What I find ironic is people had it figured out in the past. I live in an old part of my city, there's a grocery across the street, buck store, lots of little shops, gas station, banks, restaurants with in a short walking distance, plus there's parks, walking trails, plus we have a river, I can walk to go fishing and experience nature too. I couldn't imagine moving to a new subdivision, then having to drive everywhere... plus that chews up a lot of time. It does build community because you are always going to the same places, you get to know people which is great.
I live in an unplanned part of a city. We don't even have footpaths. But I can get everything within 10min of walking. If you don't plan anything, demand and supply is going to take care of it. Ex: if there is no grocery store in a neighbourhood, since there are no restrictions, someone will open a grocery store there. If there are too many grocery stores, some of those will be closed due to less demand and profit. Either plan it properly or leave it unplanned. Downside is that there are very few parks.
What happened is the post war housing boom coincided with the boom in personal automobile usage. Destroyed our cities. You’ll see older cities in the northeast and Midwest like Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit-have many walkable neighborhoods.
@@knosis Detroit is very walkable in neighborhoods just outside of downtown. The city has good “bones”. It’s just hollowed out with hundreds of vacant lots.
For me the best example of a well design city is Amsterdam. Everyone is either riding a bike, walking or taking the trams there. You hardly see anyone in cars because the city is so well optimized for other means of transportation, especially biking. I would love to see my city here in Silicon Valley become more like Amsterdam.
I think other than how beautiful Amsterdam is, this is what makes it my favorite city I've ever visited in the world. I would love to live there someday if I could.
I live in one of the larger Scandinavian cities; I have a five minute bike ride to work, 10 minutes to downtown for bar and restaurant areas/main train station/sports arena/concert venue and so on. I have two major grocery stores within a few minutes walk, as well as an urban train station with a ten minute ride from the big box outlets on the other side of town. Not to mention there are at least three schools and numerous kindergardens within a few minutes walk. This is all in a mixed area of apartment buildings and single family housing. When I visit my dad in Tampa, Fl; within a ten minute walk there is nothing, twenty minutes you get to the nearest Starbuck's, a Papa Johns, a licquor store and a couple of gas stations. The nearest major grocery store is at least 45 minutes away on foot, mostly along heavily congested roads. There's absolutely no sense of community, and pretty much every house has a big empty yard, a beautiful porch with an empty porch swing. 'Tis the saddest place in the world.
@SM - 08ZI 737688 Queen Elizabeth Sr PS I'm pointing to the contrast. But to dispute you, no Florida is more than old people and vacation homes. In fact the area where my dad lives is "Old Tampa", but it's still not walkable. That being said I think the mentality in older cities further up north is different from that of the south. The one thing I miss when I talk to people in Tampa, and this is only in my experience, is sense of belonging or being part of that land. No one speaks of Tampa with passion. A few years back I met an actual Floridian, who lives in a smaller community. His family went way back in the same part of the state, and he actually spoke about his state (or what it was) with passion. Obviously if you don't the place where you live, you don't care much about it and I think you risk ending up not loving your life. Perhaps that explains the madness that goes along with the urban sprawl.
@@kykk3365 Florida is full of immigrants and transplants. Generally, Americans move a lot, but Florida seems to take it up a notch. There are so many new developments and neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere. People move away from larger cities to the new areas where its cheaper, then commute back to the city for work. Orlando is a great example of this. I started going there in the 90s and I've seen all these areas spring up over 30 years. They used to be forest and swamp land, now they are mile after mile of cookie cutter suburbs. All that said, I absolutely love downtown Orlando. I stayed with a friend who lived in an apartment there and really enjoyed it. Was fairly walkable, and had life. Helps there's a college campus close by as well, so there's always people about.
Whereabouts in Scandinavia? I'd say the modern model of most Scandinavian cities is just as unsustainable as the American one. Most new developments are ugly overpriced high rise towers that create a bleak and sterile landscape. Even the most idyllic of cities like Bergen in Norway suffers from this disease. Also, with the population decline lack of proper maintenance, many residential urban areas are becoming banlieues. I don't know, I'm willing to listen, but I wouldn't say that the European model from the past 60-70 years is any better.
@@georgeredden6196 those parts of the city you're talking about are from the modernist era of the 30's to 70's where cities were planned with the mindset that through mathematics and social engineering urban planners could create the "ideal" living space. For many families these homes proved to be that in the beginning, however with time those houses proved to be very linear in terms of who could live there. Not only that, but the houses lacked any architectural value - for multiple reasons - one being that it made the houses cheaper and back then they did not think you'd need any "fancy" architecture. Today however we live in a very individualistic and capitalistic society and urban planning has adapted to new values. Instead of rectangular and boring concrete blocks you'll find unique architecture, colours and wood. Today Scandinavia is planned for a sustainable future where the city structure is mixed so you can live close to where you work, a mixed living environment hopefully speeds up integration as well. Either way, I got a bit carried away but I'm an urban planning student so it's close to my heart, the Scandinavian cities are looking back towards older city planning ideals to construct something with is more practical as well as sustainable. I don't think you can find anyone who is positive about brining back the modernist ideals of the 50's.
@@camillaa_ek I get that perhaps they've made improvements and I really hope they do. I hope you're right. However, let's skip the sales pitch and speak about real results because I also know what I'm talking about. To be honest, i hear architects here in Barcelona say the same thing about sustainability and so on, only to continue tripping on the same rock as the previous generation. Results: Same monstrosities, different buzzwords. One only has to look at the new developments in via Augusta and Avenida Diagonal to know that: 1. They'll never compete with places like passeig de Gracia and 2. in 40 years they'll be either demolished or become another dysfunctional part of the city. Examples of real sustainable architecture can be found in the small towns in the pyrenees where people still build using common sense while respecting their surroundings and culture.
I don't support subsidizing anything just because someone else, not even an entire country, is doing it. I don't see that being efficient at all in the US, though I've never been east of the Mississippi. The metropolitan areas on the western half are actually few and some very far in between indeed. With the status quo attitude from politicians, continued fiscal irresponsibility happily pushed through by bureaucrats, and the utter erosion of justice in the US it wouldn't surprise me if everyone wanting to take a simple road trip had to travel hours out of their way just to get to the actual point of destination.
Don’t forget to also make our cities beautiful! People gravitate towards beautiful cities because it’s proven that beautiful things make us feel good and that’s why when beautiful buildings are destroyed you feel remorse as if a person has died
My vision is to have walkable interesting hubs, "parts-of-cities" and then a subway of tram -system to get easily between them. You would then live in a community, but have easy access to other communities with services and working places. I live in Europe and that has been basically my experience my whole life from the 60's onward
I love that vision, and share it as well. But I'm in Canada, with so much 'open land' it seems harder for people to visually understand how actually more walkable neighbourhoods and good public transit to key areas of the city would be better than a bunch of autonomous cars and trucks. Some cities are getting there faster than others. I'm in a more conservative town, so I see any growth and improvement in this area as sign of the times. If THIS town can change for the better, any town can.
Australia has a huge issue with sprawl as well. I live in a suburb just a few kilometres outside of Melbourne but it's very isolated and sterile. It's particularly hard being here because literally everything is just houses near a busy main road. Most of the time, I just stay home and it can get very lonely. I would love something that has more personality! Even just a night market, and collated, commercial zone with personality and a super connected public transport into the main city would be amazing!
I feel your pain, bud. I'm in Canada and we have much the same sprawl issues. Most neighbourhoods are not 15-minute walkable to essential services or interesting places. Where I live in an apartment is not a suburb, but it is maybe right on the edge of 15-minute walk to some grocery stores, restaurants and other shops but it is along a big, busy, ugly street. There USED TO be a corner store just 5 minutes away. There is a park close by, but it is very limited in recreational options and not kept up. It has washed out tennis courts and a small playground, some undefined field space and near a river. My vision would be upgrade the tennis court, add a couple basketball courts, add a dock to the the river for fishing or even canoeing and kayaking, create some mini-soccer fields and flood-protect it a bit, since it is traditionally a bit of a spring flood risk. Anyway, that aside, I think that most neighbourhoods just new a few touches to get better. They need at least a close-by "Food and Stuff" store, some restaurants, shops and services - that would encourage locals to take many walks or bikes to the store. Then the city would need to follow the 7 principles for building better cities and build more dedicated bike/walk lanes and upgrade city transit. For the future trams or mag-lev trains could be a great addition.
Our cities and suburbs are tragically designed-see NotJustBikes’ RUclips channel for more. Strict separation of residential zones and zoning requirements that favor cars and giant parking lots and make it dangerous to walk or bike even short distances, resulting in isolation and further car-dependence. We don’t even have continuous bike lanes and sidewalks to walk/bike to nearby shopping centers. I’m trying to get our suburban town center (city hall with shopping center) to change a few blocks to pedestrian-only promenades.
Hi Tommie, I don't know how old you are but if you'll be a student in the coming years I'd highly recommend moving close to the city center! I'm from Amsterdam and I lived south of uni Melb campus and I absolutely loved it.
urban sprawl is a result of government central planning. Giving the government more power to plan more to fix the problems they caused will not end of fixing the problems, just creating new ones. Government planning violates the natural rights of people and results in unsustainable inefficiency.
+Dustin Hill Nonsense, yes the govt does planning but they will also in any new city plan like one mentioned. They did the sprawling because that is what people thought was good. Your logic is asinine. And you are so quick to make govt evil.
nothing a bit of augmented reality and gamification couldn't fix there :) Seriously though, sprawl does seem to be bad for the environment, for society and for individuals' mental health. Still, I think some of these ideas (small businesses, mixed income, car-free towns) were a little naive and would be difficult to implement successfully - at least in Europe anyway. AVs will play a major role in our future because of convenience and flexibility. We need to think about the infrastructure around that reality
No, actually according to the National Association of Realtors surveys Most people want to live in single family detached houses sometimes referred to as sprawl. We sprawl be cause we don't want to be packed into high-rise boxes.
@@aacavicepresident7093 That's what Americans want because that's what they've grown up with and been conditioned to want since after WW2. The rest of the world couldn't imagine living in such boring, isolated, and soul-less neighborhoods. The suburbanization of America absolutely wrecked it's culture.
eddebrock sameee, going to use some of those pedestrian only roads (only allows emergency and transportation vehicles) and also going to use axel.kieboms buildings, they can't replicate shops in the bottom and house in the top but they do look like it
The best cities have trees, wide spaces to run, cycle and to walk. The traffic of cars does destroy the city as the livable space. The better solution is to put larger roads with parking under the ground, and the slow roads on top.
