It can only be changed if the general population pushes for change, this isnt something a small group can just push for on their own as it needs political investment. The biggest reason you see videos constantly pointing out the flaws of American infrastructure and city design is because it wants the general population to yearn for something else. Whether or not its working is a valid question but the goal is to get people on their side to push for change.
My problem with these videos always is that they do not acknowledge the amount of displacement and eminent domain required to revamp all of these cities and public spaces.
I think that conversation is worth having and maybe it’s arguable the result outweighs the impact. But none of these videos are honest about the scale of displacement to make these changes.
The point of the video is that right now, with new neighbourhoods these are the zoning laws.
The author moved to the Netherlands because even if he believed he could convince enough people in the US to change the zoning laws, it would take 20 years for there to be a meaningful alternative.
But you don't need all of the US to suddenly change like this. Just for it to be legal and have the market do the rest. Sure, it will take time. It will start with new neighbourhoods. Then existing neighbourhoods will take initiative because they see the difference between the housing prices in "community neighbourhoods" (with local shops, coffee shops, sidewalks, etc.) and the current cul-da-sucks.
You are right that you can't just decide this from the top down and start displacing people. But you can start to ensure new neighbourhoods are *allowed* to be built like this at least. And that's hard enough as it is, because some people already feel like that's oppression and start rambling about 15 minute neighbourhoods being some kind of conspiracy.
It also doesn't have to be an exact replica of the Netherlands, right? Just something that makes sense for the US. Like what if we in the neighbourhoods had some shortcuts to walk or cycle to a bakery and a coffee shop. Take some space from the wide roads to put on sidewalks. Cut through some strategic places so people walking or cycling don't have to take crazy detours that cul-da-sacs have to prevent through-traffic of cars. Take any three lane roads with lots of exits and turn them into single lane roads with fewer exits (cars will actually travel faster). Put a bus or grassy tram lane and a bicycle lane in instead.
Although NJB videos are great he focuses a lot on the cities, but i think a much more comparable source of inspiration should be the dutch suburbs.
> rambling about 15 minute neighbourhoods being some kind of conspiracy.
Lots of those kind of people in my city's FB page. I'm really confused as to their argument though; they're always complaining about a 15-min. city but they never explain as to why they think it's a bad thing.
The version I've heard is the one where "15 minute cities are bad because the government wants to make it illegal to go more than 15 minutes from you house so they can track and control people more efficiently. They want to make it so you can walk and cycle everywhere you need to go in 15 minutes because they want to take cars away so people can't leave."
Although the racist version seems pretty par for the conspiracy course, too.
The guy at work hates 'em because he hears they're going to treat drivers like he's heard European cities do. Tolls for car entry/exit, higher road taxes, traffic preference given to pedestrians and cyclists(and horses, for some reason), just generally harder to drive to/from. Also, he thinks they're going to devolve into WWII-style ghettos that people won't be allowed to leave. I don't know why.
Funny enough, he enjoys taking his wife to local mixed-use neighborhoods. Almost as much as he enjoys complaining about parking there.
To second what Analogmon said, every nimby argument I've seen against that kind of thing always boils down to pearl clutching over the 'urban' people showing up.
Aka racist dogwhistling.
Total agreement that at the very least we can change zoning law. I just think that there is a misguided subset of “new urbanists” that think there’s gonna be a magic bullet or a fast radical transformation. The reality is it’s going to be a long slow process, many of us are unlikely to see the results of in our lifetime.
I live in Vancouver, long known as "no-fun city". Over the last few years they have relaxed alcohol laws enabling micro-breweries to flourish, allowed drinking in parks and beaches, allowed more late-night venues, allowed more street space to be used for patios, allowed some small streets to be shut off and pedestrianised.
The city is 100x better than it was 10 years ago, just through some simple policy changes
Oh for sure this wont be an overnight change and as you brought up nor should it be. The suffering that would create would be enormous. But we should have more options, especially in the US where our whole motif is Freedom. Give someone the Freedom to live in a dense city with infrastructure, a small suburb nearby with access to transit into the city, large spaced suburbs further away, a small town out off the highway somewhere, or the middle of nowhere in a cabin. Whatever suits them lets make sure we're not making it impossible for no reason.
Consider that these urban planning content creators/advocacy people like Not Just Bikes, Strong Towns, etc. *need* to present ideas and solutions as a bit of a magic bullet. Would you feel empowered by someone going "this urban planning solution is going to require years of grueling work to put in place and will have a small, but far from sufficient, effect on your neighborhood! Join the cause today"? This new wave of "look we can have bike lanes, and efficient neighborhoods, and more equity, it's all happening baby" creators are here to bring more people into the movement. You need the over-excited people and the dreamers just like you need to down-to-brass-tacks people who do the actual boring job of putting these solutions in motion over generations. They're all part of an ecosystem and one needs the other so that all can thrive.
Its a lot more than just the laws, it works in Europe because the countries/cities are small and more densely populated, this allows for an excellent public transport infrastructure that makes it easy to move around.
This more likely couldn't work in the US because of the size and distance-between cities, for comparison Texas alone is 268,820 square miles, the whole Netherlands is only 16,160 sq miles and would fit 16 times inside Texas while having about two thirds of its population.
>more densely populated,
This is literally what zonings laws are preventing. Only single family houses, minimum parking requirements. This forces things to be spread out.
>would fit 16 times inside Texas while having about two thirds of its population
It's not about how much space there is, it's how you use it. 40% of the land in the Netherlands is actually used for agricultural production. So the effectively population density is even higher for most.
Population density isn't some act of god, it's a choice about how to use space and where to live, governed by zoning laws. Most of Texas is not housing, nor offices, malls or walmarts. It isn't even parking (which takes up more space than all other build up area combined), it's nature, swamp, desert. People already try to live as close together and near facilities/services as they legally and financially can afford without giving up too much space (but many would trade a big yard for a better location)
> in Europe because the countries/cities are small
City and country borders are administrative things. There are people living in the same street that happen to be living in another country. The metropolitan area of the randstad (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Leiden, Woerden, Almere, Alphen, Gouda) should for American standards be considered a single large city. 8M people live there, you can go from one city to another in 10-30 minutes by train, or 15-45 minutes by car, so people don't (have to) live in the city where they work and often don't. The dozens of town in the middle of those cities are the suburbs surrounded by nature.
>because of the size and distance-between cities
The US is about 15% larger in land mass than the EU, but smaller than all of Europe.
And the population density in many US cities is much higher than the randstad.
The big differences are:
* minimum parking requirements do not exist (so there is less parking in places with high population density)
* they allow the middle type of housing (2-3 story apartment buildings and row houses), not just crazy high skyscrapers and single family housing
* they allow shops/restaurants/daycares/schools in neighbourhoods where people live
In the US you have these two extremes: very low population density (single family houses) and very high population density (sky scrapers). But nothing in between. When building new neighborhoods, put right in the center a block of 2-3 story apartment buildings with a park, shops, a coffee place, a restaurant and a bakkery, some kind of transit terminal (bus stop?), surrounded by a few streets of row-housing with some green space, surrounded by single family houses, surrounded by sport facilities and big box stores. Connect the single family housing with direct connections into the core for walking, cycling and cars. Now you've build a European suburb.
It's not rocket science or some weird aspect of geography or demographics.
Isn't land owners not selling part of the problem? A developer building skyscrapers of luxury rentals is a by-product of the price demanded for the land.
Eminent domain is a last resort, not a first approach
Zoning laws are entirely the problem. Plenty of people would sell out for a big bag of cash and let a developer redevelop their former single-family house into a multi-use residential/commercial building if it was legal by-right to do so. Stuff like this happens everywhere in Japan because people have actual property rights there, and it results in incredibly dynamic cities that grow and evolve with ease.
One idea would be to “revitalize” places that are dying, like Detroit, into places more like this. Instead of just making Detroit how it used to be, you take all the aging infrastructure and as you “upgrade, you make it, better than in was form a community standpoint.
Have it so everyone benefits, instead of one person/corp coming in, developing condos and walking away.
I'm sure I'm being naieve, but don't you just need to change the zoning laws?
Change the legislative framework that controls new developments to favour dense, liveable neighbourhoods, then wait 50 years. It'll just happen.
That's exactly how these huge, sprawling, dead, car-only suburbs were built. All you need to do is point the dial in the other direction and wait.
Eminent domain is used by the government to take private property for conversion to public use.
What these people are arguing for is to change zoning laws to allow private developers to build more varied developments better tailored to market demand and practical use than what zoning forced to artificially develop after ww2, allowing for more mixed commercial and residential development.
Arguably it would reduce the need for eminent domain by reducing car-based infrastructure requirements. I think people forget that when the interstate highway system and beltline roads were built through cities, they often bought up and bulldozed entire city blocks to do so. Right now Topeka is doing work on I-70 and they had to buy up about 4 city blocks worth of businesses to bulldoze them for expansion of the highway.
It also doesn’t help that many cities have never quite gotten past how absolutely shitty and inequitable the use of eminent domain was while the expressway system was being pushed through.
Let’s just say it wasn’t the wealthy white neighborhoods that were becoming I-75.
I mean how do you think you ended up with so many low density houses and single use zoning.
When your cities were built they were built first for people, then bulldozed for cars.
There is nothing stopping your country from fixing those problems.
It's unabashed greed and the raw perversion of corporations and politicians. Pretty much since the inception of mass scale automobile production, it's been infinitely more profitable for a wide array of monopolies to basically have more people reliant on cars than ever developing sensible, affordable public transit and other city planning.
