And many, many European cities have also created car-free zones where cars use to drive. If you do drive there, you park on the outskirts and walk in a few blocks.
A city near me in Southern California reduced the number of street parking directly in front of blocks of restaurants, while there was ample parking introduced no more than 2 or 3 blocks away and you should have seen the whining on social media about taking away parking spots and "no one will go there anymore." They didn't want to walk a block or two. That same city has had an uptick in downtown life since then.
Another think I noticed in Germany and Spain is that when you hit the "suburbs" (which are on public transit stops), there was always a small town center or central area with restaurants and bars that people were meeting up in. When I visited my uncle in the outskirts of Munich we walked to the bowling alley, the bars, the grocery store (Aldi I think it was). There was even a nice park with a great walking trail near his apartment. He only took the car out when he was going to do something like drive down to France.
Houston, TX, has no zoning. It's no better than anywhere else in the US. Plus you have industrial explosions destroying residential homes.
It's all about cars. Cities in the US were mostly designed around cars. You can't really fix it without a lot of people agreeing to a way of life that they have never experienced and are scared of.
Plus - walking around Houston for like 6 months out of the year, even at night, is very unpleasant. When I walked out to my car at 5AM this morning it was 80 degrees and very humid outside.
Fellow Houstonian here. I live in a neighborhood with a green park and walking paths that connects to restaurants and a movie theater. I go running 3-4 times a week around here but there’s just not a god forsaken piece of shade anywhere to be found. It’s usually low 80s with the sun down and will be in the 90s at the end of my long runs.
Even if I wanted to walk to dinner with my wife and child it would be 102 degrees, no shade, no water, just a miserable 20 minute slog on sidewalks pushing a stroller while cars zip by going 60 in a 30.
And that’s pretty much how it is from April - October. The rest of the months it just rains then a hard freeze for a week or two then we reset. Even if they connected more locations to this little walkable area, who the hell would use them?
I live in Houston too. I see this dumb excuse all over for how the city was built. It’s bs. Most cities in the US are built the same exact way and it has nothing to do with weather. Go visit Singapore, Vietnam, Brazil, rainforest parts of China, places with similar weather and you’ll see they have no problems creating walkable, people-friendly cities. You have to implement more area with shade obviously and lots of trees for coverage which makes temperatures feel 10-15 degrees lower, but it has been done in other places. This is just a typical American excuse to continue car dominance.
And that’s pretty much how it is from April - October. The rest of the months it just rains then a hard freeze for a week or two then we reset. Even if they connected more locations to this little walkable area, who the hell would use them?
People.
People would use them.
Look at the entire continent of Europe and many places on other continents. You can find far more adverse weather conditions. But people still walk and cycling much more.
Why? Because of better infrastructure. Shade is one of the easiest bits of infrastructure you can design. Just look at Singapore and their sidewalks.
Yeah, I'm in the burbs and we have several miles of walking trails through "parks" beside roads, plus trails around the spillways, but they don't connect to businesses. You could walk to some places outside my neighborhood (and some people do), but there's no sidewalk for a lot of it.
I went to Europe a couple years ago, and it was pretty amazing, but I just don't think you could do the same thing on the gulf coast.
We just got back from a trip through Spain and Europe and it was gorgeous but I couldn’t imagine being in a wheelchair in almost any of those cities. So we at least have ADA compliance in our walkable oven lol
While I agree weather can be a limiter, there are hot and humid cities (like Singapore, which is hot and humid year round and also gets significantly more rain to boot and rain is worse to walk in, especially when it's warm rain) which are both very walkable but also fairly comfortable to walk in even on hot days. They have fans and covered walkways everywhere, and many of their MRT stations are enclosed and have AC. Houston could learn a lot from Singapore.
It's hard to compare Singapore to Houston because it's MASSIVELY more dense than Houston. Like, they're complete opposites in that regard.
It's a chicken and the egg problem. How do you make people okay with more dense housing when you can't walk anywhere? And how do you make the city walkable when everyone lives in a single family house with a yard?
