You don't even need to travel out of the country to comprehend the alternatives. Just visiting NY the first time made me realize there is a better way than using a car for literally every single activity. BEing able to walk downstairs to a bodega or grocer at the end of the block, taking the train to Yankee Stadium and not have to worry about parking or sit in traffic, being able to meet some friends for dinner just by walking a few blocks was just eye opening and made me want to live in downtown Cleveland, especially when Heinen's opened. Idk if I would move downtown again as I may have a family soon and need some space, but I couldn't imagine living in these subdivision developments that continue popping up farther and farther now into Avon, Streetsboro, medina, even strongsville etc., where you need a car literally just to even feed yourself. 

And honestly, what is ironic especially in Cleveland, these freeways were designed to get suburbanites in and out of downtown for work and open up suburban living as the ideal setting. But now as sprawl continues to go unchecked as a result of free expansion in the suburbs, companies continue to leave Downtown ie Medical Mutual, leaving very little reason to go downtown (unless you're going to dinner at night or bars which many suburbanites aren't going to do on a regular basis). These freeways now intersecting downtowns and neighborhoods have become completely outdated. 

16 hours ago, viscomi said:

The post was about urban areas not long distance travel routes. Good cities and automobiles are incompatible. 

 

That depends on the meaning of the word "good".   It's in the eye of the beholder.

14 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

And honestly, what is ironic especially in Cleveland, these freeways were designed to get suburbanites in and out of downtown for work and open up suburban living as the ideal setting. But now as sprawl continues to go unchecked as a result of free expansion in the suburbs, companies continue to leave Downtown ie Medical Mutual, leaving very little reason to go downtown (unless you're going to dinner at night or bars which many suburbanites aren't going to do on a regular basis). These freeways now intersecting downtowns and neighborhoods have become completely outdated. 

We messed up when we stole the Autobahn idea from Germany and then decided we would alter it to rip through city centers instead of around city limits like they do. 

3 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

That depends on the meaning of the word "good".   It's in the eye of the beholder.

Yes you could say this about anything.

On 11/20/2022 at 5:32 AM, E Rocc said:

 

That depends on the meaning of the word "good".   It's in the eye of the beholder.

Fair enough. As written it did leave it open to broad interpretation. I'll clarify.

 

Great cities for people and automobiles are incompatible.

 

 

 

On 11/20/2022 at 5:32 AM, E Rocc said:

 

That depends on the meaning of the word "good".   It's in the eye of the beholder.

What is your definition of a good city?  I know of no place on earth beside a highway that is a great place for people, pedestrians, to hang out.  What place in what city am I missing that we should all visit ASAP? Of course, that also would be subjective.

 

Objectively, making it easier for people to drive into the heart of cities means that cities require more roadway space and more parking spaces for those cars.  Unless you tax parking spaces heavily, the cars are taking space away from more productive uses -- offices and businesses and residences -- and places that are quieter and more pleasant -- parks and playgrounds.  Objectively quieter and more pleasant (they don't generate pollutants from brakes and tires). 

 

And making it easier for workers to live in spaced apart houses farther away means more infrastructure to build and maintain.  That's fine to a point -- the point where the population isn't generating enough money to maintain the infrastructure.   Given the number of complaints about potholes, I'd say we're already there.  It is objectively fiscally irresponsible to facilitate spreading out a static population beyond the ability to build and maintain the infrastructure -- sprawl.

 

Couldn't think of a better place to put this 

 

 

4 minutes ago, KJP said:

Couldn't think of a better place to put this 

 

 

 

Weather patterns are WILD

On 11/20/2022 at 7:50 AM, KFM44107 said:

We messed up when we stole the Autobahn idea from Germany

 

The US Army ran a convoy on the Pennsylvania Turnpike before WWII.  Yet Eisenhower "got the idea for the Interstates when he saw the Autobahn".   

30 minutes ago, KJP said:

Couldn't think of a better place to put this 

 

 

What a cool map!

