It's far cheaper to retrofit a city with these tunnels than a subway system, and it's really for niche locations where a subway system may simply not be needed. It's just adding a lane or two here and there. It's simply another tool in the traffic management toolbox.
@@jamesengland7461But isn't building a tunnel like very expensive and time consuming for just a few cars? It's not a highway, it's not a subway.. it's a tunnel.
@@hiskishow it's not cheap, but if alternatives are more expensive, it becomes the cheapest option eventually. demolishing a thousand skyscrapers to make room for a road for example
Seattle ruined it the best. "We want a world class light rail system!" "Great! That will be $20 billion." "WHAT? That's ridiculous!" "Ok...what about $5 billion for something useless?" "Perfect!...Is it ok if we bungle the whole project to make it cost close to $20 billion to make it useless?" ""
@@FlameOnTheBeat its a robOvan, not a bus. Marketing is important, you can laugh all you want, there's very few people in the world who spend so little on marketing and make so much money as elon, the proportion is out of this world
I like trains and street cars and bicycle paths and walking but self driving cars could have a place instead of Uber for example, which changes its price according to demand if they made self driving cars to get a person to the trolley station that would help and some people Cannot drive because of poor vision or other reasons cannot easily walk bicycle to the train stop.
@@oyuyuy Cost tons of money, take up space, and destroys the environment? Or are you one of those "I need it because otherwise where would I store all my fast food wrappers?" types that think they NEED to own a car for storage? Or is it the old "In case I have to move imaginary furniture a made up distance" excuse that truck owners like to use?
@@Drakith90 That's the description of pretty much any consumer product lmao. What do you own that doesn't cost money, take up space or taxes the environment? And I don't own a car, but by all means, keep fumbling for a box to put me in 😂
sorry, the west have been infected by an actual "mind virus" (and not the nonsense grifters like Elon lie about) in which any solutions that don't make existing oligarchs even more wealth is "evil and woke"
Hello! 👋 I'm a planner and I totally get the disappointment with this guy's comments about self driving cars. Unfortunately, in the US and Australia, public transport (and other planning issues) are driven pretty hard by private proponents, both influencing the politicians we need to make the laws and set the targets, and by investment. As a New Yorker, he'll be well aware of this issue and I think is probably just being practical. Adoption of new tech definitely isn't an excuse to stop investing in trams, trains, buses and ferries
The problem I take with this response is that it presents self driving cars as a lesser evil compared to today's manually driven vehicles. In practice there is scant evidence to suggest autonomous vehicles will solve any problems created by cars, be it safety, traffic, affordability, wasteful land use, etc. And every penny we spend on autonomous vehicle infrastructure is money wasted on known effective alternatives. The practical response is to recognize that more cars will simply not solve our problems, no matter how technologically advanced they are. Why should we accept that North American cities are somehow chronically car dependent when other countries have reckoned with their car dependency and dealt with the exact same problems?
@@LimitedWardwhat other countries ? Countries that are the size of a single US state ? Or china ? That has industrialized and urbanized under the watchful and well choreographed eyes of a centralized federal govt. Car dependance does have quantifiably deleterious effects on the quality of life in cities, there is no denying that, but the zealotry and virulant hatred towards cars and suburbs found in urbanist crowds has turned urbanists into undeniably insufferable people whose moral crusade over shadow most of the meaningful arguments they do have. There is no room for suburbs in their urbanist utopias. I have had quite a few consversations with urbanists and they come up with the most hair brained arguments when they really dont need to.
5:00 "Trees are, like, the single greatest thing that can happen to a city." This is my favorite part of living in my part of the NW side of Chicago. I live in a still pretty working class neighborhood and so many streets (especially the residential side streets) are fully lined with trees. It does so much to lessen the alienation of the concrete sprawl of the grid. I think the tree placement and maintenance is one of the city department of streets and sanitation greatest successes.
3:43 Bad urban planning can definitely increase crime though. Isolated neighborhoods with difficult access to working places are usually where you'll find a lot of unemployed people without perspective, which is an environment ripe for crime. Marseille is a good example of this.
I noticed this too. In the Netherlands theres a big movement of making city centers walking/bikes only, and they use a lot of clever methods to stop terrorists whilst doing this. With the waves of cars driving into the public they added things like decorative plant pots with gaps cant go through so busy squares are safe
I recall learning about Rio de Janeiro's implementation of streetlights in slum areas for the Olympics and the following studies that showed an absolutely massive reduction (or rather displacement) of crime in well-lit neighbourhoods. I was shocked to hear him say it couldn't have effect!
Sabemos como Brasília foi feita para manter a União bem longe do Povo (região Sudeste) e ajudar no desenvolvimentismo do Interior do Brasil, mais especificamente a região Centro-Oeste.
Gotta say that i love the tartan grid idea - one side of the block being for cars, another for pedestrians and bikes, then just keep alternating betwee the two. Intersections with overpasses for the foot traffic. Everyone gets everywhere in their own way with minimum to no passing into each other's space and all buildings get an access to both systems on different sides of the construction. That would be great. Wanna ride a car or catch a bus? North and east building exit. You want to walk, skate, or take a bike? South and west exit will take you there. Chose your adventure, either way you can get to your destination +/- 100m, depending on which grid you chose and which side of the block your destination is situated on. Brilliant.
I'm glad this guy is a FORMER Chief Urban Designer - dude can only think about how to make driving better when the clear answer for many cities is to get rid of as many cars as possible in favor of other forms of transportation (New York being one of them).
There are also plenty of examples of architecture projects which allowed crime to flourish and conversely good design making areas safer, so not sure why he thinks architecture doesn’t affect crime.
@@elizaparker7350 He knows what he's talking about, you can only prevent certain types of crime, not all crime. Criminals can always find a way. Let's say you prevent car jackings, but do you prevent white collar crime? You can make an area more open but that only prevents one type of crime.
We won't get rid of cars, it's a great means of transportation all across the country. It might not be great in urban areas, but that's only one destination.
NYC has a very robust public transit system. There isn’t much else that can be done, except maybe some expansions of the subway system in Queens and Staten Island. A lot of the city’s issues have to do with managing cars, the city has 8 million citizens, so cars aren’t going to go away just because there’s public transit.
The most American view on infrastructure... Q: Elektric bikes? A: Bike highways Q: Public transport? A: No, self-driving pods Q: Parking? A: Self-driving cars
Urban planning can make cities safer - if all areas are mixed use it's safer. So if one street has shop, bars and homes, the streets are rarely empty. Busy streets are safer
well to be fair its not like you can put a train absolutely everywhere, unless we moved to most transport being in the sky or something (which atm would cause crazy noise pollution), the solution is just gonna end up as "basically theyre gonna be cars but better in just about every way"
He actually responded to the question prior. He sees that both public and private will mix with new vehicle types being formed. As in mini cars (that could be public) using railways, like supersonics.
The issue is that lobbyists will make it so that self driving will be the only option. They'll make public transport self driving as a token gesture and when it fails due to their lobbying they'll make no effort to improve it.
Self driving cars are great but what I see happening on the ground is privatization of public transportation. So less public trains, buses, bikes. Priority is given to people who can afford to own a car. Although New York is further behind on this. Look at America's fastest growing cities. Not much planning for public transportation but a focus on cars. And soon to be replaced with self-driving cars. Although in our news feed it seems like we are heading towards a pedestrian utopia.