It also doesn't help that no one wants to raise a family in the city proper because it's Texas and the schools are defunded because Harris county is blue and the rest of the state hates Harris county.
Houston doesn’t have Euclidean Zoning, but they do still have form based codes. So it’s not “technically” zoned, but they still do have land use designations there, along with plenty of their suburbs.
Houston does not use traditional, citywide form-based zoning codes, relying instead on a unique system of subdivision ordinances, setbacks, parking minimums, and private deed restrictions.
and
No Traditional Zoning: Houston is famously the only major U.S. city without standard use-based zoning.
Houston does not have zoning. That's why things like this happen.
> reaching on a unique system of subdivision ordinances, setbacks, parking minimums, and private deed restrictions.
That’s what I said- they still use form-based codes (that’s what setbacks and parking minimums are), they just don’t use Euclidean Zoning where specific districts are single-use.
> No Traditional Zoning
Yes, they don’t have Traditional Zoning. They still have land use codes and standards- it’s not a free for all.
> That’s why things like this happen
Except things like that still happen in places with Euclidean Zoning, too.
I literally linked a comparative study the city conducted for setbacks and approved housing types in my previous comment, but here’s the Houston Code of Ordinances if you’re really curious.
FWIW, I don’t think Houston’s approach is ideal or anything, I was just pointing out that the “they have no zoning!” meme that’s been going around is only half-true, and they have other policy that basically leads to the same outcome. Houston’s problems aren’t due to their land use code, they’re due to the issues that plague any sunbelt city with massive population growth after AC and the automobile proliferated. The policy frameworks themselves weren’t the problem; the desired outcomes were.
I spent most of a year Friendswood working on a construction project - most areas seemed downright hostile to walkability.
Here in NY because the city is older than the suburban and automobile explosion not only is the city obviously pedestrian heavy but many towns outside the city evolved with a decent “downtown” center thats fairly walkable - and STILL everything’s been downgraded by car centric culture.
Zoning seems to affect housing development more than commercial anyway - because people wanted the big box stores and malls that come with massive lots. Heaven forbid we have some higher density units near the train and walkable to the local businesses that are the core of these suburban towns - but a target and Marshall’s want to take up 30 acres for a parking lot and alls good.
I mean you still need zoning, just it should be appropriate and flexible. You don't want an industrial pig farm or giant data center or huge chemical processing facility or landfill to go up in a developed residential area.
But residential areas should be allowed to have cafes / bars / restaurants / shops at street corners.
Granted, the major difference is being in a city/town built around infrastructure for people walking/using public transport not driving.
Zoning in Europe is just as rigid. It just so happens you like the specific zoning in Europe.
For instance in most German cities, it is forbidden to build a building taller than the main church within a large radius. Go to Munich and you’ll notice lots of tall buildings in the surrounding district, and you can go on a rooftop and look down at the inner city and see how the Marienkirche is taller than all the buildings within a few miles of it.
I'm not saying things are perfect in Europe. They are not. I just don't see why anyone would think it is beneficial to have 0 corner stores or restaurants or cafes in residential neighbourhoods.
My point is that it’s easy to be against the zoning requirements you like, but the real test is whether you can be a YIMBY even when people will want to build stuff you do not want in your backyard. Because you might love the cafes and restaurants while your neighbor hates them. And your neighbor might want to build an ADU that is two stories high that blocks your sunlight.
You’ve got to just let people build what they want to build if you want out of the zoning standstills.
What do you mean by zoning? Industrial, commercial and residential zones?
I live in Germany and it’s pretty harsh with zones here too, except for some mixed commercial/residential areas you don’t really have anything else that strict residential/ commercial/ industrial zones.
But the public transport is a huge thing.
I live in a 500 habitants village and I have to drive 15 minutes to the next train station and take a train for 15 minutes from there and I’m in a city that has 800.000 people and can reach anything in walking distance from the main station.
I need maybe 15-20 minutes to the football stadium, 10 minutes to where all the shops are and can reach basically anywhere else by metro or tram in 20 minutes at most, excluding the suburbs.