23 hours ago, KJP said:

Couldn't think of a better place to put this 

 

 

Cleveland being south of Rome is my favorite fact for the haters.

Fun fact: Cleveland is both north AND south of Parma!

On 12/8/2022 at 2:34 PM, Lazarus said:

 

The US Army ran a convoy on the Pennsylvania Turnpike before WWII.  Yet Eisenhower "got the idea for the Interstates when he saw the Autobahn".   

 

the appian way has entered the chat.

 

Futures made of virtual insanity, now 
Always seem to be governed by this love we have 
For these useless, twisting, of our new technology 
Oh, now there is no sound, for we all live underground

😂

 

 

 

Why the future of our cities might be headed underground

 

By Samantha Bresnahan, CNN

Published 4:29 AM EST, Wed December 21, 2022

 

 

CNN — 

There is a megaproject underway that’s not so much breaking new ground, as burrowing beneath it. In Singapore, a series of extensive tunnels are being bored into the soil some 60 meters down – below subterranean shopping malls and even the city’s metro.

 

 

more:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/21/world/underground-development-singapore-dtss-tnf-spc-intl/index.html

On 12/8/2022 at 2:34 PM, Lazarus said:

 

The US Army ran a convoy on the Pennsylvania Turnpike before WWII.  Yet Eisenhower "got the idea for the Interstates when he saw the Autobahn".   

 

The earliest convoys were right after World War I.   The autobahns reinforced the interstates but didn't originate them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_Motor_Convoy

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

The earliest convoys were right after World War I.   The autobahns reinforced the interstates but didn't originate them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_Motor_Convoy

Yes, and Eisenhower worked on one of those convoys and experienced the difficulties in moving troops quickly on existing roads.  The Autobahn was the inspiration for how to solve a known problem.

18 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Yes, and Eisenhower worked on one of those convoys and experienced the difficulties in moving troops quickly on existing roads.  The Autobahn was the inspiration for how to solve a known problem.

 

 

You guys aren't understanding what I'm saying.  

 

The United States already had an "Autobahn" before WWII, the Pennsylvania Turnpike.  The US Army tested troop movements on the Pennsylvania Turnpike before WWII.  

 

The whole bit about Eisenhower "got the idea from seeing the German Autobahn in person" was just advertising.  People love a story.  

 

 

8 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

You guys aren't understanding what I'm saying.  

 

The United States already had an "Autobahn" before WWII, the Pennsylvania Turnpike.  The US Army tested troop movements on the Pennsylvania Turnpike before WWII.  

 

The whole bit about Eisenhower "got the idea from seeing the German Autobahn in person" was just advertising.  People love a story.  

 

 

 

The extent of it was eye opening, and its usefulness.   Ironically, perhaps more so for American troops as they were far more mechanized than anyone else.

 

One of the big driving forces for sprawl was this mechanization, and the autobahns complemented it well.   Plus it gave troops trained in construction something to do when they got home.

Edited December 23, 20222 yr by E Rocc

4 hours ago, Lazarus said:

The United States already had an "Autobahn" before WWII, the Pennsylvania Turnpike.  The US Army tested troop movements on the Pennsylvania Turnpike before WWII.  

 

The whole bit about Eisenhower "got the idea from seeing the German Autobahn in person" was just advertising.  People love a story. 

Point taken that highways existed before Eisenhower saw the Autobahn and the Autobahn wasn't some transformative experience that led immediately to the interstate system in the US.  But I think you're dismissing the impact that Eisenhower's (and a lot of US troops') experience with the Autobahn.   Eisenhower came home and gushed about the Autobahn and a lot of troops could back him up because they had experienced it.  Probably a lot more than had driven on the PA turnpike.  (Similarly, think about how poorly most of the US thinks of train travel, probably because they only have experience with Amtrak, if even that, rather than the Shinkansen or TGV.  If we took tens of thousands of Americans oversees to ride high speed rail, I have no doubt that it would be easier to push investment in fast trains here, something which is going to happen much slower but will grow as more Americans experience high speed rail in the US.) 