This is a good solution, until one realizes that nearly 2/3s of the US sit on some sort of tectonic fault lines and thus are always going to be susceptible to earth quakes and natural disasters of the sort. That’s why power lines are still hung on poles rather than buried in the ground like in much of Europe.
David Lozano I don't think that power lines are buried in much of Europe. And the reason is not natural disasters, but the fact that the cables have to be 1) electrically isolated, 2) buried underground, and the price of isolating and burying kilometers of wire instead of hanging it over long distances makes it totally unviable. Sure, at local levels, in particular in newer developments there are cables led underground, but that's in the US just as much as in Europe. Also I'm not sure what kind of tectonic fault lines you're talking about - except the West Coast, US is relatively tectonically stable.
I do see your point but as a person who lives in a country with one of the highest earthquake frequencies, this is potentially dangerous. Since it's the tropics we've also got the risk of tsunamis and floods. Global warming will also bring more extreme weather to all regions of the world. It might not be the best long term solutions but I do agree with your first statement
I think the biggest reason underground roads are so rare is less the earthquake risk, and more the cost. Look at how much it costs a city to expand its subway system - tunnels for roads just cost more than taxes can usually pay for.
We should also focus more on making architecture more interesting, such as using more wood and stones, and giving foundations/floors more interesting shapes instead of the standard rectangles.
@@RamKumar-fy5me You can always plant more trees, the problem isn't in cutting trees down, it's in not replanting at least the same amount you cut down
Mega projects like rain harvesting or transforming a city into a sponge city will change our relationship for the better between nature and man. Biotechnology will also have its debut by showcasing its potential use of harnessing of replicating the power of nature. But it's time we build a not just a better city, but a better world. This can not be done solely with money or with resources, but with ideas. We like to think that it is money that makes the world go round but fundamentally it's human cooperation which society should capitalize on.
What is a sponge city? Also, we essentially do have rain harvesting... water from rain seeps into groundwater through dirt and then into streams, and from streets into drainage ditches into the municipal water system. i'm not bashing your idea just offering critique. also harvesting rain is probably good for the city but may have unintended consequences on surrounding areas
Yes, totally. With ideas and we need to let ideas come from anyone, anywhere. It's horrible how so many people want socialism and central planning. We need the opposite. We need autonomous earthship communities that can cooperate with each other allowing each inhabitant to be able to try their own ideas within their space instead of these systems that concentrate the opportunity for ideas into the hands of an elite few.
@North American RUclipsr To be fair, no city is *really* well organized. Most big cities developed in a time when sustainability, walkability, etc weren't even being considered. Basically all cities were designed for cars, even in Europe and Asia, and that means they all suck.
@North American RUclipsr Thats good, that means you can pick up groceries and go to work within a 10-minute walk. When commercial and residential areas are separated, you have to drive or take a train very far to get to a commercial area.
@@andersonstudiosmusic The historical centres of almost all European cities formed naturally from before the time cars were prevalent, hence the dense networks of small squiggly streets with what you would call mixed usage in the USA. We also had our share of brutalist car-centric urban planning in the 20th century (in suburbs, cities rebuilt after the war or Soviet architecture) but its influence was never as pervasive as in most other parts of the world because of our historical baggage. Now in the 21st century, some of the car-worshipping lunacy is thankfully on its way back, and some cities are better than others. So in a way we were just lucky I guess.
@@hydrocharis1 right, but the vast suburban sprawl spurred by the popularization of the automobile is what allowed for cities to become the behemoths they are today. That isn’t sustainable. Just because a city began as a walkable city-center doesn’t mean those cities are still like that. Edit: and you’re right, many European cities are not as bad as other parts of the world because they were developed in large part before cars became prevalent. That doesn’t mean they weren’t later developed to suit auto traffic, and no major city on Earth has taken adequate action to become sustainable; even the “most sustainable” cities are still not actually environmentally friendly.
Beyond the structure, we're gonna have to consider the visual aspect of the city. Every city around the world is starting to look the same. Bring back traditional architecture!!
@@toniderdon Most new buildings in European cities are built in bland international style. And the rare times a building is built in a historical style, there are snobbish people calling it tacky, out of place , reactionary while the larger public likes it and generally hates the contemporary buildings.
You are literally only talking about Germany and Europe. In the Americas, china, India, and Africa, AKA almost the entire world except Europe, things are being done as he said.
Cars are too heavy, If you sit in a car 90% of the energy is used to move the car itself, and only 10% of the fuel actually transports the person....one reason for public transport is it uses less fuel per person to transport
I think people are very hooked up on futuristic ideas of the future, like flying cars, what if some billionaire decided to realize his childhood dream of flying cars, and mass produced helecopter cars? even though they'd use a lot more energy to fly. Although its boring i think we have to do what is most practical.
That’s the same with a train. 90% of the energy is used to move the train itself and it’s worse when the train is empty. Your first statement has nothing to do with your conclusion. The reason trains have less emissions per person is because they fit more people in less space. Car sharing would be the equivalent of saving emissions (by having less emissions per person). (Just that a car is usually less efficient than a train).
This is why bikes are good for short haul, but scooters are good for long haul as well. If you need to cross the city it can be most efficient to drive on a scooter - they take up less space on the road which means less congestion, theyre (my apostrophe key isnt working lol) a fast means of getting from point A to B, and theyre very light. My scooter (and most others) is about 110kg, so its carrying as much as 70-80% of its own weight carrying me, and only has a 125cc engine but can carry me at car speeds, all while avoiding and reducing congestion (which makes it doubly fast - I can get anywhere quicker than public transport unless its against a fast, straight train line with few stops.) Scooters are the future!
Most of the world has this nailed down already. I’ve lived all my life without a car in Helsinki, Finland and I can get to anywhere using public transport, walk or bike. And with what I’ve seen it’s the same thing with other EU and Asian cities
Yeah, lucky for most of the world, except Canada and US sadly. We've been bamboozled by the car industry to build car-dependent cities with urban sprawl. We are working back from behind the 8 ball. I think it'll get better here, but a lot slower than many other areas of the world, it seems.
You are doing this because you cannot afford a vehicle. Your government made this way. And still you do not talk to each other. :D Cold people in North of Europe!
@@grigoreturcan1368 No dumbass, because The Netherlands is smaller, and since cycling is a huge option here, people do that.. And people still buy cars and scooters.. And more assumptions you make based on what you don't know, but you clearly don't live here..
These are good options. I have seen neighborhoods like this when I have traveled overseas. I saw something quite similar with Hong Kong. At the end of the Vietnam War, Hong Kong, like so many other nations in the area, had a huge number of refugees. As a very high density city/country, they were overwhelmed. They figured out an excellent solution. They built high rises with grocery and retail space on the lower floors, then childcare, then schools up to middle school, if I recall correctly, and then about 20 or so stories of very compact apartments. Good urban planning also tends to include a good mix of green space, and it could also be useful to have small farms and even gardens that the residents can work in.
3 года назад+6
As a future City Planner on a fast growing country in Asia, this video helps.
I live near Seattle. More and more people are living in the suburbs because it is increadably expensive to live in the city, and then many people just commute.
And that's the problem that the announcer talks about. He's saying that there are many solutions on making cities cheaper and that's through more investment in structures.
The government should impose "suburb tax" or something to make people move near into the city. I don't understand how some people need so much "space". It feels kinda lonely actually to separate yourself from other people like that.
Its time for the "Politics of NO" to shut up. All the growth protest, building height restrictions, burdensome bureaucracies, over-regulation, etc etc. When is the last time you attended a Public Hearing where anybody from the "peanut gallery" were well versed on the subject of which they spoke? If population grows, and housing is mired in protest, of course prices will rise. The WEALTHY depend upon the liberal left to protest everything. That insures that prices stay high. The first people excluded from housing due to rising prices are often the same folks who protested. Punchline...…..You never see a protester at a maternity ward.
Personal vehicles are the antithesis of cities, he's right about that. Mass transit and walkable communities need to be the focus of developers everywhere. But what traffic will remain on the roadways should benefit from autonomous vehicles- which reduce the rates of accidents and GREATLY bring down the costs of tax service (one of the main costs is labor), allowing more people to forego cars and amortizing the costs of vehicles over many rides, thus favoring electric vehicles for their fuel-savings (battery-exchange points, like was once pursued by Project Better Place, could also help keep electric taxis moving without long recharge times...) and reducing urban smog/pollution.
Zava Yeah trams don’t transport enough people, when you get to cities of LA size. Metro transit is very useful. It’s called rapid transit but a better name is probably high-capacity transit. Metro systems are very useful for transporting thousands of people or more per hour
@@electrichanoi7244 In most cases you need a mix of multiple transit systems. Metro, trams, buses - they all have their place in a well-planned city environment. Metros or local trains on high-capacity routes, trams in urban routes with less passengers, and buses bringing people from the further reaches of suburbs to the city proper or their nearest high-capacity line.
Nobody goes to US cities to walk around - shopping, see places off TV shows, go to the top of one skyscraper, maybe food, maybe visit museums - but not to just walk around. Edinburgh, Rome, Bath, Oxford, Venice, Paris, Amsterdam - you can just _walk._
Yes, I just realized after watching this that the city I live in (Berlin) does all 7 of these town planning principles really well compared to other cities, especially in the US and Asia (but even compared to many other European cities). That may be a contributing factor as to why Berlin is so popular right now, despite not being the prettiest of cities.
I saw a lecture 3 years ago by LA architect Julie Eizenberg where she noted that the ever worsening traffic in Los Angeles has indirectly lead to more walkable, distinct and commercially diverse neighborhoods because, for example, while 20 years ago one might be willing to drive after work from Culver City to Hollywood for...say...great sushi, today it is out of the question. As a result, you can now find the goods and services that you need right in the specific neighborhood you live or work in.
Basically, copy Disneyland in Anaheim. Everything is walkable, hotels are very close by the park, you can easy walk. Think about it, Disneyland has a tram, everything is walkable, everything is nice to look at, it's very eye pleasing, nothing boring, lots of restaurants, shops, things to do. LOL.
these designs are efficient, smart, economically and environmentally sound as well as encouraging to the connected-ness to humanity....therefore they will never work
Progressive cities are already far better places to live. Degenerating cities of so-called 'conservative' modes only 'works' for the few, whom in turn shape your defeatist world views
Good additions. Haha, reminds me of my city years back built a big huge box mall centre in a known flood plain! And guess what? It almost flood the area multiple times! They had to put up large sandbags along one side of the street so the mall wouldn't be flooded out. And of course, they big box stores moved out of downtown (which is high ground) and into the low ground area further away from most residences.