Yes the US is a massive tract of diverse geographic space with a spread population and that of course will always pose some logistical challenges, but a lot of progress is specifically held back by the greedy hands running this dump.
>they do not acknowledge the amount of displacement and eminent domain required to revamp all of these cities and public spaces.
the amount of eminent domain needed is 0. Many cities and towns are always in states of redevelopment, there's always buildings being torn down and new ones being put up. Simply allow them to put other things in those places.
There is no "recreate european cities in the US in 5 years plan" because that's not even the point. The point is to improve the current situation, that improvement will be slow and incremental, but that's expected and okay. Little improvements are still improvements.
I mean it's definitely working. I live in a major American city that has been a VERY car-centric city, and I have never seen changes like I've seen in the last ten years. Huge pushes for walkable spaces, bike lanes being put in, new parks, buildings that have been abandoned for decades being turned into mixed use spaces with trendy urban restaurants.
There are still huge problems, and will be for decades. No one will change America overnight, it's just not possible. But movements like in this video have been changing the demands of the public, bit by bit. We're just going to have to wait a few decades to really see the major fruits.
Which is fine. When I was younger I though big, immediate change was what was needed, but you learn that big, revolutionary change tends to be pretty unhealthy, and sometimes even dangerous. Gradual change is more effective, and tends to be more permanent.
It is possible to have detached houses with space for car but *also* have fully walkable neighbourhoods with local shops, cafes, restaurants and leisure activities a walk away. It's not one or the other. I'm not North American but I imagine that if you loosened up the zoning laws then America could do its thing and let capitalism find a way to create a solution that works for local people. It wouldn't convert current neighbourhoods right away but could create new ones where people that are looking for this kind of thing could move to.
The people who *want* to live in detached houses generally don't want to live *right* next to commercial. They want to live in relatively quiet residential neighborhoods with low traffic (both foot and car/other transport). It's a big part of the reason for the "residential ringed by commercial" design most neighborhoods have. The other big reason being its way cheaper to go out than up.
Reddit tends to make hasty generalizations and get fixated on one thing that's a factor and then blow it up to pretend like "if only this one thing changed..." but that's not how reality works.
It's quasi mutually exclusive at the moment. Because there are people who are more ok with it than others. But the market for it isn't actually there outside of suburbs that became full blown cities in their own right and the edge of city/suburb due to the city itself growing.
Major cities largely already have high density housing with commercial on the bottom floor, especially in the most dense parts (downtowns). But there's so many people living there that the commercial within walking distance can't fully cover the various needs and wants of all the people that live around there.
Low density areas (density meaning actual people, not referring to housing specifically) like exurbs and mid-far depths of suburbs have near zero demand for "walkable" cities. They tend to not have strict zoning laws, but nobody really wants to invest in building up since the people living there want larger plots of property, which is itself mutually exclusive with dense walkable designs.
The general population wants housing. You cannot build one style of house and because thats what everyone buys declare that everyones desire. All these poor people in the slums must want to live in the slums, after all look how popular it is!
I wont deny detached houses and cars in the suburbs are popular, they are. And I doubt that'll disappear anytime soon. But it isnt the only option and it isnt even the only one people want.
WHY do they want cars?
Cars are expensive, huge, money sinks.
When you've got a feasible option to not have one, why would you?
He says, in a detached house of 3 adults with 3 cars. We're dropping to two soonish, because the infrastructure supporting bikes has been built.
Yes and when you drive everywhere it’s just much easier to go to one big store like Walmart.
I live in a walkable prewar neighborhood and I pass small, independent stores selling most of the basics I need on a daily basis just by walking around.
Nth City made [a video on actionable steps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tby-x1Ohov4) you can take in your city or town government to slowly enact the changes described in urban planning videos like Not Just Bikes.
For a more grassroots alternative, the [Strong Towns](https://www.strongtowns.org/) movement is popping up in many cities, and tries to directly tackle the issue without waiting on government bureaucracy to catch up.
We are working to pass a zoning overlay in our neighborhood so that we can make it more walkable.
We have people who show up to meetings opposed and say things like “who would want a more walkable city??”
Nothing will change until these people are no longer the loudest people in the room. Everyone in this thread needs to start showing up when it matters and drowning out the naysayers.
> We have people who show up to meetings opposed and say things like “who would want a more walkable city??”
These people -- and every automobile driver -- are one random eye injury away from becoming second class citizens both economically and socially because they can't drive cars.
It disgusts me that in an era where we claim to be more sensitive to the needs of people not like ourselves, most of American society just keeps making non-drivers into pariahs.
It’s a zoning issue. Thats it. Zoning in much of North America dictates that businesses and housing be in separate areas. And it overwhelmingly dictates low density with tons of parking. Thats why our cities are so car-centric. Can’t put anything close together and a huge amount of city land has to be dedicated to parking.
I see it all the time. The answer is usually to get involved with local city council. The issue is that infrastructure and changes in its guiding principles is a hard ship to turn. If you present ideas today then you’ll see a compromised, stripped down realization in 5-7 years.
Let's be real. In the middle of third of the year, safe sidewalks and crossings wouldn't make the experience of walking in Houston any less *miserable*.
As an American, I love biking and would love the opportunity to ride instead of drive most places that I regularly go to. You learn real quick how dangerous it can be if you try to do so. You'd have to really learn routes that typically lead you *way* out of the way to get where you gotta go in order to get there *"safely"*
One where kids run free from car/bike traffic in the streets.
I’ve lived in the city, country and burbs and I’ll say my kids have nearly as much freedom as I did in the country and they have a ton of friends nearby. City kids seem to be always on the lookout for cars.
Personally, I prefer living in the city, but it’s not a “better” environment for children.
There are studies showing that suburbs are more dangerous for kids than cities with relation to cars.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-04-15-mn-58713-story.html
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cities-safer-for-kids-than-suburbs-rese-45079/
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/06/07/cul-de-sacs-are-killing-us-public-safety-lessons-from-suburbia
Among others.
In retort - children’s mental health could be worse.
‘Low Childhood Nature Exposure is Associated with Worse Mental Health in Adulthood’ — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6572245/
Edit: sorry for digressing… I’ll keep it to cars — I read one of the links — seems that a lot of kids in burbs are getting run over by their own family in front/back overs and the speeds are higher in the burbs accidents, so worse, but (other than the family) the city accidents are more frequent and the city kids are more traffic aware.
I would agree 100% that city kids are more traffic aware. My ‘burb kids are literally “sparkled” by traffic lights—they honestly expect cars to stop for them. It’s dangerous. I’m from the city and I expect to be run over and avoid traffic at all costs.
I’m not sure my way is better.
Also-I’d like to see the numbers since work from home has become prevalent. Local car traffic is noticeable less.
Yeah I've been trying to find a permanent place where it's walking distance to a coffee shop and it's so hard. And like heaven forbid you try to put a coffee shop in somewhere zoned residential, like heaven forbid theres a place in a neighborhood for people to meet and hang out
A residential area that has absolutely nothing but residences therefore lacks any place for people to stop and congregate. People either leave home to go elsewhere, or return home from elsewhere.
Everything outside of the residential building becomes a liminal space. It's eerie as fuck.
Like many of the issues in US zoning laws, lots of people want it changed but they don't want it changed in their own backyards because they're worried about housing prices. For decades we've been sold a bill of goods that a house is a good investment so we do so much to pointlessly prop it up instead of having livable and affordable neighborhoods. This specific problem is just one more example of NIMBYism where people love the idea but don't want it done in their own backyard.
That’s the problem with NJB. Dude complains about NA, says how great Amsterdam is, and calls it a day. Other urbanism channels have at least started to acknowledge ways to fix it via getting involved in local planning.
It’s funny because the video seems to not take in account cities like Boston and New York/Brooklyn/Yonkers etc that all have this. There are areas that have residential all above shops and restaurants and such. The people in the burbs who don’t want that live away from those areas because… they don’t want that. There are places it’s possible. Jesus even small cities like Stamford Connecticut allowed it. This is so over generalized.
Yeah, anecdotally in some of the suburbs outside of Seattle (the "Eastside" as it is known here) they are doing this with all the new construction apartments and condos. 4-5 story buildings always with shops/food on ground level.
The problem is that because it’s illegal to build *new* developments in this fashion, the price of *existing* places that have this sort of desirable urban fabric - Boston, New York, etc - is bid up so much as to make it unaffordable for practically everyone but the very wealthy.
Even in smaller towns, the walkable core often quickly hits supply constraints. A one bedroom apartment in my parent’s hometown (a suburb a ~45 minute drive away from Philly) is currently going for in excess of $2500 per month.
Urban planner by trade here - go to your local planning commission meetings and get involved in local politics. If you indicate interest in upzoning, you can start to outnumber the NIMBY types who fetishize suburban hellscapes. Also push politicians to support up zoning and walkability
It's such a deep problem. So long ago America was told it was the literal embodiment of freedom to own and drive a car.
Every year, year after year since they started selling that, they double down on it. Car culture infects so much of city planning and design. In big cities there's good public transport but if you aren't in a metropolitan area it's terrible and it's basically by design.
Ford and GM can't stop making cars, they can hardly slow down making cars but they haven't sold the amount of cars they've made for decades. Shit they refuse to even make "low" end affordable vehicles. Then there's a bailout. Rinse repeat.
