PIXEL POINTS mentions what the NYT suggests is the latest fad in domestic architecture -- neoclassicism. She makes what I believe is the fatal flaw of some new urbanists: somehow assuming that some sort of rail is a necessary adjunct to urban civilization. It's a myth with which I too was raised. Oh maybe group travel would be nice; I like trains and buses and they are important at so many levels from energy conservation to social equity.
But I think that to link the two -- urbanism and group transport -- will get us neither one and I think both are important, though I'd suggest that the taste for urban living comes first. Urbanism, if is to ever happen in the USA, must be based on the personal vehicle. To hold out -- and this is probably taking Nancy Levinson's remarks well-beyond her intention but I will make the point because others believe it-- social transit as pre-condition to pedestrian-oriented cities will lead to nought.
Btw, I say this having seen absolutely packed urban rail cars -- people standing up hanging on straps -- this past weekend in, all of places, Salt Lake City. People will use rail. And it's worth the social investment. But let's not suggest that such investment leads to walkable cities. Just take a look at the suburban stations of The DC and Bay Area rail systems: many are huge parking lots surrounding staions and have been for decades.
Of copurse, that is beginning to change at many Bay Area BART stations (Fruitvale, maybe Walnut Creek, El Ceritto Del Norte (despite the conglomeration of huge big boxes nearby0.
Posted by: Brian Miller | Feb 14, 2005 at 08:47 PM
Even worse is conflating intra-metro transit with inter-metro (e.g. Amtrak) systems.
It's not like people are driving from NYC to Chicago because the train is so slow.
Posted by: Bill Seitz | Feb 15, 2005 at 07:07 AM
Remember that each of the parking spots at those suburban rapid-transit station represents a parking spot "exported" from driver's ultimate destination. If we accept that there is at least a tension between parking requirements and urbanism (the key problem your Three Rules address), we can see these stations as possibly supporting urbanism -- elsewhere.
Posted by: Chris Burd | Feb 15, 2005 at 09:34 AM
Here in Portland, I took Portland State University's Portland Traffic and Transportation class a year ago. We looked very closely at the recent redevelopment of the formerly industrial Pearl District. The instructor, Ric Gustafson of Shiels Obletz Johnsen, mentioned that there was no way that the banks would have provided funding for the density that the developers were able to attain without the Portland Streetcar. Without the streetcar, far more space would have had to have been devoted to parking and wider streets to satisfy the financiers. This would have led to a less dense, less urban environment. So, while rail is clearly not a sufficient condition for urbanism, in this day and age it appears to be a necessary one.
Posted by: Michael Wolfe | Feb 15, 2005 at 12:24 PM
Good point, Michael, but wouldn't it be truer to say that beyond certain levels car use precludes urbanism?
Posted by: AlanDownunder | Feb 15, 2005 at 06:31 PM
In the last sentence of your post, David, you refer to railway stations surrounded by enormous parking lots. This is merely one example of new developments being anti-urban because of the way that they are "based on the personal vehicle". Yet you seem to first define urbanism as providing for the automobile, although a major part of the appeal of New Urbanism is in not making trips by automobile.
I would say that the question is not whether new developments should be "auto-oriented" or "transit-oriented", but about how much space they will give away to private transportation. The beauty of New Urbanist development, as compared to the usual tract model, is that it may devote less to parking and roadways, even in distant greenfield locations.
Posted by: Alex Riedlmayer | Feb 16, 2005 at 06:26 AM
In the last sentence of your post, David, you refer to railway stations surrounded by enormous parking lots. This is merely one example of new developments being anti-urban because of the way that they are "based on the personal vehicle". Yet you seem to first define urbanism as providing for the automobile, although a major part of the appeal of New Urbanism is in not making trips by automobile.
I would say that the question is not whether new developments should be "auto-oriented" or "transit-oriented", but about how much space they will give away to private transportation. The beauty of New Urbanist development, as compared to the usual tract model, is that it may devote less to parking and roadways, even in distant greenfield locations.
Posted by: Alex Riedlmayer | Feb 16, 2005 at 06:26 AM
Alandownunder-
It was my impression that the establishment of rail transit satisfied the bankers in a way that promised bus service or expanded bicycle infrastructure, for example, would not have. So, while you are right to point out that part of what I am saying is that dependence on automobiles beyond a certain level precludes urbanism, there appears to be a limit to how much substitution for it is allowed by the people with their hands on the purse strings. Financiers say, car - fine, rail - sure, bus - ehh, make room for cars, too.
I think people tend to link urbanism to public transportation because suburbanism is exactly what you get when you emphasize individual transport. When you design development for cars, you get developments for cars. You get culs-de-sac, mile-long blocks, subdivisions with limited access, huge supermarkets that require most of their customer base to be outside of walking distance, etc. I would be interested to hear how David thinks we could achieve urbanist design while still maintaining the first principal that everyone travels by automobile.
Posted by: Michael Wolfe | Feb 16, 2005 at 11:01 AM
Michael, rather than saying that rail is a necessary condition for urbanism, let's say that having lots of pedestrians is a necessary condition (there's no such thing as drive-by urbanism). There are various ways of getting them to an urban zone: (1) they can walk, if the local residential density is high enough - but practically speaking not many places will have the densities that Jane Jacobs recommends in FRGAC; (2) they can drive - and this will be a, or the, major mode most places - but too much auto infrastructure compromises built environment you need; or (3) they arrive from elsewhere via mass transit - and in any large city this is going to be an important mode, particularly when auto traffic is congested enough to make driving unpleasant.
Someone noted that Nancy Levinson conflates urban and interurban rail. It seems fairly reasonable to divorce interurban rail from urbanism, but there is a case to be made for connecting them. Train stations were traditionally the gateway to the city, and having downtown train stations ensured that travellers would plugged into the most urbanistic part of the city. Airports plug travellers into the suburban highway network, one reason that offices are attracted to edge cities rather than downtowns. Immigrant settlement is effected too. If you look at Toronto, poor immigrants used to establish themselves within a mile or two north(east) or (north)west of Union Station. For more recent waves (e.g., the Somali and Eritrean refugees in the late 80s and 90s), it's been highrises near the airport. A good rail link to the airport can help matters, of course, but any revival of intercity rail will be good for urbanism too.
Posted by: Chris Burd | Feb 17, 2005 at 02:50 AM
It seems that 2+hour automobile commutes are becoming more and more popular, seen as necessary by some. I live and work in Chicago, and I've worked with people who commute from Wisconsin and Michigan. This is too far for the current suburban commuter trains but just right for Amtrak. I think leaving inter-urban rail out of the urban equation is definitely wrong. Properly linked with city mass transit - and even rental cars if people need their peronsal freedom - would help fuse the two and at least be an alternative to solely driving.
Posted by: John | Feb 23, 2005 at 07:26 AM