As cities and towns continue to grow in terms of size and population, there is increasing demand for planners to manage these changes. Planners frequently work with other professionals such as engineers, architects, building surveyors, economists, developers, politicians, scientists, and environmental scientists.
It won't be some immediate shift, people who enjoy the denser living spaces with shops and walking spaces around them will gradually move there. It will become popular due to businesses also setting up their offices within walking distance as well. @What12311 you enjoy your vehicle but no one enjoys the 9-5pm traffic that takes 2 hours out of their day every day.
Here's right in that cities he talks about are nice to visit. Personally, though, I don't like living in dense urban areas. I decided to move to a town about 30 minutes away from the downtown area where I work because I wanted to live in nature, have my own private space and enjoy some quiet time when I got back home. Given the popularity of suburbs, I'm not the only one who thinks this way. A lot of urbanists, I find, ignore the notion of personal preference, or outright disregard it. There's a reason why a lot of people decide not to live inside large cities, which aren't always related to money.
@@JaydenHolland-wo4fd The point is that there's more than just cities out there and people should have the freedom to live there if they want and can afford it.
Imagine waking up in the morning, preparing to get to work or school, college, whatever. And instead of taking your keys to drive your own car, you can simply step on a train that passes through your neighborhood every 10 minutes or so. There, you would get faster to your destination, be able to enjoy the travel and even share the ride with other people that are doing the same thing as you!!! Imagine the collaboration, the conversations, all humans relationships in a big city being more and more connected, into a community that is way bigger and complex than simply your own family bubble. Oh, god, I love this future, but why can’t it be my present? 😊
How would you get any sleep with all the commotion what about insomnia caused from the constant passing train. What about noise pollution, wouldn't you prefer a quite neighborhood away from noisy trains constantly coming and going?
Americans need to understand is they can keep their quiet, low-rise, suburban environments, but still make them more walkable and integrate commercial districts within walking distance. In my experience, this only contributes to the communal feeling of their neighborhood, which is what proud suburban Americans always say they like about their suburbs.
True that. It's almost like American city-planners took the concept of a town and scaled it up way out of proportion, with massive downtown areas where majority of the economic activity is and car-dependent suburban sprawl that surrounds it. Why not plan suburbs like self-sufficient small towns instead? With pedestrian infrastructure and mixed-use central hub area within walking distance with all the basic services and such, which then can be connected to public transport network, so everyone does not need to drive absolutely everywhere and congest the roads - that would benefit even those who love driving. It would not make the suburbs feel more dense or anything of that sort - actually the exact opposite, if we assume the population size would stay the same. It's not some kind of utopia, but actually the way suburbs in many countries are designed. From what I've seen, American style development actually wastes lots of space and the suburbs feel really cramped compared to the overall population density of the areas. There are some parks here and there, but other than that it's just private property, car infrastructure and some shopping mall or stroad within a few kilometers that is either impossible or uncomfortable to reach on foot. The small increase in density towards the central hub would not affect the feeling of the rest of the suburb at all, but it would free up a lot of space that could be used for something else - preferably recreation and green space rather than new housing.
I visited Taipei and neighboring Keelung in Taiwan. Keelung and the old part of Taipei have the ideal situations that Calthorpe mentions. It's wonderful. I may move there in the near future. If only the weather were as wonderful...
Lots of good information here. I particularly like the greening of the waterways which.........needs to be done world wide. It helps keep the waters clean and gives all people access to water for recreation. Privatising waterlines is silly. One problem I have with this idea is it really doesn't account for the primary reason cities exist. Jobs. Most cities grew up around ports, or natural resources, or industrial complexes that have very specific locations. So while a lot of domestic and service jobs can be rezoned into these better planned areas, the majority of people still need to get to the major economic centres. You can't break a mine or a factory up into many small ones, as an example. It's also very difficult to transform older cities into this formula since people already own their lands and won't want to give them up. I think cities on the whole would have to completely change their future zoning laws.........which is going to reek havoc on real estate investments and values and face a HUGE push back from those large markets and the bankers that manage them. Focusing on new growth is probably a better way to start, and at least set the president. Once that's successful(if it's successful), converting older infrastructure will be an easier sell. Those wealthy property owners aren't going to take it sitting down though.
The only true purpose of TED Talks is providing teachers with the infinite source of videos so that students could analyze them and then tell them by heart at classes, thank you
I enjoyed this video. As a player of City Skylines, which is a single player city simulation game, I've come to realize just how bad traffic is. This video will make me rethink public transportation. I also believe that making small decorations, like trees on the side and in the middle of the road, is better for the environment, it makes the city look nicer, especially with variation, and they can act as sound barriers.
Cities skylines does not have anything close to realistic traffic AI. When in real life do people line up in mile long lines in a single lane to get off at the nearest exit lol. Don't compare C:S traffic to traffic IRL
@Syntheon my guy you're overcomplicating this way too much. Traffic in cities skylines sucks, almost every player of the game knows this. There are even mods out there that work to correct it. There are no "studies" or links that prove this, the simulated traffic just sucks lol. The original commentor was trying to say that IRL traffic is like cities skylines traffic, which isn't true at all.
Some of the ideas are good but I feel that we need to completely rethink how we want to live as a society. Maximizing walking, living where you work, excellent public transport, lots of trees/greenery and best use of available resources is just a start. One way to really connect with others is to eat together. Having a common place to eat would really help. Economic factors are not that important really! We CAN live without shops, businesses and corporations. We actually have more human resources than the tasks that need to be done. We can design cities that minimize travel (thus reducing traffic), maximize resources, bring people closer together and take care of people's basic needs.
@@amorphousblob not really. i'm talking about COMPLETELY re-imagining how we live, work, play etc. i'm talking about creating cities where the "basic component" is a small community of tower blocks, in which, nearly ALL the residents "are employed" within that "basic component" and the essential amenities of school, college, university, hospital, sports complex are available JUST OUTSIDE the "basic component". i've done a very simple "city plan" with area of 400 sq. km which could house approx 25 million people (based on a family size of 4, and 4-bed appartement per family, 8 appartements per floor and 50 floors per block).
@@oluwaseyiayodele6058 I just started at the bottom and began to think about what e actually NEED over what we WANT. we only really need 5 basic things: food, clothing, shelter, education and medical facilities. The rest is just unnecessary noise. In terms of a city plan: I started with a plan for a 4 bedroom luxury apartment, then made a tower block with 8 apartments on each floor, arranged 12 such blocks in the outer 12 sections of a 4x4 grid, named it as a "Housing Society", then repeated the 4x4 process with the housing societies as I did with the tower blocks, called this a "Residential Block". Then repeated the 4x4 grid again to get a city of about 450 sq km. Tower blocks of 50 floors, 4 people per flat gives a city population of about 33million people (which I think makes it the 2nd most populated city on the planet). Nearly ALL people work in THEIR housing society (or just outside it). The centre 4 squares in grids are for common services/amenities. Could go on, but limited time and space here.
Great presentation with a ton of valuable insight but one subject that I wish Peter would have focused more attention on is cities plans for their waterfronts. I don't think that "a green edge" encompasses the complexity of ways that future cities will utilize their waterfront. With electric commuter ferry's proving to be efficient modes of mass transportation and the FAA's new guidelines for passenger drones I believe that the future of our waterfronts are poised to become incredibly complex walk-able city centers that offer opportunities for open green space interwoven with commercial/mixed uses and transportation hubs.
I'm studying urban planning in Detroit and your ideas about using space for different things and public transportation are spot on. I think each city should grow in its own way. We should also work on making jobs, treating everyone fairly, and having homes people can afford. This way, people will want to live in cities because they like it, not because they have to.
It started off like a typical "all hype, no sense" TED talk, but it turned out to be pretty good. It has a healthy dose of skepticism and seeks a good compromise instead of a silver bullet. Nice talk.
It's really disheartening to see developing countries adopting the American model, where they are getting overly reliant on cars, building ghastly asphalt roads in residential areas, and basically forcing their populace to move into increasingly tiny spaces in big cities. I recently visited Indonesia and the people who live in urban sprawls have no clue about what's happening, they are too busy absorbing propaganda fed by their politicians and even the dirt poor ones have their own motorbikes/cars as a "status symbol". There were no green spaces, no parks or recreation centers for kids and people to just come out, relax and breath in some fresh air within close proximity of residential areas. You can't even go out for an early morning jog outside because the roads don't have footpaths and are constantly clogged with traffic from dusk til dawn.
As an American that grew up in a sprawl and now lives in a part of that city that is relatively walkable, I feel like we have all been hoodwinked! We just accept that living in these isolated suburbs is ok! We accept that pouring your life’s worth into a car loan, rising gas prices, and ridiculous car insurance is ok! We accept that pushing for better communities is too hard! That’s not a place I want to live in
Indeed. Thankfully a lot of people are starting to realize this, new urbanism is gaining steam rapidly even in North America. Undoing all the damage is going to take a while, though.
1. PRESERVE: Preserve natural ecologies, agrarian landscapes and cultural heritage sites. 2. MIX: Create mixed-use and mixed income neighborhoods. 3. WALK: Design walkable streets and human scale neighborhoods. 4. BIKE: Prioritize bicycle networks and auto-free streets. 5. CONNECT: Increase density of road netowrk, limit block size. 6. RIDE: Develop high quality transit and affordable BRT (Bus Rapid Transit). 7. FOCUS: Match density and mix to transit capacity. REASONS TO BE HOPEFUL for OVERCOMING URBAN SPRAWL: 1. "Most people get it. They understand intrinsically what a great city can and should be." 2. "The kind of analysis we can bring to bear now allows people to connect the dots, allows people to shape political coalitions that didn't exist in the past. That allows them to bring into being the kinds of communities we all need."