 

Even though the Autobahn wasn't Eisenhower's first experience with a highway, the Autobahn showed Eisenhower how a federal network of roads like the Pennsylvania Turnpike could be stitched together to great effect.  Rather than have each state (like PA) randomly deciding what roadways to upgrade to "turnpikes," Eisenhower pushed the federal government to plan and organize a national system with standardized design guidelines, and he touted the Autobahn as an exemplary model.

 

All of which is to say, yes, you are right that the Autobahn wasn't the first experience with highways, but it was a validating experience of how a connected network of roadways could actually work really well.  The Autobahn did have some impact rather than no impact.  Maybe the US's development of an interstate highway system would have happened anyway, but it would have happened much more slowly and probably without federal guidance in the absence of the Autobahn.

my first experience with the autobahn

😂

 

 

 

Gotta love a freeway where if someone rear ends you in the left lane it's your fault.   :)

 

More seriously, I think the construction of the interstate system (and precursor freeways) had as much to do with employing returning servicemen as connecting the nation.

 

 

Edited December 24, 20222 yr by E Rocc

Washington, with its many traffic circles, has tunneled under some of them to expedite traffic on the main road.  Connecticut Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue, Virginia Avenue come to mind.  A plan to cap over the exposed parts of the lower roadways where Connecticut dives under DuPont Circle is being seriously considered.  The experts are guessing it will cost only $30 million.

 

If it works, Cleveland should keep it in mind when discussing the Innerbelt.

 

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/new-plans-for-dupont-circle-revealed/3247997/?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand&fbclid=IwAR2LIsU2zhaIQFeS5seQlvXWIs2QOxoCtccKST3ESXA-L6Sh5Ur0mW6UFtM

I have a feeling that the 5,000-year-old concept of the human city as a center of commerce, innovation, art and societal advancement will continue unabated. It is a natural social construct.

 

 

Today's WSJ reported Cleveland-like vacancy rates in New York with Class A occupancy around 80% and bankruptcies starting to be filed.  Class B and C rates in NYC are also around 80%.  They mention the potential for apartment conversion, but - so far - it appears to be mostly talk.  They is still an unspecified amount of new construction in the pipeline about to come on market. The article also mentioned bankruptcies in LA and SF.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/distress-in-office-market-spreads-to-high-end-buildings-c1adad48

 

 

On 3/21/2023 at 8:04 AM, KJP said:

I have a feeling that the 5,000-year-old concept of the human city as a center of commerce, innovation, art and societal advancement will continue unabated. It is a natural social construct.

 

 

Very good thread, and I agree.

 

Also though, I think it will be interesting to see how the city changes going forward. The midcentury American conception of the city, for many at least, seems to be a giant central office park that people commute to from the suburbs. THAT conception of a city is certainly not 5,000 years old. And I'm not sure how resilient it is. I feel pretty good about the future of Cleveland, because we're pretty far along in transforming downtown offices into residential, and the demand for that residential is hot. I'm not really sure what fate awaits the cities that can't manage that transition well.

 

That's why Paris put all that stuff off to the side I suppose. 

We need cities to take over this problem in their jurisdictions since many states won't and the federal government is unable to lead.

 

 

Interesting topic. While former industrial powerhouses like Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Detroit will probably be OK, the same cannot be said for Youngstown, Warren, Lima, Chillicothe, Mansfield, Steubenville other former industrial cities. 

 

 

16 hours ago, KJP said:

Interesting topic. While former industrial powerhouses like Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Detroit will probably be OK, the same cannot be said for Youngstown, Warren, Lima, Chillicothe, Mansfield, Steubenville other former industrial cities.

