I think this is why I find the "pluralism" angle so important: there is a need to accept that there's a cost for the _inherent good_ of making things that work for a broad group of people. Granted, I think *once you get to that pluralistic point* you tend to have a world that's better for almost everyone, but you need some extra oomph to break out of the local equilibria of selfish extraction because that's what human nature will settle for.
I think all of the theory here is still absolutely right (free parking is a massive subsidy that distorts demand, "windshield bias" leads to roads that are plowed every hour while sidewalks have to wait until the snow-packed-to-ice melts in the sun) but you're right that in the moment that theory doesn't tend to count for much unless you've got a supernaturally strong commitment to the cause, heh. More seriously, I think this is why the future of urbanism has to be communities doing some kind of "tactical" or even "symbolic" action together, you need external visibility and internal solidarity to overcome the ruts you mention.
If you're ever in the Charlotte area let me know, we ended up in Matthews which is such an interesting case of "trying so hard to cling to the cute town center" while dealing with the fact that the downtown is basically walled off from everything by two major stroads crossing through downtown. I bike around when I can to increase visibility, but it's definitely not pleasant even though there's plenty of stuff within a "bikable distance." Truly sad and I don't know how you fix it since the roads are now "load bearing" and can't go away :(
Great piece! I think that neighborhoods or towns that are changing density have it hard because it seems like the brewery is built in a low density neighborhood that wants to be a high density neighborhood. But ironically the low density neighborhood doesn’t have enough parking ! If the neighborhood continues to get more urban that won’t be a problem anymore!
I hope to live to see a world in which nobody has to own a damn car because they can summon a transportation pod that will accommodate their needs (seating for disabled people, car seats, number in party) and take them where they need to go for an affordable fee.
Think of what we could do with all the parking lots!
I guess the funny thing here is that none of what you experienced here was the fault of urbanism. It was the failure of car dependant planning!
Did the place not have adequate enough parking due to not having high enough parking minimums, or because the minimums can't be reasonably high enough in the first place? Is it only a problem because you absolutely have to drive there?
Even the patchwork overflow situation is just a natural consequence of car-based urban planning. Because the parking lots are all spread out and disconnected, you end up with a lot of uncertainty, which creates stress. Not helped by the fact that you have to drive out into a stroad just to get between lots, which is the most stressful part of driving overall.
And the lack of walking paths between lots is also peak car dependance. Not only is the pedestrian experience neglected and not maintained, but the only reason that huge snow mound is there is from having to clear off large tracts of asphalt for cars! It's car dependance all the way down! It's kinda hard to blame urbanism when there isn't even any urbanism in sight, from what I can see.
To be clear, I get what you're saying. You have to be strategic with how you implement urbanism since you can't just switch on and off between car dependant sprawl and a proper town. It'll take very well thought out incrementalism. And one way to do that well is to strategically place centralized public parking with excellent signage (so drivers intuitively know where to go) and make sure it's easy to walk around. But that's obviously always going to be difficult in prime stroad developments. Far from trivial, to be sure.
Well yeah, to your last bit, this isn't urbanism, per se, but it's a kind of in-between because it has filled in more than probably intended, and gotten denser, but the planning lags behind. Maybe it's better put as density without urbanism. My overall point is that there is inevitably going to be a painful, inconvenient transition period in getting built environments like this to be more urbanist. And to me the limited parking/sharing arrangement/walking on the stroad is like quasi-urbanism working with what it has to work with, which is not much here.
This isn't unique to driving. We all make choices based on the pluses and minuses. In a more dense environment, maybe you get pizza to go with that beer cuz the other place nearby, the taco place, isn't very good.
Having had my bi-annual dose of suburbia, what seems a bit father isn't as big of a deal. Hankering for some pho? Well there's a butt ton of choices just depending on how far you want to go.
Does that sound the same was walkable? Sure. It is in many ways.
But it seems, at least feels like, there the choices are more dense, not less. Not more per square mile but more per minute of travel. That makes a big difference to people psychologically.
Some breweries get the food truck to park out front so that they don’t have to run a kitchen. I love that model.