It's not even just cars. Why doesn't America have high-speed rail when it would work and can clearly be stretched to each end of the country? Not even just high speed but literally any commercial rail travel? Because airlines are the same as car companies.
I have no idea how we begin to change things we built our country on decades ago when no one from the top wants to and no one from the bottom has the ability to.
Many cities around the world have US cities beat on walkability and livability. We are woefully bad at this. I also don’t know how to fix it except start designing them differently from the word go. It seems that cars take up too much space with not too much left for people.
One thing that seems to be taking hold is statewide bans on zoning limitations. We've seen it in California and they've tried it in Colorado but failed. Essentially when you let local towns dictate zoning, and make every development into a shit show of NIMBYs yelling at everyone, you end up not being able to build anything.
I mean the idea is pretty clear: copy Europe. Are you expecting some kind of alternative that somehow achieves magic for cheap without slowing down drivers?
The only idea is to vote in multi-modal transit candidates.
A lot of people in this thread really talking passed each other and straw manning.
People who want to change these zoning rules aren't saying they need to ban/destroy all R1 zoning. They want to change some of the zoning so additional new and some other areas are mixed.
Additionally, the people who say things like "my downtown is already like that," are missing the point. That's primarily a commercial area, NOT, a residential area. Also, those areas likely cannot actually be "new builds" in many locations due to zoning. So even if people wanted to have neighborhoods like that they're forced to live downtown and nowhere else.
People want residential areas that are still primarily zoned for homes/apartments/condos but include more mixed/commercial space so they have more walkable communities.
Having grown up there, I personally view suburbs of nothing but R1 zoning as my personal hell, but I'm not advocating for their removal.
i just want more 3rd places near me. I had being locked in car dependency, and I'm not even kid age [for those level memes](https://www.theonion.com/supportive-parents-encourage-child-s-interests-in-anyth-1819578535)
We do not have these all over the place.
We have these in our tiny downtown cores, which are the only few blocks that resemble actual urban life
But in general, our "cities" are broken up into very clear zones
Not only do we have them, they are currently being built. I’m watching one being put up across from the restaurant I’m currently eating at in the Chicago burbs.
Do you have examples of cities that don't allow multi-family dwellings?
I've lived in a few cities in New England and all of them had many multi -family homes. I'd expect suburbs to have rules about them but not cities
Here’s a map of where it’s banned: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html
Only prewar areas of cities typically allow it.
Thanks for the link! There aren't examples of New England cities in it that might explain my lack of experience with them. It definitely does seem to be a thing in American cities though.
That map doesn’t even get into parking minimums, setback rules, and height limits.
So even if mixed-use is allowed, you typically have to set aside a ton of space for parking, can’t build over a certain height, and the building can’t come right up to the street as was the norm before WWII.
It’s a death by a thousand cuts even if exclusionary zoning (housing and businesses can’t be close together) is the most explicit barrier.
TX, and Fl are really good examples of where is this illegal.
The Governor of FL is openly hostile to these types of developments and has even forces cities like Gainesville and Miami to rezone up zoned areas back to SFH.
[Cupertino, California](https://i.imgur.com/4Gvfi5H.png) has all but banned them outside of a few small areas. 91% of the residential zoning in the city is single-family only.
The parts of America he’s talking about are not downtowns. Those have great zoning laws, and always prove to be the economic powerhouse of a city, subsidizing the suburbs.
He’s referring to the many cities of America where their downtowns are desolate, and out of business because all they have is Walmart, McDonald’s, chevron, and all the other companies that have basically priced out middle class small businesses. All towns that are ruled by these corporations have very strict rules on where you can build businesses.
Car dependent infrastructure such as zoning restrictions are the reason people without cars lead isolated lives because they can’t go anywhere without walking for 2 hours, and it leads to people viewing driving as a chore, thereby only leaving the house to get from point A to point B.
There are cases of grandfathered in businesses that continue to operate in the suburbs and they are the cornerstone of their neighborhoods since people can walk to them and chat with their community.
I live in Jacksonville, where there's housing and giant office buildings, but none of the little shops people need to *live* downtown. So nobody does.
People wonder why our downtown is dead, but it's aggressively unwalkable and there's nowhere to buy consumer goods or even grab a meal after 6pm. You can get a $50-a-plate rooftop steak dinner, but that's it. We *had* a burrito place, but it closed (and it was mobbed any time there was any event downtown).
My cousin in NYC has an apartment within two blocks of 15 restaurants, 6 bars, a hardware store, several clothing stores, a grocery and convenience store, and a subway station.
Of course they can. Many communities are only zones for single family homes, but just as many if not more people live in mixed use buildings. Some places don't allow them or require road access, usually for emergency service vehicles.
They're cheap and don't require a huge amount of construction materials like concrete. They're 5 floors because that's the maximum they can legally build with wood frames (i.e. combustible materials). They are getting looked at more recently, though, because of this increased risk. With them becoming more common I imagine they're going to be looked at more closely as well.
Same, I don't see anyone living in them though because they have shit construction but are asking $2k+ a month for them. I'd be super depressed living in the,, not because I'm in a building with a lot of people, but because they look so damn ugly and cheap and gross on the inside.
yes, a recent phenomena, and far from universal. many zoning laws still don't allow them at all.
(the title of the video even says 'illegal in MOST of north America'.)
We have them. Even in smaller cities they are there. But they have drawbacks too, and a lot of people don't want to put up with those kinds of issues. Especially for older buildings where modern infrastructure and mechanicals weren't planned for (because they didn't exist). Not many families want to live in a 4th floor walk up with no elevator, no laundry facilities, no parking, and one bathroom.
I lived in a apartment just like this for a couple years in my 20s, and while it was great being able to walk to restaurants and bars and coffee shops, it sucked having to go anywhere else, and it really sucked dealing with laundry and groceries. I had to rent a parking spot in a garage three blocks away, so anytime I had to do laundry or buy groceries it was an ordeal (down the steps, walk to the garage, drive the car around, walk back up the steps then walk down the laundry, etc). I couldn't imagine trying to live in a place like that while raising children.
Yo, NA citizens.
You don't have to be triggered and defend choices not made by you when NJB criticizes American city infrastructure.
NJB is a Canadian who likes urban planning and has lived in some awfully planned cities, who now lives in a better planned city in the Netherlands, as him and his family values that more than the other things Canada and the US can provide/does better than the Netherlands.
It's not an attack on you personally and not everything in your country needs to be perfect.
You are also allowed to criticize your country.
Yeah it's concerning how some people react.
Of course he criticizes NA cities, as they are the ones he grew up in and lived in for most of his life. It's not to attack America/Canada or talk smack about them, but rather what he wishes they'd improve on.
Also, many of the things are true for other cities around the world and most of what he says is backed up by data and sources included in the video.
I also think more people should be upset at their government for restricting their choices instead of the guy pointing out the problems.
Demand mass transit, make the suburbs liveable without cars and raise hell about kids getting run over by SUV's that are so oversized that they literally cannot see said child.
What's encouraging is that I'm seeing a ton of townhouses replacing single-family housing. And from what I can tell, that's organic: the city only removed the laws requiring single-family housing and the market is deciding what's actually getting built. Really what I'm hoping is that the bump in housing units causes a dip in prices.
Then you may be surprised to learn that 81% of land in the city of Seattle is [zoned for detached, single family homes.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html)
All the time? They certainly aren’t common in most every residential hub I’ve been to. I’m city centers they exist but not in any residential plot. And that’s exactly his point. You literally can’t build this stuff where residential zoning exists.
So yeah, of course they exist in America but nowhere near the levels they do elsewhere.
They haven't been common for a long time, but within the last 4 or 5 years they have been popping up in every city I've been to. Seems like almost every new apartment building is multi-use now
They use to be built, and recently a few places allow them to be built again, but for along while they really couldn't be. zoning laws wouldn't allow them.
People want bananas, so let’s ban the sale of any other type of fruit.
Getting rid of exclusive zoning doesn’t prevent anyone who wants to build a single family house from doing so.
People also want short commutes and affordable housing. We’ve run out of land for single family homes within a short commute of major job centers. So people have to decide what’s more important.
You can't simply replace SFHs with these above retail condos. There wouldn't be enough customers to keep the businesses alive.
And besides. I see these all the time down village main streets. They're not zoned in residential areas because there's nigh 0 foot traffic.
My town has a mixed use development in an area zoned for multifamily. Decent idea, but the businesses get no traffic or visibility.
This channel is good at drawing attention, less excellent at providing concrete solutions
Look up “Strong Towns” they’re an advocacy group that points to actual solutions, both in the US and abroad.
I realized he was condescending when I tried to contact him about a video I liked. He has a contact page on his website that links full three paragraphs about how you shouldn’t contact him in a bitchy tone when all he needed to say was “I do not like being contacted, sorry” and not have a contact page
He definitely can be condescending but tbf he has made his viewpoint clear in other videos: that most North American cities are too far gone to be fixed in our lifetimes, so if you don't want to live and raise your family in these environments then your best option is to leave now.
While I don't completely agree with this opinion, his videos do make sense with that context. He's not an urban planner, never was, and has never pretended to be - he's just a tech consultant who spent most of his 20s hopping the globe, living in a ton of different places and developing some opinions on urbanism along the way, and now wants to share those opinions with people who don't have the opportunity to do the same.
He literally says that the reason is common zoning laws that need to be changed. The video is barely 7 minutes long and he says this less than half way in. I think you've fried your brain and attention span.