 

The continued of these smaller cities might be enhanced by improved connections with nearby big cities -- better transit options for lower income people between them, better coordination between the services/industries offered in each to promote more reasons to travel between them, etc.  It will not be easy.

18 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

The continued of these smaller cities might be enhanced by improved connections with nearby big cities -- better transit options for lower income people between them, better coordination between the services/industries offered in each to promote more reasons to travel between them, etc.  It will not be easy.

Passenger Rail connections are the way. There are small towns all over Germany and Switzerland that are doing just fine, because when a person needs a big-city amenity they just hop on a train and can be there in 1-3 hours with minimal frustration and cost. It’s the way that Ohio’s smaller towns were built in the first place!

 

Crestline, Springfield, and Hamilton will be big beneficiaries of the Ohio 3C&D if we’re able to make it happen. Sandusky and Toledo would be big winners if CLE-Chicago service is increased. Lima is a big winner if the Columbus-Chicago route is funded. 

18 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Passenger Rail connections are the way. There are small towns all over Germany and Switzerland that are doing just fine, because when a person needs a big-city amenity they just hop on a train and can be there in 1-3 hours with minimal frustration and cost. It’s the way that Ohio’s smaller towns were built in the first place!

 

Crestline, Springfield, and Hamilton will be big beneficiaries of the Ohio 3C&D if we’re able to make it happen. Sandusky and Toledo would be big winners if CLE-Chicago service is increased. Lima is a big winner if the Columbus-Chicago route is funded. 

I feel like a lot of the small towns don’t want that connection to the city, because city is scary and it will bring bad people to our town. 

47 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

I feel like a lot of the small towns don’t want that connection to the city, because city is scary and it will bring bad people to our town. 

Fortunately the mayor of Crestline “gets it” and is a huge supporter of our 3C&D passenger rail efforts. 

Saw this great diagram on LinkedIn from Strong Towns https://www.strongtowns.org/ and Urban3 https://www.urbanthree.com/

I stumbled upon the following which is being cited as a legitimate source by some newspaper in Austin.

 

https://www.movebuddha.com/blog/visualizing-us-cities-2100/

 

They take the 2010 to 2020 population change for U.S. cities (not metros, cities proper) and then extrapolate that out for the next 80 years and make these fantasy skylines.

 

Using this very thoughtful methodology they conclude that NYC's population in 2100 will be about what it is now, Chicago will be slightly smaller than it is now, and Dallas and Houston will each have 34 million and 31 million residents respectfully. Obviously, because who wouldn't want to live in Houston in the year 2100. Just felt I had to share this here for the laughs.

 

 

I don't understand why they include Phoenix in this list.  Phoenix will be nothing but an oven by then.

I love how one of the first rules you learn in any statistics class is that you can't extrapolate outside of the data range, because you can't just assume current trends will continue, but it's still so commonly done. The above example is particularly egregious, but people often take more complex projections (such as UN population projections) as gospel, despite suffering from the same fundamental error. 

 

To put it in perspective, if we ran this same simulation in 1920, I doubt it would have predicted 2000 very well. For instance Cleveland had 42% growth over that time period! A projection at that time would have predicted tens of million of people in Cleveland in 2000, in reality, we only have about 2 million, double our 1920 population. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Cleveland)

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

I love how one of the first rules you learn in any statistics class is that you can't extrapolate outside of the data range, because you can't just assume current trends will continue, but it's still so commonly done. The above example is particularly egregious, but people often take more complex projections (such as UN population projections) as gospel, despite suffering from the same fundamental error. 

 

To put it in perspective, if we ran this same simulation in 1920, I doubt it would have predicted 2000 very well. For instance Cleveland had 42% growth over that time period! A projection at that time would have predicted tens of million of people in Cleveland in 2000, in reality, we only have about 2 million, double our 1920 population. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Cleveland)

Right?

 

I mean, why project based on even ten years of growth? Why not take more recent data and project based off of 2020-2022. 