@@joshuacoolidge5995 Self driving cars aren't "great", though. They terrible for both economy, environment, and congestion. Don't insinuate that nothing would change if we replaced regular cars with self-driving cars.
16:15 A relative of my wife lives in Recife, Brazil, and she was employed by the city to actually connect the favelas to the city, by going there, talking with the population and finding ways to integrate them into the city's infrastructure.
Im disappointed in the idea of building a seperate highway for e-bikes. Solve everything with highways. Theres gotta be a point where you go thats enough asphalt. Maybe focus on how to get more out of less
The cycle highways of France are absolutely beautiful, made with gravel, alongside rivers, through forests. Gets people into smaller villages, museums, and vineyards. They are a nice alternative to planes, cars, and trains for getting around. There is barely any asphalt. They don't have to look like car highways. And they also don't pollute as much.
The Highways in NYC blow my mind, So much land and polution, just so 30-40% of people can drive. NYC is one of the few places in America where most people don't drive, yet cars are still prioritized over public transit. Robert Moses ruined NYC in the 1950s, and somehow we still have planners like this guy that think we need more separated roadways and public transit isn't worth investing in.
The issue with rent in NYC and other cities cannot be fixed with building. A group recently revealed that there are at least 60k units in NYC alone that have not been rented or leased in the past 20 years, and it's intentional - that many might actually drive down prices. Right now price fixing is easier than ever, so regulations needs to get better and better enforced themselves. One suggestion I have heard is a 'tax' or fee for each residence owned that does not have people occupying it. Make it financially unsound for the massive corporations buying up the housing to hold on to units to create fake scarcity.
This would be a great video except for the self-driving and highway-centric ideas. The fact that he thinks that the road network expansion is what we need is misguided at best, even if it is for e-bikes. Making public transport: trains, metro, buses better is what improves quality of life, after better street design with a pedestrian-first mindset and making accommodations for bikes and then e-bikes. There are obviously highways and autobahns and freeways where cars should come first, but not inside cities, not to the extent that that our anglophone regions have built it so far.
Maybe because privately owned and operated cars aren't going anywhere. Even if they make really awesome public transport some just prefer their own cars. Can't kick those people out or violate their rights
Before planning e-bike flyovers and separate lanes, maybe visit places like Denmark or the Netherlands first, where they've got lots of experience with this sort of thing.
Per the crime question; I read a study on how having more trees in an urban an area raises the feeling of safety and in turn reduces crime. I’ll try to find it.
@suen5006 when I lived in Seattle they made so many high rises that rent actually decreased. It's just supply and demand at the end of the day. It's rare to see because in many places it's difficult to get new construction approved
Not Just Bikes did a solid video essay recently arguing against the widespread adoption of the self driving car, and I'd be curious how Alex would respond to some of those objections. There is a good point there (which he doesn't seem to anticipate here) for instance about how they might incentivize additional cars on the road in multiple respects, and remain a lasting detriment to pedestrian safety and shared road planning.
11:31 Thank you for pointing out the atrocity that is the enclosed river Illisos. Same happened to the river Kifisos. It used to run the full length of ancient and modern athens, passing just south of the temple of olympian zeus. I have walked it once, the entire enclosed section and a small part of the open section and it really left me heartbroken. Most of the time you would never know that there is a once sacred river running under your feet.
It amazes me how many times Brazil have been mentioned in the video! As a brazilian, I love how much my country is important for architecture and urbanism, for good and for bad. Studying brazilian architecture is a pleasure and a hobby for those who do it.
Hyperloop is so advanced that every company that has tried it has gone bankrupt before even building a functional prototype of any meaningful length or speed. Meanwhile japan has almost 43 km worth of test track for actual maglev that reaches over 500 km/h.
right lmao, then he started talking up self driving cars as though they're ever going to achieve the things the tech bros promise they'll be able to do..
@@BillPickle he talked about self parking cars that you would drive up to your destination and then are going to park themselves in some other place (but somehow that's not self driving).
@@antoniofracchia9621 Why would self driving cars need to park? Companies will just let thier robo-taxis wander the street for free, always ready to pick someone up, and always congesting the urban roadways
We have loads of e-bikes in the Netherlands. They are allowed on bicycle paths, but have a max speed of 25 km/h. There is a big issue with so-called "fatbikes" nowadays tho, but mostly because you can get those with a throttle (which isn't allowed) and because people boost the speed so it's above 25 km/h, making them quite dangerous. Especially since it's mostly kids and teenagers who ride them.
@@WatermelonShug "convenience".. cars are the most inefficient and inconvienient mode of transport ever.. moving over 2 tons of metal to move 200lb of person is ridicoulously stupid Youve just been brainwashed to believe its convienient. not caring about traffic jams or other drivers... thats convienient.. Just sit down and relax..
@@EllTheSylveon literally everyone, except the approximately 1 in 5 people who don’t live in cities. The main issue is an issue of timing. People need to go where they need to go WHEN they need to go. He addresses this with self driving car trains as a possibility, to meet the timing needs of the greatest number of people but with the efficiency of intelligent transport routes, hopefully powered by AI in the future.
Why do yall keep designing cities the same way and expecting different results? Every new store is on the outside of town, with more deforestation, and most of the land is used for parking lots, which is an incredible waste of space. All that space could be used for more homes, local entrepreneurs or parks. But no, it's used just to accommodate many people driving a 3 ton vehicle on their own just to get done groceries. Designing cities like this, the problem of traffic is NEVER going to go away. People keep complaing about the traffic but don't want to do anything about it.
Because the people in charge of making those sorts of decisions are some combination of set in their ways, afraid of change, and "FU, I got mine" mentality.
Who is y'all? Washburn specifically called out cities for not being walkable and suggested self driving cars (especially public ones) as a reason that less space would need to be devoted to cars because parking near destinations would not be a priority.
@@jakemaxwell3810 That's an assumption without basis and also without merit. 1. automated cars would still be parked nearby because no one would want to wait for them. 2. driverless cars are still cars, they require parking spaces - the single least valuable use of land in existence.
@@jakemaxwell3810 because he's promoting more cars. Cars are the whole problem. The solution is less cars on the streets. A car is still a car, no matter the driver or AI.
taking abandoned mall with huge parking lots or unused old stadiums or former factories close to freeways and transforming them into new mini downtowns with retail on street level and apartments and offices on the floors above it can help transforming suburban sprawl into smaller cities within a larger metro area. you take away unecessary car trips to the central city, create walkable/bikable trips to the restaurant, grocery store, dentist or whatever. also, transforming stroads into main streets and creating pedestrian passages out of cul-de-sacs help a lot
Agreed. I was pretty young when it started but I remember the before and I much prefer the after. And I fondly remember the sign that said "Rome wasn't built in a day. If it were, we would've hired their contractor."
- Solving gentrification would involve rich people being willing to live near the poor, and that's not something rich people like to do. - What is even the purpose of a self-driving car? They have no actual benefits to humanity. Anything a self-driving car does or can potentially do, public transport can do better and more ecologically/economically.
The purpose of self-driving car is you don’t have to walk to a bus or train station and wait in line. In addition, not everybody lives in a compacted city like NY or LA so public transport is mainly catered to lower income people. The idea of self-driving car is to lower the risk of accidents that happen due to human error.
