Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] something to watch out for

Expand Messages
  • Richard Risemberg
    ... Whole article: http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue31/issue31page33.html Rick -- Richard Risemberg http://www.bicyclefixation.com http://www.newcolonist.com
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 16, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jan 16, 2008, at 6:22 AM, J.H. Crawford wrote:

      > WORKING class people are being squeezed out of Tottenham by new car-
      > free developments, which could turn the area into a "Little
      > Islington".
      >
      > The accusation came from Councillor Ray Dodds, deputy chairman of
      > Haringey Council's planning committee, who said you are "not
      > allowed" to live in new "car-free" or "almost car-free"
      > developments "unless you are nice and middle class, and carry a pen
      > in your top pocket" in place of using a vehicle.
      >
      > The Labour councillor for Bruce Grove ward said car-free
      > developments "are now being seen as a way to keep working class
      > people out of housing" as many people's livelihoods depend on
      > vehicles, from electricians and plumbers to taxi drivers and mobile
      > mechanics.


      Really? Here's a quote from an article on cycling in Denmark:

      > We recently employed an electrician to work on our house. Much to
      > my surprise, he turned up on a bike. When he needed assistance, a
      > second electrician turned up - also on his bike. The head teachers
      > of my children's schools cycle to school. The deputy head of my
      > younger daughter's primary school told me she's never bothered to
      > learn to drive as there's no point. She can do everything by bike.
      > As well as being deputy head, she's a mother of three. I've seen
      > the head on his bike a few times too, and the department head of my
      > older daughter's school is a keen cyclist too - as, it appears, is
      > his entire family. It goes without saying that virtually all the
      > kids cycle to school too.
      >

      Whole article:

      http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue31/issue31page33.html

      Rick
      --
      Richard Risemberg
      http://www.bicyclefixation.com
      http://www.newcolonist.com
      http://www.rickrise.com
    • Richard Risemberg
      PS: I wrote a comment to that paper referring them to the article about Holland. I am personally acquainted with a number of craftspeople who use their bikes
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 16, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        PS: I wrote a comment to that paper referring them to the article
        about Holland.

        I am personally acquainted with a number of craftspeople who use
        their bikes for work.

        R

        On Jan 16, 2008, at 6:22 AM, J.H. Crawford wrote:

        > 'No place for working class' in car-free new homes

        --
        Richard Risemberg
        http://www.bicyclefixation.com
        http://www.newcolonist.com
        http://www.rickrise.com
      • Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
        Hi, I am curious about the make-up - in regards to jobs of residents - in other carfree developments. Does anyone have any concrete information? How do the
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 16, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi,

          I am curious about the make-up - in regards to jobs of residents - in
          other carfree developments. Does anyone have any concrete information?

          How do the various tradespeople described do their jobs in those places,
          both when they are based inside them or come from the outside?

          It seems like there are other problems with this place, such as
          inadequate public transport, so is the problem that this is a carfree
          building rather than a carfree urban development plan?

          In addition to answering these questions for ourselves, it would be
          great to provide answers to the media, and so on (maybe someone from the
          World Carfree Network Steering Committee who is based in England?)