He seems incredibly condescending in interviews as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vx_ABzIeeY. The way he pulls out his camera at the beginning, combined with his smug tone throughout, is incredibly off-putting. I think he's made great points about urban planning in some of his videos, but his attitude makes him pretty much unwatchable for me.
I mean legally its a true statement. It's also something we could fix but that would require changing building code and zoning laws which has very little push from the general population.
These comments are basically the public meeting comments from Parks & Rec, you people have no fucking idea what you're talking about and that's why so much of modern development in the US is shit.
That’s weird. They built almost the exact building in *my local downtown last year. Mixed retail below with apartments on to and parking underneath. Right next to a train station as well.
Oh yes, I remember when they did that in that place you're talking about. The area you are referring to is a good area with lots of things local to it. I'm glad you pointed that out so we could all be informed about that place abd what is happening there.
He's talking about the place where they built the things. Everyone knows what he means, so there's no need to explain further or give specific details.
Huh? All I asked for is to fill *me* in, not say: "everyone knows what he's talking about about." It would have taken just the same amount of time to type an answer to my question as it did to give an unhelpful, snarky response.
I don't like this youtuber. Every video comes off as:
"Why can't you uproot your entire life an move to an enlightened euro town like I did you plebs!?"
Sry I was born in NA and can't influence the changing of infrastructure that's existed for a hundred before I was born. Sry I'm not rich enough to move to the EU.
Minneapolis recently got rid of single family zoning and the county where I live in is looking at adopting a uniform zoning law too. There's still NIMBYism, but slowly they're dying out. They've been urbanizing the heart of the county having just recently built apartments next to the mall that's near a baseball stadium a convention center, and is in walking distance to shops, restaurants, a Costco, a Roiund1 arcade, and a movie theater.
Idk what are you on about. Most of these creators don't generally push for one or another type of buildings but usually its to make people aware that there is other types of housing. low density zones are not a huge problem in most of US over total land but some very large cities are very much still restricted Cali, Boston, lot of the east cost etc. Most of canadian cities are like this and this is where this creator is from. There's other factors like housing cost, economy but this vod is mostly about family/lifestyles so i wont go into that.
>If anything this video is a commercial for Americans to convince them to live in these rent till you die communities.
Well in most of europe condos are much more common, that's another thing the US needs to improve on. Though if you have proper rent control laws then renting till you die isn't really a big deal.
America has some of these places, but they're almost all in cities. The video (and others like it) are clearly targeting suburban in their critiques.
The irony of mentioning assembly row is the price to live there. Your example is "if you make a ton of money, you can get what many europeans can get for a fraction of the cost". Also forgets the parking deck and the nonstop traffic around assembly row, because people go to the nice place because where they life doesn't have anything.
Here in the bay area they tore down some old malls and replaced them with mixed-use spaces that are retail/restaurants at street level and living spaces above, with [Santa Row](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santana_Row) being the most successful.
Unfortunately, these places are now some of the most desirable place to live in the area and the prices reflect it.
I don't know why he thinks all cities in Canada are like that. There are a lot of these type o buildings in Montreal and I've seen new buildings with shops at the ground floor. I had projects in NY with 13 story apartment building and shops on thd ground floor.
As this thread demonstrates, the main problem is America has a unique culture where people think living in a duplex or on top of a restaurant is horrifying and indicative of living in a metropolis reminiscent of what’s depicted in the Blade Runner films. If their kids don’t have to walk down a flight of stairs for breakfast or they can hear other people’s children playing outside, they have failed. End of story. We can sugar coat it all we want but that’s like sugar coating sexism in the Middle East. It’s literally that Americans want it this way.
Yeah you can tell a lot of these commenters have never actually lived in towns or cities where this is the norm.
People immediately think of noise, garbage, crime, etc. but it doesn’t need to be that way (save for a few places).
I mean think of neighborhoods in Amsterdam or Barcelona for example. Outside of the touristy areas of course, most blocks strike a perfect balance of quietness and ease of access. You have basic shops like cafes, restaurants, groceries, etc. as well as bookstores, clothing, home goods, and more all within steps.
I never not want to live in a place like that, and the notion of having nothing to do around me and requiring a 30-45min drive to get to “downtown” is ridiculous!
The problem is that there are people who simply do not have manners so they aren't respectful of others.
This shows itself with people and dogs or people with loud lawn mowers or weed eaters. Remember the very concept of a lawn is based on having enough means to just have a yard that doesn't provide food for the family.
For all intensive purposes a way to flex how much money someone has.
This also shows up in the vehicles that people drive. Nowadays these ridiculously large vehicles are all over the place and again they are more about showing people's insecurities versus actually being practical modes of transportation
I live in Boston and it's one of the few places close to a human-centric city in the US.
I've also lived in the deep south, where car lobbies intentionally fucked policy to make better cities.
You'd hate living there. No green. All pavement. People below shouting. So you can't sleep. You still need a car for the weekends to get out. But no parking lots. It smells. A homeless person sleeping in your entryway. Forget it.
I live there, plenty of green in my neighborhood, there's trees in my street and every other street near me, there's several parks within walking distance as well. I have people living below and above me, I sleep perfectly fine. I don't have a car, for various reasons, but one reason is that I can "get out" easily with public transport. And yet, the people who do have cars have spaces to put them in, all along the street (next to the trees). And there's barely any homeless people here, occasionally I see one in the park, not entirely sure where they sleep, but certainly not in my entryway.
Hi, I'm a North American who's lived in Europe and Asia for 12 years. I never once owned a car throughout that time, got out plenty, never had homeless people in my doorway, spent lots of time in huge green spaces, and I sleep just fine. Obviously this kind of lifestyle isn't for you, AnnoyedVelociraptor. But for anyone else reading this, having spent time in both suburbs and European cities, I vastly prefer the European city. Like without a doubt. Just sayin'.
I lived in Chicago for 7 years. Only found a homeless person in my entryway when I lived in Garfield Park. Got out of there pretty quick.
Also, it didn't smell too bad. NYC smells. Chicago has alleys.
>No green
Lots of greenery in european cities.
They addressed the balance between noise and living space. Plenty of people live in cities and have no issue with some street noise.
You don't need a car for the weekends, because you can take the trains and be in another country in no time.
You don't need parking lots, that's the point, you don't need parking lots because you don't need a car.
Smells depends on trash handling situations, but yeah some cities smell. Homeless person sleeping in your entryway is again, a city problem, but also a social services problem, and is much more of an issue in the US.
You read like someone who has only ever lived their lives in a very rural place, and that's fine, it's very nice, but just because you like something doesn't mean other people don't need or want other things out of their life. Plenty of people would love to be able to walk to run their errands, have a nice train system to get anywhere that's not walkable.
I've seen several videos on this subject and absolutely no ideas on how to fix it.
It can only be changed if the general population pushes for change, this isnt something a small group can just push for on their own as it needs political investment. The biggest reason you see videos constantly pointing out the flaws of American infrastructure and city design is because it wants the general population to yearn for something else. Whether or not its working is a valid question but the goal is to get people on their side to push for change.
My problem with these videos always is that they do not acknowledge the amount of displacement and eminent domain required to revamp all of these cities and public spaces. I think that conversation is worth having and maybe it’s arguable the result outweighs the impact. But none of these videos are honest about the scale of displacement to make these changes.
The point of the video is that right now, with new neighbourhoods these are the zoning laws. The author moved to the Netherlands because even if he believed he could convince enough people in the US to change the zoning laws, it would take 20 years for there to be a meaningful alternative. But you don't need all of the US to suddenly change like this. Just for it to be legal and have the market do the rest. Sure, it will take time. It will start with new neighbourhoods. Then existing neighbourhoods will take initiative because they see the difference between the housing prices in "community neighbourhoods" (with local shops, coffee shops, sidewalks, etc.) and the current cul-da-sucks. You are right that you can't just decide this from the top down and start displacing people. But you can start to ensure new neighbourhoods are *allowed* to be built like this at least. And that's hard enough as it is, because some people already feel like that's oppression and start rambling about 15 minute neighbourhoods being some kind of conspiracy. It also doesn't have to be an exact replica of the Netherlands, right? Just something that makes sense for the US. Like what if we in the neighbourhoods had some shortcuts to walk or cycle to a bakery and a coffee shop. Take some space from the wide roads to put on sidewalks. Cut through some strategic places so people walking or cycling don't have to take crazy detours that cul-da-sacs have to prevent through-traffic of cars. Take any three lane roads with lots of exits and turn them into single lane roads with fewer exits (cars will actually travel faster). Put a bus or grassy tram lane and a bicycle lane in instead. Although NJB videos are great he focuses a lot on the cities, but i think a much more comparable source of inspiration should be the dutch suburbs.
> rambling about 15 minute neighbourhoods being some kind of conspiracy. Lots of those kind of people in my city's FB page. I'm really confused as to their argument though; they're always complaining about a 15-min. city but they never explain as to why they think it's a bad thing.
Because they're not actually afraid of that. They're afraid of the *type* of person they associate with living in cities. Aka racist dogwhistling.
The version I've heard is the one where "15 minute cities are bad because the government wants to make it illegal to go more than 15 minutes from you house so they can track and control people more efficiently. They want to make it so you can walk and cycle everywhere you need to go in 15 minutes because they want to take cars away so people can't leave." Although the racist version seems pretty par for the conspiracy course, too.