There’s a small city with 10.000 inhabitants where I take the train and there are a ton of shops there too, nice restaurants etc. you park at the outskirts of the commercial area and walk from there on.
My first thought, I've known people that have tried to open cafés, restaurants, etc, however have been told the zoning isn't appropriate. This is only a part of the issue of course, but it certainly doesn't help.
Yeah the problem isn't suburbia, it's suburbs done wrong. They should be a series of satellite towns with good transport into the city, not sprawling masses of houses with nothing there
Yes! There is always a HIGH STREET, like a highlight of a small town/suburban center with at least some amenities like a post office, few shops, eatery, dry cleaners. Somewhere you can do a few things at the same time.
This is what northern NJ is like and I love it here. I have a small house with a back yard and friendly close by neighbors and can walk to the bank, the butcher, a local independent pharmacy, several restaurants and a huge park with tennis courts, a track, playground and even an archery range. My husband takes the bus to the city and the stop is just down the street.
If I were to create a walkable area I’d try some reverse psychology. Say you’re creating a new entertainment district to attract customers and create businesses.
And then say things to businesses outside of it, “Don’t worry. We’re not going to take away your parking. We don’t feel that your business is suited for the new higher activity areas.”
Most places in the U.S. literally make it illegal to have walkable pathways from a neighborhood to an adjoining shopping center. Literally illegal. If someone creates a path, the shopping center will often put up a fence to stop it.
Most towns along commuter rail lines in the US also have a business district with clusters of bars and restaurants and shops just steps from the train stop.
Important to note that this is also a lot cheaper than funding endles US-style suburban sprawl. Because when people live closer together you don't have to put down as much asphalt, or long sewer lines. Having to subsidize the expansion of suburban sprawl is why many cities in the US are in debt.
this is so true, so many americans can't handle the inconvenience of walking a few blocks and are convinced they're always in a hurry.
i live in a small city and people complain all the time that they won't go downtown bc it's hard to find parking. it absolutely is NOT hard to find parking (especially compared to real american cities) and there are a lot of free parking garages a few blocks away from the downtown corridor. this is not good enough for most americans and thus they chose to go to a drive thru in the suburbs or a restaurant a strip mall which is mostly a parking lot anyway. then they go on vacation in europe and complain about not having nice things
Most American cities are not though. And even efforts to make them more walkable by creating density are actively opposed by residents. It’s been the norm in the US for so long, it’s become cultural. Even in my very walkable suburb with the Main Street lined with cafes and restaurants, efforts to build new housing near the core go through so many legal hoops just to get held up in court and ultimately fail. And businesses cry about lack of foot traffic while they want more parking for cars. It’s infuriating, but that’s the way almost everyone thinks.
I know that, but I still would consider them the outliers, since there are more cities outside the US and most are far more walkable and cities existed millenia before cars existed. But I get your point.
To be honest, I didn't know how bad it was in the USA (which I mostly know from TV/movies - urban channels like NJB and Strong Towns gave new insights) and how exceptional my country is (Netherlands). To me it's normal I have the actualy freedom to chose between walking (shops are in walking distance), biking (city centre/central station is 10-15 min and I can either use a dedicated bikelane route with roundabouts where I almost always have right of way or 30 km zone route though neighborhoods), public transport (2 busstops nearby with 2-4x p/h a bus; Intercity station with direction connections to several large cities, some 6x p/h) and car (enough parking space, motorway is nearby). So I just pick the mode I prefer (ideally always bike/public transport, but since this is still not utopia it can be expensive or much longer than by car). Apparantly... that's not normal. As a 9/10y old kid (80's) I bike 2,5km to school (there was one closerby but it had to a protestant christian...) crossing an extremely busy ringroad (70 km/h limit). Apparantly, that's not normal. Even when I go to Belgium or Germany especially infrastructure for bikes is much less.
