No More Freeways PDX

[Plutonic Panda]

Lawns aren't natural for a large part of North America. At least upper nw doesn't suffer from water issues. I can't believe people in the SW are big on lawns. Much more water-efficient desert plants.

My point is that a lot of suburbs may not be urban, but their "nature" elements are a bit misleading at times. Many suburbs were forests (trees) or fields (grasslands) before being developed.

I pointed these things out in my posts too.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

No, it's not politics, it's just that people with families don't want their families crammed into an apartment. This ain't Europe. Also, suburbs are just more peaceful and often tend to be safer for kids and just a heck of a lot nicer than the city. I like detached homes amid lots of trees. Those kind of suburban developments are MUCH nicer than the new kind of suburbs where houses are crammed together on tiny 3,000 SF lots. I would not like living in one of those houses. Also, walking along the streets in one of those developments feels like a concrete jungle just because of how few trees there are (with houses crammed so close together, there simply isn't room for any large trees, sadly).

I really don't like concrete jungles. The only urban developments that I like are old brick buildings from 100 years ago that have really intricate facades with lots of detail. You know, kinda like how trees have lots of details on them. As for single family houses, my favorite are craftsman houses.

Tell that to the many families in European cities who do just fine living in dense quarters. They can own a home that shares a solid wall with their neighbors (rowhomes and brownstones), or live in a communal setting with shared daycare facilities, or live in apartment (an option used by a lot of younger families across the U.S.). In fact, these kinds of arrangements often encourage a better sense of neighborliness and improve quality of life...who actually wants to mow their lawn to the HOA-mandated height anyway?

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

People like having green space and trees near them.. not having to plan a day trip to see a tree

Good news, we have these things called "parks" and "nature conservatories" where people can look at trees without having to leave their neighborhood. There's a magnificent development called "street trees" where you add trees (wait for it) TO YOUR STREET. It's brilliant!

Really, most suburbanites aren't living out there for "nature" and rarely take advantage of the greenspace (which takes a lot of resources to maintain). Having denser cities with decent access to truly wild areas (protected from sprawl) and excellent access to parks and other greenspaces within a short distance is much more natural for humans.

I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

That is kind of ironic given that sprawl has more nature intertwined in it than urban areas though I do understand what you're saying. It certainly isn't the same as it was before. Humans will always have an effect. I'll personally take my suburban sprawl for where I want to live. I live in the heart of Hollywood right now and I'm ready to get out of urban lifestyle. It's a nice option to have an I can certainly see the appeal of it, but it isn't for me.

I like my wide freeways and roads to accommodate me with the other majority of the population who wants to live in the suburbs and I'll take my bike trails off the road where it's safer and more peaceful. To me the suburbs have more nature than urban areas do just because of how spread out and how more green space they have.

Suburbs are fine as long as they're constrained to otherwise useless land, include walkable/bikeable corridors, and aren't shackled by racist covenants (like many were and still are). Most suburbs aren't, however, new ones need to be stopped before they worsen a lot of the crises suffered by today's America. Obesity, racial inequality, income inequality, homelessness, environmental hazards, car-related deaths (America's major non-disease killer)...all can be tied to the stereotypical post-war suburb and the resistance to densifying areas.

Im using my phone so it will take me too long to quote each part sorry but I'll say this...

As for your response to me I'm not quite understand what you're saying in your first sentence. Racist are somehow in areas with less bike lanes? I guess I can agree with that but that's a pointless thing to say. Building bike lanes in those areas will not solve racism so I don't know what you're going on about now.

I don't care if suburbs have racist people. That's their right to feel that way and not your right to dictate the building style of communities because you don't like how they are. Every single person I know doesn't have an ounce of racist blood in them and they all live in the suburbs. So please, let's not make this about racism and segregation. That stuff is well and alive in Los Angeles too. Just yesterday on the red line there was a guy screaming the n word at people along with a bucket of other slurs and profanities. If you really have a problem with racial segregation and inequalit, then look no further than where you live. Isn't Seattle like one of the whitest cities in the country? Income segregation in NYC is extremely prevalent. But again please, let's keep this discussion more on track and not about politics and pulling race cards.

