cities.

I have a bit of a boomer conservative position in my personal life, i have a car that i love, i'll be able to drive it for some time to come, it's not political because i'm largely anti-car but i'll just get mine while it's good. It's very easy to live that life without morphing it into a political position.
>>
>>1821553
>Naturally in Burger Town it's probably going to be impossible to make such a change overnight, but we have millions of zoomers who are open to the Communist ideas of not paying for gas and riding human-powered vehicles. Especially in this economy.
the best they will get are those luxury mixed use areas built over dead malls. no one is ripping up acres of houses or schools for some shitty reddit walkable meme
>is a worthwhile task
for who to pay for exactly? no offense but you are the typical delusional redditer that thinks "density, bikes, buses, trains, good"
>>
File: 1537763477234.jpg (10 KB, 319x319)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
>>1819020
>LA IS BIGGER SO IT CANT WORK
>just shitty endless sprawl from shit city management and autistic zoning laws
Seoul has more people than LA yet takes up way less space and most things are available via walking hiking and buses. Geeze maybe people are rightfully upset that the people in charge let it get so fucked.
>>
>>1821775
>This triggers the burger
>>
>>1821781
paved streets are one of the absolute worst parts of the euro meme

even if you have a fat tire bike that's ok to ride on them it still sucks if you load that bike with much groceries.
The other part of the euro meme we gloss over is just how treacherous fucking tram tracks everywhere are
>>
>>1821784
As opposed to this? Sorry faggot I'm with the europoors
>>
>>1821781
that is not what i said at all, nice reading comprehension. mixed use developments are built like this over dead malls all the time. that is only going to be a small walkable square kilometer or two that is practically a strip mall. with a parking garage. no one is going to pay to tear up a cities worth of commercial and residential property to start building this nonsense from scratch. do you even understand the city and village designs in europe were planned before the invention of cars or trains? half of frankfurt looks like houston nowadays and you are going to conveniently ignore that?
>>
>>1821785
do you understand how commercial zoning works? this strip mall is surrounded on all sides by some subdivisions of houses and shitty apartments. people could walk or bike the 1 or 2 miles there if they want to but they dont want to because they own cars
>>
>>1821785
maybe they could tear some of that smooth ashpalt up and ship it to the europoors to lay over their shit brick streets
>>
>>1820263
Nobody wants to commute longer unless there is good compensation. Your most valuable resource is your time.
>>
>>1821786
>half of frankfurt looks like houston nowadays
I wonder if there is a reason European cities were able to be rebuilt from scratch as to the ideas of urban planners in the middle of the 20th century...
>>
>>1821799
holy shit look at this cope
>>
File: 20220701_130142.jpg (467 KB, 1024x1024)
467 KB
467 KB JPG
>>1821786
Wow I love this post. Because you gave me the textbook answers that are all easily debunked.

>no one is going to pay to tear up a cities worth of commercial and residential property to start building this nonsense from scratch
They actually would, want to know why? The city pays to upkeep the asphalt and it's bankrupting the city. The condensed European planning generates money. These mega parking lots gauge your fucking taxes.

>do you even understand the city and village designs in europe were planned before the invention of cars or trains
SO WAS AMERICA
AMERICA WASN'T BUILT FOR THE CAR. IT WAS BULLDOZED FOR THE CAR. AMERICAN CITIES WERE FULLY WALKABLE. REMEMBER YOU HAD 200 YEARS BEFORE CARS. AND THEN THEY TORE IT DOWN FOR HIGHWAYS

