New buildings and infrastructures

[italystf]

While in historical centers narrow streets and few parking spots are an obstacle to mobility, new residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, offices, factories, etc… should be built with the better possible infrastructures making them easily accessible.

I think that every new house or apartment should have at least one private parking place or garage. Or even two if it’s possible, since most families now have two cars. This would prevent residents parking in the public street. It’s better for them because their car is in a safer place but also for others because public parking will remain free for other people going in that area.

Public exercises that attracts a great number of people should have an adequate numbers of parking spots, except for those located in historical city centers where most people walk. New big companies and department stores shouldn’t be located in old urbanized areas where they would generate other traffic problems (and also became less economically competitive).

Those located along busy roads, especially outside towns, should have adequate intersections with the main road, with additional entry\exit lanes or roundabouts avoiding blocking traffic by standing in the middle of the road waiting to turn left.

I don’t see a wise choice in building new blocks with dozens of apartments if the only possible access is through a narrow alley between two historical buildings and there is hardly any room for park the cars of half its future residents.

Since not everybody has a driving license and many times driving short distances in urban areas isn’t convenient (not to mention non eco-friendly) also pedestrian and cycling mobility is important. All urban roads should have sidewalks and zebra crossings at a reasonable distance each other. Main roads in cities and suburbs should have bicycle lanes. This is very important to improve traffic safety by protecting the weaker user of the road, encourage the use of eco-friendly ways of transportation and allow young boys and elderly who don’t drive to move easily.

Unfortunately in many places development plans had been done with poor standards in order to save more space possible. Not only before cars were invented, but also some neighborhoods built between 1950s and 1980s have problems with insufficient parking spots and streets capacity.

What do you think? How is the situation in your city\region? Do you know any example of new developed areas with poor infrastructures or badly connected to the rest of the city making car\bicycle\pedestrian accessibility difficult or dangerous?

[mhays]

High parking requirements have been a disaster in the US.

Basically all suburbs and even some inner city areas require large amounts of parking, which means that either you go vertical or underground (possible only at high prices), do surface parking (hurting the neighborhood and any concept of density), or not build at all (a very common outcome).

Regardless, the outcome is a car-dominated area, which is dysfunctional by definition.

The best US cities require much less parking, and give the option of no parking at least in core areas. Of course, you also have to ticket and tow illegal parkers so they keep the sidewalks and crossings clear etc.

[italystf]

I didn't say that is right advantage cars in comparison of other way of transportation. I said that also pedestrian and cyclist mobility, as well PT are very important.
The point is another. Since today everybody own a car and most of us can't do without (especially for everyday job-related necessities) I think that new built areas should present the least possible traffic and parking problems. It doesn't mean that everybody should use the car for every short distance (it would be very bad for health and environment), but neither force people to park their cars 200 meters from their house because there is no space available or encourage illegal parking on sidewalk outside shops because there are to few free parking spaces.
So I think isn't wise put hundreds of apartments, houses, activities in a too small area without enough facilities (playgrounds, green areas, parking lots, roads enough wide with cycle lanes, spaces for recycling bins or roadside trash collection,...). You would create in new areas the same logistical problems that exist in some old areas (where there aren't alternatives available and the value of historical buildings is far more important than a free parking lot in front of your house).
On the other hand also an excessive sprawl is bad because it increases the car-dependency making walking and cycling less practical, creating more pollution and discriminating elderlies and underage who don't drive.

[mhays]

But adding parking always detracts from other transportation modes. At minimum it can be a huge cost, require a lot of land and keep actual uses farther apart, etc.

[italystf]

Originally Posted by mhays

But adding parking always detracts from other transportation modes. At minimum it can be a huge cost, require a lot of land and keep actual uses farther apart, etc.

If the issue is saving more costs possible you can also built houses with no private gardens, no common green areas and playgrounds, 4 meters wide two way streets with no sidewalks or cycle lane... but the quality of life would decrease and you will be able to sell those propertries for less money.

[Suburbanist]

The cheapest way to build parking other than on-surface is to build vertical garages over ground.

It is even possible to use the 1st floor for some activity 2nd-8th floor (example) for parking and then above 9th floor for other uses.