@@otterpoopie Unless the car magically instantly appears before you, or (more likely and much worse yet) is constantly driving around waiting to pick you up, you will be waiting regardless. Whether that's in a line or not is not really important. I can definitely see some use for people living in more remote areas where public transport has less use, but it would be utterly pointless and downright a negative in cities, which is where all these vehicles currently operate.
@@otterpoopie Self-driving cars won't solve a thing. There will still be far too much volume per person for it to even come close to rival the space efficiency of a train, or even a bus. I live in a northern European city with about 180k population, and public transport is not for the poor, and very frequent. It is for everyone. It's so much more convenient to not have to think about parking (may not be a problem in the us, with free on-street parking and massive lots, but no such thing here), or filling up gas, or having to actively pay attention in traffic. It's also much cheaper, which I, as a student, appreciate. I have a driver's license, and if I absolutely HAVE to use a car, I'll rent one using car sharing. Self driving cars still probably won't be better than humans in urban environments, since there are often very complicated streets and a lot happening.
@@cornstalks4122 We cannot apply the same principles of Europe to the US as a whole. Can some European architecture help solve issues US compacted cities currently have? Absolutely yes, but the US is so spread out that it’s impossible to say there is a one size fits all system.
17:30 I never understood this american fascination with open parking lots. It makes ZERO sense. You waste a ton of space, your car is still at the mercy of the elements, the lot doesn't generate as much revenue as it could. What is the reason for this madness????
I am an ebike rider, and I would say at least 70% of the vehicles I pass on the road have only 1 occupant. Traffic is backed up for blocks, yet I ride on by without a care.
1:43 THANK YOU! Gentrification can't be solved with rent control or mandates - you just have to build more housing. Ironically, the NIMBY's often fight against this, which means there's less housing and their neighborhood becomes even MORE unaffordable.
You’ll never solve gentrification because rich people don’t want to live with poor people. Poor people generally don’t maintain their homes and have higher crime rates. Rich people don’t want to live where homes aren’t maintained and don’t want to live where the crime rate is higher. As he said, architecture cannot solve crime and it’s as simple as that. It’s also economic. If a rich person came up to your door and said he’d purchase your land at a compelling profit for you then you’d most likely pack your bags and move on.
i don't like his take on self-driving cars either, but i do think only having them authorized for the "reinventing the train, sort of" use he described would be better than just letting them roam free everywhere. i love hearing his perspective on other issues and would love to see him back again. thanks, wired!
14:05 NYC is pretty similar to this already in that regard! You'll have something liek 14th St which is now all bus lane, followed by 13th and 12th st which is protected bike lanes, followed by 10th st which is where more cars go, etc. The protected cross town bike lanes are almost always off the big dividing streets, which is great.
So glad they brought Mr Washburn back for another video! These Tech Support videos have been my go-to RUclips content lately and this guy here is one of the best experts they've had.
Sticking windmills on buildings runs straight into the "solar freaking roadways" problem, which is that for every dollar you spend putting windmills on buildings, you would have gotten more for that dollar by investing it into building a wind farm somewhere outside the city that has better geography and more space for optimization.
Its crazy how personal TAX is being taken off the average person to build a stadium. They may never go to a game or even support any team. Once built the stadiums are massive stream of income for the owners so do they pay back to the whole community? I also saw a tax added on to items in a shopping centre (Mall) that the developers are collecting to make the area nicer? They should be doing that anyway when t hey build the place.
Did you even listen to Washburn's answer? Put yourself in the city councils' shoes. Owner of such and such big sports team is going to build a stadium. They are looking at your city, but could just as easily settle in the next big city. You typically offer them a tax cut on the construction to entice them to build at your city. It's going to bring in tons of consumers to the city for concerts and football games and all those people spend money at the local businesses getting dinner and going shopping. It is good for your citizens to have a stadium around.
12:20 even better: if the water is allowed to seep back into the ground, the sewage system doesn't get overflown and it's just an overall better way of draining water in a city. If it's been designed in a smart way, the parks in a neighborhood will be a bit lower than the streets so the water will automatically flow there. Gravity is free after all.
Want a spin off where experts have to answer questions that have nothing to do with their field and they need to try and come up with a convincing answer on the fly like "Lawyer answers archaeology questions" "Brain surgeon answers fashion industry questions" Think it'd be fun.
18:52 I don't think NYC will ever be affordable. The reality is that tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people dream of living there. Even if you built 20 million more apartments, you'd still have 50 million people still wanting to live there (and ironically, if the rent *did* decrease, more people might be interested moving here, which just pushes rents back up). It's one of the most popular and iconic cities in the world, it's always going to be expensive.
because cities sell out their residents for the 'benefits' a fancy new stadium will bring...which never really come to fruition, sans a few seasonal low wage jobs.
one of many reasons why sports stadiums are, historically, statistically, and objectively, NEVER a good idea! the first thing you learn in games econ is that sports teams and their stadiums are ALWAYS a net loss for a community/city :)
About flooding rivers, Santiago did something similar with the Mapocho river, making new parks that can be flooded when needed, and it is part of the future of the river bank to continue this trend to protect the city. Where I live, it is much needed to do the same but the space is not available anymore, you'd need to demolish a ton of buildings that have been in right next to the river for decades.
I agree on that point that we can get rid of parking completely in the city and people don't have to find parking, but I respectfully disagree that the way for that is fully automated taxis or rideshares / cars. There is already a way for that: Mass transit.
While this guy deserves to be clowned on for the self-driving car train idea, I do like his description of gentrification. It really is a matter of housing supply. Having rich, poor, and middle-class people living together is as ideal as you can get as long as class differences still exist.
Swear to god if this ludicrous self driving car fantasy becomes a full reality with cars circling around every block endlessly I might just have to do something about it
Rent is the issue about high rent. Public housing, or housing commission as we call it in Aus would be better if the housing was sort of given to the person renting it. The rent would be the mortgage equivalent and it gets paid back to the Gov not a bank. That way people will own the property, or at lease the portion they have paid for it instead of a real estate company. Crime would reduce as no body wants crime in an area they have a financial stake in. Just an idea for a part of the problem.
I did laugh out loud when they discussed a bad example of building a stadium, and the shot was Levi Stadium out here in Santa Clara, CA. It's poorly planned, and sits right next door to a theme park that will be shuttered in the next couple of years.
Excited y'all did a part 2 after we all asked for it! public transit perspective, but otherwise was cool! I think public transit and having less cars in general in a city is a good thing for everyone. Also more trees and yeah the solution to flooding being green spaces, they're thinking about doing that in Paris in the future near sewers and having urban forests which is super cool
I love how he highlighted that cities are built by their citizens. This awareness can inspire others to speak up about their own city's design and suggest improvements. Now more than ever, we should reimagine what it means to live in our communities and consider how to make them more enjoyable for a better quality of life.
The answer on gentrification missed the element that really drives gentrification which is the changing of culture. It’s not just that people come in and drive up prices, it’s that they want to change culture and often that change is exclusionary and anti-Black/anti-poor/etc
I'd love to see plans to redevelop Brasilia. So many highways/roads could be cleaned up / eliminated, and more land for housing / development to occur.