It is not argument whether the suburbs have more nature than urban areas. They do. There is way more green space. Yes there are public parks in cities and yes there nature reserves. Guess what, the suburbs have too; some more than urban areas.

About you comment regarding Europe, just my opinion here obviously but I can't stand when people try and compare Europe to the US. No comparison there at all! Some people in Somolia live in shacks with no roads, no water supply, no police, etc. That seems like a pretty cheap way to run a city, so let's just build like them. FYI, Europe has its share of transportation issues to. Lot of the roads suck! Isn't just an American thing and transit is packed so much you have to wait 2-3 trains during certain to even get on one. Congestion is still awful in the manor cities and poverty is a real issue in several countries around Europe. I don't want the US at I get anywhere close to some of the socialists type governments you see there.

If it's such a paradise over there, then why don't you move there? People get along great in many situations that aren't ideal. My point is we don't need to build like them because it works for them. What we have works for us. The world is shifting to cars(especially BRIC counties where freeway construction and new car sales are through the roof).

We certainly have room to improve on the way we build but the car will always be king in the suburbs and it should get priority over any form of transportation. Now if you want to talk about inner cores of cities, I'm listening. I won't ever accept congestion charges or tolled freeways as that creates further income inequality and only helps the rich, which you seem to be against. I can afford the tolls so I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, but I don't support it because it isn't right for people who can't and already paid a shit ton of money for a car.

[hotdogPi]

I live in the suburbs.

• There are definitely places to enjoy nature, but it takes a few miles of driving to get to one.
• I have easy access to buses because I'm in the Lowell-Lawrence-Haverhill area, which is more densely populated than just a typical suburb. However, if I want to go south toward Boston by myself, I have to take the train (I don't drive), and I can't go north to New Hampshire without a car.
• The streets are designed so that people can travel by walking easily (as long as there's no snow on the ground), but walking takes a long time and is only practical for short distances.
• Lawrence, MA, which has a population density similar to Boston, has an extremely high number of houses, as well as city borders being defined not to include the surrounding area. It's not mostly apartments.
• Many chains are within a 20 minute drive no matter where you are, like Dunkin Donuts, McDonald's, Walmart, Target, CVS, Market Basket [a local grocery store], and some of the major competitors of the businesses I mentioned.
• A few towns in this area are more rural than suburban, even though they're in the Boston metro area. This includes Carlisle, MA and Boxford, MA. However, there is nothing truly desolate.
• The region is not expanding outward. If it was, southern New Hampshire and parts of Rhode Island would be rapidly growing, which they aren't. In addition, from 2000 to 2010, Massachusetts's center of population moved only a few hundred feet, which is almost nothing compared to most other states, even after adjusting for total area.

[Bruce]

I've been on hikes and around the national parks here, but that doesn't make my viewpoint less/more valid.

Of course any opinion has a value for the discussion.
However you're talking as a Mowgli who grew up in concrete jungle, and who didn't see any life outside those jungles nor realizes scale of what is going on to support that jungle. Agriculture, mining, industry... Do you know where your tap water is coming from, and what king of structures are used to bring and purify that water, and treat sewage? Where is the landfill your trash goes to?
High density doesn't mean reduced footprint. As an anecdote, I was really surprised to learn that certain reservoir - 4 hours drive to NYC - is part of NYC water supply system. Oh-oh..  Of course, no NYCer would consider influence of that reservoir on flooding in remote area as part of their impact on nature!
As for "what is natural" for human beings... Until pretty recently, relatively small farms and villages were the norm. Agriculture demanded low density, and bigger settlements were possible only to the extent they could be supported by excess agriculture product. Doesn't make such arrangement "natural", but that is part of what formed human society as a whole and describes environment where US grew up a a country.
Moreover, lower density allow for more localized resource use. No need for trash trains to travel hundreds miles, like NYC does. And THAT is a true sprawl of a big city.
Of course, there is some (probably pretty wide, but still) optimum in density. And if you think suburbs are too low in density, I equally think big cities are tumorous in their growth, and need to be curbed before they reach malignant stage (as many places actually did).