 

Georgetown, TX (population 86,507) grew by 28% from 2020 to 2022! If you extrapolate that rate of growth until 2100, you get a population of 1.67 billion. At 30ish million residents, Austin is going to be a puny suburb of Georgetown! Looks like we should all invest in Georgetown, TX real estate! With 1.67 billion people crammed into a 55 square mile suburb, think about what that does to land prices!

 

 

i liked this - this french person gives us a very calm and level viewpoint of 15min city pros and cons in 15min:

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, mrnyc said:

 

 

i liked this - this french person gives us a very calm and level viewpoint of 15min city pros and cons in 15min:

 

I didn't feel like I got a good summary of the pros and cons of the 15minute city from this video.  The title seems like a more accurate description of the video:  "the anti-15-minute-city backlash is ridiculous"  -- but she does try to guess at where the anti-15-minute-city conservatives are coming from, which seems like it would be an important starting point for discussions about what she got right and where she went wrong.

 

I'm wholly in favor of urban areas having lots of 15-minute neighborhoods within them, but I don't believe that everyone would choose to live in that kind of neighborhood. 

2 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

I didn't feel like I got a good summary of the pros and cons of the 15minute city from this video.  The title seems like a more accurate description of the video:  "the anti-15-minute-city backlash is ridiculous"  -- but she does try to guess at where the anti-15-minute-city conservatives are coming from, which seems like it would be an important starting point for discussions about what she got right and where she went wrong.

 

I'm wholly in favor of urban areas having lots of 15-minute neighborhoods within them, but I don't believe that everyone would choose to live in that kind of neighborhood. 

 

i thought she laid down history and pros and cons pretty well and was pretty level about the concerns some people have. like it was a good point that small villages are 15min city neighborhoods in a sense, but isolated. i dk that she missed anything glaring. and it did try to open discussion rather than shut it down, so that was really the point i think. anyway, i dont know if it all could have been done much better in just a 15min video. if there is better do post something i would like to check it out.

13 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

i thought she laid down history and pros and cons pretty well and was pretty level about the concerns some people have. like it was a good point that small villages are 15min city neighborhoods in a sense, but isolated. i dk that she missed anything glaring. and it did try to open discussion rather than shut it down, so that was really the point i think. anyway, i dont know if it all could have been done much better in just a 15min video. if there is better do post something i would like to check it out.

Then let's discuss --

 

I think the 15-minute-city is a great idea, but in practice we'll never get everything we want within 15 minutes.  Plenty of small towns (and neighborhoods in large cities) don't have a doctor or a grocer or an optometrist and they have to travel to the "next town" for that.  But it is an aspirational goal to work toward meeting community needs within 15 minutes.  A public park, library branch, elementary school, child care, the local pub, a restaurant, hair dresser/barber, tailor, dry cleaner, shoe repair, etc.  It is an excellent tool for planners to use in looking at a city and identifying areas that need a commercial district or a park or whatever public amenity is missing within that 15-minute boundary.  And then to look across a broader area of networked 15-minute cities/towns/neighborhoods to see what amenities are missing from all of them, and how to facilitate people traveling to those amenities.

 

And then you need mass transit, preferably rails but alternatively bus, for travel between neighboring cities/15-minute-neighborhoods for variety and to find the things missing from your own neighborhood. 

 

So, what do you think of the 15-minute-city concept?

Some people seem to think the 15-minute city or 15-minute neighborhood means individual areas that should be self-contained. If you are in a small village or something, then yes, that is the ideal. You shouldn't have to leave that area to meet your daily needs (restaurants, bars, pharmacies, offices, public buildings, parks, libraries, etc.).

 

But in a big city, the 15-minute city means from nearly anywhere you should be able to access all of these daily needs without getting in a car or being inconvenienced without a car. This doesn't mean you make a grid with all of the amenities, and the goal is to stay in that grid. The goal is that the city flows continuously (where feasible topographically) so that you have options of where to go, but all your daily needs are within a 15 minute walk. There are areas that should have all of their needs met in their neighborhood (Mt. Adams in Cincinnati comes to mind because of its isolation topographically).

