this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
241 points (98.8% liked)

Solarpunk Urbanism

1782 readers
3 users here now

A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.

Checkout these related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

From the article:

See the U.S. flatlining in transit miles per capita

A devil’s advocate would rightfully argue that that’s expected given the much lower average population density of the US -- the same factor that made it a struggle to get broadband Internet to everyone in the US. Bizarre to use a nationwide per capita as a basis for mass transit comparisons. It should be a city-by-city comparison that groups cities by comparable population density. US cities would likely still come out behind and embarrassed, but more accurately so.

Consider the marketing angle -- instead of saying “the US is losing” (which diffuses responsibility and makes plenty of room for finger-pointing), instead say “@conditional_soup@lemm.ee’s city lost its ass in the bi-annual city infra competency competition”. Then that mayor has some direct embarrassment to pressure action.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] fuzzzerd@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Id be curious the surface area of those million population centers? Lots of the US is very spread out even for "cities" only the old cities on the East Coast have significant density.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Vent@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Zoning to prohibit people from living on 99% of the land so that the population is dense enough to fully benefit from public transit? Lots of states don't even have a true city at all. Should those be zoned as national parks?

Edit: I think I missed the point. You're talking about just city zoning. Still, not a magical fix and would likely require moving lots of people and demolishing/building buildings and infrastructure. However, it's more realistic than zoming everyone out of the midwest.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The nationwide fuckup in the US is zoning rules that block commercial venues from residential regions, which means people cannot step outside their front door and get groceries in a 1 block walk. People are forced to travel unwalkable distances to reach anything, like food and employment. Which puts everyone in a car. Which means huge amounts of space is needed for wide roads and extensive car parking, generally big asphalt lots, which exacerbates the problem because even more space is wasted which requires everything to be spread out even more, putting resources out of the reach of cyclists. Making the city mostly concrete and asphalt also means water draining problems where less of it makes it into the soil and groundwater, and it means the city temp is higher because of less evaporative cooling from the land mass (Arizona in particular).

This foolishness is all done for pleasant window views, so everyone can have a view of neighbors gardens instead of a shop front.

Europe demonstrates smarter zoning, where you often have a shop on the ground level and housing above it. You don’t need a car because everything is in walking or cycling distance. But you more likely have an unpleasant view.

[–] orangeboats@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Subways are pretty much exclusively built in the cities, and the US doesn't lack cities. The same is true for most countries.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Subways are pretty much exclusively built in the cities

Not just any city. Dense cities. Cities that are so densely populated that it would be /impossible/ for every person to move around in a car. Countless US cities are not even close to crossing that threshold. It just makes no sense to look at nationwide per capita on this. Only a city by city comparison of like with like population density is sensible.

(edit)
There is a baby elephant in the room that needs mention: US cities are designed with shitty zoning plans. They are designed so that each person on avg needs to travel more distance per commute to accomplish the same tasks (work and groceries). This heightens the congestion per capita. So ideally we would calculate daily net commute distance needed per capita plotted against subway track per capita for cities of comparable people per m². Which would embarrass US city mayors even more.

[–] Dinsmore@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

At a time when we also need more housing density, I feel like subways go hand-in-hand. And even for shittily zoned cities with huge suburb-like areas, I feel like most would benefit from at least nearby subways with parking lots (or ideally, additional bike paths).

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago

except the US also has some of the largest cities in the world lol, NYC alone should be churning out new subways like crazy