The resource argument is precisely why we should be building denser cities (at least to European scales, not quite to Hong Kong/Singapore levels)! To serve 100,000 people in a dense area of 3 sq mi vs. a suburb of 20 sq mi, you use less metal for pipes, you have less pumping stations, and you can have redundant corridors so that it's less failure prone. My entire suburban county (of 700K) is supplied by a single lake and a major water pipe, which is only feasible because it connects to the denser county seat before continuing on to the less dense suburbs. We're relatively concentrated, so a less dense layout would have probably forced additional points of entry in our water system, sapping more water from the rivers that house critical salmon habitats and help drive industry.

And speaking of industry, there's no worse use for land than suburban tract housing. 5 acres for a single house is far, far less productive than that same land being used for farming or even mining (which is still really awful for the environment). It's not often that it can be reverted back to farmland (it did happen recently here), so it's a long-term decision that must be decided with care.

Within the context of modern civilization, humans have been living in cities for the past 8,000 years and the world continues to rapidly urbanize, especially in areas that had long lived in the traditional low-density villages model. Turns out that it's not socially sustainable and economically feasible.

The great thing about cities is that you can scale the density. You can go from a forest of high-rises like most downtowns are, all the way to three-story row homes and corner apartments with grocers like most "dense" European cities. With suburbs, you can't really scale due to the broken street grid and fundamental government structure that resists all forms of change.

[Plutonic Panda]

Socially sustainable? I'd disagree as would a lot of people. No one is arguing whether or not it is more efficient to pack in like sardines in concrete jungles. But a lot of people don't want to live to that way and the suburbs are great for them.

[hotdogPi]

Europe is less spread out than we are? It seems like it's more spread out.



In case you can't read the legend at the top (all numbers per km²):
0-1
1-2
2-4
4-8
8-15
15-30
30-60 (US as a whole: 33, entire world: 50)
60-120
120-240
240-480
480-1000
1000+

Anything in red or darker is more dense than the United States average. Especially in Germany and Italy, population seems to be more spread out. And the Netherlands is almost all dark red (not just part of it), as well as the surrounding areas. If this color scheme was put into the United States, there would be a lot of black surrounded by yellow. Madrid is an example of that in this photo, but there is very little of it.

[kalvado]

I've been on hikes and around the national parks here, but that doesn't make my viewpoint less/more valid.

Of course any opinion has a value for the discussion.
However you're talking as a Mowgli who grew up in concrete jungle, and who didn't see any life outside those jungles nor realizes scale of what is going on to support that jungle. Agriculture, mining, industry... Do you know where your tap water is coming from, and what king of structures are used to bring and purify that water, and treat sewage? Where is the landfill your trash goes to?
High density doesn't mean reduced footprint. As an anecdote, I was really surprised to learn that certain reservoir - 4 hours drive to NYC - is part of NYC water supply system. Oh-oh..  Of course, no NYCer would consider influence of that reservoir on flooding in remote area as part of their impact on nature!
As for "what is natural" for human beings... Until pretty recently, relatively small farms and villages were the norm. Agriculture demanded low density, and bigger settlements were possible only to the extent they could be supported by excess agriculture product. Doesn't make such arrangement "natural", but that is part of what formed human society as a whole and describes environment where US grew up a a country.
Moreover, lower density allow for more localized resource use. No need for trash trains to travel hundreds miles, like NYC does. And THAT is a true sprawl of a big city.
Of course, there is some (probably pretty wide, but still) optimum in density. And if you think suburbs are too low in density, I equally think big cities are tumorous in their growth, and need to be curbed before they reach malignant stage (as many places actually did).

The resource argument is precisely why we should be building denser cities (at least to European scales, not quite to Hong Kong/Singapore levels)! To serve 100,000 people in a dense area of 3 sq mi vs. a suburb of 20 sq mi, you use less metal for pipes, you have less pumping stations, and you can have redundant corridors so that it's less failure prone. My entire suburban county (of 700K) is supplied by a single lake and a major water pipe, which is only feasible because it connects to the denser county seat before continuing on to the less dense suburbs. We're relatively concentrated, so a less dense layout would have probably forced additional points of entry in our water system, sapping more water from the rivers that house critical salmon habitats and help drive industry.