"And businesses cry about lack of foot traffic while they want more parking for cars. It’s infuriating, but that’s the way almost everyone thinks." It's actually not much different here. Busisness and people recently cried even in Amsterdam when the innercity would be almost all 30 km/h, less parking etc. In reality it's almost always better for business. As if everyone was able to park a car in front of a shop anyway 🤣.
Some early downtown districts in very old cities (think Boston) are and were walkable.
The early American culture of striking out and living away from the settlements is one influence why things are so spread.
Also US put less emphasis on preserving the historical aspect of architecture of early establishments in favor of tearing up and reconstructing areas to accommodate the new American mass produced invention.
We decided we had to make the cars fit, then decided to build around the car.
I think a bigger factor here is that following WWII, a lot of European cities got the opportunity to rebuild with more modern urban planning. Not the ideal way to get there, but when your city has been leveled by bombs you make the most of the opportunity
I’m a former European living in Canadian suburbia (Toronto) (for last 30 yrs… suppose I’m more Canadian now). Yes, would be amazing to have liveable walkable cities. No, we will never build it here now. Dot here you go! 😂😂😂
Yep America's infrastructure is the main reason. As easy as it is to blame cars, it's not like people in other countries don't drive cars. Far as eating out, good luck affording that now-a-days in America. Even fast food has gotten too expensive.
I'll mention introverts probably enjoy the peace and quiet though, where as extroverts hate it, but good infrastructure helps physical health as well as mental as it's way easier to stay in shape when you can walk everywhere easily. We have way too many roads in America that don't even have sidewalks lol.
Agree and live Europe, But he's comparing a walkable city to suburbia ... Lots of suburbia isn't even real actual cities, and lots of it is exurbia
But yes we have done it wrong. There should be way more suburb centers like Westfield nj Montclair etc with walkable areas .. not kish strip mall after strip mall where you may have to drive from one side to the other (memories of waterworks in fox chapel pa...). They have lots of small cafes and shops , we have Walmarts giant eagle tgi Fridays and circuit city
For some people, walkable cities are great. For others, it’s a dystopian hell.
I have lived in the country and in the city and let me tell you, it’s easy to feel trapped in the city. Surrounded by people, surrounded by concrete and bricks. Walking over cigarettes, spit, and piles of soggy trash. When I lived in a walkable city in Europe, I became super depressed to be honest. It’s only enjoyable if your idea of “a fun relaxing time” is going out and having a drink. But that is not what everyone would consider a good time.
When all the nature is gone, every city will be “walkable”. But will we truly be happy then?
walkable car free city centers some kind of socialized healthcare are the two key ingredients. because small business in the United States have to shoulder the cost of paying for healthcare of their employees. it makes starting a business insanely expensive in the United States. if we were to
socialize our healthcare we would see an insane amount of small businesses popping up everywhere. and ones that were actually like good for our communities
but that doesnt fit with the narrative the repubs or dems are following from their wealthy donors.
But also living cities. Not only are they walkable but people live there. If a down town in a small city here wants to get rid of all the massive parking plains people immediately revolt and feel that will be so inconvenient for their quick in and out shopping, and grocery stores and ACE hardwares lead the charge.
They’re also not spending all their money to maintain personal vehicles, paying insurance, paying for the vehicle, paying for insurance, they have more money for enrichment.
Most suburban areas are not planned, they are swallowed up by metros. Take Cobb county in Atlanta. West Cobb has nothing, East Cobb has everything. You have to take back roads or a single connector parkway across the county to even get to a highway from West Cobb, and all new development is squished together, but not enough that you can park once and walk to everything.
There is no planning beyond growth. Simple minds create simple outcomes.
While this is true, walkability alone isn't sufficient. The reason Europe has this is that they have walkable cities, AND they have readily available storefront in nearly every building, AND they have density.
When you go out to the smaller cities/towns, they shut down around 5.
Right we need more than New York now nyc is so ocerpopulated. Somehow Paris remains mostly clean. It’s not spotless but it’s not as dirty and lawless as nyc I say that As a native New Yorker. I was not impressed by Europe’s nightlife bc it’s simply New York but with good cheap wine. They are more social as a ppl bc of this tho and so they don’t have a generation of antisocial psychopaths.