Here's a treat. Pic related is what American urban planners suggested to Amsterdam
>>
>>1821825
>reddit spacing
all of those pics of "walkable american cities" show no more than 1 square mile and then you redditers cherrypick some pic of a parking lot or major highway and say "SEE AMERICA ISNT WALKABLE"
the average suburban city of 200,000 single family homes is like 70 square miles of main roads, subdivisions, utilities, and stripmalls. bulldozing one abandoned american mall and building some hipster walkable city area with restaurants and bars and dense apartments above them costs over 1 billion dollars, and that is just for 1 square mile. you see how doing that with 70 square miles and demolishing houses and good infrastructure is a retarded fucking idea? just for the price tag alone. not accounting for time to build and possible budget shortages which happens in construction all the time. but dont be an angry karen about getting mansplained just now. you can still have your walkable square mile in the overpriced hipster areas and pay 2k/month for your shitty apartment if you want. stop telling people what they should do with their houses if your idea is this retarded
>>
building the high density apartments in built up suburbs is also incredibly taxing on the current infrastructures. there's a reason why boomers dont want shitty apartments near their nice houses
>>
>>1821848
Listen man, your heart's in the right place but you should just do more research because none of what you said is factual. The math supports tearing down these strip malls and ugly parking lots because it costs so much more than you think to maintain them across every city across America.

https://youtu.be/XfQUOHlAocY

https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI
>>
>>1821853
It's the opposite. We can barely afford to maintain the shitty pavement we built everywhere.

>>1821855
>>
>>1821855
>math supports tearing down these strip malls and ugly parking lots
no tearing down 1 square mile of abandoned mall and parking lots and building it into some mixed use area for a few thousand apartments costs 1 billion dollars. upwards of 1 billion, more like 1.5. how about you research this because this is exactly what happens in american cities. not going to watch your dogshit videos unless you link a specific part
>>
>>1821856
>It's the opposite. We can barely afford to maintain the shitty pavement we built everywhere.
this happens in shitty major cities proper, not the outerlying wealthy suburbs. atlanta, chicago, houston, nyc, LA are all corrupt shitholes in the local governments that they end up looking shitty in 70% of the city limits
>>
>>1821857
Basically it costs billions more just to upkeep these parking lots. If you refuse to watch the video what's the point?

>>1821859
The current city design of America is unsustainable. It's hemmeredging taxes just so highway taco bells can have 30 parking spaces and a driveway. They're now entirely dependent on "infinite growth" otherwise they'll go under. In the video they looked at a tiny packed collection of buildings made in the 30s with barely operating buildings and found that they generate more revenue for the city than a mega Mart with a massive parking space. All because of the parking lot.
>>
>>1821862
>Basically it costs billions more just to upkeep these parking lots.
upkeeping a mixed use area once built is somehow cheaper? do you understand private parking lot upkeep is paid for from the profits of stores/real estate rent????
>If you refuse to watch the video what's the point?
i said link a part, you cant explain your position without linking 22 minutes of video of a numale talking big about shit he doesnt know about? seems more like your position is untenable
>>
>>1821502
>It literally has to become worse for them to drive.
Not necessarily. It can not only retain current quality, but actually get better, while still shifting more people onto transit. You just have to be willing to charge for it. People routinely just ignore that Japan has extensive and well-maintained expressways in addition to well used and highly rated transit. LA could could guarantee 60 MPH speeds over Sepulveda and generate more than enough ridership for the new subway line if they congestion charged it.
>>
>>1821892
semantic nonsense post
i already covered making it more expensive as part of making it worse and that would have the exact same effect and be viewed the exact same way by carfags
>>
>>1821775
>no one is ripping up acres of houses or schools for some shitty reddit walkable meme
No one has to. It could be as little as changing the zoning for existing properties and implementing (better) bike and sidewalk infrastructure.
>for who to pay for exactly?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Tax dollars pay for roads, they can pay for non-car roads, too.
>>
>>1813259
The thing these youtube urbanists never understand about Houston is that it's built in a really shitty place because that's where they could find a good harbor in the area. The region has really bad flooding and drainage problems and everything has to be spread out to try and keep enough open land to soak up the water that comes in during hurricanes etc., and those big parking lots they bitch about actually do a lot to control and direct runoff when built correctly too. (And some are even starting to be built with permeable materials so they can soak up water like open ground would.) Houston wouldn't last through a single major storm if it were densely urbanized the way these people think it ought to be.
It's also worth pointing out that the climate there is fucking miserable for biking etc.
>>
>>1822167
You're just baiting.
>charge the public even more for these pretentious hipster bicycle roads
I believe a two-way bicycle path costs about as much as a lane on a road. No real math to that, but just in size they seem about the same. There's also the factor of maintenance: bike lanes do not carry cars, so therefore do not break as much as car lanes. Also, with increased local transit options, you could predict an increase in the viability of local commerce, which pays back in taxes.
>increase car congestion
They would only theoretically do that if the bikes were on the same roads as cars, which is not what I'm proposing.
>dangerous as fuck
Bike paths could be created completely separated, including underpasses and/or overpasses, if required (although this does cut into cost).
A dedicated signal time for bikes to move would free up any traffic created at intersections and also remove danger in crossing for bikes. For the few seconds lost to car traffic, you'd probably make up the difference in reduced cars on the roads.