And speaking of industry, there's no worse use for land than suburban tract housing. 5 acres for a single house is far, far less productive than that same land being used for farming or even mining (which is still really awful for the environment). It's not often that it can be reverted back to farmland (it did happen recently here), so it's a long-term decision that must be decided with care.

Within the context of modern civilization, humans have been living in cities for the past 8,000 years and the world continues to rapidly urbanize, especially in areas that had long lived in the traditional low-density villages model. Turns out that it's not socially sustainable and economically feasible.

The great thing about cities is that you can scale the density. You can go from a forest of high-rises like most downtowns are, all the way to three-story row homes and corner apartments with grocers like most "dense" European cities. With suburbs, you can't really scale due to the broken street grid and fundamental government structure that resists all forms of change.

Less metal? You mean that 160 mile aqueduct including tunnel under the Hudson river feeding water to NYC uses less metal than a pipe from the well 1 mile away from my home?
Think twice..

[kalvado]

Europe is less spread out than we are? It seems like it's more spread out.

Europe has an interesting "feature" called "blue banana". Really a super-hyper-megapolis..
upd: it is actually somewhat similar to US east coast conglomerate Boston-NY-DC corridor. Twice as many people, though

[Duke87]

Less metal? You mean that 160 mile aqueduct including tunnel under the Hudson river feeding water to NYC uses less metal than a pipe from the well 1 mile away from my home?
Think twice..

Most of that tunnel uses no metal whatsoever as it is simply drilled directly through solid rock or lined with concrete. Also the main Delaware Aqueduct is only 85 miles long, not 160.

But I was curious about this anyway so I started doing math.

Let's assume for sake of argument that it is a huge metal pipe. It's 14 feet in diameter... and now let's assume the walls are 6" thick. Okay, so that gives us a cr0oss sectional area of 3.14159*(15/2)^2-3.14159*(14/2)^2= 22.7766 SF. 85 miles of that gives us 10,222,138 cubic feet of metal. And since it serves about half of NYC's population of 8.2 million people, that's about 2.5 cubic feet of metal per person.

Now let's say for a good well you gotta go 100 feet down, and maybe 50 feet over to get to your house. And let's say that's mostly schedule 40 2" pipe. The cross section of that is about 1.0745 square inches, so 1.1193 SF for 150 ft worth. If a family of four lives in that house that's 0.2798 cubic feet of metal per person.

So yeah it looks like the well wins over the aqueduct in terms of metal per person, at least with back of the napkin calcs like this.

This is only possible, though, because you are able to source water where you stand. Running water mains around a suburb (assuming wells for everyone is not a viable solution) certainly uses more metal per person than running them around a city.

Consider as well other infrastructure needs. Rural and suburban areas have more pavement per person than cities because of the lower density. The distance you have to run power lines per person is greater. The amount of fuel you have to burn driving to where you need to go (not even factoring in public transit here) is higher because things are further apart.

Overall there are definite economies of scale associated with dense development.

[kalvado]

Less metal? You mean that 160 mile aqueduct including tunnel under the Hudson river feeding water to NYC uses less metal than a pipe from the well 1 mile away from my home?
Think twice..

Most of that tunnel uses no metal whatsoever as it is simply drilled directly through solid rock or lined with concrete. Also the main Delaware Aqueduct is only 85 miles long, not 160.

But I was curious about this anyway so I started doing math.

Let's assume for sake of argument that it is a huge metal pipe. It's 14 feet in diameter... and now let's assume the walls are 6" thick. Okay, so that gives us a cr0oss sectional area of 3.14159*(15/2)^2-3.14159*(14/2)^2= 22.7766 SF. 85 miles of that gives us 10,222,138 cubic feet of metal. And since it serves about half of NYC's population of 8.2 million people, that's about 2.5 cubic feet of metal per person.

Now let's say for a good well you gotta go 100 feet down, and maybe 50 feet over to get to your house. And let's say that's mostly schedule 40 2" pipe. The cross section of that is about 1.0745 square inches, so 1.1193 SF for 150 ft worth. If a family of four lives in that house that's 0.2798 cubic feet of metal per person.