My reply turned out to be too long so I will make it a comment. One viewer stated that good urban planning CAN increase safety of the streets, because for example badly designed neighborhoods often lack easy access to working places, which results in increased unemployment and risks of criminal activity. Although I do agree with this statement, I do believe it’s not completely the case. This isn’t just about the unemployment rate, its generally about people simply using the street. The more variety of reasons to be on the street you propose, the more diverse (also more people in general) the population of the street is and the less chances you give for the potential criminal to commit unnoticed. The good street combines accessibility, variety, density and safety, and all of these factors can not be utilized separately or without at least one of them effectively
I've been to Brasília and it is a very unusual city! The architecture is amazing (World Heritage Site), but it is indeed a place created to accommodate cars instead of people. It is worth the visit anyways 🇧🇷
really enjoyed the first part, and he had some good takes here too but his take on self driving cars i just don’t agree with at all, not just bikes has a great video on self driving cars. Offering alternative modes of transport including metros and bike lanes and more efficient zoning that allows for higher density buildings that mix commercial and residential should be the future we plan and advocate for imo.
This guy is not a good representation of urban planning. Maybe they should have got a Planner rather than an urban designer to answer planning questions.
As someone who was born and lived in Brasília for most of my life I have to disagree with 20:00. Brasília is a park, with so many trees and I do completely fine withouth a car ❤
Architecture does have an effect on crime, yes socio-economic inequality is a much bigger contributor but a lack of social connection is also a major contributor to crime and the design a residence and area does effect social interaction. I do think the urban designer had an implied negativity bias to the question though, thinking the question was more about hostile architecture.
Architecture absolutely can influence public safety. Windows, lighting, defensible space, pathways, exits, entrances, traffic flow…crazy how he just brushed that question off
13:44 Even when describing the distinct between a street and a road as coined by Strong Towns, he can't bring himself to imagine a street that is only for pedestrians and cyclists, even one immediately adjacent to a car-friendly road. Every other place on earth has wildly popular pedestrian-only streets, but North America just can't have nice things, I guess.
6:15 i think this is why the single corporation driven "urban developments" are so... uncanny. the beauty of density is it happens naturally. not that one company owns all of it and checks boxes. they are still better than nothing in my opinion.
Everyone forgets that self parking cars still have to park somewhere, the parking lots don’t just disappear, so we still spend big time and they will NEVER be more efficient than any standard public transit. Then there’s the part where people don’t want to pay for the parking so their AV just does loops around the block making traffic worse and more bloated. Watch NotJustBikes analysis of the our self driving car future for a lesson on the horror of AV.
People are hating on this dude for being too pro-car or pro-highway, but I actually think he's being very pragmatic. He recognizes the benefits of non-car forms of transportation, and yet also recognizes that the automobile is highly comfortable and many people have grown to expect that level of comfort in their transportation. It might not be what internet urbanists like but this dude actually worked in city planning for a super long time for NYC, so I get the sense he knows what he's talking about.
Let me rephrase this for you: He is aware of the benefits of great public transportation, but he’s got stars in his eyes and he’s been sold on self driving cars because the tech bros got to him.
Did you miss Part 1?: ruclips.net/video/ldtUrIco_rk/видео.html
You should do one of these for the writer that has to tweet the summarized answers while conveying the full answer.
Alex was very interesting, thanks! Please bring him back for more.
Man that self driving tunnel sure sounds cool it'd be even cooler if it was a subway though.
Can't have that. The oligarch that is running the scam doesn't want to lose out on car sales.
Exactly, trains will continue to be the best way of transport, but now with Elon in power, he will do everything to mess with the market.
It's far cheaper to retrofit a city with these tunnels than a subway system, and it's really for niche locations where a subway system may simply not be needed. It's just adding a lane or two here and there. It's simply another tool in the traffic management toolbox.
@@jamesengland7461But isn't building a tunnel like very expensive and time consuming for just a few cars? It's not a highway, it's not a subway.. it's a tunnel.
@@hiskishow it's not cheap, but if alternatives are more expensive, it becomes the cheapest option eventually. demolishing a thousand skyscrapers to make room for a road for example
Bros keep reinventing the train, but somehow worse
What if we get a bunch of pods to flock together on a special road and have them go "chugga chugga choo-choo"?
Seattle ruined it the best.
"We want a world class light rail system!"
"Great! That will be $20 billion."
"WHAT? That's ridiculous!"
"Ok...what about $5 billion for something useless?"
"Perfect!...Is it ok if we bungle the whole project to make it cost close to $20 billion to make it useless?"
""
They don't care about making a better solution, just scamming shortsighted investors.
@@FlameOnTheBeat its a robOvan, not a bus. Marketing is important, you can laugh all you want, there's very few people in the world who spend so little on marketing and make so much money as elon, the proportion is out of this world
@@vytasffbismarck7001 tesla stocks fell after that presentation
Self driving or self parking cars are not the answer. I do not dream of parking lots, I yearn for trains and trolleys!
I like trains and street cars and bicycle paths and walking but self driving cars could have a place instead of Uber for example, which changes its price according to demand if they made self driving cars to get a person to the trolley station that would help and some people Cannot drive because of poor vision or other reasons cannot easily walk bicycle to the train stop.
You'll learn what a car does when you're older
@@oyuyuy Cost tons of money, take up space, and destroys the environment? Or are you one of those "I need it because otherwise where would I store all my fast food wrappers?" types that think they NEED to own a car for storage? Or is it the old "In case I have to move imaginary furniture a made up distance" excuse that truck owners like to use?
@@Drakith90 That's the description of pretty much any consumer product lmao. What do you own that doesn't cost money, take up space or taxes the environment?
And I don't own a car, but by all means, keep fumbling for a box to put me in 😂
sorry, the west have been infected by an actual "mind virus" (and not the nonsense grifters like Elon lie about) in which any solutions that don't make existing oligarchs even more wealth is "evil and woke"
Hello! 👋 I'm a planner and I totally get the disappointment with this guy's comments about self driving cars. Unfortunately, in the US and Australia, public transport (and other planning issues) are driven pretty hard by private proponents, both influencing the politicians we need to make the laws and set the targets, and by investment. As a New Yorker, he'll be well aware of this issue and I think is probably just being practical. Adoption of new tech definitely isn't an excuse to stop investing in trams, trains, buses and ferries
That’s absolutely no excuse for him to be pushing these terrible ideas that will slow down and destroy our cities
The problem I take with this response is that it presents self driving cars as a lesser evil compared to today's manually driven vehicles. In practice there is scant evidence to suggest autonomous vehicles will solve any problems created by cars, be it safety, traffic, affordability, wasteful land use, etc. And every penny we spend on autonomous vehicle infrastructure is money wasted on known effective alternatives.
The practical response is to recognize that more cars will simply not solve our problems, no matter how technologically advanced they are. Why should we accept that North American cities are somehow chronically car dependent when other countries have reckoned with their car dependency and dealt with the exact same problems?
@@LimitedWardwhat other countries ? Countries that are the size of a single US state ? Or china ? That has industrialized and urbanized under the watchful and well choreographed eyes of a centralized federal govt.
Car dependance does have quantifiably deleterious effects on the quality of life in cities, there is no denying that, but the zealotry and virulant hatred towards cars and suburbs found in urbanist crowds has turned urbanists into undeniably insufferable people whose moral crusade over shadow most of the meaningful arguments they do have. There is no room for suburbs in their urbanist utopias. I have had quite a few consversations with urbanists and they come up with the most hair brained arguments when they really dont need to.
