Rich and Strange Aeons

Over the years I've done various density and walkability calculations, estimating that the required density could go as low as 4000 people/km2 (8000 people in a 12 minute walk) or even 3000 people/km2 (9000 people in a 15 minute walk.) But in the literature, messy as it is, it seems more like 10 du (dwelling units)/acre is the expected minimum, which at 2.6 people/du is more like 6500 people/km2. So I want to poke at my assumptions.

Summary: yeah, my old assumptions were flawed, and I'm now looking at closer to 10,000 people/km2 for good walkable density. Data indicates you start getting more walking before that, like 5000/km2, but it levels off above 10,000, possibly because all the trips it is easy to make walkable, have been made walkble. And per older posts, you can reach these densities with single-family housing if you insist, though you'll need to accept small lots and yards.

( Read more... )

There are other benefits to higher density, of course: more taxpayers to pay for infrastructure, more riders to justify high transit frequency, letting more people live close to attractive points like subway stations, letting people have more and more interesting lives in walking or biking distance. But in terms of reducing car trips in favor of walking, the low-hanging fruit gets plucked by 10,000.

Some thoughts on what "walkable city" means. Relatedly, my thread on 15-minute cities.

My own practical definition is what I could call grocery walkable, or maybe errand walkable. Neighborhoods where frequent errands are accessible via reasonable walks: stuff like supermarkets, pharmacies, elementary schools, public libraries, post office (maybe less important now?), laundromat/dry cleaner, dentists (more important for families, 2 trips/year/person add up), hardware store, bike store, bar/pub, etc.

( Read more... )

Paying more attention on my walks... yeah, mostly grass, sometimes fences or hedge bushes, occasional tree. Some houses have flowers or other ornamental plants; more of them on a couple side streets I found, vs. Azure or Camsell.

Pacing it out at corners or cut-through paths, I'd guess front yards tend to be at least 7 meters deep. I found the zoning code, and the minimum front setback is 6 meters. The closest street is maybe 7 m wide, 3-lane-ish, so wall to wall is at least 6+7+6 = 19 meters. Two story houses, zoned height limit of 7.5 (flat roof) or 9 (accessory) meters, so at best there's a 1:2.1 height:width ratio.

Azure is 4 lanes (including parking) and about 10 m wide, so at least 22 m wall to wall; if I trust my paces, often 8*2+10 = 26 m wide, and around 1:3 height:width.

And while there are occasionally front yard trees, there are no street trees to break up the space. One side of the street doesn't have sidewalk at all, and the other is sidewalk abutting the street, no planter strip.

My streets in Osaka were probably at least 1.5:1 -- 4 m street, at least 6 m height for 2 story buildings.

Walkable City said 1:1 or higher was often considered ideal, and invoked "prospect and refuge" theory, about humans tending to like forest edges, view + shelter. At any rate it works well for me, and helps explain why I'm not thrilled walking around here. Too-wide open space, without trees or even nearby walls.

How does this line up with other Vancouver experience? In the West End, buildings were often mid to high rises over 3-4 lane streets, so some ridiculous height:width ratio. And buildings were close to, often right on, the sidewalk. Or a bit further back on residential streets, which had trees. So fairly pleasant in those respects.

East of Chinatown? A bit more open, but houses still maybe 2-3 m setback, not 6+, and with more diverse and bushier plants than grass.

wealth: property values correlate positively with WalkScore. Millennials put higher value on walkability, and tend to pick a location and look for jobs in it rather than going whereever they're sent. Walking means less money spent on transportation, less car subsidies and negative externalities.

health: Walkable communities are slimmer and have lower health costs. More natural exercise, fewer deaths from crashes. Americans are 4x as likely to die in a car crash as Brits or Swedes, and people in Memphis or Orlando are 4x as likely to die by car as people in NYC or Portland.

environment: Torontans use 1/4 the gasoline of Atlantans, and 5x as much as Hong Kongers. You'd guess that walkable areas have lower emissions per capita and you would be right.

equity: 1/3 of Americans can't drive; in 2015, 103 million of us didn't have a license. Walkability gives more independence to (many) elderly and children, and helps the poor and minorities who don't drive as much. Poor and minorities are disproportionately killed in traffic despite not driving as much.

walkable schools: smaller schools do better, busing is expensive, parents driving kids to school is also expensive.

zoning madness: "You see, we’re separating all the aspects of your life by great distances to make your day more convenient."

"It is ironic that, during an era when most mothers didn’t work, most kids didn’t need them to get around."

"Even as more and more parents joined the workforce, more and more children lost independent access to parks and playgrounds."

I'm currently reading Walkable City, which is great, and I'll hopefully recap it more at some point. But I'll discuss one thing I read tonight. There's an ecological idea that animals like places that give them prospect and refuge: ability to see food or predators, and a feeling of safety. For housecats, that might be the top of the fridge or other high but narrow places. For humans, it might be forest edges, and things that evoke the feeling of such... such as arcades/colonnades, where roof and pillars give a feeling of refuge while open views give prospect.

Or tree-lined streets themselves, of course.

Or, failing tress, the buildings on the streets, if not too short or far from the sidewalk. (Ecology aside, they can also give shade, absent any trees -- two story buildings in La Serena gave shade downtown even around noon, because you could hug their walls. One claim is that a width of street:height of building ratio of 6:1 is "way too open" while 1:1 is ideal.

Walking home from the cafe, I tried to observe and apply these new ideas. Unsurprisingly, streets with decent trees overhead felt better. Turning up a residential street, I estimated a 6:1 ratio: 6-8 meters of two story houses, 12 meters of yard + sidewalk, 12 meters of street (2 traffic lanes, 2 parking), more yard and sidewalk, so 36:6. Definitely felt at least a bit two open. Up at the corner, where 2-3 story buildings suddenly came up to the sidewalk, felt nicer, even (in a way) on the side where the wall was rather blank.

Japanese and other traditional residential streets are probably under 1:1, e.g. 4-5 meters of streets and 6-8 meters of building, or more if 3 story!