So yeah it looks like the well wins over the aqueduct in terms of metal per person, at least with back of the napkin calcs like this.

This is only possible, though, because you are able to source water where you stand. Running water mains around a suburb (assuming wells for everyone is not a viable solution) certainly uses more metal per person than running them around a city.

Consider as well other infrastructure needs. Rural and suburban areas have more pavement per person than cities because of the lower density. The distance you have to run power lines per person is greater. The amount of fuel you have to burn driving to where you need to go (not even factoring in public transit here) is higher because things are further apart.

Overall there are definite economies of scale associated with dense development.

Of course that is true that last mile is shorter in a city (sorry for some pun). However heavy duty city solutions are not the same as suburban. Yes, you do need more square foot of pavement for a suburb. This is a light duty pavement with 15-20 years weather-limited lifecycle, as opposed to full-strength pavement on heavily travelled streets.
Yes, suburbs running more utilitiy feet per person - at a cost of more local supplies which also costs a lot.

I don't think we'll come to a rock solid number for resource consumption. But as another factor - our mortgage for a small 3-bedroom home is about the same as a single bedroom rent in area namesake city, and I don't think you can get a studio in NYC for that kind of money.
Until someone makes tremendous profits off city's real estate, you can relate that to underlying costs and resources.
Or another number:
quote from NYP 2017:

Owners of one-family homes [in NYC] currently pay an average $1,000 annual water bill. Apartment-building owners are billed roughly $700 per tenant.

I believe we have about $250/year, lawn and garden watering included. I don't think it is the profit margin that makes the difference.

[compdude787]

My entire suburban county (of 700K) is supplied by a single lake and a major water pipe, which is only feasible because it connects to the denser county seat before continuing on to the less dense suburbs. We're relatively concentrated, so a less dense layout would have probably forced additional points of entry in our water system, sapping more water from the rivers that house critical salmon habitats and help drive industry.

Not true; that lake and pipe is only for the City of Everett's water system. Much of south Snohomish County (including where I live in the Lynnwood/Brier area) is served by Alderwood Water District, which gets its water from a series of wells in the area. So no, that one lake does NOT supply the water for all of the county. And let's not forget that many people living in the more rural parts of the county get their water from wells.

[Bruce]

My entire suburban county (of 700K) is supplied by a single lake and a major water pipe, which is only feasible because it connects to the denser county seat before continuing on to the less dense suburbs. We're relatively concentrated, so a less dense layout would have probably forced additional points of entry in our water system, sapping more water from the rivers that house critical salmon habitats and help drive industry.

Not true; that lake and pipe is only for the City of Everett's water system. Much of south Snohomish County (including where I live in the Lynnwood/Brier area) is served by Alderwood Water District, which gets its water from a series of wells in the area. So no, that one lake does NOT supply the water for all of the county. And let's not forget that many people living in the more rural parts of the county get their water from wells.

My water in Marysville comes from Spada and other parts of the Everett system, which does feed a large area of the county.

The point is that a concentrated urban area would be easier to serve with a single water source, and redundant ones in case of emergency, thanks to the lower cost of hooking into the system.

[Bruce]

Portland is going to spend $9 million on bike and bus improvements, which will have a greater return on investment than any project ODOT has proposed in decades. http://www.oregonlive.com/roadreport/index.ssf/2018/03/portland_wants_help_plotting_b.html

[kalvado]

My entire suburban county (of 700K) is supplied by a single lake and a major water pipe, which is only feasible because it connects to the denser county seat before continuing on to the less dense suburbs. We're relatively concentrated, so a less dense layout would have probably forced additional points of entry in our water system, sapping more water from the rivers that house critical salmon habitats and help drive industry.

Not true; that lake and pipe is only for the City of Everett's water system. Much of south Snohomish County (including where I live in the Lynnwood/Brier area) is served by Alderwood Water District, which gets its water from a series of wells in the area. So no, that one lake does NOT supply the water for all of the county. And let's not forget that many people living in the more rural parts of the county get their water from wells.