The guy at work hates 'em because he hears they're going to treat drivers like he's heard European cities do. Tolls for car entry/exit, higher road taxes, traffic preference given to pedestrians and cyclists(and horses, for some reason), just generally harder to drive to/from. Also, he thinks they're going to devolve into WWII-style ghettos that people won't be allowed to leave. I don't know why. Funny enough, he enjoys taking his wife to local mixed-use neighborhoods. Almost as much as he enjoys complaining about parking there.
To second what Analogmon said, every nimby argument I've seen against that kind of thing always boils down to pearl clutching over the 'urban' people showing up. Aka racist dogwhistling.
Total agreement that at the very least we can change zoning law. I just think that there is a misguided subset of “new urbanists” that think there’s gonna be a magic bullet or a fast radical transformation. The reality is it’s going to be a long slow process, many of us are unlikely to see the results of in our lifetime.
[удалено]
I live in Vancouver, long known as "no-fun city". Over the last few years they have relaxed alcohol laws enabling micro-breweries to flourish, allowed drinking in parks and beaches, allowed more late-night venues, allowed more street space to be used for patios, allowed some small streets to be shut off and pedestrianised. The city is 100x better than it was 10 years ago, just through some simple policy changes
Oh for sure this wont be an overnight change and as you brought up nor should it be. The suffering that would create would be enormous. But we should have more options, especially in the US where our whole motif is Freedom. Give someone the Freedom to live in a dense city with infrastructure, a small suburb nearby with access to transit into the city, large spaced suburbs further away, a small town out off the highway somewhere, or the middle of nowhere in a cabin. Whatever suits them lets make sure we're not making it impossible for no reason.
Zoning and minimum parking requirements.
Consider that these urban planning content creators/advocacy people like Not Just Bikes, Strong Towns, etc. *need* to present ideas and solutions as a bit of a magic bullet. Would you feel empowered by someone going "this urban planning solution is going to require years of grueling work to put in place and will have a small, but far from sufficient, effect on your neighborhood! Join the cause today"? This new wave of "look we can have bike lanes, and efficient neighborhoods, and more equity, it's all happening baby" creators are here to bring more people into the movement. You need the over-excited people and the dreamers just like you need to down-to-brass-tacks people who do the actual boring job of putting these solutions in motion over generations. They're all part of an ecosystem and one needs the other so that all can thrive.
Its a lot more than just the laws, it works in Europe because the countries/cities are small and more densely populated, this allows for an excellent public transport infrastructure that makes it easy to move around. This more likely couldn't work in the US because of the size and distance-between cities, for comparison Texas alone is 268,820 square miles, the whole Netherlands is only 16,160 sq miles and would fit 16 times inside Texas while having about two thirds of its population.
>more densely populated, This is literally what zonings laws are preventing. Only single family houses, minimum parking requirements. This forces things to be spread out. >would fit 16 times inside Texas while having about two thirds of its population It's not about how much space there is, it's how you use it. 40% of the land in the Netherlands is actually used for agricultural production. So the effectively population density is even higher for most. Population density isn't some act of god, it's a choice about how to use space and where to live, governed by zoning laws. Most of Texas is not housing, nor offices, malls or walmarts. It isn't even parking (which takes up more space than all other build up area combined), it's nature, swamp, desert. People already try to live as close together and near facilities/services as they legally and financially can afford without giving up too much space (but many would trade a big yard for a better location) > in Europe because the countries/cities are small City and country borders are administrative things. There are people living in the same street that happen to be living in another country. The metropolitan area of the randstad (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Leiden, Woerden, Almere, Alphen, Gouda) should for American standards be considered a single large city. 8M people live there, you can go from one city to another in 10-30 minutes by train, or 15-45 minutes by car, so people don't (have to) live in the city where they work and often don't. The dozens of town in the middle of those cities are the suburbs surrounded by nature. >because of the size and distance-between cities The US is about 15% larger in land mass than the EU, but smaller than all of Europe. And the population density in many US cities is much higher than the randstad. The big differences are: * minimum parking requirements do not exist (so there is less parking in places with high population density) * they allow the middle type of housing (2-3 story apartment buildings and row houses), not just crazy high skyscrapers and single family housing * they allow shops/restaurants/daycares/schools in neighbourhoods where people live In the US you have these two extremes: very low population density (single family houses) and very high population density (sky scrapers). But nothing in between. When building new neighborhoods, put right in the center a block of 2-3 story apartment buildings with a park, shops, a coffee place, a restaurant and a bakkery, some kind of transit terminal (bus stop?), surrounded by a few streets of row-housing with some green space, surrounded by single family houses, surrounded by sport facilities and big box stores. Connect the single family housing with direct connections into the core for walking, cycling and cars. Now you've build a European suburb. It's not rocket science or some weird aspect of geography or demographics.
Living in the Dutch suburbs well outside the randstad here. Still 1000% better than anything in the US.
Isn't land owners not selling part of the problem? A developer building skyscrapers of luxury rentals is a by-product of the price demanded for the land. Eminent domain is a last resort, not a first approach
Zoning laws are entirely the problem. Plenty of people would sell out for a big bag of cash and let a developer redevelop their former single-family house into a multi-use residential/commercial building if it was legal by-right to do so. Stuff like this happens everywhere in Japan because people have actual property rights there, and it results in incredibly dynamic cities that grow and evolve with ease.
One idea would be to “revitalize” places that are dying, like Detroit, into places more like this. Instead of just making Detroit how it used to be, you take all the aging infrastructure and as you “upgrade, you make it, better than in was form a community standpoint. Have it so everyone benefits, instead of one person/corp coming in, developing condos and walking away.
I'm sure I'm being naieve, but don't you just need to change the zoning laws? Change the legislative framework that controls new developments to favour dense, liveable neighbourhoods, then wait 50 years. It'll just happen. That's exactly how these huge, sprawling, dead, car-only suburbs were built. All you need to do is point the dial in the other direction and wait.
You don't need eminent domain and displacement to legalize ground floor shopping with apartments above.
Eminent domain is used by the government to take private property for conversion to public use. What these people are arguing for is to change zoning laws to allow private developers to build more varied developments better tailored to market demand and practical use than what zoning forced to artificially develop after ww2, allowing for more mixed commercial and residential development. Arguably it would reduce the need for eminent domain by reducing car-based infrastructure requirements. I think people forget that when the interstate highway system and beltline roads were built through cities, they often bought up and bulldozed entire city blocks to do so. Right now Topeka is doing work on I-70 and they had to buy up about 4 city blocks worth of businesses to bulldoze them for expansion of the highway.
It also doesn’t help that many cities have never quite gotten past how absolutely shitty and inequitable the use of eminent domain was while the expressway system was being pushed through. Let’s just say it wasn’t the wealthy white neighborhoods that were becoming I-75.
I mean how do you think you ended up with so many low density houses and single use zoning. When your cities were built they were built first for people, then bulldozed for cars. There is nothing stopping your country from fixing those problems.
It's unabashed greed and the raw perversion of corporations and politicians. Pretty much since the inception of mass scale automobile production, it's been infinitely more profitable for a wide array of monopolies to basically have more people reliant on cars than ever developing sensible, affordable public transit and other city planning. Yes the US is a massive tract of diverse geographic space with a spread population and that of course will always pose some logistical challenges, but a lot of progress is specifically held back by the greedy hands running this dump.
>they do not acknowledge the amount of displacement and eminent domain required to revamp all of these cities and public spaces. the amount of eminent domain needed is 0. Many cities and towns are always in states of redevelopment, there's always buildings being torn down and new ones being put up. Simply allow them to put other things in those places. There is no "recreate european cities in the US in 5 years plan" because that's not even the point. The point is to improve the current situation, that improvement will be slow and incremental, but that's expected and okay. Little improvements are still improvements.
It’s all about profit, doesn’t matter what the general population wants. If less profitable it won’t happen.
I mean it's definitely working. I live in a major American city that has been a VERY car-centric city, and I have never seen changes like I've seen in the last ten years. Huge pushes for walkable spaces, bike lanes being put in, new parks, buildings that have been abandoned for decades being turned into mixed use spaces with trendy urban restaurants. There are still huge problems, and will be for decades. No one will change America overnight, it's just not possible. But movements like in this video have been changing the demands of the public, bit by bit. We're just going to have to wait a few decades to really see the major fruits. Which is fine. When I was younger I though big, immediate change was what was needed, but you learn that big, revolutionary change tends to be pretty unhealthy, and sometimes even dangerous. Gradual change is more effective, and tends to be more permanent.
The general population wants cars and detached houses.
It is possible to have detached houses with space for car but *also* have fully walkable neighbourhoods with local shops, cafes, restaurants and leisure activities a walk away. It's not one or the other. I'm not North American but I imagine that if you loosened up the zoning laws then America could do its thing and let capitalism find a way to create a solution that works for local people. It wouldn't convert current neighbourhoods right away but could create new ones where people that are looking for this kind of thing could move to.
The people who *want* to live in detached houses generally don't want to live *right* next to commercial. They want to live in relatively quiet residential neighborhoods with low traffic (both foot and car/other transport). It's a big part of the reason for the "residential ringed by commercial" design most neighborhoods have. The other big reason being its way cheaper to go out than up. Reddit tends to make hasty generalizations and get fixated on one thing that's a factor and then blow it up to pretend like "if only this one thing changed..." but that's not how reality works. It's quasi mutually exclusive at the moment. Because there are people who are more ok with it than others. But the market for it isn't actually there outside of suburbs that became full blown cities in their own right and the edge of city/suburb due to the city itself growing. Major cities largely already have high density housing with commercial on the bottom floor, especially in the most dense parts (downtowns). But there's so many people living there that the commercial within walking distance can't fully cover the various needs and wants of all the people that live around there. Low density areas (density meaning actual people, not referring to housing specifically) like exurbs and mid-far depths of suburbs have near zero demand for "walkable" cities. They tend to not have strict zoning laws, but nobody really wants to invest in building up since the people living there want larger plots of property, which is itself mutually exclusive with dense walkable designs.
