Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's nonsense, nobody is going to cut through a sidestreet that allows for much lower speeds than a main street.
Also acknowledge that the autocentric lifestyle and autocentric urban planning causes most of the problems related to noise, safety and walkability of an area. Most of the noise in a city is coming from cars, not density. Density does not cause significant more noise than low density, but more cars do.
The bolded is hilarious, and shows how little you know about the US. Americans will cut through a residential neighborhood to save 10 seconds. What do you mean by lower speeds? That doesn't happen.
The average lot size in Houston is probably 7500 sq ft. Ours is 11,000 and is very large by Houston standards.
Yards are population control? That's ridiculous.
Keep in mind that the City of Houston does not have zoning. There are thousands of lots in central Houston that have gone from 1 SFH to being full of townhomes, increasing density organically and in a manner supported by the market and the people who live in the new homes.
I've been to Germany. There are many places where not having a car means you don't get to do much. Walldorf, for example. Heidelberg is better than Walldorf, but still very car centric.
Walldorf has an S-Bahn station. What are you even talking about? This is like the Woodlands TX having a subway.
That's not a link to a map of the Walldorf train station. The train station is a kilometer or more away near Wiesloch. The only bahn in the street view is an einbahnstrrasse sign, which has nothing to do with rail and everything to do with vehicle flow. For those not familiar with German street signs, Einbahnstrasse is "one way street". I also see a fairly nice bus stop that has drawn a crowd.
That's not a link to a map of the Walldorf train station. The train station is a kilometer or more away near Wiesloch. The only bahn in the street view is an einbahnstrrasse sign, which has nothing to do with rail and everything to do with vehicle flow. For those not familiar with German street signs, Einbahnstrasse is "one way street". I also see a fairly nice bus stop that has drawn a crowd.
I didn't intend to show the train station.
This shows a densely populated walkable environment with slow traffic flows vs a giant block of concrete serving a non-walkable car dependent place.
You said Walldorf is car dependent. That may be true by German standards, but not by American standards. Walldorf has far more cyclists, pedestrians and transit users (the S-Bahn station in Wiesloch is in walking distance) than the Woodlands, because the infrastructure and density fits much better such lifestyle. In the Woodlands walking to the store is basically impossible or at least very unpractical. This is what the map shows.
Some more impressions:
Cycling and walking and its infrastructure in Walldorf =>
Since the City of Philadelphia's 10-year property tax abatement for new residential construction and improvements to existing residential property was cut in half in 2021, the only residential properties being built here now are apartment buildings. "3-over-1s" and "4-over-1s" — these terms refer to the number of apartment floors over a floor of commercial space — plus some purely residential four- and five-story buildings have been sprouting like weeds in several outlying neighborhoods, including the one I call home. In the city core, I can count at least seven buildings of 10 or more stories under construction right now. And I spoke yesterday with a developer who's turning several office floors of a historic hotel that had been divvied into a mixed retail-office-hotel property into residences.
Most of the residential property in Germantown is single-family — rowhouses (the dominant SFR type in the city; a higher percentage of Philadelphia's housing stock consists of rowhouses than in any other US city), then twins, then a few (usually large) freestanding SFRs scattered around the neighborhood in pockets.
Truth to tell, this city comes close to what I think you'd like to see in most US cities. But it stands out from most of them as well.
I have already told you that before, but I think Philadelphia would be much more attractive, if it did maintain and upgrade its infrastructure and housing stock properly. I know there is a lot of improvement to the city in recent years, but it is still a long way to go. The physical character of the city is a good foundation you can build on.
Ask yourself why those cameras are needed, because it's difficult for the government to control urban areas. Protests do mostly happen in urban areas. Most revolutions were performed in urban areas. Urban areas are perfect for anonymous living, for hiding in the crowds. That's why the government needs cameras to have some basic level of control.