 

There are always going to be businesses you need to visit who are outside of your 15-minute radius, but that shouldn't be necessary for your daily tasks. The beauty of this for a big city is that you should essentially be able to achieve this by loosening zoning restrictions on uses, encouraging density, and investing in public transit and walkable spaces. You don't need to plan things from a top down approach (ie. We need a pharmacy here, another restaurant over here, and bakery there), you just make these things legal to operate in more places, make walking/biking safer/more convenient, and invest in public transit so you can get to other areas as needed.

 

It's such a no brainer that this is good policy.

16 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

 

i liked this - this french person gives us a very calm and level viewpoint of 15min city pros and cons in 15min:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you work in distribution (like I have) you understand why stuff is way more expensive in "walkable" areas (and big dense cities like New York and Paris) versus out in Texas strip malls.  Not only is it far less efficient to distribute to a bunch of small stores/restaurants/bars than it is to a handful of mega-stores out in the suburbs, a consumer with a car has far more options to seek lower prices. 

 

 

Cheap stuff doesn't sell all that well in walkable areas. I learned this first-hand with one of my video game stores. They only wanted my best stuff and the low-end stuff people kept selling me that was super easy to get rid of in the malls sat forever at my city store.

 

50 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

But in a big city, the 15-minute city means from nearly anywhere you should be able to access all of these daily needs without getting in a car or being inconvenienced without a car. This doesn't mean you make a grid with all of the amenities, and the goal is to stay in that grid. The goal is that the city flows continuously (where feasible topographically) so that you have options of where to go, but all your daily needs are within a 15 minute walk. There are areas that should have all of their needs met in their neighborhood (Mt. Adams in Cincinnati comes to mind because of its isolation topographically).

 

There are always going to be businesses you need to visit who are outside of your 15-minute radius, but that shouldn't be necessary for your daily tasks. The beauty of this for a big city is that you should essentially be able to achieve this be loosening zoning restrictions on uses, encouraging density, and investing in public transit and walkable spaces. You don't need to plan things from a top down approach (ie. We need a pharmacy here, another restaurant over here, and bakery there), you just make these things legal to operate in more places, make walking/biking safer/more convenient, and invest in public transit so you can get to other areas as needed.

Nailed it.  Couldn't have said it better.

 

11 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

If you work in distribution (like I have) you understand why stuff is way more expensive in "walkable" areas (and big dense cities like New York and Paris) versus out in Texas strip malls.  Not only is it far less efficient to distribute to a bunch of small stores/restaurants/bars than it is to a handful of mega-stores out in the suburbs, a consumer with a car has far more options to seek lower prices.

Define "efficient" and for whom.  Retail in car-only strip malls externalize the cost of transporting the goods "the last mile" to the consumer (who now has to buy a $30k car and spend $2k per year on gas and maintenance just to get to your retailer).  The most efficient system for the manufacturer is the factory outlet in the same building.  Few companies only have that point of sale.  Maybe efficiency in the manufacturer's distribution isn't the only consideration.

 

And the added cost isn't because the neighborhood is walkable, the cost is because of the size of the store and the required delivery frequency.  The 15-minute city doesn't mean that everyone is within 15 minutes of a Target and we need to have thousands of mini-Targets.  Small towns don't all have Targets and no one expects that they ever will.  You can still have walkable areas with retail (Crocker Park, Downtown, Legacy Village, Pinecrest, Van Aken, etc.) and that retail doesn't have to be tiny -- as long as you can access a transportation network to get there.

 

If you're delivering to a bar or restaurant, those businesses are never going to "scale" in the same way and you're always going to have to make big deliveries to distribution centers that can then distribute locally.  Rural and urban bars and restaurants each have unique challenges, including delivery of supply and supply of customers and workers.