He obviously haven't been to *insert major european city here*. -"Hey great idea everybody, let ppl without cars get some space to walk on!" *applause*
Teng as a Londoner which london is a city you will have a love hate relationship with, and honestly i was thinking the wanted to build a new london haha
I'm from Odense and they have always tried to make a nicer city centre. A few years ago they made a big decision and chose to oblitterate the road network on the middle, near where bus/trainstation meets everything else, and make it into walking/biking instead and install a pram that goes from the various corners and into this middle. So completely car free zone. Brave and bold. Happy.😊
I agree with him on most points, but I disagree in that I see autonomous driving networks to be a critical part of transportation in the future and the technology can also be used for transit. Denser forms of transportation are more useful in denser corridors and this will most likely not change in the future. However, there will still be large parts of the world where the density does not make trains or even buses more efficient and thus would need point-to-point transportation instead which can be covered by an level 5 autonomous network. I also see no reason why you only need to use one form of transportation too and I can easily see the autonomous network as being integrated with the wider transit network e.g. taking a car from your house to a subway station which will then take you downtown. In that sense, that network will largely replace the largely empty and inefficient bus routes that serve suburbs and low-density areas. I am all for denser communities, walkable communities, and transit-oriented-development, but it is important to remember that you can't demolish all the sprawl that was already constructed nor assume none will get built the future, thus you cannot ignore how to improve transportation efficiency in these areas.
If we want to achieve high density with a high quality of life, the public policy answer is two-fold: (a) exempt all buildings and other property improvements from the tax base; these are depreciating assets the maintenance of which is penalized by the conventional property tax; and (b) impose an annual charge on land equal to the potential annual rental value of whatever land is held; this will bring an end to sprawling development, will remove the profit from speculating in land, and provide a financial incentive for owners of land to bring the land they hold to its highest, best use.
With the missing middle, we could achieve good density and still know all our neighbours and feel like we belong. People have no idea how important that is. Community can't be sacrificed for anything.
I'm not a city planner, but this is very useful for us who play Cities: Skylines. Because the traffic can be horrendous if you without thought plop down things without thinking..
but still, with advancements in medicine (HOPEFULLY), that won't be a problem. Even before this covid thing, that problem was getting smaller as time passed.
and really, do you notice that? come on. Sitting next to random strangers on buses and planes for HOURS at a time, but sitting in a car for a few minutes? We hardly even worry about it.
people in metro manila are just now starting to see the benefits of car free streets, in my opinion it all started when Ayala lands started the "car free Ayala Sundays" where they'd close up the streets of Makati CBD every Sunday morning for joggers, cyclists, skaters and other activities, and the reception was astonishingly positive that it developed its own community where people interact, exercise and bond together, Car Free Sundays was supposed to only be till the end of 2023, but the reception was so good that it still continues today and the best part is other cities are starting to pick up on this as well, very recently Pasay City started the "Car Free Pasay" every Sunday as well, with its already established cycling community it will no doubt help foster even more cities to do it as well, finally there have been a cry from various cyclists, joggers and other activity goers for the most bike friendly, BGC to advocate for Car Free weekends as well
I love these thoughts, however the challenge is employment. We need to bring the jobs further out, so that the commute is cut. Most of the salaried jobs are downtown.
These kinds of development also encourage the growth of small and medium enterprises, so that can at least take up some of the employment slack. Plus these places are great for like say app development companies and game developers just starting out.
Imagine driving in a 6,000 lot subdivision. Houses after houses, street after street. There are 40-50 lot subdivision projects being approved everyday all over US. Now imagine a 6,000 lot subdivision project. 😳
10:17 This entire model will only work in America if people stop with the economic segregation. Middle class Americans love to cosplay as upper class Americans. So many people want to shop for $17 imported gourmet olives at Whole Foods even though they should be shopping for affordable olives at Aldis. Then they sit back and complain that the poor are so violent, when it's these types of "white flight" urban planning policies that CREATED the urban sprawl and blight that creates high crime areas. If rich and middle class people lifted everyone up instead of running away, we could easily put some of these principles Peter mentioned in place. There are only 300 million people in America. We have the chance to get this right. We have money, we have people eager to try this stuff out. We just need to get over ourselves & our fear of the poor.
It's the same everywhere in the capitalistic world, really, talking from the "third world" here. The biggest urban sprawl was from rural exodus, more recently we are seeing these "white flight" separate residential communities as the biggest profits of real estate. I believe the only way to counteract this trend is through points similar to those of the video, by state investment yes.
@@Joao-de9gl true, but the US had explicitly racist real estate agents, rental agents, and community zoning in major cities well into the 1970s. Quite a few of the poor black neighbourhoods exist solely because of not-my-neighbour practices and town, state, and federal governments turning a blind eye - something to bear in mind when 'conservatives' dog whistle about Chicago and Detroit.
@@williamchamberlain2263, indeed. We didn't have such explicit laws as the US, but it's a common practice from the state, historically and now, to treat blacks as second class citizens, unworthy of rights and properties. This contributed a lot to the formation of today's shanty towns.
Cars should always be available to the people. Taking away cars from the people or raising the cost too much is taking away peoples freedom. The thing is that people should be able to choose not to take the car unless for example leaving the city and going out in the woods, shopping, family trips etc. For people to choose not to take the car just to the barber or to work the city needs to be a perfect place to walk, bike or take a subway/bus. But then still have a plan that people will need the car for the freedom of movement. For example freeways are still needed as well as good and efficient roads between the city and freeway, same with good parking for the cars. People don't want to be trapped within their city or within the paths that the bus/train goes.
That's the exact problem we are facing with bicycles now though... Not enough space for bicycles to go, little room for bicycle parking and people want to have the chance to bike around have a breath of fresh air
I think cutting down on urban sprawl would also contribute to a rise in culture. Who wants to go outside in the city if it isn't walkable, cyclable, and visually appealing? You're probably more like to relax at a street cafe and experience local food or go dancing in the park with the community if there's an attractive, community-centered space to do it. Philadelphia has a long way to improve, but we have some city squares that are very bicycle and pedestrian friendly with a lot of green space. Every Sunday there's a swing dancing group that meets at Rittenhouse Square, and it's really fun.
Pedestrian based cities, America needs to learn car run cities leave much to the imagination when it comes to fully integrated, cohesive and accessible cities & planning. Resources are finite people. Cars aren't the solution. Public transport needs rehaul and rebranding.
Peter Calthorpe is using this forum to discuss how to create sustainability within cities such as reducing the average miles traveled in cars to limit carbon emission. His ideas encourage society to rethink urban development and advocate for environments that foster connectivity and resilience.
1. preserve natural, heritage
2. mixed
3. walk
4. bicycle
5. road netwok
6. mass transport
7. transit
Singapore
Ah ok, so we gotta have mass transport, AND transit? got it. How about some ketchup with that order, and some processed tomato as well?
Nature****
Essentially, adopt the European urban planning model!
Omg thank you, you saved me time
What I find ironic is people had it figured out in the past. I live in an old part of my city, there's a grocery across the street, buck store, lots of little shops, gas station, banks, restaurants with in a short walking distance, plus there's parks, walking trails, plus we have a river, I can walk to go fishing and experience nature too. I couldn't imagine moving to a new subdivision, then having to drive everywhere... plus that chews up a lot of time. It does build community because you are always going to the same places, you get to know people which is great.
I live in an unplanned part of a city. We don't even have footpaths. But I can get everything within 10min of walking.
If you don't plan anything, demand and supply is going to take care of it.
Ex: if there is no grocery store in a neighbourhood, since there are no restrictions, someone will open a grocery store there.
If there are too many grocery stores, some of those will be closed due to less demand and profit.
Either plan it properly or leave it unplanned. Downside is that there are very few parks.
@@ritwikreddy5670 you cant open a store whereever you want sadly, but other then that i 100% agree
What happened is the post war housing boom coincided with the boom in personal automobile usage. Destroyed our cities. You’ll see older cities in the northeast and Midwest like Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit-have many walkable neighborhoods.
@@derkburke detroit and walkable should not be in the same sentence 😒
@@knosis Detroit is very walkable in neighborhoods just outside of downtown. The city has good “bones”. It’s just hollowed out with hundreds of vacant lots.
For me the best example of a well design city is Amsterdam. Everyone is either riding a bike, walking or taking the trams there. You hardly see anyone in cars because the city is so well optimized for other means of transportation, especially biking. I would love to see my city here in Silicon Valley become more like Amsterdam.
Venice, Rome
I think other than how beautiful Amsterdam is, this is what makes it my favorite city I've ever visited in the world. I would love to live there someday if I could.
Armando Araujo lol as soon as self driving cars come, every one will of those people walking and biking are going to start using cars
And they almost made highways in the canal system in the 60-s for cars, but locals strated to protest.
@@cheese-je9xs unlikely: have you seen how little road space there is?
I live in one of the larger Scandinavian cities; I have a five minute bike ride to work, 10 minutes to downtown for bar and restaurant areas/main train station/sports arena/concert venue and so on. I have two major grocery stores within a few minutes walk, as well as an urban train station with a ten minute ride from the big box outlets on the other side of town. Not to mention there are at least three schools and numerous kindergardens within a few minutes walk. This is all in a mixed area of apartment buildings and single family housing.
When I visit my dad in Tampa, Fl; within a ten minute walk there is nothing, twenty minutes you get to the nearest Starbuck's, a Papa Johns, a licquor store and a couple of gas stations. The nearest major grocery store is at least 45 minutes away on foot, mostly along heavily congested roads. There's absolutely no sense of community, and pretty much every house has a big empty yard, a beautiful porch with an empty porch swing. 'Tis the saddest place in the world.
@SM - 08ZI 737688 Queen Elizabeth Sr PS I'm pointing to the contrast. But to dispute you, no Florida is more than old people and vacation homes. In fact the area where my dad lives is "Old Tampa", but it's still not walkable.
That being said I think the mentality in older cities further up north is different from that of the south. The one thing I miss when I talk to people in Tampa, and this is only in my experience, is sense of belonging or being part of that land. No one speaks of Tampa with passion. A few years back I met an actual Floridian, who lives in a smaller community. His family went way back in the same part of the state, and he actually spoke about his state (or what it was) with passion. Obviously if you don't the place where you live, you don't care much about it and I think you risk ending up not loving your life. Perhaps that explains the madness that goes along with the urban sprawl.
@@kykk3365 Florida is full of immigrants and transplants. Generally, Americans move a lot, but Florida seems to take it up a notch. There are so many new developments and neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere. People move away from larger cities to the new areas where its cheaper, then commute back to the city for work.
Orlando is a great example of this. I started going there in the 90s and I've seen all these areas spring up over 30 years. They used to be forest and swamp land, now they are mile after mile of cookie cutter suburbs.
All that said, I absolutely love downtown Orlando. I stayed with a friend who lived in an apartment there and really enjoyed it. Was fairly walkable, and had life. Helps there's a college campus close by as well, so there's always people about.
Whereabouts in Scandinavia? I'd say the modern model of most Scandinavian cities is just as unsustainable as the American one. Most new developments are ugly overpriced high rise towers that create a bleak and sterile landscape. Even the most idyllic of cities like Bergen in Norway suffers from this disease. Also, with the population decline lack of proper maintenance, many residential urban areas are becoming banlieues. I don't know, I'm willing to listen, but I wouldn't say that the European model from the past 60-70 years is any better.