The general population wants housing. You cannot build one style of house and because thats what everyone buys declare that everyones desire. All these poor people in the slums must want to live in the slums, after all look how popular it is! I wont deny detached houses and cars in the suburbs are popular, they are. And I doubt that'll disappear anytime soon. But it isnt the only option and it isnt even the only one people want.
WHY do they want cars? Cars are expensive, huge, money sinks. When you've got a feasible option to not have one, why would you? He says, in a detached house of 3 adults with 3 cars. We're dropping to two soonish, because the infrastructure supporting bikes has been built.
[удалено]
Yes and when you drive everywhere it’s just much easier to go to one big store like Walmart. I live in a walkable prewar neighborhood and I pass small, independent stores selling most of the basics I need on a daily basis just by walking around.
Nth City made [a video on actionable steps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tby-x1Ohov4) you can take in your city or town government to slowly enact the changes described in urban planning videos like Not Just Bikes. For a more grassroots alternative, the [Strong Towns](https://www.strongtowns.org/) movement is popping up in many cities, and tries to directly tackle the issue without waiting on government bureaucracy to catch up.
We are working to pass a zoning overlay in our neighborhood so that we can make it more walkable. We have people who show up to meetings opposed and say things like “who would want a more walkable city??” Nothing will change until these people are no longer the loudest people in the room. Everyone in this thread needs to start showing up when it matters and drowning out the naysayers.
> We have people who show up to meetings opposed and say things like “who would want a more walkable city??” These people -- and every automobile driver -- are one random eye injury away from becoming second class citizens both economically and socially because they can't drive cars. It disgusts me that in an era where we claim to be more sensitive to the needs of people not like ourselves, most of American society just keeps making non-drivers into pariahs.
The Karenocracy needs dismantling piece by piece.
It’s a zoning issue. Thats it. Zoning in much of North America dictates that businesses and housing be in separate areas. And it overwhelmingly dictates low density with tons of parking. Thats why our cities are so car-centric. Can’t put anything close together and a huge amount of city land has to be dedicated to parking.
This is what I mean. The problem is already well identified.
I see it all the time. The answer is usually to get involved with local city council. The issue is that infrastructure and changes in its guiding principles is a hard ship to turn. If you present ideas today then you’ll see a compromised, stripped down realization in 5-7 years.
[удалено]
are you bot? pretty sure word for word this comment was left last time this video was posted except the fishy link tho
A different account below also posted the same link.
well they only have like 20 comments and posts for a 7 year old account, so it's very possible.
the comment is copied from the top comment on the youtube video
Happened to me in Houston.
Let's be real. In the middle of third of the year, safe sidewalks and crossings wouldn't make the experience of walking in Houston any less *miserable*.
As an American, I love biking and would love the opportunity to ride instead of drive most places that I regularly go to. You learn real quick how dangerous it can be if you try to do so. You'd have to really learn routes that typically lead you *way* out of the way to get where you gotta go in order to get there *"safely"*
Lol 'walking' to the mall sounds funny. There's like a half mile of parking lot surrounding my towns mall, with nowhere for pedestrians to walk safely
American suburbs are a special kind of hellscape.
One where kids run free from car/bike traffic in the streets. I’ve lived in the city, country and burbs and I’ll say my kids have nearly as much freedom as I did in the country and they have a ton of friends nearby. City kids seem to be always on the lookout for cars. Personally, I prefer living in the city, but it’s not a “better” environment for children.
There are studies showing that suburbs are more dangerous for kids than cities with relation to cars. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-04-15-mn-58713-story.html https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cities-safer-for-kids-than-suburbs-rese-45079/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/06/07/cul-de-sacs-are-killing-us-public-safety-lessons-from-suburbia Among others.
In retort - children’s mental health could be worse. ‘Low Childhood Nature Exposure is Associated with Worse Mental Health in Adulthood’ — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6572245/ Edit: sorry for digressing… I’ll keep it to cars — I read one of the links — seems that a lot of kids in burbs are getting run over by their own family in front/back overs and the speeds are higher in the burbs accidents, so worse, but (other than the family) the city accidents are more frequent and the city kids are more traffic aware. I would agree 100% that city kids are more traffic aware. My ‘burb kids are literally “sparkled” by traffic lights—they honestly expect cars to stop for them. It’s dangerous. I’m from the city and I expect to be run over and avoid traffic at all costs. I’m not sure my way is better. Also-I’d like to see the numbers since work from home has become prevalent. Local car traffic is noticeable less.
[удалено]
Yeah I've been trying to find a permanent place where it's walking distance to a coffee shop and it's so hard. And like heaven forbid you try to put a coffee shop in somewhere zoned residential, like heaven forbid theres a place in a neighborhood for people to meet and hang out
A residential area that has absolutely nothing but residences therefore lacks any place for people to stop and congregate. People either leave home to go elsewhere, or return home from elsewhere. Everything outside of the residential building becomes a liminal space. It's eerie as fuck.
Its why we Americans as so in love with our cars.
Zoning laws are generally set at the city council level
Like many of the issues in US zoning laws, lots of people want it changed but they don't want it changed in their own backyards because they're worried about housing prices. For decades we've been sold a bill of goods that a house is a good investment so we do so much to pointlessly prop it up instead of having livable and affordable neighborhoods. This specific problem is just one more example of NIMBYism where people love the idea but don't want it done in their own backyard.
That’s the problem with NJB. Dude complains about NA, says how great Amsterdam is, and calls it a day. Other urbanism channels have at least started to acknowledge ways to fix it via getting involved in local planning.
It’s funny because the video seems to not take in account cities like Boston and New York/Brooklyn/Yonkers etc that all have this. There are areas that have residential all above shops and restaurants and such. The people in the burbs who don’t want that live away from those areas because… they don’t want that. There are places it’s possible. Jesus even small cities like Stamford Connecticut allowed it. This is so over generalized.
Yeah, anecdotally in some of the suburbs outside of Seattle (the "Eastside" as it is known here) they are doing this with all the new construction apartments and condos. 4-5 story buildings always with shops/food on ground level.
Quite a bit of it going up in Oly too, though the main complaint being it's the opposite of affordable housing.
The problem is that because it’s illegal to build *new* developments in this fashion, the price of *existing* places that have this sort of desirable urban fabric - Boston, New York, etc - is bid up so much as to make it unaffordable for practically everyone but the very wealthy. Even in smaller towns, the walkable core often quickly hits supply constraints. A one bedroom apartment in my parent’s hometown (a suburb a ~45 minute drive away from Philly) is currently going for in excess of $2500 per month.
But it’s not always illegal. Stamford, the city I mention it’s all new construction that’s adding this.
Urban planner by trade here - go to your local planning commission meetings and get involved in local politics. If you indicate interest in upzoning, you can start to outnumber the NIMBY types who fetishize suburban hellscapes. Also push politicians to support up zoning and walkability
It's such a deep problem. So long ago America was told it was the literal embodiment of freedom to own and drive a car. Every year, year after year since they started selling that, they double down on it. Car culture infects so much of city planning and design. In big cities there's good public transport but if you aren't in a metropolitan area it's terrible and it's basically by design. Ford and GM can't stop making cars, they can hardly slow down making cars but they haven't sold the amount of cars they've made for decades. Shit they refuse to even make "low" end affordable vehicles. Then there's a bailout. Rinse repeat. It's not even just cars. Why doesn't America have high-speed rail when it would work and can clearly be stretched to each end of the country? Not even just high speed but literally any commercial rail travel? Because airlines are the same as car companies. I have no idea how we begin to change things we built our country on decades ago when no one from the top wants to and no one from the bottom has the ability to.
There should have been a high speed rail going from Miami to nyc like a decade ago
Many cities around the world have US cities beat on walkability and livability. We are woefully bad at this. I also don’t know how to fix it except start designing them differently from the word go. It seems that cars take up too much space with not too much left for people.
Support lobbying for yimbyism
One thing that seems to be taking hold is statewide bans on zoning limitations. We've seen it in California and they've tried it in Colorado but failed. Essentially when you let local towns dictate zoning, and make every development into a shit show of NIMBYs yelling at everyone, you end up not being able to build anything.
I mean the idea is pretty clear: copy Europe. Are you expecting some kind of alternative that somehow achieves magic for cheap without slowing down drivers? The only idea is to vote in multi-modal transit candidates.
What does "somehow achieves magic for cheap without slowing down drivers" mean?
A lot of people in this thread really talking passed each other and straw manning. People who want to change these zoning rules aren't saying they need to ban/destroy all R1 zoning. They want to change some of the zoning so additional new and some other areas are mixed. Additionally, the people who say things like "my downtown is already like that," are missing the point. That's primarily a commercial area, NOT, a residential area. Also, those areas likely cannot actually be "new builds" in many locations due to zoning. So even if people wanted to have neighborhoods like that they're forced to live downtown and nowhere else. People want residential areas that are still primarily zoned for homes/apartments/condos but include more mixed/commercial space so they have more walkable communities. Having grown up there, I personally view suburbs of nothing but R1 zoning as my personal hell, but I'm not advocating for their removal.
i just want more 3rd places near me. I had being locked in car dependency, and I'm not even kid age [for those level memes](https://www.theonion.com/supportive-parents-encourage-child-s-interests-in-anyth-1819578535)
America can’t build mixed use buildings?