          Thanks,
          T

          J.H. Crawford wrote:
          >
          >
          > http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/content/haringey/tottenhamjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=TWGJOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newstwgj&itemid=WeED16%20Jan%202008%2011%3A44%3A12%3A177
          > <http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/content/haringey/tottenhamjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=TWGJOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newstwgj&itemid=WeED16%20Jan%202008%2011%3A44%3A12%3A177>
          >
          > 'No place for working class' in car-free new homes
          >
          > nlnews@... <mailto:nlnews%40archant.co.uk>
          > 16 January 2008
          >
          > WORKING class people are being squeezed out of Tottenham by new
          > car-free developments, which could turn the area into a "Little
          > Islington".
          >
          > The accusation came from Councillor Ray Dodds, deputy chairman of
          > Haringey Council's planning committee, who said you are "not allowed"
          > to live in new "car-free" or "almost car-free" developments "unless
          > you are nice and middle class, and carry a pen in your top pocket" in
          > place of using a vehicle.
          >
          > The Labour councillor for Bruce Grove ward said car-free developments
          > "are now being seen as a way to keep working class people out of
          > housing" as many people's livelihoods depend on vehicles, from
          > electricians and plumbers to taxi drivers and mobile mechanics.
          >
          > His outburst came as the committee debated an application for a
          > five-storey block of 27 flats and houses in Tottenham High Road last
          > week, which offered just five parking spaces - one of a steady stream
          > of similar applications in the area.
          >
          > Residents objecting to the plan on the site, at the junction of High
          > Road and Hampden Lane in the Spurs match day controlled parking zone
          > (CPZ), said their lives would get even worse if parking pressures
          > increased.
          >
          > One objector from the clogged, narrow Hampden Lane said she had a
          > traffic cone thrown through her front window in December after taking
          > a parking space that a neighbour believed to be "theirs".
          >
          > The application, for a former furniture salesroom, included four
          > five-bedroom homes, one four-bedroom home, three three-bedroom homes,
          > nine two-bedroom and 10 one-bedroom homes, plus commercial space on
          > the ground floor.
          >
          > Councillor Dodds called for planning policy to be changed from a
          > "very, very middle class concept" so it stops "excluding a large
          > number of people".
          >
          > He added: "I understand why people think, 'Use a bus', but I defy you
          > to be a plumber, electrician, or anything like that, and use public
          > transport.
          >
          > "If you're excluded from having parking permits then you're saying,
          > 'Right, no more working class people in Tottenham, let's move them all
          > out, let's make it Little Islington', and I for one don't want to live
          > in Little Islington."
          >
          > Joyce Rosser, of the conservation area advisory committee, added the
          > "desperate overcrowding on the current buses" and the building's
          > "unsatisfactory frontage" to concerns over parking and density.
          >
          > Another Hampden Lane resident called for a seven-day CPZ to regulate
          > parking before any more flats were approved.
          >
          > After 45 minutes' debate, councillors threw out the application on the
          > grounds of its bulk and mass, the lack of recreation space and parking
          > spaces.
          >
          > ----- ### -----
          > J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
          > mailbox@... <mailto:mailbox%40carfree.com>
          > http://www.carfree.com <http://www.carfree.com>
          >
          >


          --
          --------------------------------------------

          Todd Edelman
          Director
          Green Idea Factory

          Korunni 72
          CZ-10100 Praha 10
          Czech Republic

          Skype: toddedelman
          ++420 605 915 970
          ++420 222 517 832

          edelman@...
          http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
          www.flickr.com/photos/edelman

          Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
          www.worldcarfree.net
        • Simon Baddeley
          I m so glad we are debating this! I would have known it of Joel. Simon (;)) Simon Baddeley Inlogov, School of Public Policy University of Birmingham,
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 16, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm so glad we are debating this! I would have known it of Joel.

            Simon (;))

            Simon Baddeley
            Inlogov, School of Public Policy
            University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
            http://www.inlogov.bham.ac.uk/staff/Baddeley.shtml



            > From: Richard Risemberg <rickrise@...>
            > Reply-To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
            > Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:34:04 -0800
            > To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
            > Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] something to watch out for
            >
            > PS: I wrote a comment to that paper referring them to the article
            > about Holland.
            >
            > I am personally acquainted with a number of craftspeople who use
            > their bikes for work.
            >
            > R
            >
            > On Jan 16, 2008, at 6:22 AM, J.H. Crawford wrote:
            >
            >> 'No place for working class' in car-free new homes
            >
            > --
            > Richard Risemberg
            > http://www.bicyclefixation.com
            > http://www.newcolonist.com
            > http://www.rickrise.com
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • dubluth
            I ve seen such outbursts . Some people take the availability of places to store their cars and trucks (without having to cover the cost) very personally.
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 18, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I've seen such "outbursts". Some people take the availability of
              places to store their cars and trucks (without having to cover the
              cost) very personally. They miss (and might take pains to avoid
              seeing) the fact that supplying parking costs and that not just
              wealthy empty-nesters pay those costs.

