Car Free Neighborhoods

Urban Studies 591 Integrative Seminar Individual research project Dr. Geoff Guitter March 18, 2014 Sustainability in the city: Car free neighborhoods Danais Ponce ID: 10079896 Contents Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Universal Problems 3. Relation to sustainable cities 4. Rules for sustainable communities 5. Approaches to car free neighborhoods Traffic Calming Car free Days Diversification of transport: Pedestrian and cycling zones Car-free housing Car free city 6. Scale and main actors 7. Supporters and Opponents 8. Critiques of Car free neighborhoods 9. Pros and Cons 10. Who pays? What are the risks? 11. Obstacles and Barriers 12. Relevance to Highland Park/Thorncliffe/Greenview communities 13. Conclusion References Abstract As the personal and societal benefits of pedestrian-friendly communities are realized, there is an increased shift towards car free neighborhoods. The latter are becoming highly desirable places to live in cities around the world due to their unique advantages. These automobile free neighborhoods provide benefits that include access to public transportation, greater social interaction, improved personal and environmental health, easy access to services and goods and expanded consumer choice. Therefore, many are calling upon the public and private sectors to facilitate development of walkable places. Land use, community design and effective public transportation play a pivotal role in encouraging pedestrian environments. By building places with multiple destinations within close proximity, where the streets and sidewalks balance multiple forms of transportation, communities have the basic framework for walkability, social interaction, better economies and sustainable car free neighborhoods. 1. Introduction “People who live in walkable neighborhoods report being happier and healthier, therefore home shoppers are increasingly looking for places to live where they can be less dependent on their cars” – Ryan D. These walkable communities are usually associated with car free neighborhoods, which are becoming desirable places to live, work, learn, worship and play are a key component of smart growth. Their desirability comes from two factors. First, goods such as housing, offices, and retail and services such as transportation, schools, libraries are located within an easy and safe walk. Second, walkable communities make pedestrian activity possible, thus expanding transportation options, and creating a streetscape for a range of users such as pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. Additionally, car free neighborhoods are located within communities and often promote face-to-face interaction among members, creating common values, socializing youth, and maintaining effective social control. The popularity of car free neighborhoods both in downtown communities and suburbia has increased as governments realize the environmental, social and economic costs of the auto dependency trend within cities (Chiras et al. 2005, 37). In order to transform existing neighborhoods creating a vision, setting goals and finding the tools to implement the desired changes are required (Chiras et al. 2005, 37). In many cases the goal or vision is to transform current communities and suburb into settlements similar to car free neighborhoods where the goal is not to banish the existence of the automobile, but rather improve the current auto dependent landscapes that have no sidewalks to walk on, no walkable destinations to walk to and no buses to catch into sustainable and desirable coomunities (Kushner, 2005, Wann, et al. 2003, p6) But, what is a car free neighborhood? Throughout the world, the term “car free” has come to be associated with different meanings. In general “car free” refers to a zone or area where more motor traffic is limited. The term is also applied to efforts by city governments to increase the attractiveness and economic vitality of their city centers by reducing the presence of parked moving vehicles and encouraging access by urban compatible means of travel. However, it does not always mean the complete removal of cars. Therefore, car free or car-limited zones consist of measures that can be applied over larger areas than pedestrian only streets where the most important condition is attractive and efficient public transport (Topp et al. 1994). 2. Universal problems The increased shift in cultural and social values towards the car free neighborhoods is driven by many factors. For example, car congestion has recently become an issue for many cities around the world. This congestion began to affect the main city entries during rush hour, and kept spreading into the city including local roads. Yet, automobiles have become so much a part of the life milieu of industrialized nations that they have essentially taken over the economy and the culture of these societies making societies (Purcell, 2000, p2). Another factor is related to the nature of our development. Since World War II development has been centered on the automobile, with cities adapted and rebuilt to suit the automobile's spatial requirements (Kramer- Badoni, 1994). During the last decades, automobiles have become so integrated in the life of industrialized nations that they have essentially taken over the economy and the culture of these societies without them even realizing it (Purcell, 2000). Yet, the influence of the car is not without reason. Firstly, automobiles made possible new patterns of land use, among them the modern suburb (Purcell, 2000). After World War II, the mass-produced “modern” suburbs made explosive suburban expansion possible by providing housing for middle classes (Purcell, 2000, p5). From then on, state departments and federal transportation boards took control from cities and implemented their own agendas focused around moving people long distances quickly rather than supporting local communities (7). Therefore American suburbs were built for consumption, not effi- ciently and for automobiles, not people. They were built to provide housing, not community (Wann, et al. 2003). An additional factor related to this shift relates to the elimination of commerce within communities (Kushner, 2005). The latter was produced as planning departments through North America adopted zoning codes based on the assumption that residents should be separate from commerce, civic life and even recreation (Wann, et al. 2003, p4). As a result, homes are separated from a morning newspaper and the children’s school by a trip in the car in today’s dispersed suburb (Purcell, 2000). These land use patterns in turn necessitated cars, which established a positive feedback loop (Purcell, 2000). However these communities built with a drive-in mentality will not be usable for much longer as they impede people on being unable to get anywhere by foot and decreasing their desirability in housing markets (Wann, et al. 2003, p5) (11). Therefore zoning and mass produced communities led to the view of suburbs as low density, large lot housing subdivision, conceived for automobiles more than for people. These are strictly residential areas where few public, recreational and commercial spaces exist built for a rapidly changing but homogeneous population of small families living in a stress-filled culture of material consumption and waste (Chiras et al. 2005, 37). Therefore one could argue that automobile based developments and policies are unsustainable as they diminish the quality of life and are exactly the opposite of the highly desirable car free neighborhoods (Badiozamani, 2003). 3. Relation to sustainable cities Sustainable development refers to economic development, social development and environmental protection aspects of urban development, going beyond the normal understandings of space and time. It evolves through the conscious effort of planners who understand that for large complex systems like cities to be sustainable, the elements that comprise them also must be sustained. This evolution of sustainable development has been happening in the past two decades as planners are taking the sustainable development concept to the suburbs and city centers, creating new approaches to the transport planning process (Badiozamani, 2003). Car free neighborhoods are developments that aim to limit automobile use in order to make cities denser, encourage encourage for walking, social interaction and multidimensional modes of transport while maintaining social equity and financial sustainability (Badiozamani, 2003, p300). Therefore car free neighborhoods are complex systems within themselves. They consist of a large number of elements such as the transport system, commercial areas, residents, etc that interact with each other. The creation neighborhoods are also a key elements of urban systems as specific neighborhoods play different roles and contribute in different ways to the function of the city as a whole depending on their location and how their surroundings have evolved. As a complex system within itself, neighborhoods have positive and negative feedback loops. The growth of the physical infrastructure of car culture is an excellent example of complex positive feedback. The development of massive urban freeway systems and unregulated suburban sprawl are connected, as growth in one leads to growth in the other. The nutrients necessary for this system to thrive are construction, money and cheap gasoline, which also are linked in a positive feedback mode (Purcell, 2000, p3). Yet this “positive feedback” is not always good, as if the latter was true there would be

Load more