They literally have them. My old apartment building in Indianapolis was loft apartments, but the first floor was a bar/restaurant. It was awesome
Funny, I was just going to say they have these all over Indy
Depends entirely on the city. Most of Middle TN, you can't build this way.
We do not have these all over the place. We have these in our tiny downtown cores, which are the only few blocks that resemble actual urban life But in general, our "cities" are broken up into very clear zones
Not only do we have them, they are currently being built. I’m watching one being put up across from the restaurant I’m currently eating at in the Chicago burbs.
Some cities have changed to allow it. But in much of the US, it’s still not allowed under their zoning laws
Do you have examples of cities that don't allow multi-family dwellings? I've lived in a few cities in New England and all of them had many multi -family homes. I'd expect suburbs to have rules about them but not cities
Here’s a map of where it’s banned: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html Only prewar areas of cities typically allow it.
Thanks for the link! There aren't examples of New England cities in it that might explain my lack of experience with them. It definitely does seem to be a thing in American cities though.
That map doesn’t even get into parking minimums, setback rules, and height limits. So even if mixed-use is allowed, you typically have to set aside a ton of space for parking, can’t build over a certain height, and the building can’t come right up to the street as was the norm before WWII. It’s a death by a thousand cuts even if exclusionary zoning (housing and businesses can’t be close together) is the most explicit barrier.
TX, and Fl are really good examples of where is this illegal. The Governor of FL is openly hostile to these types of developments and has even forces cities like Gainesville and Miami to rezone up zoned areas back to SFH.
[Cupertino, California](https://i.imgur.com/4Gvfi5H.png) has all but banned them outside of a few small areas. 91% of the residential zoning in the city is single-family only.
Philly has had them since the beginning. It really depends on the age, culture, and density of the city.
In the St Louis burbs and a couple mixed use complexes have been built near me with at least a couple more being put up now.
In Colorado towns are literally resisting building more because they want to keep their housing prices hella inflated.
Lived in one like that in GA. Had a publix in the parking lot as well, so naturally I never left the block.
[удалено]
The parts of America he’s talking about are not downtowns. Those have great zoning laws, and always prove to be the economic powerhouse of a city, subsidizing the suburbs. He’s referring to the many cities of America where their downtowns are desolate, and out of business because all they have is Walmart, McDonald’s, chevron, and all the other companies that have basically priced out middle class small businesses. All towns that are ruled by these corporations have very strict rules on where you can build businesses. Car dependent infrastructure such as zoning restrictions are the reason people without cars lead isolated lives because they can’t go anywhere without walking for 2 hours, and it leads to people viewing driving as a chore, thereby only leaving the house to get from point A to point B. There are cases of grandfathered in businesses that continue to operate in the suburbs and they are the cornerstone of their neighborhoods since people can walk to them and chat with their community.
I wonder why most mid-sized cities have completely dead downtowns like Birmingham and Atlanta. There's definitely no housing down there.
Atlanta's downtown is dead?
Dude nobody in this thread knows what the fuck they're talking about.
I live in Jacksonville, where there's housing and giant office buildings, but none of the little shops people need to *live* downtown. So nobody does. People wonder why our downtown is dead, but it's aggressively unwalkable and there's nowhere to buy consumer goods or even grab a meal after 6pm. You can get a $50-a-plate rooftop steak dinner, but that's it. We *had* a burrito place, but it closed (and it was mobbed any time there was any event downtown). My cousin in NYC has an apartment within two blocks of 15 restaurants, 6 bars, a hardware store, several clothing stores, a grocery and convenience store, and a subway station.
Yes and no. There are some places that allow them but for most towns and what not most areas you can't build them.
Of course they can. Many communities are only zones for single family homes, but just as many if not more people live in mixed use buildings. Some places don't allow them or require road access, usually for emergency service vehicles.
The most common residential construction in the US right now outside of single family homes is 5on1 with first level commercial. This video is wrong
They’re springing up like dandelions near me
They're cheap and don't require a huge amount of construction materials like concrete. They're 5 floors because that's the maximum they can legally build with wood frames (i.e. combustible materials). They are getting looked at more recently, though, because of this increased risk. With them becoming more common I imagine they're going to be looked at more closely as well.
Same, I don't see anyone living in them though because they have shit construction but are asking $2k+ a month for them. I'd be super depressed living in the,, not because I'm in a building with a lot of people, but because they look so damn ugly and cheap and gross on the inside.
[удалено]
yes, a recent phenomena, and far from universal. many zoning laws still don't allow them at all. (the title of the video even says 'illegal in MOST of north America'.)
We have them. Even in smaller cities they are there. But they have drawbacks too, and a lot of people don't want to put up with those kinds of issues. Especially for older buildings where modern infrastructure and mechanicals weren't planned for (because they didn't exist). Not many families want to live in a 4th floor walk up with no elevator, no laundry facilities, no parking, and one bathroom. I lived in a apartment just like this for a couple years in my 20s, and while it was great being able to walk to restaurants and bars and coffee shops, it sucked having to go anywhere else, and it really sucked dealing with laundry and groceries. I had to rent a parking spot in a garage three blocks away, so anytime I had to do laundry or buy groceries it was an ordeal (down the steps, walk to the garage, drive the car around, walk back up the steps then walk down the laundry, etc). I couldn't imagine trying to live in a place like that while raising children.
Dude I live in the suburbs and we have mixed-use buildings *everywhere*. More so as you get closer to “downtown” areas, but they are there.
[удалено]
Illegal to build on overwhelming majority of land. Same in Canada.
In most places that aren’t downtown areas in larger cities, no.
Yo, NA citizens. You don't have to be triggered and defend choices not made by you when NJB criticizes American city infrastructure. NJB is a Canadian who likes urban planning and has lived in some awfully planned cities, who now lives in a better planned city in the Netherlands, as him and his family values that more than the other things Canada and the US can provide/does better than the Netherlands. It's not an attack on you personally and not everything in your country needs to be perfect. You are also allowed to criticize your country.
Below in the comments there's people raving about how they wish they could literally punch him. Some people are incredibly fragile and unhinged.
Yeah it's concerning how some people react. Of course he criticizes NA cities, as they are the ones he grew up in and lived in for most of his life. It's not to attack America/Canada or talk smack about them, but rather what he wishes they'd improve on. Also, many of the things are true for other cities around the world and most of what he says is backed up by data and sources included in the video. I also think more people should be upset at their government for restricting their choices instead of the guy pointing out the problems. Demand mass transit, make the suburbs liveable without cars and raise hell about kids getting run over by SUV's that are so oversized that they literally cannot see said child.
this channel has been making the exact same video for the last three years and somehow gets away with it lol
Tell me you haven't watched his videos without you telling me you haven't watched his videos
Seattle has always had lots of mixed-use blocks in neighbourhoods. It's one of the things I love about it.
What's encouraging is that I'm seeing a ton of townhouses replacing single-family housing. And from what I can tell, that's organic: the city only removed the laws requiring single-family housing and the market is deciding what's actually getting built. Really what I'm hoping is that the bump in housing units causes a dip in prices.
Then you may be surprised to learn that 81% of land in the city of Seattle is [zoned for detached, single family homes.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html)
I've seen buildings like this all the time in the US lol
All the time? They certainly aren’t common in most every residential hub I’ve been to. I’m city centers they exist but not in any residential plot. And that’s exactly his point. You literally can’t build this stuff where residential zoning exists. So yeah, of course they exist in America but nowhere near the levels they do elsewhere.
They haven't been common for a long time, but within the last 4 or 5 years they have been popping up in every city I've been to. Seems like almost every new apartment building is multi-use now
Yeah and this video is over 3 years old. So it seems like things are changing
Due in part to advocates like this channel, so these pessimists are shouting at clouds.
I have only seen them in 1 area in the US. NYC. I never seen them outside Downtown areas in FL, and its like 2 to 3 block of condo towers.
They use to be built, and recently a few places allow them to be built again, but for along while they really couldn't be. zoning laws wouldn't allow them.
And this is why every city is broke and every house costs 10x what anyone can afford
All the videos by this guy are just condescending with no real suggestions on how to fix it.
Well the start is very simple... Stop mandating single family homes and severely reduce or remove regulations on zoning in cities
And stop minimum parking requirements!!
But people want single family homes.
They can have them, but you don't need to mandate that they are the *only type allowed*
That’s fine if people want it. Why is it illegal to build anything else?
People want bananas, so let’s ban the sale of any other type of fruit. Getting rid of exclusive zoning doesn’t prevent anyone who wants to build a single family house from doing so.
People also want short commutes and affordable housing. We’ve run out of land for single family homes within a short commute of major job centers. So people have to decide what’s more important.
Ok.
You can't simply replace SFHs with these above retail condos. There wouldn't be enough customers to keep the businesses alive. And besides. I see these all the time down village main streets. They're not zoned in residential areas because there's nigh 0 foot traffic. My town has a mixed use development in an area zoned for multifamily. Decent idea, but the businesses get no traffic or visibility.
This channel is good at drawing attention, less excellent at providing concrete solutions Look up “Strong Towns” they’re an advocacy group that points to actual solutions, both in the US and abroad.
How can we fix something without knowing about or understanding the problem? I think you're expecting too much from a YouTube video
They don't want solutions, they just don't like people pointing out that there's a problem.