              If a builder must supply just one stall per housing unit at a cost of
              say $30,000 per stall, the builder will build larger more expensive
              housing units unless customers actually value parking stalls that
              highly. The observed effect of parking requirements on housing supply
              and prices suggests that the cost of supplying parking exceeds its
              value to those affected housing residents.

              Unlike the examples I've seen, Tottenhamers might actually value
              parking enough to pay its costs. If so, that should provide a profit
              opportunity for someone willing to provide parking nearby, provided
              available land exists. A builder would risk including too little or
              too much parking, if not for the input of zoning rules or design
              hearings. Government mandates have eliminated the risk of too little
              parking.

              Bill
            • N Schneider
              In regard to parking: As someone on the parking management board for my city, I see the misperceptions of parking everyday. First, no parking is free. Someone
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 19, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                In regard to parking: As someone on the parking management board for my city, I see the misperceptions of parking everyday.
                First, no parking is free. Someone paid to build it, maintain it and other related expenses.
                Parking requirements for most cities are based on the ITE parking guidelines which are based on outdated approaches to parking, suburban models, no transit and the belief that parking is an entitlement and that it is free and we have an endless supply.
                A few cities are starting to take a new perspective with programs like shared parking (for instance a movie theatre and an office share spaces as the need for spaces are at different times of the day), unbundle parking (residential units come with no parking included and parking spaces must be bought separately or not at all), no parking minimums (required by ITE guidelines) and parking maximums.
                In my opinion, anyone that owns more than one car should be taxed at an outrageous amount to subsidize the land requirements to house the vehicle, pollution generated, etc.
                All this pavement we have created to park, and run vehicles has permanently damaged the earth's surface, caused water shortages, ground water pollution, heat island effects, disrupted wildlife, used natural resources, increased our dependance on foreign oil... the list goes on.



                ----- Original Message ----
                From: dubluth <dubluth@...>
                To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:36:19 PM
                Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: something to watch out for

                I've seen such "outbursts". Some people take the availability of
                places to store their cars and trucks (without having to cover the
                cost) very personally. They miss (and might take pains to avoid
                seeing) the fact that supplying parking costs and that not just
                wealthy empty-nesters pay those costs.

                If a builder must supply just one stall per housing unit at a cost of
                say $30,000 per stall, the builder will build larger more expensive
                housing units unless customers actually value parking stalls that
                highly. The observed effect of parking requirements on housing supply
                and prices suggests that the cost of supplying parking exceeds its
                value to those affected housing residents.

                Unlike the examples I've seen, Tottenhamers might actually value
                parking enough to pay its costs. If so, that should provide a profit
                opportunity for someone willing to provide parking nearby, provided
                available land exists. A builder would risk including too little or
                too much parking, if not for the input of zoning rules or design
                hearings. Government mandates have eliminated the risk of too little
                parking.

                Bill





                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • dubluth
                Over the past few years I ve provided input as a resident to city officials on parking policy in this moderately large US west coast city. I heard that even
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 20, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Over the past few years I've provided input as a resident to city
                  officials on parking policy in this moderately large US west coast
                  city. I heard that even San Francisco, which was far ahead on parking
                  reforms, couldn't unbundle or set parking maximums. It shouldn't
                  surprise me to learn that rules have changed, since I haven't kept on
                  top of things. I'd like to know what's happening elsewhere regarding
                  this land use rule in order to make comparisons and know better how to
                  seek change.
                • Jym Dyer
                  ... =v= Where did you get the impression that San Francisco is good on parking reforms? The policy is one off-street parking spot for each new unit and any
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 20, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > I heard that even San Francisco, which was far ahead on
                    > parking reforms, couldn't unbundle or set parking maximums.