My water in Marysville comes from Spada and other parts of the Everett system, which does feed a large area of the county.

The point is that a concentrated urban area would be easier to serve with a single water source, and redundant ones in case of emergency, thanks to the lower cost of hooking into the system.

Large area with significant water demand either need a very big natural water source - major river or (great) lake, or rely on scattered sources. If I remember correctly, moderate climate and modern use pattern require 0.1 acre of 100% precipitation collection - more if you don't want the area to turn into desert.
And "big river" means big one. Colorado river is overused, and desalination starts to gain traction in California.
Wells have a limit on amount of water to be drawn - essentially you don't want to exceed amount of precipitation that sips through the soil within collection area.

Result: Chicago area can drink from one lake, Atlanta has 20 reservoirs and a lot of other things, and LA almost got into civil war over water supplies with at least 3 very different sources being used.

[Hurricane Rex]

Portland is going to spend $9 million on bike and bus improvements, which will have a greater return on investment than any project ODOT has proposed in decades. http://www.oregonlive.com/roadreport/index.ssf/2018/03/portland_wants_help_plotting_b.html

I blame part of that due to ODOT not spending money the wisest way.

LG-TP260

[silverback1065]

Europe is less spread out than we are? It seems like it's more spread out.



In case you can't read the legend at the top (all numbers per km²):
0-1
1-2
2-4
4-8
8-15
15-30
30-60 (US as a whole: 33, entire world: 50)
60-120
120-240
240-480
480-1000
1000+

Anything in red or darker is more dense than the United States average. Especially in Germany and Italy, population seems to be more spread out. And the Netherlands is almost all dark red (not just part of it), as well as the surrounding areas. If this color scheme was put into the United States, there would be a lot of black surrounded by yellow. Madrid is an example of that in this photo, but there is very little of it.

this argument only applies to cities, our cities are way more spread out than Europe's, and that's a problem if you're going to rely on roads alone.  But it's also a problem for mass transit too. 

[Mark68]

Having spent time in some European cities (namely Berlin, with some time spent in Amsterdam, Prague, Belfast, and London), I have seen that the cities there are very dense, compact areas (conducive to the various forms of mass transit that are successful there--and to bicycles). If you go about 10-15 miles out from the city center in most of these areas (save London), you're in the country. Berlin has a great model in that they have the "Ringbahn" train that runs in a loop around the central core, with bus, subway, streetcar, and other trains connecting to or nearby the Ringbahn stations and going out to most parts of the city (and into the center itself).

This model is generally unworkable in most American cities because of sprawl. There are some exceptions, cities that have a dense urban core (NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston), but even these cities have suburbs that are sprung out far and wide. Because Europe built up (instead of out) and began to build their transportation infrastructure in the age of trains, their cities are much more conducive to non-auto-related transportation infrastructure. Hell, Berlin has the fewest cars per capita of any major European city, IIRC.

[kalvado]

Having spent time in some European cities (namely Berlin, with some time spent in Amsterdam, Prague, Belfast, and London), I have seen that the cities there are very dense, compact areas (conducive to the various forms of mass transit that are successful there--and to bicycles). If you go about 10-15 miles out from the city center in most of these areas (save London), you're in the country. Berlin has a great model in that they have the "Ringbahn" train that runs in a loop around the central core, with bus, subway, streetcar, and other trains connecting to or nearby the Ringbahn stations and going out to most parts of the city (and into the center itself).

This model is generally unworkable in most American cities because of sprawl. There are some exceptions, cities that have a dense urban core (NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston), but even these cities have suburbs that are sprung out far and wide. Because Europe built up (instead of out) and began to build their transportation infrastructure in the age of trains, their cities are much more conducive to non-auto-related transportation infrastructure. Hell, Berlin has the fewest cars per capita of any major European city, IIRC.

And efficient construction of public transportation systems as well. New Berlin airport which opened in 2011 2012 2013 2016 2017 maybe will open in 2020 is a great example of efficiency!

Berlin is still on a poor side of Germany, and public transportation was significantly inherited from "no, you cannot buy a car" socialist approach.