I Drive.
>>
>>1816636
>that's a bad thing for a variety of reasons.
It's not though. His biggest argument is 'the suburbs cost a lot of taxes proportional to the property taxes they pay in'.
Which completely ignores that dense inner cities make money off suburbs and most of those suburban residents offer a bigger % of taxes from income and other costs.
>>
>>1816636
>build poorly laid out cities full of traffic
the biggest cause of traffic are large dense work locations. We know this is true because traffic is significantly better than it was due to the larger % of WFH employees not having to commute all at the same time at 8am
>>
>>1816878
>midwits want to be seen as "intellectual" in order to fullfill their ego/self-esteem needs but can't be bothered to put in actual effort into forming their own opinions and actually read/do research so they just build their ideologies and worldviews based on whatever video essayist that ends up on the youtube home page
This. My biggest criticism of this guy is his supporters. I have no strong feelings on urban planning, so I find the occasional vid of his that I watch mildly interesting. It's clear he's equal parts activist and informer, so I also take whatever he says with a grain of salt. Maybe I'll take some of what he said into consideration if my city has a related local measure up for election some day and the downsides don't seem bad.
However, fairly frequently recently, I see idiots barge into /fit/ or even /k/ and make threads about urban planning, where they always quote his arguments literally word for word and then get aggressive when anyone presents counterpoints or tells them to fuck off. They're like the urban planning version of /pol/tards.
And like you said, he's just one part of a trend that's been happening across the internet as a whole. From film theory to mathematics to history to nuclear energy, you'll find people who have strong opinions and consider themselves to be well informed because a YouTuber made a video essay on it that got a lot of views.
>>
>>1822347
>counter-arguements
yeah like what
mostly what I see is incredibly stupid

Are you really expecting people to form their own opinions or make their own arguements too? That's never been how the world works. It's not because of youtubers. The same thing happens with watching a documentary or reading an article or watching a news item even. Would you say someone who takes a entry level university course is then an authority even? It's stupid to get annoyed at people for parroting opinions.
>>
>>1822350
>>counter-arguments
>>1822205
tends to be one I see fairly often, which people like you usually dismiss.

>Would you say someone who takes a entry level university course is then an authority even?
No, of course not. I would also hope (and I know this isn't the case) that someone who took one introductory level course doesn't walk around and lecture anyone who will listen on why their quarter-assed understanding of a topic makes them an expert. And I would *really* hope that they wouldn't go around smugly telling people that any position but their extremist one is wrong on a topic they have an entry level education in, especially when that "education" comes from an activist.
>>
>>1822205
>dense inner cities make money off suburbs and most of those suburban residents offer a bigger % of taxes from income and other costs

>>1822357
>people like you usually dismiss

I haven't really said much ITT and i don't have a good handle on the economic argument here. But I don't believe what you're saying. I'm genuinely curious to see you make the argument.

>people who live in non-dense suburbs generally contribute more taxes proportionate to the size of the land that they and the buisinesses and infrastructure which serves them occupies than those in an inner city.

In my head it just can't be true. Is the only metric you're comparing avg incomes for suburb dwellers vs those who live in denser housing, not adjusted for the space they occupy in housing letalone what surrounds them?
>>
>>1822357
>No, of course not. I would also hope (and I know this isn't the case) that someone who took one introductory level course doesn't walk around and lecture anyone who will listen on why their quarter-assed understanding of a topic makes them an expert. And I would *really* hope that they wouldn't go around smugly telling people that any position but their extremist one is wrong on a topic they have an entry level education in, especially when that "education" comes from an activist.