                    =v= Where did you get the impression that San Francisco is good
                    on parking reforms? The policy is one off-street parking spot
                    for each new unit and any attempt at variance from that sets
                    off a tirade of whining and hysteria. (Projects that succeed
                    at this to any extent get some publicity, but are very rare.)
                    Voters recently brushed back an attempt (funded by Gap CEO
                    Donald Fisher's slave-labor riches) to make it *impossible*
                    to get any such variance.

                    =v= The city sanctions off-street parking so much that every
                    garage project gets a green light, even if it destroys street
                    trees, historic buildings and gardens, and compromises the
                    seismic safety of ground floors. It tacitly sanctions a great
                    amount of illegal parking: They do nothing about cars parked
                    in bus stops, on crosswalks, and on sidewalks unless a citizen
                    calls in a complaint (and usually not even then); and look the
                    other way when people illegally pave their entire front yards
                    to park yet more cars.

                    =v= Of course this follows the classic pattern: accommodate
                    more cars, get more cars, and make parking (and traffic) even
                    *worse*. This result is that San Francisco is #2 in the nation
                    for cars per square mile, which is a completely insane state of
                    affairs for the densest city on the West Coast.

                    =v= As for the Subject: line, this is indeed something to watch
                    out for. I'm not sure how valid the criticism is, as it seems
                    to be based on anecdotes rather than data. It's generally true
                    that more desirable communities cost more to live in, and that
                    carfree communities are more desirable.
                    <_Jym_>
                  • Simon Baddeley
                    There have always been ways to guide markets without falling into the trap of government corporatism. Carmageddon is not a product of free markets - as we
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 20, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      There have always been ways to guide markets without falling into the trap
                      of government corporatism. Carmageddon is not a product of free markets - as
                      we should be well aware by now. Interventions can be via regulators giving
                      rapid transit proposals an even playing field to compete with the auto-based
                      solutions promoted by automobile manufacturers through buying up patents,
                      buying up tram systems (as they did in the early 20th century) and intensive
                      anti-rapid transit advertising. It can be done by loading goods-mile charges
                      onto the retailer by taxing energy and collateral costs such as insurance,
                      noise and air pollution, thus evening up the market so that local retailers
                      can compete with the added advantage of being energy cheaper. It can be done
                      by reversing the zoning laws that helped create suburban sprawl, encouraging
                      far more mixed use development. Many landlords resist this as lowering their
                      discretion in buying and selling property. Offset their concerns with tax
                      breaks as used to attract industry to specific areas. Assemble affordable
                      and co-operative housing deals. This is done in UK by saying that 10% or
                      more of new private building should include affordable homes. It is not a
                      question of regulation versus no regulation. There's always been regulation.
                      It's a matter of the vote and the wider circumstances - energy costs - that
                      would allow government to favour carfree local economies.

                      Simon


                      > =v= As for the Subject: line, this is indeed something to watch
                      > out for. I'm not sure how valid the criticism is, as it seems
                      > to be based on anecdotes rather than data. It's generally true
                      > that more desirable communities cost more to live in, and that
                      > carfree communities are more desirable.
                      > <_Jym_>
                      >
                    • bruun@seas.upenn.edu
                      Jym In the central area of SF, there is far less parking than in the central area of LA. Compare the number of parking buildings in the two. So there has been
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 21, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jym

                        In the central area of SF, there is far less parking than in the
                        central area of LA. Compare the number of parking buildings in the
                        two. So there has been some control. Why else would the GAP CEO be
                        trying to change the laws?