[jakeroot]

This model is generally unworkable in most American cities because of sprawl. There are some exceptions, cities that have a dense urban core (NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston), but even these cities have suburbs that are sprung out far and wide.

Yes, these cities have massive amounts of sprawl, sure. But there are still millions of people who, combined, ride these public transport systems every day. If these cities lacked what they already have, could you imagine how bad traffic would be?

This new-age of public transportation construction is a two-fer: build the networks, and re-zone the areas around the stations. Vancouver has embraced this steadfastly, building massive skyscrapers around many of their hubs (Metrotown, Brentwood, Coquitlam). And Seattle's growing Link Light Rail network is being built through areas which should see some rezoning changes to support not only new residents moving to the area, but also residents who live farther out who might want to live closer to work.

Density is important not only to help bring people closer to the city (a choice that people should be able to make, but can't always due to affordability issues), but it also reduced the cost of housing. Demand increases the cost of a home, so reducing demand reduces the cost of homes. Seattle is short on homes, so we have very expensive homes. Same in San Francisco. Building the most amount of "dwellings" per-square-mile as we can (generally by building up as much as possible) will help use achieve housing goals and reduce the chance that traffic will get even worse.

America has not grown in a very smart way. We grew emotionally, because we like parks and low-density, green space to run through, etc. But we have to think about the bigger picture. Reducing the cost of housing will allow people to potentially live closer to where they work. The more we can get that to happen, the less we strain our roads.

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't get the Europe-envy of some Americans. The United States, for the most part, is very different from Europe. Our cities are farther apart. Our society and history is a lot different. Imposing "European" solutions on American cities have not and will not work. Besides, a "tourist's" view of Europe is in no way indicative of completely explaining how Europeans live. I admit I've never been to Europe, but I think I have read enough to distinguish between American society and European society.

[Mark68]

Having spent time in some European cities (namely Berlin, with some time spent in Amsterdam, Prague, Belfast, and London), I have seen that the cities there are very dense, compact areas (conducive to the various forms of mass transit that are successful there--and to bicycles). If you go about 10-15 miles out from the city center in most of these areas (save London), you're in the country. Berlin has a great model in that they have the "Ringbahn" train that runs in a loop around the central core, with bus, subway, streetcar, and other trains connecting to or nearby the Ringbahn stations and going out to most parts of the city (and into the center itself).

This model is generally unworkable in most American cities because of sprawl. There are some exceptions, cities that have a dense urban core (NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston), but even these cities have suburbs that are sprung out far and wide. Because Europe built up (instead of out) and began to build their transportation infrastructure in the age of trains, their cities are much more conducive to non-auto-related transportation infrastructure. Hell, Berlin has the fewest cars per capita of any major European city, IIRC.

And efficient construction of public transportation systems as well. New Berlin airport which opened in 2011 2012 2013 2016 2017 maybe will open in 2020 is a great example of efficiency!

Berlin is still on a poor side of Germany, and public transportation was significantly inherited from "no, you cannot buy a car" socialist approach.

This latter is true--partly. Most of the system existed before the division of Berlin, and, interestingly, some lines were still operational between East and West Berlin during the (First?) Cold War. The Friedrichstrasse station was the main transfer point between the two halves.

And the East Berliners, at least those with high enough positions and/or clout, could buy a car. They were (mostly) cheap pieces of crap called Trabants, and they're now a novelty for tourists (you can now take a "Trabbi" guided tour).

I do know that in the three months I was there, I NEVER needed a car, even between cities (took the train to Amsterdam and to Prague).

[kalvado]

This model is generally unworkable in most American cities because of sprawl. There are some exceptions, cities that have a dense urban core (NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston), but even these cities have suburbs that are sprung out far and wide.

Yes, these cities have massive amounts of sprawl, sure. But there are still millions of people who, combined, ride these public transport systems every day. If these cities lacked what they already have, could you imagine how bad traffic would be?