It seems like the crux of your position here is that progressive viewpoints are wrong, not that the people who hold them are not well enough informed about them. Or maybe that's a semantic arguement if you would only consider someone to know what they were talking about and to be educated if they agreed with you because you're right.

I don't mind people parroting shit or really anyone talking about what they think no matter how stupid. The only thing that annoys me is when people want to discuss ideas but refuse to try to understand or question or articulate what other people's ideas are. What do you reckon about that?
>>
>>1822347
>people watch some meme urbanism youtuber and then have strong progressive opinions

conservative people learn from nothing and have strong conservative opinions

I think you're undervaluing how much someone's life experience matters to how they think about the world. Hating a car centric hellscape and climate denialism is not something you have to be taught, and neither is loving the freedom a car affords and spacious detached family housing.

It actually doesn't matter to most people if their arguments are wrong because they -know- that their overall viewpoint is right. Do you not feel the same way? Do you really think you've book learnt what you think about the world? Mostly everyone learns to rationalize what they think, not to work it out. It's almost never possible to 'prove' anyone wrong for that reason. They actually don't care and any arguement they'll engage in is basically in bad faith.
>>
>>1822362
>maybe that's a semantic arguement if you would only consider someone to know what they were talking about and to be educated if they agreed with you because you're right.
I can not stress this enough: I'm not educated on this topic at all and I hold no strong opinions on it. My point is that people aren't engaging crtically with the source. Just because it's got high production value and a speaker with a European accent doesn't make it any more credible than a random /pol/ screencap on inner city crime. Both are cherrypicking sources and statistics, both are trying to sell you something, and both should not be the basis you use to form your opinions.

>I don't mind people parroting shit or really anyone talking about what they think no matter how stupid. The only thing that annoys me is when people want to discuss ideas but refuse to try to understand or question or articulate what other people's ideas are. What do you reckon about that?
I think the internet could do with less bullshit. Maybe that's a jaded point of view, but a lot of it stems from spending my teens holding strong opinions about topics that I was in no way qualified to even begin discussing (military aviation). Once you realize that most people are talking out of their ass, or parroting someone who's also likely talking out of their ass, discussions like this become a lot less informative and seem more like a waste of time at best and a way to passively shill for an ideology at worst.
>>
>>1822371
NJB is FAR more credible than a random /pol/ screencap.

just because the majority of the audience doesn't engage critically with him doesn't mean no one does. He's part of a community of like-minded autists and if his videos were filled with bullshit then he'd be internally deboonked.
>>
My thoughts after visiting Houston:

it's probably the least walk-able major city in the USA and there's no easy way to MAKE it walk-able simply because of the zoning situation and the pure size of the city itself. mixed use zoning with no restrictions is very underrated - everything in Houston was dirt cheap, including housing, and there are plentiful stores, grocery stores, restaurants, etc. everywhere. for the 4th biggest city in the USA the prices to live there were cheaper than Cleveland (where I'm from) by a long shot, especially rent. You can find nice places in desirable areas in Houston for 800 a month still and housing is being built nonstop.

that being said, even the "walkable" neighborhoods (Midtown, Montrose, near Rice, Med Center) are only walkable in a very limited sense because
1. everything is simply so spread out. neighborhoods in Houston are sprawling and massive simply because they could (and can) keep building out.
2. I think private developers are mostly responsible for sidewalks and infrastructure due to the permissive zoning. This is both good and bad as I can tell you newer areas definitely did have sidewalks but they are not consistent - they can be on one street but then end on the next one in the same neighborhood.
that doesn't mean they're not nice places. I was told Houston was a total shithole by almost everyone but there's a surprising amount of green space (and I'm not just talking about buffalo bayou, hermann park etc.). the only downside is that in order to maintain the upsides of permissive zoning in a flat sprawl you need a car. and, yes, the infamous traffic to the suburbs (energy corridor etc) was nightmarish. I don't do outside the inner loop so I can't speak much on that.