                        Eric

                        Quoting Jym Dyer <jym@...>:

                        >> I heard that even San Francisco, which was far ahead on
                        >> parking reforms, couldn't unbundle or set parking maximums.
                        >
                        > =v= Where did you get the impression that San Francisco is good
                        > on parking reforms? The policy is one off-street parking spot
                        > for each new unit and any attempt at variance from that sets
                        > off a tirade of whining and hysteria. (Projects that succeed
                        > at this to any extent get some publicity, but are very rare.)
                        > Voters recently brushed back an attempt (funded by Gap CEO
                        > Donald Fisher's slave-labor riches) to make it *impossible*
                        > to get any such variance.
                        >
                        > =v= The city sanctions off-street parking so much that every
                        > garage project gets a green light, even if it destroys street
                        > trees, historic buildings and gardens, and compromises the
                        > seismic safety of ground floors. It tacitly sanctions a great
                        > amount of illegal parking: They do nothing about cars parked
                        > in bus stops, on crosswalks, and on sidewalks unless a citizen
                        > calls in a complaint (and usually not even then); and look the
                        > other way when people illegally pave their entire front yards
                        > to park yet more cars.
                        >
                        > =v= Of course this follows the classic pattern: accommodate
                        > more cars, get more cars, and make parking (and traffic) even
                        > *worse*. This result is that San Francisco is #2 in the nation
                        > for cars per square mile, which is a completely insane state of
                        > affairs for the densest city on the West Coast.
                        >
                        > =v= As for the Subject: line, this is indeed something to watch
                        > out for. I'm not sure how valid the criticism is, as it seems
                        > to be based on anecdotes rather than data. It's generally true
                        > that more desirable communities cost more to live in, and that
                        > carfree communities are more desirable.
                        > <_Jym_>
                        >
                        >
                      • Doug Salzmann
                        Given the vast differences between the two cities, including size, age and topography, comparisons like this aren t very meaningful. As for the Gap CEO, he
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 21, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Given the vast differences between the two cities, including size, age
                          and topography, comparisons like this aren't very meaningful.

                          As for the Gap CEO, he wants to do all sorts of strange and destructive
                          stuff, like building an ugly modernist box in the middle of our Presidio
                          (an urban National Park).


                          -Doug


                          bruun@... wrote:
                          >
                          > Jym
                          >
                          > In the central area of SF, there is far less parking than in the
                          > central area of LA. Compare the number of parking buildings in the
                          > two. So there has been some control. Why else would the GAP CEO be
                          > trying to change the laws?
                          >
                          > Eric


                          --

                          ========================
                          Doug Salzmann
                          Post Office Box 378
                          Tiburon, California 94920
                          USA

                          <doug@...>
                        • bruun@seas.upenn.edu
                          Doug I have to disagree. I have studied the difference in density. There is a reason that downtown SF is much more popular with tourists that downtown LA. LA
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jan 21, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Doug

                            I have to disagree. I have studied the difference in density. There is
                            a reason
                            that downtown SF is much more popular with tourists that downtown LA.
                            LA is one half parking lots, combined with wide one-way roads to
                            accommodate this mass of cars.

                            Eric Bruun

                            Quoting Doug Salzmann <doug@...>:

                            >
                            > Given the vast differences between the two cities, including size, age
                            > and topography, comparisons like this aren't very meaningful.
                            >
                            > As for the Gap CEO, he wants to do all sorts of strange and destructive
                            > stuff, like building an ugly modernist box in the middle of our Presidio
                            > (an urban National Park).
                            >
                            >
                            > -Doug
                            >
                            >
                            > bruun@... wrote:
                            >>
                            >> Jym
                            >>
                            >> In the central area of SF, there is far less parking than in the
                            >> central area of LA. Compare the number of parking buildings in the
                            >> two. So there has been some control. Why else would the GAP CEO be
                            >> trying to change the laws?
                            >>
                            >> Eric
                            >
                            >
                            > --
                            >
                            > ========================
                            > Doug Salzmann
                            > Post Office Box 378
                            > Tiburon, California 94920
                            > USA
                            >
                            > <doug@...>
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.