There is no "anonymous living" in any modern society, none whatsoever. Are you not familiar with the concept of government IDs? Nevermind the fact that people have been socialized for the most part to voluntarily carry around tracking devices called smartphones that use a combination of GPS and WIFI-triangulation to pinpoint people's location often down to a matter of feet / meters.
Low density communities are perfect for a totalitarian state.
1. It's harder for individuals to associate with others and organize resistance.
2. It's pretty good for separating people from each other.
3. Dendritic streets are even better for it. The totalitarians just need to block the access road to imprison a lot of people on their properties.
4. The large spaces between buildings, the lack of complex physical infrastructure such as tunnels and alleyways give little opportunity for hiding and escaping.
5. There is a high degree of social control through smaller community scales on the same area.
and so on
If low density communities are perfect for a totalitarian state, then why are the most totalitarian of totalitarian nations such as China pushing for rapid urbanization? It is because rural and natural areas provide the most cover for people trying to hide via mountains, forests, hills valleys, bluffs, cliffs, rocks, caves, shrubbery, thickets and so on. People cannot hide in modern urban areas where security cameras monitor all public spaces plus entrances to private spaces and facial recognition software is used to identify people who appear within the camera views.
There is no "anonymous living" in any modern society, none whatsoever. Are you not familiar with the concept of government IDs? Nevermind the fact that people have been socialized for the most part to voluntarily carry around tracking devices called smartphones that use a combination of GPS and WIFI-triangulation to pinpoint people's location often down to a matter of feet / meters.
He doesn't really believe in any of that.
I can clearly see that the "density uber alles" crowd have realized that many Americans respond to libertarian-type arguments, so they're trying to weave these into their narrative. The first one is this new notion that "eliminating single family zoning is a libertarian move, because the government shouldn't be telling people what to do with their property - FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" which sounds kind of faintly plausible till you investigate the ramifications and consider where this out-of-character argument is coming from. The second one is this new idea that "anonymous living" is somehow easier in a tightly packed city with cameras everywhere than in a suburb. Yes, from the standpoint of your neighbors not knowing anything about you, it's probably true; though of course in many suburbs people are also unaware of their neighbors - but making it about "government control" again fails the sniff test.
When a wolf starts making "Baa" sounds, you might want to consider what motivation the wolf might have; and also consider whether it's likely the wolf HAS changed into a sheep.
The bolded is hilarious, and shows how little you know about the US. Americans will cut through a residential neighborhood to save 10 seconds. What do you mean by lower speeds? That doesn't happen.
Yes, main thoroughfares tend to have lots of traffic signals resulting in frequently stopped traffic. We Americans prefer to feel like we are constantly moving when in our vehicles so drivers will definitely use a side street at 20mph over the stop and go traffic of a thoroughfare even if the resulting time savings is only in the realm of seconds.
I can clearly see that the "density uber alles" crowd have realized that many Americans respond to libertarian-type arguments, so they're trying to weave these into their narrative. The first one is this new notion that "eliminating single family zoning is a libertarian move, because the government shouldn't be telling people what to do with their property - FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" which sounds kind of faintly plausible till you investigate the ramifications and consider where this out-of-character argument is coming from. The second one is this new idea that "anonymous living" is somehow easier in a tightly packed city with cameras everywhere than in a suburb. Yes, from the standpoint of your neighbors not knowing anything about you, it's probably true; though of course in many suburbs people are also unaware of their neighbors - but making it about "government control" again fails the sniff test.
When a wolf starts making "Baa" sounds, you might want to consider what motivation the wolf might have; and also consider whether it's likely the wolf HAS changed into a sheep.
In a neighboring state to mine, many apartment complexes are being built in the suburbs only because the state government is manipulating the situation by offering special incentives to developers to build apartments. if the free market was left to itself, these developers would be building SFH instead because SFH is what people actually desire.
In urban areas, neighbors know a lot about each other without actually knowing each other via noise transmission and windows that are very close proximity to each other such as being separated only by an alleyway. I find that type of situation rather unnerving and creepy.
I agree this thread is just more twisted logic to justify high density at the expense of individual quality of life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