Houston gets a bad rap. I'm from the Northeast and I honestly liked the city a lot. The car centrist design allows a lot of upsides especially since housing in plentiful (in comparison to LA where housing is scarce yet cars are still essential).
>>
>>1822373
interesting
>>
>>1822373
I will also say (and I know /n/ won't care about this) but if you're into friendly dark-skinned latinas (think central american), vietnamese, indian or fit black and African (as in from Africa) girls, I have never seen more attractive minority women anywhere in my entire life. If you are an attractive white man you can absolutely clean up there with some women way out of your league, I would walk into a store or down a street 50% of the time and look around and not even see another white person anywhere in dozens of people. there were quite literally 100s of model tier latinas and black girls that I saw, felt like I was in Colombia or Brazil or something.

additionally Houston has an awesome selection of restaurants (>inb4 waow! le ethnic food!), but it you're remotely into cheap and good hispanic or vietnamese or indian cuisine, Houston rivals New York and SF for 1/4 of the price. additionally houston has a very impressive nightlife scene along Westheimer, etc if you're into that, and even a lot of museums, arts, etc.

the fact there's no bike lanes (and no way to add them), and a very, very "conservative"/weird bland of evangelical/catholic culture (even among minorities) will keep a lot of the liberal types out. Houston is a strange city, it doesn't deserve the shit it gets at all, maybe I'm glad it's not blowing up like Austin, Phoenix, Raleigh, Boise etc. it would definitely be a good place to raise a family for cheap if you're ok with not really being around any other white people (which I don't mind).
>>
>>1822350
>yeah like what
it takes 1+ billion dollars to turn 1 square mile into some mixed use development area, which means it takes ~ 1 trillion dollars to turn an existing city to whatever this bikefag wants. how does that not sound ludicrous for you? especially when cities are already perfectly functional and only a small minority of the total population (AKA reddit) want it? bikes keeps talking shit about houston but as a houston anon this guy is an insufferable cunt. imagine talking shit about the 4th biggest city in the united states as a noodle arm basedboy
>>
File: 4979936038_a2c514b06e_b.jpg (121 KB, 1024x683)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
>>1822421
>numtots consent
>urbanists consent
Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?

Zoomers are dumb but the stopped clock, etc. Houston should probably be glassed, just saying
>>
>>1822347
I happen to agree with all the videos, when I posted them the only counter arguments are idiots with NO informed opinion literally just playing Devil's advocate or who are the stereotype of the retarded burger who only lives in the middle buttfuck nowhere and drives a shitty SUV. I made a thread on /pol/ and had 1 autist who made it his life's mission to shit ok public transport and threaten to shoot anyone who advocated for better alternative transportation to cars and more condensed housing with less zoning restrictions.
>>
>>1821788
>but they dont want to
That is retarded. Clearly that kind of zoning creates an environment where the car is what is asserted by the planners. If you walk or bike to those places you feel like a second class citizen with shitty sidewalks or a perilous bike journey down a road. If you look at any area with a semblance of density you will see people walking and biking because it is safer and cheaper. There is no natural default or inclination to own a car.
>>
File: 546.jpg (106 KB, 680x653)
106 KB
106 KB JPG
>>1822565
how is it dumb to not want to walk 1 mile to a nearby restaurant? the option is always there. in a 'walkable' city you could have to walk/bike 1-3 miles to the same restaurant and suddenly that's not dumb because you live in an apartment instead of a suburb?
>>
File: Mlkeo5L4sL.jpg (1.34 MB, 2560x1236)
1.34 MB
1.34 MB JPG
>>1822570
First lets be frank here: In a walkable city you will have several options within a mile, and in the most walkable cities your nearest dining options are on your block or sometimes even within your building. Only in the most disadvantaged urban areas will you struggle to find food options within close proxmity, and often times I would not call those situations 'dense'.

Second, look at my picture. Which one do you think incentivizes people to walk more? The one where they have to cross massive parking lots and six lane roads with poor pedestrian infrastructure, or the one where there are three dozen options right on one street, with wide sidewalks and regularly timed crosswalks.