5:00 "Trees are, like, the single greatest thing that can happen to a city."
This is my favorite part of living in my part of the NW side of Chicago. I live in a still pretty working class neighborhood and so many streets (especially the residential side streets) are fully lined with trees. It does so much to lessen the alienation of the concrete sprawl of the grid. I think the tree placement and maintenance is one of the city department of streets and sanitation greatest successes.
3:43 Bad urban planning can definitely increase crime though. Isolated neighborhoods with difficult access to working places are usually where you'll find a lot of unemployed people without perspective, which is an environment ripe for crime. Marseille is a good example of this.
Yeah he seems to be an urban designer who hasn't heard of CPTED
I noticed this too. In the Netherlands theres a big movement of making city centers walking/bikes only, and they use a lot of clever methods to stop terrorists whilst doing this. With the waves of cars driving into the public they added things like decorative plant pots with gaps cant go through so busy squares are safe
@@badllama4554 I am sure the guy who was trusted to develop modern New York City has no idea.
I recall learning about Rio de Janeiro's implementation of streetlights in slum areas for the Olympics and the following studies that showed an absolutely massive reduction (or rather displacement) of crime in well-lit neighbourhoods. I was shocked to hear him say it couldn't have effect!
@@Dom213agreed. My God, let’s just hope he’s a comment reader.
Brazil's capital, Brasília, was built before it had any citizens in it. The whole city was planned on paper. It is a very unusual place hahah
Sabemos como Brasília foi feita para manter a União bem longe do Povo (região Sudeste) e ajudar no desenvolvimentismo do Interior do Brasil, mais especificamente a região Centro-Oeste.
@@yutro213 Is that what Egypt is trying to do too?
Considering it was the new capital there was planned population with government staffers.
Like Nigerias capital, Abuja
Indeed it was, as was Australia's capital Canberra.
Gotta say that i love the tartan grid idea - one side of the block being for cars, another for pedestrians and bikes, then just keep alternating betwee the two. Intersections with overpasses for the foot traffic. Everyone gets everywhere in their own way with minimum to no passing into each other's space and all buildings get an access to both systems on different sides of the construction. That would be great. Wanna ride a car or catch a bus? North and east building exit. You want to walk, skate, or take a bike? South and west exit will take you there. Chose your adventure, either way you can get to your destination +/- 100m, depending on which grid you chose and which side of the block your destination is situated on. Brilliant.
“Sprawl is expansion without thought.” “The future is self driving cars.”
Make it make sense.
I'm glad this guy is a FORMER Chief Urban Designer - dude can only think about how to make driving better when the clear answer for many cities is to get rid of as many cars as possible in favor of other forms of transportation (New York being one of them).
There are also plenty of examples of architecture projects which allowed crime to flourish and conversely good design making areas safer, so not sure why he thinks architecture doesn’t affect crime.
@@elizaparker7350 He knows what he's talking about, you can only prevent certain types of crime, not all crime. Criminals can always find a way. Let's say you prevent car jackings, but do you prevent white collar crime? You can make an area more open but that only prevents one type of crime.
We won't get rid of cars, it's a great means of transportation all across the country. It might not be great in urban areas, but that's only one destination.
NYC has a very robust public transit system. There isn’t much else that can be done, except maybe some expansions of the subway system in Queens and Staten Island. A lot of the city’s issues have to do with managing cars, the city has 8 million citizens, so cars aren’t going to go away just because there’s public transit.
The most American view on infrastructure...
Q: Elektric bikes?
A: Bike highways
Q: Public transport?
A: No, self-driving pods
Q: Parking?
A: Self-driving cars
Urban planning can make cities safer - if all areas are mixed use it's safer. So if one street has shop, bars and homes, the streets are rarely empty. Busy streets are safer
Yes I’m a planner myself and I was disappointed in his answers! Growing up in Hong Kong I’m a true believer of “eye on street.”
I think people here should watch the Not Just Bikes video on "self-driving" cars.
Yes! Please people watch the Not Just Bikes "How self Driving cars will destroy cities".
Im good
I wouldn’t worry too much about self-driving cars becoming widespread anytime soon lol
MUY IMPORTANTE
Man got a question about the future of public transport and answered cars
How much more american can you get
He's probably paid by the car companies.
@@austinhernandez2716 And you are probably an idiot
well to be fair its not like you can put a train absolutely everywhere, unless we moved to most transport being in the sky or something (which atm would cause crazy noise pollution), the solution is just gonna end up as "basically theyre gonna be cars but better in just about every way"
He actually responded to the question prior. He sees that both public and private will mix with new vehicle types being formed. As in mini cars (that could be public) using railways, like supersonics.
No one wants dirty transport that has been shown to increase crime significantly and is inconvenient and unreliable.
The self driving vs public transit perspective he’s giving makes me exceptionally sad
It's meant to be a complementary solution.
The issue is that lobbyists will make it so that self driving will be the only option. They'll make public transport self driving as a token gesture and when it fails due to their lobbying they'll make no effort to improve it.
Self driving cars are great but what I see happening on the ground is privatization of public transportation. So less public trains, buses, bikes. Priority is given to people who can afford to own a car. Although New York is further behind on this. Look at America's fastest growing cities. Not much planning for public transportation but a focus on cars. And soon to be replaced with self-driving cars. Although in our news feed it seems like we are heading towards a pedestrian utopia.
@@joshuacoolidge5995 Self driving cars aren't "great", though. They terrible for both economy, environment, and congestion.
Don't insinuate that nothing would change if we replaced regular cars with self-driving cars.
very sad, i go cry now
16:15 A relative of my wife lives in Recife, Brazil, and she was employed by the city to actually connect the favelas to the city, by going there, talking with the population and finding ways to integrate them into the city's infrastructure.
that’s so cool
Now just imagine swapping out the 1 person cars for train cars and boom youve just improved it a 100 times over
I swear if we all just start calling trains "long pods" tech bros will flock to them en masse.
@@Drakith90 lol right! We should build more "long pods"! And they can have fancy tech clocks that allow them to show up at exact times
@@Drakith90But, what if we connected the pods so you could walk along it and circulate.
@@BuildNewTowns And you need a NFC (non fungible card) to board!
The problem is having to sit next to mentally ill people
Im disappointed in the idea of building a seperate highway for e-bikes. Solve everything with highways. Theres gotta be a point where you go thats enough asphalt. Maybe focus on how to get more out of less
The cycle highways of France are absolutely beautiful, made with gravel, alongside rivers, through forests. Gets people into smaller villages, museums, and vineyards. They are a nice alternative to planes, cars, and trains for getting around. There is barely any asphalt. They don't have to look like car highways. And they also don't pollute as much.
Wait till you get to the point where he says that the future of trains is self driving cars trains.
This guy is a moron.
Notjustbikes did a video covering Japanese streets that allow for all modes of transportation. It's a very novel concept actually.
The Highways in NYC blow my mind, So much land and polution, just so 30-40% of people can drive. NYC is one of the few places in America where most people don't drive, yet cars are still prioritized over public transit. Robert Moses ruined NYC in the 1950s, and somehow we still have planners like this guy that think we need more separated roadways and public transit isn't worth investing in.
100%
As a Singaporean, having my country being mentioned in both videos makes me proud 🇸🇬
I LOVE waking around Singapore! Such a mix of the future and the past. Truly one of a kind!