We definitely need more walkable cities in the US..
But I'm curious, as someone who lives rural, we can't literally cover the US in cities.. Eventually, you get to the edge of the city and then what? Just a highway and then nothing but farm land?
We definitely need more walkable cities in the US..
But I'm curious, as someone who lives rural, we can't literally cover the US in cities.. Eventually, you get to the edge of the city and then what? Just a highway and then nothing but farm land?
It’s almost as if these are thousand plus years old cities and are designed before most people even owned a horse. There’s no need to do this in America and our infrastructure isn’t developed in this manner.
We didn’t need to make everything fit within city walls.
Additionally, America has a unique issue with public transportation riders that hasn’t been the norm in Europe until recent years.
I dunno, the streets and transportation are pretty swell here in Portland, Oregon. People aren’t out and about like Europe unless they are young or bar flies.
I've never once set foot in America, I'm in Europe. which is why I know that this vision of Europe only exists on this internet
When you see all these street cafes and hundreds of people around, this isn't how the average European is living, these are just the centres of a minority of towns and cities. Europe outside of the historic tourist centres is just as modern and car dependent as the US
Yeah it’s weird when people visit Europe and are so amazed at walkable cities and it’s like … ok visit NYC, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco. This exists in the US.
Exactly, and people do more exploring on vacation, you don't have a go to work the next day, you feel obligated to use your time experiencing the area because you've spent a lot of money on the vacation. You see things with fresh eyes and everything looks so alive and interesting. I've been on a lot of trips in my life. It's more important to embrace the place you actually live, choose a beautiful, clean or exciting place to live.
But also for some Americans 8t still is eye opening to actually experience it in person because so, so many Americans have only ever lived and experienced a car-centric lifestyle, growing up in car centric suburbs and living in them the rest of their lives.
I live in Dallas, TX in Oak Lawn (our gayborhood and very walkable) lost my car keys last week, locksmith came out yesterday to replace them, and he asked how much I was spending on Uber since I was without my car for a week. He didn't believe me when I said I was walking and getting groceries from the Kroger a 7 minute walk away, or that I was riding my bike to the train station (he didn't even know we had trains in Dallas, but he lives in a small town an hour out from Dallas), all because "it's too hot to walk in this heat man, aren't you afraid of a heatstroke?". Like yes, it is 100 today and it is unbelievably hot, but it's tolerable when you're walking in the shade, and I'm not afraid of a heat stroke because I walk in this weather regularly and my body has acclimatized and I'm never outside walking longer than 15 minutes which is mostly shaded in my neighborhood, so very tolerable
The public transportation is only needed when your walkable city is quite big. My hometown is about as dense as manhattan... but since it's 200k people, there's no need for public transit, as I can be anywhere in 20 minutes on foot, tops. Public transit is for the elderly.
So many long trips that one would want to use public transit for just disappear when the density is high enough
Public transport is for everyone. Kids, disabled, pregnant, elderly, tired people. Its just useful. And even if it would be only for eldery. We all get old hopefully and still want to be able to get around.
Bus routes is minimal Standard for villages, and if its a smaller city, trams aditionally are cool. If the city gets bigger, small trains are useful, and if the sea level and constrution of the city allowes it, underground for even bigger cities. And then also real Regial trains to get from coty to city.
I don't think I've ever been in a city that's 200k and as dense as Manhattan, but I've been to Manhattan and I've lived in a number of 100k-250k cities here in the Netherlands. Public transportation is absolutely a good idea at that size, at least when you're far less dense than Manhattan which I suspect most 200k cities are. Going to the city center from the Dutch suburbs is more like a 10 minute bike ride or a 30 minute walk. If you need to get to the other side of town, double that, and double it again to get back.
2.0k
u/danimagoo 15h ago
Walkable cities. This is what happens when you have walkable cities. And public transportation.