[Piltup Man]

The cheapest way to build parking other than on-surface is to build vertical garages over ground.

Cheaper to build than underground, certainly. However not necessarily the best use of land: it is best to build several layers of parking below ground (where nobody cares whether their cars have no natural sunlight) and keep the area above for something that makes use of natural light (be it residences, offices, a park or a square).

[Suburbanist]

An alternative in new districts is to build on a 2-level street concept:

- on ground floor and 1-3 floors underground, only parking, road motorized traffic, trucks etc.

- all buildings' 1st floor are actually open plan spaces connected between each other, functioning as the actual "street level" for urbanistic purposes

[Piltup Man]

Interestingly, that's an idea that was mooted here for future urban space:

http://www.retronaut.co/2012/03/how-...f-1950-c-1925/

[italystf]

Suburbanist's proposals (multilevel streets and parkings) are quite futuristic and very expensive, so I think they are suitable only for very large cities.
For smaller towns (let's say between 20 and 200k people) I think simpler solutions are avaliable. Start to build on the empty fields that are more close possible to the already urbanized area (to avoid an excessive inefficient sprawl and encourage walking and cycling) but realize also sufficient infrastructures. I think surface parking lots are enough most of times in new built areas. Better build underground private garages for residents and open street parkings for other.

[julesstoop]

In the Netherlands they've actually (quite recently) built something along the lines of what Suburbanist suggests, in the city of Almere. http://courses.umass.edu/latour/2010/almere/index.html

[Suburbanist]

Almere is cool, though Lelystad is better.

[italystf]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Almere is cool, though Lelystad is better.

Interesting, Almere and Lelystad are quite big cities that didn't exist until around 40 years ago.
How they achieved those demographic results and why so many people chosed to settle in those planned cities? Even in the 60s or the 70s Netherlands wasn't a poor countries with many people looking for a better life (that's the case of other planned cities in the world such Brasilia and Latina). Neither it had an authoritarian government who made pressure to resettle people (like in the USSR).

[julesstoop]

Those cities became a success because of the relative affordability of housing. Many people living in rather small apartments in the concrete jungle of places like Amsterdam West, could suddenly afford a house with a garden and a private parking spot. My parents moved to Lelystad about 5 years ago, from a suburb near the Hague. They like gardening and for a similar price, they now have about 4 times as large a garden.

[julesstoop]

@suburbanist I was specifically referring to your suggestion on the use of multilevel streets. The new city centre of Almere was actually designed and built along the lines of this concept.

[Slartibartfas]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

An alternative in new districts is to build on a 2-level street concept:

- on ground floor and 1-3 floors underground, only parking, road motorized traffic, trucks etc.

- all buildings' 1st floor are actually open plan spaces connected between each other, functioning as the actual "street level" for urbanistic purposes

I know both strategies from Vienna even though the alternative you mention is luckily only the exception. Why am I saying luckily? Because these "all underground" option is pretty expensive, creates a navigation nightmare for drivers, needs massive ventilation systems (and according facilities on ground, possibly integrated into the buildings), looks outright ugly from on the ground if the area is not completed and holes remain, there is a conflict of levels which leads for some buildings to locate their main entrance below ground making that building feel isolated from the pedestrian level (thats what happened at least in Vienna with some buildings even though it could be prevented by according building code requirements) ...

Last but not least, the surface of such large tunnel systems usually don't allow for alleys. Adding mention worthy amount of greenery on top would add to the already high costs.

No, it is a much more attractive approach to keep the cars on street level but to build no on ground parking at all in new neighborhoods beyond regular street parking and have all buildings built with underground parking if necessary (It should be up to the developer to choose if it wants to offer parking opportunities in-house). The new urban areas should have areas which are clam with only backstreets connecting and an attractive green public area design of courtyards, street alleys etc. A mix of functions also vertically with new shops being integrated into the buildings is important as well.

Inner city urban new towns can work perfectly fine without fancy all underground solutions and without drowning in car traffic either. You need an attractive offer of public transportation for that of course and a good bicycle infrastructure should be standard by today.