@@georgeredden6196 those parts of the city you're talking about are from the modernist era of the 30's to 70's where cities were planned with the mindset that through mathematics and social engineering urban planners could create the "ideal" living space. For many families these homes proved to be that in the beginning, however with time those houses proved to be very linear in terms of who could live there. Not only that, but the houses lacked any architectural value - for multiple reasons - one being that it made the houses cheaper and back then they did not think you'd need any "fancy" architecture. Today however we live in a very individualistic and capitalistic society and urban planning has adapted to new values. Instead of rectangular and boring concrete blocks you'll find unique architecture, colours and wood. Today Scandinavia is planned for a sustainable future where the city structure is mixed so you can live close to where you work, a mixed living environment hopefully speeds up integration as well. Either way, I got a bit carried away but I'm an urban planning student so it's close to my heart, the Scandinavian cities are looking back towards older city planning ideals to construct something with is more practical as well as sustainable. I don't think you can find anyone who is positive about brining back the modernist ideals of the 50's.
@@camillaa_ek I get that perhaps they've made improvements and I really hope they do. I hope you're right. However, let's skip the sales pitch and speak about real results because I also know what I'm talking about. To be honest, i hear architects here in Barcelona say the same thing about sustainability and so on, only to continue tripping on the same rock as the previous generation. Results: Same monstrosities, different buzzwords. One only has to look at the new developments in via Augusta and Avenida Diagonal to know that: 1. They'll never compete with places like passeig de Gracia and 2. in 40 years they'll be either demolished or become another dysfunctional part of the city. Examples of real sustainable architecture can be found in the small towns in the pyrenees where people still build using common sense while respecting their surroundings and culture.
Principles themselves start at 9:55 in case you only want to check those
David thanks
THINK TANK
David I
I don't support subsidizing anything just because someone else, not even an entire country, is doing it. I don't see that being efficient at all in the US, though I've never been east of the Mississippi. The metropolitan areas on the western half are actually few and some very far in between indeed.
With the status quo attitude from politicians, continued fiscal irresponsibility happily pushed through by bureaucrats, and the utter erosion of justice in the US it wouldn't surprise me if everyone wanting to take a simple road trip had to travel hours out of their way just to get to the actual point of destination.
David what happens for 10 minutes then?
Don’t forget to also make our cities beautiful! People gravitate towards beautiful cities because it’s proven that beautiful things make us feel good and that’s why when beautiful buildings are destroyed you feel remorse as if a person has died
Awesome! This is why I am becomming a city planner. Those exact difficulites and solutions are the big problems we will face in the next 50 years
How much does it cost to develop a city?
@@unknown9288 A ton unfortunately
My vision is to have walkable interesting hubs, "parts-of-cities" and then a subway of tram -system to get easily between them. You would then live in a community, but have easy access to other communities with services and working places. I live in Europe and that has been basically my experience my whole life from the 60's onward
Sounds perfect!!
I love that vision, and share it as well. But I'm in Canada, with so much 'open land' it seems harder for people to visually understand how actually more walkable neighbourhoods and good public transit to key areas of the city would be better than a bunch of autonomous cars and trucks. Some cities are getting there faster than others.
I'm in a more conservative town, so I see any growth and improvement in this area as sign of the times. If THIS town can change for the better, any town can.
5 star SimCity tutorial
SMXRT i think you miss spelled cities skyline
faridur rahman hahah lol, I'm actually taking note for my next city
faridur rahman I was thinking the same thing
Taking notes for City Skylines as well XD
Thank you for the laugh sir, enjoyed your comment :D
Australia has a huge issue with sprawl as well. I live in a suburb just a few kilometres outside of Melbourne but it's very isolated and sterile. It's particularly hard being here because literally everything is just houses near a busy main road. Most of the time, I just stay home and it can get very lonely. I would love something that has more personality! Even just a night market, and collated, commercial zone with personality and a super connected public transport into the main city would be amazing!
I feel your pain, bud. I'm in Canada and we have much the same sprawl issues. Most neighbourhoods are not 15-minute walkable to essential services or interesting places. Where I live in an apartment is not a suburb, but it is maybe right on the edge of 15-minute walk to some grocery stores, restaurants and other shops but it is along a big, busy, ugly street. There USED TO be a corner store just 5 minutes away. There is a park close by, but it is very limited in recreational options and not kept up. It has washed out tennis courts and a small playground, some undefined field space and near a river. My vision would be upgrade the tennis court, add a couple basketball courts, add a dock to the the river for fishing or even canoeing and kayaking, create some mini-soccer fields and flood-protect it a bit, since it is traditionally a bit of a spring flood risk.
Anyway, that aside, I think that most neighbourhoods just new a few touches to get better. They need at least a close-by "Food and Stuff" store, some restaurants, shops and services - that would encourage locals to take many walks or bikes to the store. Then the city would need to follow the 7 principles for building better cities and build more dedicated bike/walk lanes and upgrade city transit. For the future trams or mag-lev trains could be a great addition.
@tommie - What suburb in Melbourne?
Our cities and suburbs are tragically designed-see NotJustBikes’ RUclips channel for more. Strict separation of residential zones and zoning requirements that favor cars and giant parking lots and make it dangerous to walk or bike even short distances, resulting in isolation and further car-dependence. We don’t even have continuous bike lanes and sidewalks to walk/bike to nearby shopping centers.
I’m trying to get our suburban town center (city hall with shopping center) to change a few blocks to pedestrian-only promenades.
@@jasonrhtx I'd love to hear how you go! You could try asking them to trial pop-up bike lanes, even. :)
Hi Tommie, I don't know how old you are but if you'll be a student in the coming years I'd highly recommend moving close to the city center! I'm from Amsterdam and I lived south of uni Melb campus and I absolutely loved it.
somebody actually gets it, urban sprawls are boring, a place where people dont want to be except for in their homes or cars
urban sprawl is a result of government central planning. Giving the government more power to plan more to fix the problems they caused will not end of fixing the problems, just creating new ones. Government planning violates the natural rights of people and results in unsustainable inefficiency.
+Dustin Hill Nonsense, yes the govt does planning but they will also in any new city plan like one mentioned. They did the sprawling because that is what people thought was good. Your logic is asinine. And you are so quick to make govt evil.
nothing a bit of augmented reality and gamification couldn't fix there :) Seriously though, sprawl does seem to be bad for the environment, for society and for individuals' mental health. Still, I think some of these ideas (small businesses, mixed income, car-free towns) were a little naive and would be difficult to implement successfully - at least in Europe anyway. AVs will play a major role in our future because of convenience and flexibility. We need to think about the infrastructure around that reality
No, actually according to the National Association of Realtors surveys Most people want to live in single family detached houses sometimes referred to as sprawl. We sprawl be cause we don't want to be packed into high-rise boxes.
@@aacavicepresident7093
That's what Americans want because that's what they've grown up with and been conditioned to want since after WW2. The rest of the world couldn't imagine living in such boring, isolated, and soul-less neighborhoods. The suburbanization of America absolutely wrecked it's culture.
...and now I want to play Cities:Skylines.
eddebrock sameee, going to use some of those pedestrian only roads (only allows emergency and transportation vehicles) and also going to use axel.kieboms buildings, they can't replicate shops in the bottom and house in the top but they do look like it
Same
bruh literally
Well my city citizens always walk more than i want😂😂
Yes
I'm french, that really helped me for my school homework : to present a town planning project.
Aiden Pearce truss😂😂
Me too, lol
The best cities have trees, wide spaces to run, cycle and to walk.
The traffic of cars does destroy the city as the livable space. The better solution is to put larger roads with parking under the ground, and the slow roads on top.
This is a good solution, until one realizes that nearly 2/3s of the US sit on some sort of tectonic fault lines and thus are always going to be susceptible to earth quakes and natural disasters of the sort. That’s why power lines are still hung on poles rather than buried in the ground like in much of Europe.
David Lozano I don't think that power lines are buried in much of Europe. And the reason is not natural disasters, but the fact that the cables have to be 1) electrically isolated, 2) buried underground, and the price of isolating and burying kilometers of wire instead of hanging it over long distances makes it totally unviable. Sure, at local levels, in particular in newer developments there are cables led underground, but that's in the US just as much as in Europe.
Also I'm not sure what kind of tectonic fault lines you're talking about - except the West Coast, US is relatively tectonically stable.
I do see your point but as a person who lives in a country with one of the highest earthquake frequencies, this is potentially dangerous. Since it's the tropics we've also got the risk of tsunamis and floods. Global warming will also bring more extreme weather to all regions of the world. It might not be the best long term solutions but I do agree with your first statement
I think the biggest reason underground roads are so rare is less the earthquake risk, and more the cost. Look at how much it costs a city to expand its subway system - tunnels for roads just cost more than taxes can usually pay for.
ALEXANDER PAMENTER you guy just won my dislike :)
We should also focus more on making architecture more interesting, such as using more wood and stones, and giving foundations/floors more interesting shapes instead of the standard rectangles.
The reason why city planners don't do that is because it's more expensive.
@@SirForwyn yeah, I wish they’d use part of the plots for pedestrian space so they can use more interesting designs, big glass rectangles suck
Its against eco preservation.more timber is more exploitation of trees
@@RamKumar-fy5me You can always plant more trees, the problem isn't in cutting trees down, it's in not replanting at least the same amount you cut down
An issue is that wood and stone isn’t always resilient enough to handle the climate catastrophes we will see in the future.
Mega projects like rain harvesting or transforming a city into a sponge city will change our relationship for the better between nature and man. Biotechnology will also have its debut by showcasing its potential use of harnessing of replicating the power of nature.
But it's time we build a not just a better city, but a better world. This can not be done solely with money or with resources, but with ideas. We like to think that it is money that makes the world go round but fundamentally it's human cooperation which society should capitalize on.
We still need money to implement those ideas, but I agree with you completely :)
Theuserfromwakanda whether or not a Mega project is possible really only depends on one question, do we have the resources?
What is a sponge city? Also, we essentially do have rain harvesting... water from rain seeps into groundwater through dirt and then into streams, and from streets into drainage ditches into the municipal water system.
i'm not bashing your idea just offering critique. also harvesting rain is probably good for the city but may have unintended consequences on surrounding areas
Yes, totally. With ideas and we need to let ideas come from anyone, anywhere. It's horrible how so many people want socialism and central planning. We need the opposite. We need autonomous earthship communities that can cooperate with each other allowing each inhabitant to be able to try their own ideas within their space instead of these systems that concentrate the opportunity for ideas into the hands of an elite few.