When we are talking about access to ammenities other than the great outdoors or land intensive uses, cities will invariably provide a better experience.
>>
>>1822589
All the options within a mile are your only options so you better like them a lot
>>
>>1822570
>the option is always there.
>>
>>1821788
>people could walk or bike the 1 or 2 miles there if they want to but they dont want to because they own cars
Because cycling through that will get you killed and walking is extremely unfriendly
>>
>>1822570
You know that most walkable cities also have cars, right? Or busses? Or trains? You can take the bus to within a block or 2 of your destination. Or you can drive to within a few blocks of your destination. You just aren't FORCED to drive to the nearest retail business (5-10 minute drive away). Have you never been to a walkable city, or even a college town?
I went to university in Chapel Hill, NC, and was able to get to restaurants, grocery stores, classes, work, Target, etc all by walking 0.25 miles per trip and just taking the bus everywhere. For free. That's in Burgerland.

Did you not go to university?
>>
>>1823053
Some people don’t structure their life around how easy it is for them to get to restaurants, grocery stores, work, and Target.
>>
File: 1657330213159.jpg (828 KB, 1347x1008)
828 KB
828 KB JPG
>>1813259
>muh walkable cities
>muh bike lanes
>muh public transport
>muh trees
>>
>>1823053
>I went to university in Chapel Hill, NC
Chapel Hill is not the mean; it's an outlier.
>>
>>1822973
Did you not actually read the OP?
>>
>>1823081
Those people are morons. Why do want to follow the action of morons?

>>1822973
>>1823193
No power here. *Grid goes down*
>>
>>1823188
Trees are great, you soulless insect
>>
>>1823189
It doesn't need to be
>>
>>1823188
bottom looks literally a million times better, why are cagers so fucking retarded
>>
>>1813259
>his only legitimate criticism of his walk from the hotel is that the sidewalks are inadequate
that's the whole point: There are no sidewalks there, you must use a car.
>>
>>1823476
it's a tourist resort you mong
>>
>>1816636
>The car-centric approach means that you have less to do (you sit at home watching TV when not at costco or work because the city with all the stuff to do is too far away)
That is the issue because it's built around car, not for Bikes, not for Trains and definitely not for disabled people who are on wheelchairs. That is kind of a huge folly with American Suburban designs is that they do not think about these things at all and could be actual fun small communities where everyone knows each other and eats together at the local restaurant 10 minutes away, go on a train 15 minute walk away and does not need to use a car. But sadly American's have not been outside of the country to see good examples of this in Munich Germany, Kyoto and Tokyo Japan, or even in some places of Netherlands that is small by default and proves it does not need to be cities that have this design in mind.
>>
>>1823479
But there were sidewalks except for the part around the railroad tracks, which is probably more liability than anything else.
>>
>>1819546
The main issue is not having plenty to do. The issue is transportation and walkability. When you have to walk 30 minutes from one side to another that is not really good town or city planning because it does not prioritize people it punishes people for walking. I understand Cars can get there in 10 minutes to 15 but at times it would be easier to kind of have the ability to walk to a place without needing to have a car to begin with or to have cars live alongside this type of planning where it takes second priority. It does not need to be a city to have this, you can also do this in Towns as well as small cities. College towns are a perfect example in America of why it works and people would like that concept overall.
>>
>>1823188
>Being closer to your neighbors
>Having trees nearby
>Houses having interesting colors and personality.
>Probably not even 15 minutes of a walk to get to the family bakery, grocery store or even a restaurant.
Man I sure like Europe a lot.
>>
>>1822591
Same can be said for Suburbs.
>>
>>1819565
Because CARS are FREEDOM YOU CAN GO ANYWHERE. BUT IT TAKES YOU 30 MINUTES TO GO ANYWHERE GOOD!
>>
>>1823621
>30 MINUTES TO GO ANYWHERE GOOD
The real cope is that in "urban" areas like New York City you won't even get decent grocery stores in a 30 minute walk unless you live in a really nice area.
>>
>>1823952
There's a middle ground between massive sprawling suburbs and superdense New York.
>>
>>1817791
Yimbys don't like Houston. Houston effectively has extensive and regressive zoning in all but name
>>
>>1817791
>parking minimums everywhere
>it's not zoning laws!
>>
File: ryan och marissa.gif (1.12 MB, 245x165)
1.12 MB
1.12 MB GIF
>>
>>1823952
Chicago is a better well thought out version of New York but recently they are working to try and slowly fix the transit system overall with Trains due to the density.
>>
>>1817791
>we don't call it zoning but it's zoning by any other name
>>
>>1824359
I mean, Chicago is just NYC built on plains rather than some islands.
>>
>>1813277
This kills the cyclist
>>
File: 1658108569695381.webm (1.93 MB, 566x264)
1.93 MB
1.93 MB WEBM
>>
>>1827676
>yup, that's me, you're probably wondering how I got in this situation
>>
File: aa0001 (2).jpg (146 KB, 1250x1000)
146 KB
146 KB JPG
>>1813277
>>1825846
oh noesssssss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOttvpjJvAo
>>
>>1827676
>>1827704
did he died?
>>
Satan wants you
>>
>>1830438
thanks for warning me brother
>>
>>1813570
chicago did that once and it's the best american city bar none
>>
File: 1499299652079.jpg (13 KB, 206x235)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>>1830587
>chicago did that once and it's the best american city bar none
Had a hearty chuckle at that one. The sad part is people will think you were serious.
>>
>>1821848
Why do you think entire subdivisions need to be torn down? If zoning laws were different a business owner wouldn't even necessarily need to tear down a single house. They can simply remodel the interior to be an effective place of business for them.
>>
>>1821881
>upkeeping a mixed use area once built is somehow cheaper? do you understand private parking lot upkeep is paid for from the profits of stores/real estate rent????