The issue with rent in NYC and other cities cannot be fixed with building. A group recently revealed that there are at least 60k units in NYC alone that have not been rented or leased in the past 20 years, and it's intentional - that many might actually drive down prices. Right now price fixing is easier than ever, so regulations needs to get better and better enforced themselves. One suggestion I have heard is a 'tax' or fee for each residence owned that does not have people occupying it. Make it financially unsound for the massive corporations buying up the housing to hold on to units to create fake scarcity.
Toronto recently implemented a vacant property tax. Some of us also think such tax should be applied to commercial real estate as well.
This would be a great video except for the self-driving and highway-centric ideas. The fact that he thinks that the road network expansion is what we need is misguided at best, even if it is for e-bikes. Making public transport: trains, metro, buses better is what improves quality of life, after better street design with a pedestrian-first mindset and making accommodations for bikes and then e-bikes. There are obviously highways and autobahns and freeways where cars should come first, but not inside cities, not to the extent that that our anglophone regions have built it so far.
Agreed. I enjoy his answers but an urban designer/planner that still perpetuates the Boston cow path legend I have to take with a grain of salt
Maybe because privately owned and operated cars aren't going anywhere. Even if they make really awesome public transport some just prefer their own cars. Can't kick those people out or violate their rights
Almost all American city planners seem to be like this. They're all locked in some love story with the automobile they just can't escape.
@@SasukeUchiha-zu6dw yes you absolutely can, it's called Adaptation
@@SasukeUchiha-zu6dw Does crosswalk "violates" these truck nuts rights?
Before planning e-bike flyovers and separate lanes, maybe visit places like Denmark or the Netherlands first, where they've got lots of experience with this sort of thing.
Per the crime question; I read a study on how having more trees in an urban an area raises the feeling of safety and in turn reduces crime. I’ll try to find it.
This is true.
i attended a talk discussing several studies about this! it's very true, and not only great for crime, but health and wellness too
The gentrification answer does not include how people on the poorer end could afford the changes in the community.
It actually does: higher density is supposed to prevent increased rent since rent is determined by supply and demand.
@@sydual5887 But it never does. Rents just go up and up because now the area is more desirable. Show me one place where rents stayed the same.
@suen5006 when I lived in Seattle they made so many high rises that rent actually decreased. It's just supply and demand at the end of the day. It's rare to see because in many places it's difficult to get new construction approved
The gentrification answer managed to avoid the question entirely.
@@sydual5887that only works with proper rent laws, like caps on how much you can ask and social housing.
Looking at those shoulders, bro is moving pillars by hand
dude i think the same he is wiiiideeeee, daddy material if you ask hahahahah
Hahahahahah
Gotta love the old school guidance counseling approach : kid’s built like a brick house…we’ll send him off to urban designing school.
I have found my people! huzzah!
Ayo sus💀
Not Just Bikes did a solid video essay recently arguing against the widespread adoption of the self driving car, and I'd be curious how Alex would respond to some of those objections. There is a good point there (which he doesn't seem to anticipate here) for instance about how they might incentivize additional cars on the road in multiple respects, and remain a lasting detriment to pedestrian safety and shared road planning.
11:31 Thank you for pointing out the atrocity that is the enclosed river Illisos. Same happened to the river Kifisos.
It used to run the full length of ancient and modern athens, passing just south of the temple of olympian zeus. I have walked it once, the entire enclosed section and a small part of the open section and it really left me heartbroken. Most of the time you would never know that there is a once sacred river running under your feet.
Could it ever be repaired? Some more of the river could be in more of a natural state?
Perhaps there could even be paths and bicycle lanes that run alongside the river instead, but maybe it’s a lost cause.
It amazes me how many times Brazil have been mentioned in the video! As a brazilian, I love how much my country is important for architecture and urbanism, for good and for bad. Studying brazilian architecture is a pleasure and a hobby for those who do it.
Hyperloop is so advanced that every company that has tried it has gone bankrupt before even building a functional prototype of any meaningful length or speed. Meanwhile japan has almost 43 km worth of test track for actual maglev that reaches over 500 km/h.
It’s wild that he thinks hyperloop is maglev…
We asked and they gave!! Thank you for a longer part 2!!
Congrats on finding a car-brained Urban Designer for this
right lmao, then he started talking up self driving cars as though they're ever going to achieve the things the tech bros promise they'll be able to do..
@@BillPickle he talked about self parking cars that you would drive up to your destination and then are going to park themselves in some other place (but somehow that's not self driving).
@@antoniofracchia9621 Why would self driving cars need to park? Companies will just let thier robo-taxis wander the street for free, always ready to pick someone up, and always congesting the urban roadways
Unrestricted e-bikes are motorcycles. There's no reason why they shouldn't be subject to the same regulations.
We have loads of e-bikes in the Netherlands. They are allowed on bicycle paths, but have a max speed of 25 km/h. There is a big issue with so-called "fatbikes" nowadays tho, but mostly because you can get those with a throttle (which isn't allowed) and because people boost the speed so it's above 25 km/h, making them quite dangerous. Especially since it's mostly kids and teenagers who ride them.
Guy says a street isn't a real street cause there's no cars or traffic. Completely oblivious that a street is a place to BE not a place to go THROUGH.
He doesn’t even know the difference between a street and a road
And his problem with it is that all the shops play their own music and it drives him nuts so it is not a good idea.
Americans love stroads so it doesn't surprise me
Streets are older than writing, let alone cars. The fact that they're almost universally associated with cars today is sad.
this obsession with cars is frankly embarrassing.
You mean obsession with convenience?
@ public transit is more convenient than driving car for literally everyone involved
@@WatermelonShug "convenience"..
cars are the most inefficient and inconvienient mode of transport ever..
moving over 2 tons of metal to move 200lb of person is ridicoulously stupid
Youve just been brainwashed to believe its convienient.
not caring about traffic jams or other drivers... thats convienient..
Just sit down and relax..
@@EllTheSylveon literally everyone, except the approximately 1 in 5 people who don’t live in cities. The main issue is an issue of timing. People need to go where they need to go WHEN they need to go. He addresses this with self driving car trains as a possibility, to meet the timing needs of the greatest number of people but with the efficiency of intelligent transport routes, hopefully powered by AI in the future.
Have you been to the US?
I hope those self driving car szenarios he described do not become reality.
They already are reality. They reduce the need for cars for those who don't own them.
@@jamesengland7461Self Driving Cars are just as unscalable as cars for our city streets.
@@jamesengland7461 Oh you think shared self-driving taxis are a good idea? good luck finding a car without drunkard vomit in it.
@@jiecut Yet we continue to use cars too. The fact that they are a bad solution does not mean that it will not happen or is happening.
Why do yall keep designing cities the same way and expecting different results? Every new store is on the outside of town, with more deforestation, and most of the land is used for parking lots, which is an incredible waste of space. All that space could be used for more homes, local entrepreneurs or parks. But no, it's used just to accommodate many people driving a 3 ton vehicle on their own just to get done groceries. Designing cities like this, the problem of traffic is NEVER going to go away. People keep complaing about the traffic but don't want to do anything about it.
Because the people in charge of making those sorts of decisions are some combination of set in their ways, afraid of change, and "FU, I got mine" mentality.