Singapore is 20 light years ahead!!
So.. Biking, walking, transit, parks, no-auto streets.. He essentially described a European city
Yes he did. Love it
@North American RUclipsr To be fair, no city is *really* well organized. Most big cities developed in a time when sustainability, walkability, etc weren't even being considered. Basically all cities were designed for cars, even in Europe and Asia, and that means they all suck.
@North American RUclipsr Thats good, that means you can pick up groceries and go to work within a 10-minute walk. When commercial and residential areas are separated, you have to drive or take a train very far to get to a commercial area.
@@andersonstudiosmusic The historical centres of almost all European cities formed naturally from before the time cars were prevalent, hence the dense networks of small squiggly streets with what you would call mixed usage in the USA. We also had our share of brutalist car-centric urban planning in the 20th century (in suburbs, cities rebuilt after the war or Soviet architecture) but its influence was never as pervasive as in most other parts of the world because of our historical baggage. Now in the 21st century, some of the car-worshipping lunacy is thankfully on its way back, and some cities are better than others. So in a way we were just lucky I guess.
@@hydrocharis1 right, but the vast suburban sprawl spurred by the popularization of the automobile is what allowed for cities to become the behemoths they are today. That isn’t sustainable. Just because a city began as a walkable city-center doesn’t mean those cities are still like that.
Edit: and you’re right, many European cities are not as bad as other parts of the world because they were developed in large part before cars became prevalent. That doesn’t mean they weren’t later developed to suit auto traffic, and no major city on Earth has taken adequate action to become sustainable; even the “most sustainable” cities are still not actually environmentally friendly.
Beyond the structure, we're gonna have to consider the visual aspect of the city. Every city around the world is starting to look the same. Bring back traditional architecture!!
Globalist architecture looks and feels like nothing. Totally agree.
@@toniderdon Most new buildings in European cities are built in bland international style. And the rare times a building is built in a historical style, there are snobbish people calling it tacky, out of place , reactionary while the larger public likes it and generally hates the contemporary buildings.
You are literally only talking about Germany and Europe. In the Americas, china, India, and Africa, AKA almost the entire world except Europe, things are being done as he said.
@Mahima Bhat More about profit.
I'm an urban planning major and wow this is great
Cars are too heavy, If you sit in a car 90% of the energy is used to move the car itself, and only 10% of the fuel actually transports the person....one reason for public transport is it uses less fuel per person to transport
I think people are very hooked up on futuristic ideas of the future, like flying cars, what if some billionaire decided to realize his childhood dream of flying cars, and mass produced helecopter cars? even though they'd use a lot more energy to fly. Although its boring i think we have to do what is most practical.
That’s the same with a train. 90% of the energy is used to move the train itself and it’s worse when the train is empty. Your first statement has nothing to do with your conclusion. The reason trains have less emissions per person is because they fit more people in less space. Car sharing would be the equivalent of saving emissions (by having less emissions per person). (Just that a car is usually less efficient than a train).
@@tristanmoller9498 Trains also use less energy the cars, because the iron wheels and tracks have less friction then the tire-asphalt solution.
This is why bikes are good for short haul, but scooters are good for long haul as well. If you need to cross the city it can be most efficient to drive on a scooter - they take up less space on the road which means less congestion, theyre (my apostrophe key isnt working lol) a fast means of getting from point A to B, and theyre very light. My scooter (and most others) is about 110kg, so its carrying as much as 70-80% of its own weight carrying me, and only has a 125cc engine but can carry me at car speeds, all while avoiding and reducing congestion (which makes it doubly fast - I can get anywhere quicker than public transport unless its against a fast, straight train line with few stops.)
Scooters are the future!
...and takes 10x the time.
Every country should implement this type of urban designing ideas💡.
Most of the world has this nailed down already. I’ve lived all my life without a car in Helsinki, Finland and I can get to anywhere using public transport, walk or bike. And with what I’ve seen it’s the same thing with other EU and Asian cities
Yeah, lucky for most of the world, except Canada and US sadly. We've been bamboozled by the car industry to build car-dependent cities with urban sprawl. We are working back from behind the 8 ball. I think it'll get better here, but a lot slower than many other areas of the world, it seems.
Lol, we already have this in The Netherlands. We've been doing this for decades..
Smart parts of the US are copying you.
You are doing this because you cannot afford a vehicle. Your government made this way. And still you do not talk to each other. :D Cold people in North of Europe!
@@grigoreturcan1368 No dumbass, because The Netherlands is smaller, and since cycling is a huge option here, people do that..
And people still buy cars and scooters..
And more assumptions you make based on what you don't know, but you clearly don't live here..
@Mhamad Riyad Because ethics based on better infrastructure sounds very intelligent of you..
You are very SPECIAL my friend!..
@@Nicholas-f5 Yes, and i'm not complaining about it, but the guy in this video make it sounds its all new and out of the box thinking..
These are good options. I have seen neighborhoods like this when I have traveled overseas. I saw something quite similar with Hong Kong. At the end of the Vietnam War, Hong Kong, like so many other nations in the area, had a huge number of refugees. As a very high density city/country, they were overwhelmed. They figured out an excellent solution. They built high rises with grocery and retail space on the lower floors, then childcare, then schools up to middle school, if I recall correctly, and then about 20 or so stories of very compact apartments. Good urban planning also tends to include a good mix of green space, and it could also be useful to have small farms and even gardens that the residents can work in.
As a future City Planner on a fast growing country in Asia, this video helps.
That's funny, I want to be a city planner/designer too. Not from Asia but the Netherlands. We can make this change!
I live near Seattle. More and more people are living in the suburbs because it is increadably expensive to live in the city, and then many people just commute.
And that's the problem that the announcer talks about. He's saying that there are many solutions on making cities cheaper and that's through more investment in structures.
I wouldn't consider spending time on commute a saving of any kind...
The government should impose "suburb tax" or something to make people move near into the city. I don't understand how some people need so much "space". It feels kinda lonely actually to separate yourself from other people like that.
@@011azr , it's more on the rent and price of real estate, no?
Its time for the "Politics of NO" to shut up. All the growth protest, building height restrictions, burdensome bureaucracies, over-regulation, etc etc. When is the last time you attended a Public Hearing where anybody from the "peanut gallery" were well versed on the subject of which they spoke? If population grows, and housing is mired in protest, of course prices will rise. The WEALTHY depend upon the liberal left to protest everything. That insures that prices stay high. The first people excluded from housing due to rising prices are often the same folks who protested. Punchline...…..You never see a protester at a maternity ward.
Beautiful. People like him will make our cities much healthier than they are now. All buildings should be mixed-used with shops on the ground floor.
Personal vehicles are the antithesis of cities, he's right about that. Mass transit and walkable communities need to be the focus of developers everywhere. But what traffic will remain on the roadways should benefit from autonomous vehicles- which reduce the rates of accidents and GREATLY bring down the costs of tax service (one of the main costs is labor), allowing more people to forego cars and amortizing the costs of vehicles over many rides, thus favoring electric vehicles for their fuel-savings (battery-exchange points, like was once pursued by Project Better Place, could also help keep electric taxis moving without long recharge times...) and reducing urban smog/pollution.
@@zava5025 😁👍
Zava Yeah trams don’t transport enough people, when you get to cities of LA size. Metro transit is very useful. It’s called rapid transit but a better name is probably high-capacity transit. Metro systems are very useful for transporting thousands of people or more per hour
@@electrichanoi7244 Metros and trams have different features.
@@electrichanoi7244 In most cases you need a mix of multiple transit systems. Metro, trams, buses - they all have their place in a well-planned city environment. Metros or local trains on high-capacity routes, trams in urban routes with less passengers, and buses bringing people from the further reaches of suburbs to the city proper or their nearest high-capacity line.
Basically he likes Europe.
Eduardo Barca Europe does have well designed cities
Europe does have no memes.
Well in Europe the density is insane as compared to the rest of the world. You wouldn't know it though.
Nobody goes to US cities to walk around - shopping, see places off TV shows, go to the top of one skyscraper, maybe food, maybe visit museums - but not to just walk around. Edinburgh, Rome, Bath, Oxford, Venice, Paris, Amsterdam - you can just _walk._
Yes, I just realized after watching this that the city I live in (Berlin) does all 7 of these town planning principles really well compared to other cities, especially in the US and Asia (but even compared to many other European cities). That may be a contributing factor as to why Berlin is so popular right now, despite not being the prettiest of cities.
'Sounds Utopian but its not, its what people want'
Haha
I saw a lecture 3 years ago by LA architect Julie Eizenberg where she noted that the ever worsening traffic in Los Angeles has indirectly lead to more walkable, distinct and commercially diverse neighborhoods because, for example, while 20 years ago one might be willing to drive after work from Culver City to Hollywood for...say...great sushi, today it is out of the question. As a result, you can now find the goods and services that you need right in the specific neighborhood you live or work in.
I had never considered high-density sprawl before. Thank you!
It’s not really a problem in the USA
Sofia Fasullo But I’ve been to China and seen high-density sprawl, it’s almost as bad as low density sprawl
now there is the corona virus, now everyone can get infected
take notes Detroit
DvEHighlights we already grinding out here
DvEHighlights Detroit is full of demons that needs to be purged before they can be great again like Donald trumps america
Youssef Elsayed I know we're on the come up #DvE
i prefer the gangstahhoodstyle in detroid
We're setting it up in Gary, IN too, an underdeveloped suburb of Chicago 25 minutes downtown via transit.
Basically, copy Disneyland in Anaheim. Everything is walkable, hotels are very close by the park, you can easy walk. Think about it, Disneyland has a tram, everything is walkable, everything is nice to look at, it's very eye pleasing, nothing boring, lots of restaurants, shops, things to do. LOL.
This is one of the coolest TED talks I've ever seen
these designs are efficient, smart, economically and environmentally sound as well as encouraging to the connected-ness to humanity....therefore they will never work
yo sad
Progressive cities are already far better places to live. Degenerating cities of so-called 'conservative' modes only 'works' for the few, whom in turn shape your defeatist world views
I fantasize about moving back to Madrid so often. I miss being able to function without needing a car to get all of the things I need to live.
#8: Build on high ground rather than in fertile (and vulnerable) valleys.
#9: Incorporate the principles of permaculture.