I have a local brewery in my neighborhood that does exactly that and it’s great 👍
I think this is why I find the "pluralism" angle so important: there is a need to accept that there's a cost for the _inherent good_ of making things that work for a broad group of people. Granted, I think *once you get to that pluralistic point* you tend to have a world that's better for almost everyone, but you need some extra oomph to break out of the local equilibria of selfish extraction because that's what human nature will settle for.
I think all of the theory here is still absolutely right (free parking is a massive subsidy that distorts demand, "windshield bias" leads to roads that are plowed every hour while sidewalks have to wait until the snow-packed-to-ice melts in the sun) but you're right that in the moment that theory doesn't tend to count for much unless you've got a supernaturally strong commitment to the cause, heh. More seriously, I think this is why the future of urbanism has to be communities doing some kind of "tactical" or even "symbolic" action together, you need external visibility and internal solidarity to overcome the ruts you mention.
Yeah, this is a great comment. I think this is very true.
If you're ever in the Charlotte area let me know, we ended up in Matthews which is such an interesting case of "trying so hard to cling to the cute town center" while dealing with the fact that the downtown is basically walled off from everything by two major stroads crossing through downtown. I bike around when I can to increase visibility, but it's definitely not pleasant even though there's plenty of stuff within a "bikable distance." Truly sad and I don't know how you fix it since the roads are now "load bearing" and can't go away :(
"Or as I like to put it now, driving is the freedom to move, but parking is the freedom to stop."
This is similar to what I call the "Varro Paradox":
https://bnjd.substack.com/p/the-varro-paradox
I will take a look at that
Great piece! I think that neighborhoods or towns that are changing density have it hard because it seems like the brewery is built in a low density neighborhood that wants to be a high density neighborhood. But ironically the low density neighborhood doesn’t have enough parking ! If the neighborhood continues to get more urban that won’t be a problem anymore!
I hope to live to see a world in which nobody has to own a damn car because they can summon a transportation pod that will accommodate their needs (seating for disabled people, car seats, number in party) and take them where they need to go for an affordable fee.
Think of what we could do with all the parking lots!
I guess the funny thing here is that none of what you experienced here was the fault of urbanism. It was the failure of car dependant planning!
Did the place not have adequate enough parking due to not having high enough parking minimums, or because the minimums can't be reasonably high enough in the first place? Is it only a problem because you absolutely have to drive there?
Even the patchwork overflow situation is just a natural consequence of car-based urban planning. Because the parking lots are all spread out and disconnected, you end up with a lot of uncertainty, which creates stress. Not helped by the fact that you have to drive out into a stroad just to get between lots, which is the most stressful part of driving overall.
And the lack of walking paths between lots is also peak car dependance. Not only is the pedestrian experience neglected and not maintained, but the only reason that huge snow mound is there is from having to clear off large tracts of asphalt for cars! It's car dependance all the way down! It's kinda hard to blame urbanism when there isn't even any urbanism in sight, from what I can see.
To be clear, I get what you're saying. You have to be strategic with how you implement urbanism since you can't just switch on and off between car dependant sprawl and a proper town. It'll take very well thought out incrementalism. And one way to do that well is to strategically place centralized public parking with excellent signage (so drivers intuitively know where to go) and make sure it's easy to walk around. But that's obviously always going to be difficult in prime stroad developments. Far from trivial, to be sure.
Well yeah, to your last bit, this isn't urbanism, per se, but it's a kind of in-between because it has filled in more than probably intended, and gotten denser, but the planning lags behind. Maybe it's better put as density without urbanism. My overall point is that there is inevitably going to be a painful, inconvenient transition period in getting built environments like this to be more urbanist. And to me the limited parking/sharing arrangement/walking on the stroad is like quasi-urbanism working with what it has to work with, which is not much here.
This isn't unique to driving. We all make choices based on the pluses and minuses. In a more dense environment, maybe you get pizza to go with that beer cuz the other place nearby, the taco place, isn't very good.
Having had my bi-annual dose of suburbia, what seems a bit father isn't as big of a deal. Hankering for some pho? Well there's a butt ton of choices just depending on how far you want to go.
Does that sound the same was walkable? Sure. It is in many ways.
But it seems, at least feels like, there the choices are more dense, not less. Not more per square mile but more per minute of travel. That makes a big difference to people psychologically.