The type of development I describe is happening (two examples in my Canadian city). Ultimately the evolution of a poorly built model.
There is a middle ground, I think.
I like individual houses with gardens (most people do, I think) with a size such that convenience stores are viable and reacheable on foot. It's like that in my area (England): good size houses but it's dense enough that I can walk to 2-3 different convenience stores when I need a few things, with a Post Office counter in one of those stores.
In Europe there are also plenty of small scale 'appartment buildings', say 3 to 5 floors surrounded by some greenery and a small carpark, which I think works well, too. A random example in France (near a world famous tourist site): https://goo.gl/maps/avKMYuRAfgxq3gvM9 (that area is also built around a big shopping centre, which is therefore within walking distance).
The bigger it gets the higher the likelihood that it becomes shit.
Where I lived, there used to be tons of orange groves, beautiful natural areas, trails, and fields to ride your bike through. They all turned into suburban houses. Tracts of homes with huge offsets. Cars zooming by at 60 mph on streets so wide it takes half a minute to cross them on foot, all while dodging cars.
Some people try to make it sound like densification will lead to Soviet era buildings or everyone living in Skyscrapers. But it mostly just leads to the city staying in the city instead of spreading out like a cancerous tumor across farmland and nature.
If the goal is to diminish VMT, we need to be creative and add places to go to walking in suburban neighborhoods, as well as incentivizing people to walk/bike. It's not easy when all public meetings are at 2pm on a Tuesday and everyone who shows up is a 70 yold NIMBY who thinks that adding a bike lane will end the world.
In the USA, I think many people would view having a "convenience store" in their neighborhood as a negative thing. I know I would.
In these situations Convenience stores probably have a very small section of fairly durable produce, maybe some frozen meat but probably some lunchmeat, certainly things like toilet paper, bread, cheese, eggs, snack foods, household cleaners. Certainly not the kind of selection you'll get out of your kroger's but enough to get by. (the place near my family cabin also has a small selection of fly fishing gear during the 'season' swap for some wintery items during the winter)
I sometimes get the impression that HN folks think there's only one kind of suburb in America.
Terraced housing allows places like London with a fully functioning public transport system whilst also allowing for a civilized home life, hobbies, gardening etc.
It's one of the best things about UK cities IMO. I feel like people who are obsessed with towerblock apartments miss the forest for the trees.
Some of us like big vehicles and the freedom that enables. The last thing I want to do in a Houston summer is carry groceries to a bus stop in 102 degree temperatures and then spend 30 minutes riding a bus when a car does it in 10.
However I was surprised the article didn't mention pedestrian behavior at all, which is clearly increasing the risk of pedistrian accidents in recent years.
My experiences with pedistrian near misses have been when people step in front of my car while staring at their phone. The worst cases being mid-block, at night, while the pedestrian was wearing all black.
Walkable cities are awesome! Unfortunately in the US the overwhelming majority of places offer very poor, or no, mass transit and cars are still the only practiucal means of transportation.
In the case of SUVs and trucks, we are talking about a few tons of steel accelerating to speeds that easily break bones, maim, and kill people with the slightest of errors. If you are going through neighborhoods or places with high pedestrian traffic at a speed that you can't reactively stop on a dime, and/or are driving a vehicle that has poor line of sight especially for small humans, that is a problem.
Maybe there really is an epidemic of people walking into the street without looking, I've just never seen it happen personally. In any case, if pedestrians are guilty of walking into traffic while looking at their phones then I can almost guarantee that drivers are even more guilting of staring at their phones while driving through neighborhoods and other areas where pedestrians are likely to be. The notion that distracted pedestrians are more of a problem than distracted drivers does not come close to passing the smell test for me.
From what I understand, trucks, including pickups and SUVs, don't have to meet the same safety requirements as regular cars, which is just insane, when you think about it. They are already bigger and heavier and therefore more dangerous, and on top of that the safety rules are looser?!
Big trucks require a special license, but small ones can be driven with a regular license. Maybe that needs to change. Either they should follow the same safety rules as regular cars, or they should require special training and a stricter license.
Which means you failed to see the pedestrian a yield to them. You caused the near miss.
Outside of HN, in real life safety is a responsibility of everyone. You are careful when you drive, careful when you walk. You don't text while driving, you don't text while crossing the street. Everyone stays safer.
>Outside of HN, in real life safety is a responsibility of everyone.
The person driving the gas propelled two ton vehicle has more responsibility to avoid hitting things than pedestrians have to avoid getting hit.
>. You are careful when you drive, careful when you walk. You don't text while driving, you don't text while crossing the street. Everyone stays safer.
Pedestrians *should* be able to text while they cross the street. The only reason they can't/shouldn't is because American drivers are largely allowed to operate their machines in a negligent manner at all times.
Walking is an inherently safe activity. Driving is an inherently dangerous activity. Drivers should have more a burden for safety than walkers. You, as a driver, should expect things to enter the road. That's why we have speed limits. That's you watch the road instead of playing on the road.
>t's your responsibility to follow the rules.
Sure! And motorist need to follow the rules of the road. Unfortunately when they break the rules, which they do most of the time, they can easily end someones life.
I'm guessing you're one of the good ones who definitely doesn't speed every time they are in the car.
This is... not the definition of jaywalking. It is legal to use one's phone while crossing the street.
Aside - history of the term "jaywalking," from Wikipedia: "The word was promoted by pro-automobile interests in the 1920s, according to historian and alternative transportation advocate Peter D. Norton. Today, in the US, the word is often used synonymously with its current legal definition, crossing the street illegally."
Sorry, you are not understanding what jaywalking is. If you can find a definition of jaywalking that mentions phone, I'll concede your point, but you can't, because it has nothing to do with phones.
Jaywalking is the act of pedestrians walking in or crossing a roadway that has traffic if that act contravenes traffic regulations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
Please show me how using a phone suddenly stops contravening with traffic regulations or whatever definition you believe is true that cancels jaywalking somehow when you stare at a phone.
I say again, because they used to be. Even Houston didn't used to be such a car-focused hellhole.
Driving in Manhattan was precarious during the pandemic. Little traffic but peds walking into the street without looking far more than typical.