It's cheaper on tax payers because it's not the city having to deal with all the upkeep.

>i said link a part, you cant explain your position without linking 22 minutes of video of a numale talking big about shit he doesnt know about? seems more like your position is untenable

Amazing how you say someone doesn't understand a concept while in the same breath also saying that you do not have a long enough attention span to grasp a slightly complex and nuanced concept.
>>
The capital city of the Netherlands, Amsterdam, has a population of 821,752 people. Houston Texas has 2,313,00 million people. Almost 3x as many people as Amsterdam. But Amsterdam is almost 4x as densely populated.

He does have a cogent argument. It should at least be feasible to walk around without being 2 feet away from cars going 45mph. I think a lot of the guys criticisms in that video were overblown but that narrow bridge section was a little iffy.

I bet car-centric cities are a away to fleece the population. Car registration fees, gasoline taxes, traffic fines, all of this goes into the cities coffers correct? If everyone started bicycling the revenue generation of the city government would collapse. There's an incentive to make people own as many cars as possible.
>>
>>1833643
This isn't really how it works. What is more the case is that car commuting is the result of big box stores like Walmart and Target (and their holding groups) having tremendous leverage in government. For a big box store to make sense over a scattering of neighborhood shops, you need to get everybody from the neighborhood to drive there and park there, and the govt is receptive to favoring the megacorps because a supply chain with more steps in it can be exploited for tax revenue more readily and employ more public workers, which solidifies their power structure.

The govt is greedy, yes, but first of all it is parasited by megacorps.
>>
>>1823952
I lived in the Bronx and had access to three pretty good grocery stores and a CVS within a ten-minute radius. How are we judging good?
>>
>>1830587
based
>>
>>1833679
Bodegas and convenience stores are not grocery stores. If you're an American you should know what a grocery store is.
>>
>>1833829
I'm talking about actual grocery stores. There was a PathMark, Western Beef, and Key Food within a 10 minute walk from the front of my building and the projects.
>>
File: aab.jpg (121 KB, 969x1038)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
>>1833643
Get the bakfiet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA
>>
>>1816878
:^)
>>
>>1837088
besides the car this is literally just a list in near perfect descending order of transportation by it's intended distance.
>>
>>1816884
He'll go hiking to his nearest shop.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.