Good additions. Haha, reminds me of my city years back built a big huge box mall centre in a known flood plain! And guess what? It almost flood the area multiple times! They had to put up large sandbags along one side of the street so the mall wouldn't be flooded out.
And of course, they big box stores moved out of downtown (which is high ground) and into the low ground area further away from most residences.
As cities and towns continue to grow in terms of size and population, there is increasing demand for planners to manage these changes. Planners frequently work with other professionals such as engineers, architects, building surveyors, economists, developers, politicians, scientists, and environmental scientists.
can't wait to see the end of car culture and auto-centrism in the USA
Not me. I enjoy my personal vehicle
And anywhere else too !
And USA centrism in the USA
@@TheDr.Magnum Good for you, have fun dealing with constant traffic congestion!
It won't be some immediate shift, people who enjoy the denser living spaces with shops and walking spaces around them will gradually move there. It will become popular due to businesses also setting up their offices within walking distance as well. @What12311 you enjoy your vehicle but no one enjoys the 9-5pm traffic that takes 2 hours out of their day every day.
Here's right in that cities he talks about are nice to visit. Personally, though, I don't like living in dense urban areas. I decided to move to a town about 30 minutes away from the downtown area where I work because I wanted to live in nature, have my own private space and enjoy some quiet time when I got back home. Given the popularity of suburbs, I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
A lot of urbanists, I find, ignore the notion of personal preference, or outright disregard it. There's a reason why a lot of people decide not to live inside large cities, which aren't always related to money.
I agree but you're not completely right as they are talking about cities.
@@JaydenHolland-wo4fd
The point is that there's more than just cities out there and people should have the freedom to live there if they want and can afford it.
@@indalot8315 Yea I agree with that.
Imagine waking up in the morning, preparing to get to work or school, college, whatever. And instead of taking your keys to drive your own car, you can simply step on a train that passes through your neighborhood every 10 minutes or so. There, you would get faster to your destination, be able to enjoy the travel and even share the ride with other people that are doing the same thing as you!!! Imagine the collaboration, the conversations, all humans relationships in a big city being more and more connected, into a community that is way bigger and complex than simply your own family bubble. Oh, god, I love this future, but why can’t it be my present? 😊
I live in the entertainment district of my city. I love it. I wouldn't live anywhere else.
How would you get any sleep with all the commotion what about insomnia caused from the constant passing train. What about noise pollution, wouldn't you prefer a quite neighborhood away from noisy trains constantly coming and going?
@@olanlevan8470 are people that uneducated? I live 100m from the train station and you hear nothing
@@olanlevan8470 I live in a European country where many or most cities are build like this. And we all sleep.
Americans need to understand is they can keep their quiet, low-rise, suburban environments, but still make them more walkable and integrate commercial districts within walking distance. In my experience, this only contributes to the communal feeling of their neighborhood, which is what proud suburban Americans always say they like about their suburbs.
True that.
It's almost like American city-planners took the concept of a town and scaled it up way out of proportion, with massive downtown areas where majority of the economic activity is and car-dependent suburban sprawl that surrounds it.
Why not plan suburbs like self-sufficient small towns instead? With pedestrian infrastructure and mixed-use central hub area within walking distance with all the basic services and such, which then can be connected to public transport network, so everyone does not need to drive absolutely everywhere and congest the roads - that would benefit even those who love driving. It would not make the suburbs feel more dense or anything of that sort - actually the exact opposite, if we assume the population size would stay the same. It's not some kind of utopia, but actually the way suburbs in many countries are designed.
From what I've seen, American style development actually wastes lots of space and the suburbs feel really cramped compared to the overall population density of the areas. There are some parks here and there, but other than that it's just private property, car infrastructure and some shopping mall or stroad within a few kilometers that is either impossible or uncomfortable to reach on foot. The small increase in density towards the central hub would not affect the feeling of the rest of the suburb at all, but it would free up a lot of space that could be used for something else - preferably recreation and green space rather than new housing.
man i really miss the life where you can literately get all of your daily groceries within 10 miunites of walking
I can with in 3 min. The catch? I live in Europe.
Same.. it’s called NYC
The modern age is even better. You can literally get all you need with a click of a button
10 minutes!?, i can walk to the grocery store in just less then 3 minutes..
In The Netherlands at least..
The Dutch have promoted local groceries shops by banning big box stores. And it worked.
You know you played cities skyline too much when this appears on recommended tab
And I haven't ever even tried that XD... Tho I didn't get this one ln recommended but shared videos about urban planning :-)
haha, that's literally the reason i watch these videos
I visited Taipei and neighboring Keelung in Taiwan. Keelung and the old part of Taipei have the ideal situations that Calthorpe mentions. It's wonderful. I may move there in the near future.
If only the weather were as wonderful...
Lots of good information here. I particularly like the greening of the waterways which.........needs to be done world wide. It helps keep the waters clean and gives all people access to water for recreation. Privatising waterlines is silly. One problem I have with this idea is it really doesn't account for the primary reason cities exist. Jobs. Most cities grew up around ports, or natural resources, or industrial complexes that have very specific locations. So while a lot of domestic and service jobs can be rezoned into these better planned areas, the majority of people still need to get to the major economic centres. You can't break a mine or a factory up into many small ones, as an example. It's also very difficult to transform older cities into this formula since people already own their lands and won't want to give them up. I think cities on the whole would have to completely change their future zoning laws.........which is going to reek havoc on real estate investments and values and face a HUGE push back from those large markets and the bankers that manage them. Focusing on new growth is probably a better way to start, and at least set the president. Once that's successful(if it's successful), converting older infrastructure will be an easier sell. Those wealthy property owners aren't going to take it sitting down though.
The only true purpose of TED Talks is providing teachers with the infinite source of videos so that students could analyze them and then tell them by heart at classes, thank you
1. tree
2. tree
3. tree
4. tree
5. tree
6. tree
7. tree.
Bruh you forgot tree on the list
Bob Ross would be proud.
the sign of a prosperous nation is not how many poor people own cars, but how many rich people use public transportation
I enjoyed this video. As a player of City Skylines, which is a single player city simulation game, I've come to realize just how bad traffic is. This video will make me rethink public transportation. I also believe that making small decorations, like trees on the side and in the middle of the road, is better for the environment, it makes the city look nicer, especially with variation, and they can act as sound barriers.
Cities skylines does not have anything close to realistic traffic AI. When in real life do people line up in mile long lines in a single lane to get off at the nearest exit lol. Don't compare C:S traffic to traffic IRL
@Syntheon my guy you're overcomplicating this way too much. Traffic in cities skylines sucks, almost every player of the game knows this. There are even mods out there that work to correct it. There are no "studies" or links that prove this, the simulated traffic just sucks lol. The original commentor was trying to say that IRL traffic is like cities skylines traffic, which isn't true at all.
Learn from Singapore. Singapore is the best example of urban planning meeting all his principles.
Some of the ideas are good but I feel that we need to completely rethink how we want to live as a society. Maximizing walking, living where you work, excellent public transport, lots of trees/greenery and best use of available resources is just a start. One way to really connect with others is to eat together. Having a common place to eat would really help. Economic factors are not that important really! We CAN live without shops, businesses and corporations. We actually have more human resources than the tasks that need to be done. We can design cities that minimize travel (thus reducing traffic), maximize resources, bring people closer together and take care of people's basic needs.
Sounds like you're talking about "third spaces" like plazas, libraries, outdoor picnic areas and parklets?
@@amorphousblob
not really.
i'm talking about COMPLETELY re-imagining how we live, work, play etc.
i'm talking about creating cities where the "basic component" is a small community of tower blocks, in which, nearly ALL the residents "are employed" within that "basic component" and the essential amenities of school, college, university, hospital, sports complex are available JUST OUTSIDE the "basic component".
i've done a very simple "city plan" with area of 400 sq. km which could house approx 25 million people (based on a family size of 4, and 4-bed appartement per family, 8 appartements per floor and 50 floors per block).
@@jsikarwar
You have quite an idea ..
That sounds amazing
Been considering how to design better communities lately
@@oluwaseyiayodele6058
I just started at the bottom and began to think about what e actually NEED over what we WANT.
we only really need 5 basic things: food, clothing, shelter, education and medical facilities. The rest is just unnecessary noise.
In terms of a city plan: I started with a plan for a 4 bedroom luxury apartment, then made a tower block with 8 apartments on each floor, arranged 12 such blocks in the outer 12 sections of a 4x4 grid, named it as a "Housing Society", then repeated the 4x4 process with the housing societies as I did with the tower blocks, called this a "Residential Block". Then repeated the 4x4 grid again to get a city of about 450 sq km.
Tower blocks of 50 floors, 4 people per flat gives a city population of about 33million people (which I think makes it the 2nd most populated city on the planet).
Nearly ALL people work in THEIR housing society (or just outside it). The centre 4 squares in grids are for common services/amenities.
Could go on, but limited time and space here.
I’m from Germany and our city’s looks like so. And the benefit with a good tram system is amazing and lot of green spaces
Great presentation with a ton of valuable insight but one subject that I wish Peter would have focused more attention on is cities plans for their waterfronts. I don't think that "a green edge" encompasses the complexity of ways that future cities will utilize their waterfront. With electric commuter ferry's proving to be efficient modes of mass transportation and the FAA's new guidelines for passenger drones I believe that the future of our waterfronts are poised to become incredibly complex walk-able city centers that offer opportunities for open green space interwoven with commercial/mixed uses and transportation hubs.
I'm studying urban planning in Detroit and your ideas about using space for different things and public transportation are spot on. I think each city should grow in its own way. We should also work on making jobs, treating everyone fairly, and having homes people can afford. This way, people will want to live in cities because they like it, not because they have to.
Best TED talk I've seen
I can hardly wait to get my sound back. I went to see Peter Calthorpe speak 20 years ago and was impressed.
It started off like a typical "all hype, no sense" TED talk, but it turned out to be pretty good. It has a healthy dose of skepticism and seeks a good compromise instead of a silver bullet. Nice talk.
hi from Mexico! *Excellent* video! These TED talks are always amazing!! Thank you so much!!!
I feel like we should tear down large parts of our cities and rebuild.
Exactly...specially in countries like Bangladesh and India
It's really disheartening to see developing countries adopting the American model, where they are getting overly reliant on cars, building ghastly asphalt roads in residential areas, and basically forcing their populace to move into increasingly tiny spaces in big cities. I recently visited Indonesia and the people who live in urban sprawls have no clue about what's happening, they are too busy absorbing propaganda fed by their politicians and even the dirt poor ones have their own motorbikes/cars as a "status symbol". There were no green spaces, no parks or recreation centers for kids and people to just come out, relax and breath in some fresh air within close proximity of residential areas. You can't even go out for an early morning jog outside because the roads don't have footpaths and are constantly clogged with traffic from dusk til dawn.