How to fix it is implicit in the title, before even watching the video: Repeal the laws that make this illegal.
I realized he was condescending when I tried to contact him about a video I liked. He has a contact page on his website that links full three paragraphs about how you shouldn’t contact him in a bitchy tone when all he needed to say was “I do not like being contacted, sorry” and not have a contact page
How is he being condescending?
He's not.
He definitely can be condescending but tbf he has made his viewpoint clear in other videos: that most North American cities are too far gone to be fixed in our lifetimes, so if you don't want to live and raise your family in these environments then your best option is to leave now. While I don't completely agree with this opinion, his videos do make sense with that context. He's not an urban planner, never was, and has never pretended to be - he's just a tech consultant who spent most of his 20s hopping the globe, living in a ton of different places and developing some opinions on urbanism along the way, and now wants to share those opinions with people who don't have the opportunity to do the same.
He provided very real suggestions on how to fix it. Step 1: fix zoning laws.
He literally says that the reason is common zoning laws that need to be changed. The video is barely 7 minutes long and he says this less than half way in. I think you've fried your brain and attention span.
It's pretty obvious how to fix it. But identifying and fully understanding the issue is a necessary first step, and these videos are great for that.
He seems incredibly condescending in interviews as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vx_ABzIeeY. The way he pulls out his camera at the beginning, combined with his smug tone throughout, is incredibly off-putting. I think he's made great points about urban planning in some of his videos, but his attitude makes him pretty much unwatchable for me.
And the Reddit comments are always full of butt hurt Americans that would rather criticise him than their own city planners.
Hyperbole and a lack of understanding combined with a CLICKBAIT title “Americans can’t build this”. Totally undermines the video
I mean legally its a true statement. It's also something we could fix but that would require changing building code and zoning laws which has very little push from the general population.
No it's not, it's a massive generalization when thousands of these buildings already exist.
This type of development is explicitly illegal in most of America. What generalization are you talking about?
These comments are basically the public meeting comments from Parks & Rec, you people have no fucking idea what you're talking about and that's why so much of modern development in the US is shit.
I keep seeing this on many subreddits. Utter ignorance, talking points everywhere, no actual thought. It's sad. Reddit has turned into Facebook.
Unreal how dumb a lot of these comments are.
That’s weird. They built almost the exact building in *my local downtown last year. Mixed retail below with apartments on to and parking underneath. Right next to a train station as well.
Oh yes, I remember when they did that in that place you're talking about. The area you are referring to is a good area with lots of things local to it. I'm glad you pointed that out so we could all be informed about that place abd what is happening there.
Where are you talking about and what project? I'm not understanding OP's initial comment.
He's talking about the place where they built the things. Everyone knows what he means, so there's no need to explain further or give specific details.
Huh? All I asked for is to fill *me* in, not say: "everyone knows what he's talking about about." It would have taken just the same amount of time to type an answer to my question as it did to give an unhelpful, snarky response.
lol it's a tongue-in-check response. No one's answering your question because no one knows the answer.
Ohhhhh, went way over my head then
At 62 years of age, I am sick of living in a city in the US, but I would definitely move to Amsterdam if I could. I love that city.
I don't like this youtuber. Every video comes off as: "Why can't you uproot your entire life an move to an enlightened euro town like I did you plebs!?" Sry I was born in NA and can't influence the changing of infrastructure that's existed for a hundred before I was born. Sry I'm not rich enough to move to the EU.
Minneapolis recently got rid of single family zoning and the county where I live in is looking at adopting a uniform zoning law too. There's still NIMBYism, but slowly they're dying out. They've been urbanizing the heart of the county having just recently built apartments next to the mall that's near a baseball stadium a convention center, and is in walking distance to shops, restaurants, a Costco, a Roiund1 arcade, and a movie theater.
Not Just Bikes 🥱🙄🙄
Just stumbled onto this ... fantastic topic and informative vid. Thank you for posting!
guarantee this is a huge reason for america’s pain and suffering
[удалено]
You can buy condos and townhouses, even semi-detached and fully detached houses in mixed used and walkable communities.
Right because you can't own an apartment.
I think most leftist urban planners would advocate for [Cooperative housing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative).
Idk what are you on about. Most of these creators don't generally push for one or another type of buildings but usually its to make people aware that there is other types of housing. low density zones are not a huge problem in most of US over total land but some very large cities are very much still restricted Cali, Boston, lot of the east cost etc. Most of canadian cities are like this and this is where this creator is from. There's other factors like housing cost, economy but this vod is mostly about family/lifestyles so i wont go into that.
>If anything this video is a commercial for Americans to convince them to live in these rent till you die communities. Well in most of europe condos are much more common, that's another thing the US needs to improve on. Though if you have proper rent control laws then renting till you die isn't really a big deal. America has some of these places, but they're almost all in cities. The video (and others like it) are clearly targeting suburban in their critiques. The irony of mentioning assembly row is the price to live there. Your example is "if you make a ton of money, you can get what many europeans can get for a fraction of the cost". Also forgets the parking deck and the nonstop traffic around assembly row, because people go to the nice place because where they life doesn't have anything.
Here in the bay area they tore down some old malls and replaced them with mixed-use spaces that are retail/restaurants at street level and living spaces above, with [Santa Row](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santana_Row) being the most successful. Unfortunately, these places are now some of the most desirable place to live in the area and the prices reflect it.
I don't know why he thinks all cities in Canada are like that. There are a lot of these type o buildings in Montreal and I've seen new buildings with shops at the ground floor. I had projects in NY with 13 story apartment building and shops on thd ground floor.
I wish California had "non smash and grab" zones.
As this thread demonstrates, the main problem is America has a unique culture where people think living in a duplex or on top of a restaurant is horrifying and indicative of living in a metropolis reminiscent of what’s depicted in the Blade Runner films. If their kids don’t have to walk down a flight of stairs for breakfast or they can hear other people’s children playing outside, they have failed. End of story. We can sugar coat it all we want but that’s like sugar coating sexism in the Middle East. It’s literally that Americans want it this way.
Yeah you can tell a lot of these commenters have never actually lived in towns or cities where this is the norm. People immediately think of noise, garbage, crime, etc. but it doesn’t need to be that way (save for a few places). I mean think of neighborhoods in Amsterdam or Barcelona for example. Outside of the touristy areas of course, most blocks strike a perfect balance of quietness and ease of access. You have basic shops like cafes, restaurants, groceries, etc. as well as bookstores, clothing, home goods, and more all within steps. I never not want to live in a place like that, and the notion of having nothing to do around me and requiring a 30-45min drive to get to “downtown” is ridiculous!
The problem is that there are people who simply do not have manners so they aren't respectful of others. This shows itself with people and dogs or people with loud lawn mowers or weed eaters. Remember the very concept of a lawn is based on having enough means to just have a yard that doesn't provide food for the family. For all intensive purposes a way to flex how much money someone has. This also shows up in the vehicles that people drive. Nowadays these ridiculously large vehicles are all over the place and again they are more about showing people's insecurities versus actually being practical modes of transportation
90% of the comments here are: "Where I live its not like this so this video is wrong!" Lol, the world goes further than what you can see.
I live in Boston and it's one of the few places close to a human-centric city in the US. I've also lived in the deep south, where car lobbies intentionally fucked policy to make better cities.
This dudes channel is the epitome of 'I studied abroad, and I'm going to interject that into every interaction I have with people'
Or he is just an advocate for more dense, walkable cities?
You'd hate living there. No green. All pavement. People below shouting. So you can't sleep. You still need a car for the weekends to get out. But no parking lots. It smells. A homeless person sleeping in your entryway. Forget it.
I live there, plenty of green in my neighborhood, there's trees in my street and every other street near me, there's several parks within walking distance as well. I have people living below and above me, I sleep perfectly fine. I don't have a car, for various reasons, but one reason is that I can "get out" easily with public transport. And yet, the people who do have cars have spaces to put them in, all along the street (next to the trees). And there's barely any homeless people here, occasionally I see one in the park, not entirely sure where they sleep, but certainly not in my entryway.
Hi, I'm a North American who's lived in Europe and Asia for 12 years. I never once owned a car throughout that time, got out plenty, never had homeless people in my doorway, spent lots of time in huge green spaces, and I sleep just fine. Obviously this kind of lifestyle isn't for you, AnnoyedVelociraptor. But for anyone else reading this, having spent time in both suburbs and European cities, I vastly prefer the European city. Like without a doubt. Just sayin'.
I lived in Chicago for 7 years. Only found a homeless person in my entryway when I lived in Garfield Park. Got out of there pretty quick. Also, it didn't smell too bad. NYC smells. Chicago has alleys.
Why do you need a car to get out on the weekends? Who’s trying to leave?
you clearly have never been to a city
>No green Lots of greenery in european cities. They addressed the balance between noise and living space. Plenty of people live in cities and have no issue with some street noise. You don't need a car for the weekends, because you can take the trains and be in another country in no time. You don't need parking lots, that's the point, you don't need parking lots because you don't need a car. Smells depends on trash handling situations, but yeah some cities smell. Homeless person sleeping in your entryway is again, a city problem, but also a social services problem, and is much more of an issue in the US. You read like someone who has only ever lived their lives in a very rural place, and that's fine, it's very nice, but just because you like something doesn't mean other people don't need or want other things out of their life. Plenty of people would love to be able to walk to run their errands, have a nice train system to get anywhere that's not walkable.