This new-age of public transportation construction is a two-fer: build the networks, and re-zone the areas around the stations. Vancouver has embraced this steadfastly, building massive skyscrapers around many of their hubs (Metrotown, Brentwood, Coquitlam). And Seattle's growing Link Light Rail network is being built through areas which should see some rezoning changes to support not only new residents moving to the area, but also residents who live farther out who might want to live closer to work.

Density is important not only to help bring people closer to the city (a choice that people should be able to make, but can't always due to affordability issues), but it also reduced the cost of housing. Demand increases the cost of a home, so reducing demand reduces the cost of homes. Seattle is short on homes, so we have very expensive homes. Same in San Francisco. Building the most amount of "dwellings" per-square-mile as we can (generally by building up as much as possible) will help use achieve housing goals and reduce the chance that traffic will get even worse.

America has not grown in a very smart way. We grew emotionally, because we like parks and low-density, green space to run through, etc. But we have to think about the bigger picture. Reducing the cost of housing will allow people to potentially live closer to where they work. The more we can get that to happen, the less we strain our roads.

You also have to consider actual cost of construction.
Rural style wood stud and drywall construction is probably cheapest you can envision, both in cost of  material and building process. Going 9-12-24 floors up require steel rebar and concrete, or some other heavy duty material. And you need more material PER SQUARE FOOT, since at least some of the walls have to be high strength to support units above. Yes, that can be somewhat balanced by cost of transportation.

And nobody grew a smart way. If you think, until about 100 years ago horse was pretty much the only short-haul transportation thing, and building wide was not really an option. Labor was also cheap.. That defined a lot of older cities.
Think about a world where car is unaffordable luxury. You instantly end up with very dense environment... Full of people who dream of getting out of that concrete jungle.

The only way you can consider truly "smart" is reduction of living standard. Single 200 sq foot room per family should be enough. No question about affordability. 

[kalvado]

I do know that in the three months I was there, I NEVER needed a car, even between cities (took the train to Amsterdam and to Prague).

Lets consider two different scenarios here:
1. Lifestyle of general population is organized without need for car because people cannot afford a car - and have to accommodate that. (Replace "car" with "horse" for 19th century and earlier). "afford" include full cycle - purchase, parking, food and care for the horse, etc.
2. People don't want cars because lifestyle implies normal carless life with little to no benefit of having a car. 

What I say is that many older cities got where they are via first scenario.  And once given the opportunity, driving population would increase. Such increase wouldn't happen in second scenario.
If you want to distinguish between two cases for Berlin, look at number of cars  owned by residents.Did it grow up in past 20 years? 

[Mark68]

As far as that (Berlin-Brandenburg) airport issue is concerned...yeah, that's pretty much the definition of a boondoggle. The two existing airports (serving the two former halves) are antiquated and not able to handle the capacity that Berlin should receive. I flew in and out of Schoenefeld, which is the former airport that served East Berlin...and it looks and feels like it.

The Berlin-Brandenburg Airport will probably never be opened as conceived. The states of Berlin and Brandenburg will probably just have to reconstruct the whole damn thing.

[Bruce]

This model is generally unworkable in most American cities because of sprawl. There are some exceptions, cities that have a dense urban core (NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston), but even these cities have suburbs that are sprung out far and wide. Because Europe built up (instead of out) and began to build their transportation infrastructure in the age of trains, their cities are much more conducive to non-auto-related transportation infrastructure. Hell, Berlin has the fewest cars per capita of any major European city, IIRC.

All the more reason to build more transit and try to redirect commuters (who aren't going to bring more than a backpack full of materials everyday) so that existing road space can be used by trades that require specialized vehicles or larger payloads that can only be transported by car.

And efficient construction of public transportation systems as well. New Berlin airport which opened in 2011 2012 2013 2016 2017 maybe will open in 2020 is a great example of efficiency!

Berlin is still on a poor side of Germany, and public transportation was significantly inherited from "no, you cannot buy a car" socialist approach.

This is very wrong. Most of the Berlin U-Bahn was on the West side (aka the "capitalist" side), while East Berlin had the majority of the old tram system and expanded their S-Bahn network to compensate. During the division of Berlin, U-Bahn trains would actually travel non-stop through East Berlin to connect segments in West Berlin, with each closed platform under armed guard.