 

We should study how Europe manages their distribution into their old cities with narrow streets and carfree zones.  My guess is that there are distribution centers on the outskirts, just like here, but that they use smaller vehicles for deliveries into the cities that are easier to maneuver and park.  It probably is more expensive to make those deliveries -- but probably not so expensive as to keep Parisians from shopping or dining out with their less-car-use savings.

 

3 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Define "efficient" and for whom. 

 

 

Living in a walkable area (especially a walkable small town) with narrow streets and poor highway access without a car is like living on an island. 

 

How do we get prices to go down on Hawaii or Key West?  It's largely the same dilemma in a car-free zone. 

 

A big company like Budweiser does almost all of its own distributing.  They drive around large beer trucks that have a variety of different brands on the trucks in different compartments.  That means that a store's inventory can link with the truck at the moment it pulls up and replenish specific brands in real-time.  The picking for a specific outlet occurs at the truck, not in the warehouse. 

 

Meanwhile, a small brand (like a microbrewery) has to use a regional distributor.  The orders must be placed the day (not even night) before, meaning if they have a run on a particular product at 9pm, they have to go with whatever order they placed before 5pm. 

 

This illustrates why the bigger delivery vehicles keep costs way lower, and applies to other types of products, not just alcohol. 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

Nailed it.  Couldn't have said it better.

 

Define "efficient" and for whom.  Retail in car-only strip malls externalize the cost of transporting the goods "the last mile" to the consumer (who now has to buy a $30k car and spend $2k per year on gas and maintenance just to get to your retailer).  The most efficient system for the manufacturer is the factory outlet in the same building.  Few companies only have that point of sale.  Maybe efficiency in the manufacturer's distribution isn't the only consideration.

 

And the added cost isn't because the neighborhood is walkable, the cost is because of the size of the store and the required delivery frequency.  The 15-minute city doesn't mean that everyone is within 15 minutes of a Target and we need to have thousands of mini-Targets.  Small towns don't all have Targets and no one expects that they ever will.  You can still have walkable areas with retail (Crocker Park, Downtown, Legacy Village, Pinecrest, Van Aken, etc.) and that retail doesn't have to be tiny -- as long as you can access a transportation network to get there.

 

If you're delivering to a bar or restaurant, those businesses are never going to "scale" in the same way and you're always going to have to make big deliveries to distribution centers that can then distribute locally.  Rural and urban bars and restaurants each have unique challenges, including delivery of supply and supply of customers and workers.

 

We should study how Europe manages their distribution into their old cities with narrow streets and carfree zones.  My guess is that there are distribution centers on the outskirts, just like here, but that they use smaller vehicles for deliveries into the cities that are easier to maneuver and park.  It probably is more expensive to make those deliveries -- but probably not so expensive as to keep Parisians from shopping or dining out with their less-car-use savings.

 

 

Yes and also having "delivery hour" between 9:30-10:30 am where all deliveries take place at the same time with clear passages.

I don't mind that my walkable stores charge a bit more; it's just that the quality had better keep pace with the price or I'll shop elsewhere. Most of the stores have figured this out.

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

 

Living in a walkable area (especially a walkable small town) with narrow streets and poor highway access without a car is like living on an island. 

 

How do we get prices to go down on Hawaii or Key West?  It's largely the same dilemma in a car-free zone. 

No, delivering to a dense neighborhood in Manhattan is not remotely as difficult as delivering to Hawaii or Key West. Especially if the roads are properly designed and therefore give priority to transit and delivery. Generally speaking, the goal isn’t complete removal of private vehicles, but rather the appropriate prioritization of other road users to enable more efficient usage of public rights-of-way. Using lanes for bikes is way more efficient than using them for private vehicles. It’s similar for transit. And of course delivery is a necessary function - by de-emphasizing private vehicles, it becomes easier for delivery trucks (and emergency response vehicles) to operate in dense areas.