Who is y'all? Washburn specifically called out cities for not being walkable and suggested self driving cars (especially public ones) as a reason that less space would need to be devoted to cars because parking near destinations would not be a priority.
This is definitely a problem in most places in the U.S. and it makes most cities impossible to traverse on foot
@@jakemaxwell3810 That's an assumption without basis and also without merit. 1. automated cars would still be parked nearby because no one would want to wait for them. 2. driverless cars are still cars, they require parking spaces - the single least valuable use of land in existence.
@@jakemaxwell3810 because he's promoting more cars. Cars are the whole problem. The solution is less cars on the streets. A car is still a car, no matter the driver or AI.
taking abandoned mall with huge parking lots or unused old stadiums or former factories close to freeways and transforming them into new mini downtowns with retail on street level and apartments and offices on the floors above it can help transforming suburban sprawl into smaller cities within a larger metro area. you take away unecessary car trips to the central city, create walkable/bikable trips to the restaurant, grocery store, dentist or whatever. also, transforming stroads into main streets and creating pedestrian passages out of cul-de-sacs help a lot
Great idea. We really should.
The Big Dig was SOOO worth it! So, so much better. Was here for the whole project.
Agreed. I was pretty young when it started but I remember the before and I much prefer the after.
And I fondly remember the sign that said "Rome wasn't built in a day. If it were, we would've hired their contractor."
"self driving car-trains." You mean inefficient metro's/trains?
- Solving gentrification would involve rich people being willing to live near the poor, and that's not something rich people like to do.
- What is even the purpose of a self-driving car? They have no actual benefits to humanity. Anything a self-driving car does or can potentially do, public transport can do better and more ecologically/economically.
Self-Driving is a pipe dream.
As the saying goes, "Men will create conscious machines just to avoid making Public Transportation better."
The purpose of self-driving car is you don’t have to walk to a bus or train station and wait in line. In addition, not everybody lives in a compacted city like NY or LA so public transport is mainly catered to lower income people. The idea of self-driving car is to lower the risk of accidents that happen due to human error.
@@otterpoopie Unless the car magically instantly appears before you, or (more likely and much worse yet) is constantly driving around waiting to pick you up, you will be waiting regardless. Whether that's in a line or not is not really important.
I can definitely see some use for people living in more remote areas where public transport has less use, but it would be utterly pointless and downright a negative in cities, which is where all these vehicles currently operate.
@@otterpoopie Self-driving cars won't solve a thing. There will still be far too much volume per person for it to even come close to rival the space efficiency of a train, or even a bus. I live in a northern European city with about 180k population, and public transport is not for the poor, and very frequent. It is for everyone. It's so much more convenient to not have to think about parking (may not be a problem in the us, with free on-street parking and massive lots, but no such thing here), or filling up gas, or having to actively pay attention in traffic. It's also much cheaper, which I, as a student, appreciate. I have a driver's license, and if I absolutely HAVE to use a car, I'll rent one using car sharing. Self driving cars still probably won't be better than humans in urban environments, since there are often very complicated streets and a lot happening.
@@cornstalks4122 We cannot apply the same principles of Europe to the US as a whole. Can some European architecture help solve issues US compacted cities currently have? Absolutely yes, but the US is so spread out that it’s impossible to say there is a one size fits all system.
17:30 I never understood this american fascination with open parking lots. It makes ZERO sense. You waste a ton of space, your car is still at the mercy of the elements, the lot doesn't generate as much revenue as it could. What is the reason for this madness????
They have the space to waste so they do, with no consideration it seems.
I love these videos of experts explaining their jobs they love.
I am an ebike rider, and I would say at least 70% of the vehicles I pass on the road have only 1 occupant. Traffic is backed up for blocks, yet I ride on by without a care.
14:24 get this guy to play cities: skylines for us
Please come back for part 3! So far the best series on the channel.
1:43 THANK YOU! Gentrification can't be solved with rent control or mandates - you just have to build more housing. Ironically, the NIMBY's often fight against this, which means there's less housing and their neighborhood becomes even MORE unaffordable.
You’ll never solve gentrification because rich people don’t want to live with poor people. Poor people generally don’t maintain their homes and have higher crime rates. Rich people don’t want to live where homes aren’t maintained and don’t want to live where the crime rate is higher. As he said, architecture cannot solve crime and it’s as simple as that. It’s also economic. If a rich person came up to your door and said he’d purchase your land at a compelling profit for you then you’d most likely pack your bags and move on.
Get this man back for part 3, please!
Facts. I need moooore!
Nah get someone better
i don't like his take on self-driving cars either, but i do think only having them authorized for the "reinventing the train, sort of" use he described would be better than just letting them roam free everywhere. i love hearing his perspective on other issues and would love to see him back again. thanks, wired!
With all sincerity, thank you for pointing out the INCOMPETENCE and/or CORRUPTION of our Los Angeles civil engineering and local government.
So glad you brought Alexandros back. His first video was one of the best Support videos I’ve seen, and I’ve probably watched nearly all of them.
My brother once found our city in a textbook as a bad example of urban sprawl. I don't recall what book, but I can attest to that statement.
What city is it?
tell me what city so I can laugh I mean show sympathy
@@willjackson6522corny
Throwing shade at Levi Stadium lol
As a Brazilian, I loved all the Brazil references. Thanks for bringing them up.
14:05 NYC is pretty similar to this already in that regard! You'll have something liek 14th St which is now all bus lane, followed by 13th and 12th st which is protected bike lanes, followed by 10th st which is where more cars go, etc. The protected cross town bike lanes are almost always off the big dividing streets, which is great.
So glad they brought Mr Washburn back for another video! These Tech Support videos have been my go-to RUclips content lately and this guy here is one of the best experts they've had.
Sticking windmills on buildings runs straight into the "solar freaking roadways" problem, which is that for every dollar you spend putting windmills on buildings, you would have gotten more for that dollar by investing it into building a wind farm somewhere outside the city that has better geography and more space for optimization.
This guy sounds like every american traffic engineer I've ever met.
Its crazy how personal TAX is being taken off the average person to build a stadium. They may never go to a game or even support any team. Once built the stadiums are massive stream of income for the owners so do they pay back to the whole community?
I also saw a tax added on to items in a shopping centre (Mall) that the developers are collecting to make the area nicer? They should be doing that anyway when t hey build the place.
Did you even listen to Washburn's answer?
Put yourself in the city councils' shoes. Owner of such and such big sports team is going to build a stadium. They are looking at your city, but could just as easily settle in the next big city.
You typically offer them a tax cut on the construction to entice them to build at your city. It's going to bring in tons of consumers to the city for concerts and football games and all those people spend money at the local businesses getting dinner and going shopping. It is good for your citizens to have a stadium around.
I’m so glad others are hearing his lunacy
12:20 even better: if the water is allowed to seep back into the ground, the sewage system doesn't get overflown and it's just an overall better way of draining water in a city. If it's been designed in a smart way, the parks in a neighborhood will be a bit lower than the streets so the water will automatically flow there. Gravity is free after all.
Want a spin off where experts have to answer questions that have nothing to do with their field and they need to try and come up with a convincing answer on the fly like
"Lawyer answers archaeology questions"
"Brain surgeon answers fashion industry questions"
Think it'd be fun.
I’m glad they listened to the comments and brought him back. He is fantastic.