This happened in Paris in the late 1800s
The aplause at minute 9sh was very meaningful. it says a lot.
City planning is going to be among the most important jobs this century, with constantly rising populations and nowhere to go
As an American that grew up in a sprawl and now lives in a part of that city that is relatively walkable, I feel like we have all been hoodwinked! We just accept that living in these isolated suburbs is ok! We accept that pouring your life’s worth into a car loan, rising gas prices, and ridiculous car insurance is ok! We accept that pushing for better communities is too hard! That’s not a place I want to live in
Indeed. Thankfully a lot of people are starting to realize this, new urbanism is gaining steam rapidly even in North America. Undoing all the damage is going to take a while, though.
to all my ap human geo people out there! you've made it!!!!! this is the last video, after this then our class is done!!
Yessir
Not for me :(
1. PRESERVE: Preserve natural ecologies, agrarian landscapes and cultural heritage sites.
2. MIX: Create mixed-use and mixed income neighborhoods.
3. WALK: Design walkable streets and human scale neighborhoods.
4. BIKE: Prioritize bicycle networks and auto-free streets.
5. CONNECT: Increase density of road netowrk, limit block size.
6. RIDE: Develop high quality transit and affordable BRT (Bus Rapid Transit).
7. FOCUS: Match density and mix to transit capacity.
REASONS TO BE HOPEFUL for OVERCOMING URBAN SPRAWL:
1. "Most people get it. They understand intrinsically what a great city can and should be."
2. "The kind of analysis we can bring to bear now allows people to connect the dots, allows people to shape political coalitions that didn't exist in the past. That allows them to bring into being the kinds of communities we all need."
He obviously haven't been to *insert major european city here*.
-"Hey great idea everybody, let ppl without cars get some space to walk on!"
*applause*
ikr it's kinda funny to think that america is trying to solve a problem where the solution is to build like europe.
....
so tru
Teng as a Londoner which london is a city you will have a love hate relationship with, and honestly i was thinking the wanted to build a new london haha
Different countries have different histories. He was also talking about China, not just the U.S.
I'm from Odense and they have always tried to make a nicer city centre. A few years ago they made a big decision and chose to oblitterate the road network on the middle, near where bus/trainstation meets everything else, and make it into walking/biking instead and install a pram that goes from the various corners and into this middle. So completely car free zone. Brave and bold. Happy.😊
I agree with him on most points, but I disagree in that I see autonomous driving networks to be a critical part of transportation in the future and the technology can also be used for transit. Denser forms of transportation are more useful in denser corridors and this will most likely not change in the future. However, there will still be large parts of the world where the density does not make trains or even buses more efficient and thus would need point-to-point transportation instead which can be covered by an level 5 autonomous network. I also see no reason why you only need to use one form of transportation too and I can easily see the autonomous network as being integrated with the wider transit network e.g. taking a car from your house to a subway station which will then take you downtown. In that sense, that network will largely replace the largely empty and inefficient bus routes that serve suburbs and low-density areas.
I am all for denser communities, walkable communities, and transit-oriented-development, but it is important to remember that you can't demolish all the sprawl that was already constructed nor assume none will get built the future, thus you cannot ignore how to improve transportation efficiency in these areas.
If we want to achieve high density with a high quality of life, the public policy answer is two-fold: (a) exempt all buildings and other property improvements from the tax base; these are depreciating assets the maintenance of which is penalized by the conventional property tax; and (b) impose an annual charge on land equal to the potential annual rental value of whatever land is held; this will bring an end to sprawling development, will remove the profit from speculating in land, and provide a financial incentive for owners of land to bring the land they hold to its highest, best use.
Manila, Philippines?...take notes
COULDN'T AGREE MORE
it so sad that politicians here are busy planning how will they get more money and they have no vision for the future.
following the China city trend lol goodluck
With the missing middle, we could achieve good density and still know all our neighbours and feel like we belong. People have no idea how important that is. Community can't be sacrificed for anything.
I'm not a city planner, but this is very useful for us who play Cities: Skylines. Because the traffic can be horrendous if you without thought plop down things without thinking..
TED TALKS long term listener and fan of the NPR Radio show
I really like how this man speaks.
This is the way to go! It's pretty similar to medieval cities.
13:29 I think you miss that shared transport whether its public transport or shared taxis is a vector for the spread of infections.
oh goodness i guess I'm not the only one who predicted coronavirus
but still, with advancements in medicine (HOPEFULLY), that won't be a problem. Even before this covid thing, that problem was getting smaller as time passed.
and really, do you notice that? come on. Sitting next to random strangers on buses and planes for HOURS at a time, but sitting in a car for a few minutes? We hardly even worry about it.
If you are hear for principles->
1-Preserve
2-Mix
3-Walk
4-Bike
5-Connect
6-Ride
7-Focus
Thanks so much
Wonderful video. India's politicians need to understand this.
also India's public
Truly enjoyed the lecture. Thanks🙏🏻
I hope that our Indian architectures are watching this so they could build our cities like never before💫
Smart man, we need more of you
I love walking.
i hope my country Indonesia can addopt this kind of idea in our next new capital city
Yep my teacher just made me watch this video for midterm critical theory
I'm Vietnamese. Please invite Professor Peter to guide our leaders in Hanoi
This sounds great for people who like cities but I intend to isolate myself to best of my financial ability, thank you very much.
Go live in the country then
people in metro manila are just now starting to see the benefits of car free streets, in my opinion it all started when Ayala lands started the "car free Ayala Sundays" where they'd close up the streets of Makati CBD every Sunday morning for joggers, cyclists, skaters and other activities, and the reception was astonishingly positive that it developed its own community where people interact, exercise and bond together, Car Free Sundays was supposed to only be till the end of 2023, but the reception was so good that it still continues today and the best part is other cities are starting to pick up on this as well, very recently Pasay City started the "Car Free Pasay" every Sunday as well, with its already established cycling community it will no doubt help foster even more cities to do it as well, finally there have been a cry from various cyclists, joggers and other activity goers for the most bike friendly, BGC to advocate for Car Free weekends as well
I love these thoughts, however the challenge is employment. We need to bring the jobs further out, so that the commute is cut. Most of the salaried jobs are downtown.
These kinds of development also encourage the growth of small and medium enterprises, so that can at least take up some of the employment slack. Plus these places are great for like say app development companies and game developers just starting out.
Imagine driving in a 6,000 lot subdivision. Houses after houses, street after street. There are 40-50 lot subdivision projects being approved everyday all over US. Now imagine a 6,000 lot subdivision project. 😳
10:17 This entire model will only work in America if people stop with the economic segregation. Middle class Americans love to cosplay as upper class Americans. So many people want to shop for $17 imported gourmet olives at Whole Foods even though they should be shopping for affordable olives at Aldis. Then they sit back and complain that the poor are so violent, when it's these types of "white flight" urban planning policies that CREATED the urban sprawl and blight that creates high crime areas. If rich and middle class people lifted everyone up instead of running away, we could easily put some of these principles Peter mentioned in place. There are only 300 million people in America. We have the chance to get this right. We have money, we have people eager to try this stuff out. We just need to get over ourselves & our fear of the poor.
It's the same everywhere in the capitalistic world, really, talking from the "third world" here. The biggest urban sprawl was from rural exodus, more recently we are seeing these "white flight" separate residential communities as the biggest profits of real estate. I believe the only way to counteract this trend is through points similar to those of the video, by state investment yes.
@@Joao-de9gl true, but the US had explicitly racist real estate agents, rental agents, and community zoning in major cities well into the 1970s. Quite a few of the poor black neighbourhoods exist solely because of not-my-neighbour practices and town, state, and federal governments turning a blind eye - something to bear in mind when 'conservatives' dog whistle about Chicago and Detroit.
@@williamchamberlain2263, indeed. We didn't have such explicit laws as the US, but it's a common practice from the state, historically and now, to treat blacks as second class citizens, unworthy of rights and properties. This contributed a lot to the formation of today's shanty towns.
So people who shop at Whole Foods are responsible for violence in poor neighborhoods? Sounds like more brilliant liberal logic to me 🙄🤦♂️
Really great ideas, more walking lanes than actual roads
We need parks, not parkings.
wow bro thats so deep bro youre so woke bro
@@ilikelebronjames6426 I mean, he's right
@@ilikelebronjames6426 truth hurts, apparently.
Cars should always be available to the people. Taking away cars from the people or raising the cost too much is taking away peoples freedom. The thing is that people should be able to choose not to take the car unless for example leaving the city and going out in the woods, shopping, family trips etc. For people to choose not to take the car just to the barber or to work the city needs to be a perfect place to walk, bike or take a subway/bus. But then still have a plan that people will need the car for the freedom of movement.
For example freeways are still needed as well as good and efficient roads between the city and freeway, same with good parking for the cars. People don't want to be trapped within their city or within the paths that the bus/train goes.
That's the exact problem we are facing with bicycles now though... Not enough space for bicycles to go, little room for bicycle parking and people want to have the chance to bike around have a breath of fresh air
Who also played SimCity here?
Nofan Felani cities skylines here
Rudy Steiner yeah, it's a way better game.
To bad that there is no mixed use (commercial and residential) in this game.
Patrick Star Actually thats right. This two groups should be apartened.
I think cutting down on urban sprawl would also contribute to a rise in culture. Who wants to go outside in the city if it isn't walkable, cyclable, and visually appealing? You're probably more like to relax at a street cafe and experience local food or go dancing in the park with the community if there's an attractive, community-centered space to do it. Philadelphia has a long way to improve, but we have some city squares that are very bicycle and pedestrian friendly with a lot of green space. Every Sunday there's a swing dancing group that meets at Rittenhouse Square, and it's really fun.
Pedestrian based cities, America needs to learn car run cities leave much to the imagination when it comes to fully integrated, cohesive and accessible cities & planning. Resources are finite people. Cars aren't the solution. Public transport needs rehaul and rebranding.
i had to watch this for college
It somehow sounds like the US just discovered European cities
Yeah, we are now waking up to the idea of having freeways everywhere is disgusting
Peter Calthorpe is using this forum to discuss how to create sustainability within cities such as reducing the average miles traveled in cars to limit carbon emission. His ideas encourage society to rethink urban development and advocate for environments that foster connectivity and resilience.