18:52 I don't think NYC will ever be affordable. The reality is that tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people dream of living there. Even if you built 20 million more apartments, you'd still have 50 million people still wanting to live there (and ironically, if the rent *did* decrease, more people might be interested moving here, which just pushes rents back up). It's one of the most popular and iconic cities in the world, it's always going to be expensive.
Wait, so if our taxes are used to build stadiums, then why are they owned privately by billionaires?
because cities sell out their residents for the 'benefits' a fancy new stadium will bring...which never really come to fruition, sans a few seasonal low wage jobs.
one of many reasons why sports stadiums are, historically, statistically, and objectively, NEVER a good idea! the first thing you learn in games econ is that sports teams and their stadiums are ALWAYS a net loss for a community/city :)
You're right its nonsense.
If you pay to build it, you should own it. Rent it out to any team that wants it and make the roi simple and direct.
as an architecture student aspiring towards urban planning, this was a wonderful video
About flooding rivers, Santiago did something similar with the Mapocho river, making new parks that can be flooded when needed, and it is part of the future of the river bank to continue this trend to protect the city. Where I live, it is much needed to do the same but the space is not available anymore, you'd need to demolish a ton of buildings that have been in right next to the river for decades.
I agree on that point that we can get rid of parking completely in the city and people don't have to find parking, but I respectfully disagree that the way for that is fully automated taxis or rideshares / cars. There is already a way for that: Mass transit.
Love this series! It's so refreshing to see an urban designer break down city planning concepts in a way that's easy to understand.
While this guy deserves to be clowned on for the self-driving car train idea, I do like his description of gentrification. It really is a matter of housing supply. Having rich, poor, and middle-class people living together is as ideal as you can get as long as class differences still exist.
really glad that this gentleman is back. loved the first video.
Love when Steven Spielberg teaches me about buildings
Not Just Bikes just made a video about self-driving cars and how they're going to worsen traffic.
Swear to god if this ludicrous self driving car fantasy becomes a full reality with cars circling around every block endlessly I might just have to do something about it
Rent is the issue about high rent. Public housing, or housing commission as we call it in Aus would be better if the housing was sort of given to the person renting it. The rent would be the mortgage equivalent and it gets paid back to the Gov not a bank. That way people will own the property, or at lease the portion they have paid for it instead of a real estate company. Crime would reduce as no body wants crime in an area they have a financial stake in. Just an idea for a part of the problem.
I did laugh out loud when they discussed a bad example of building a stadium, and the shot was Levi Stadium out here in Santa Clara, CA. It's poorly planned, and sits right next door to a theme park that will be shuttered in the next couple of years.
Where do you find these personable, enthusiastic, and engaging experts? Love him.
Omg I am SO glad you brought him back!!! He needs a weekly series
Excited y'all did a part 2 after we all asked for it! public transit perspective, but otherwise was cool! I think public transit and having less cars in general in a city is a good thing for everyone. Also more trees and yeah the solution to flooding being green spaces, they're thinking about doing that in Paris in the future near sewers and having urban forests which is super cool
"If you want to build a great city, build a great street"!! We definitely need more cool, walkable places around the US.
No more cars!
Keep this guy coming! Love his insights and commentary
I love how he highlighted that cities are built by their citizens. This awareness can inspire others to speak up about their own city's design and suggest improvements. Now more than ever, we should reimagine what it means to live in our communities and consider how to make them more enjoyable for a better quality of life.
The answer on gentrification missed the element that really drives gentrification which is the changing of culture. It’s not just that people come in and drive up prices, it’s that they want to change culture and often that change is exclusionary and anti-Black/anti-poor/etc
I'd love to see plans to redevelop Brasilia. So many highways/roads could be cleaned up / eliminated, and more land for housing / development to occur.
I love listening to this guy, you can tell he knows his stuff and is passionate about it.
Until you think about it
Dude designed the urban areas that are prime exples of wasted space and pedestrian slaughter houses. Car brained boomers.
So glad he is back for round two! Thank you wired for listening to the commenters!
I freakin love this guy. I want to go to his house for thanksgiving and just ask him questions over stuffin and taters
I'll never get tired of this silver fox talking about urban design
My reply turned out to be too long so I will make it a comment.
One viewer stated that good urban planning CAN increase safety of the streets, because for example badly designed neighborhoods often lack easy access to working places, which results in increased unemployment and risks of criminal activity.
Although I do agree with this statement, I do believe it’s not completely the case.
This isn’t just about the unemployment rate, its generally about people simply using the street. The more variety of reasons to be on the street you propose, the more diverse (also more people in general) the population of the street is and the less chances you give for the potential criminal to commit unnoticed.
The good street combines accessibility, variety, density and safety, and all of these factors can not be utilized separately or without at least one of them effectively
I've been to Brasília and it is a very unusual city! The architecture is amazing (World Heritage Site), but it is indeed a place created to accommodate cars instead of people. It is worth the visit anyways 🇧🇷
really enjoyed the first part, and he had some good takes here too but his take on self driving cars i just don’t agree with at all, not just bikes has a great video on self driving cars. Offering alternative modes of transport including metros and bike lanes and more efficient zoning that allows for higher density buildings that mix commercial and residential should be the future we plan and advocate for imo.
Urban planning is so interesting!! I loveee these!!
This guy is not a good representation of urban planning. Maybe they should have got a Planner rather than an urban designer to answer planning questions.
I love how this guy thinks about planning and solutions to our current problems
As someone who was born and lived in Brasília for most of my life I have to disagree with 20:00.
Brasília is a park, with so many trees and I do completely fine withouth a car ❤
I enjoy this expert’s perspective so much! More of this, please.
Architecture does have an effect on crime, yes socio-economic inequality is a much bigger contributor but a lack of social connection is also a major contributor to crime and the design a residence and area does effect social interaction.
I do think the urban designer had an implied negativity bias to the question though, thinking the question was more about hostile architecture.
Architecture absolutely can influence public safety. Windows, lighting, defensible space, pathways, exits, entrances, traffic flow…crazy how he just brushed that question off
13:44 Even when describing the distinct between a street and a road as coined by Strong Towns, he can't bring himself to imagine a street that is only for pedestrians and cyclists, even one immediately adjacent to a car-friendly road. Every other place on earth has wildly popular pedestrian-only streets, but North America just can't have nice things, I guess.
6:15 i think this is why the single corporation driven "urban developments" are so... uncanny. the beauty of density is it happens naturally. not that one company owns all of it and checks boxes. they are still better than nothing in my opinion.
Everyone forgets that self parking cars still have to park somewhere, the parking lots don’t just disappear, so we still spend big time and they will NEVER be more efficient than any standard public transit. Then there’s the part where people don’t want to pay for the parking so their AV just does loops around the block making traffic worse and more bloated.
Watch NotJustBikes analysis of the our self driving car future for a lesson on the horror of AV.
People are hating on this dude for being too pro-car or pro-highway, but I actually think he's being very pragmatic. He recognizes the benefits of non-car forms of transportation, and yet also recognizes that the automobile is highly comfortable and many people have grown to expect that level of comfort in their transportation. It might not be what internet urbanists like but this dude actually worked in city planning for a super long time for NYC, so I get the sense he knows what he's talking about.
He does not. His takes on transport are especially bad.
Let me rephrase this for you: He is aware of the benefits of great public transportation, but he’s got stars in his eyes and he’s been sold on self driving cars because the tech bros got to him.