James Howard Kunstler's argument against skyscrapers

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by RST500

http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=2655


James Howard Kunstler is a major critic of the auto dependent suburban model, however he does not see the skyscraper as a viable model. Instead he favors medium density "European" style urbanism. His reasoning is that Skyscrapers will be expensive to retrofit as natural resources become scarce in the future. He also predicts massive power outages that will cause problems for skyscrapers. I know there have been proposals for skyscrapers that are self sustainable and ecologically sustainable but they are costly to build and there isn't the political will. Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of skyscrapers but he does bring up some interesting points.

until................some braniac comes up with a transparent solar cell, and then well be cranking out the electricity! vertical farming here we come.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

I'll quote the source:

Overall, both Japanese and European cities enable active transport thanks to density and proximity, but there is more variation among European cities, whereas Japanese cities all tend to be between 30 and 40%, some European cities reach a low of around 20%. And of course, it's a complete disaster in the North American cities, where decent levels of active transportation in some central neighborhoods get totally drowned by the deserts of sprawl all around them. Use separation is the crucial aspect that kills the potential for active transport.

And right here is the strangeness of comparing a whole continent to one country. Japanese transportation policy and land use policy are centrally managed to some extent, so what works in Tokyo will also work in Sapporo and Osaka. All Japanese cities developed their mass transit systems and much of their urban form in the postwar period, due to massive economic growth and wartime destruction that left a blank slate in many cases.

Europe comprises roughly 50 different countries, each of which sets their own transportation policy. The EU exists today, but most of the crucial decisions about land use and transportation were made a century ago or longer.

Also worth noting that only a few nodes in those Japanese cities actually have skyscrapers. There are tons of dense midrise neighborhoods in Japanese cities that generate high transit ridership numbers. It's not all about urban form, either - Japanese transit systems tend to be highly integrated, even moreso than European systems, with suburban trains interlining with metro trains and so forth.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by ardecila

And right here is the strangeness of comparing a whole continent to one country. Japanese transportation policy and land use policy are centrally managed to some extent, so what works in Tokyo will also work in Sapporo and Osaka. All Japanese cities developed their mass transit systems and much of their urban form in the postwar period, due to massive economic growth and wartime destruction that left a blank slate in many cases.

Europe comprises roughly 50 different countries, each of which sets their own transportation policy. The EU exists today, but most of the crucial decisions about land use and transportation were made a century ago or longer.

The biggest difference is that the fringes of European cities lack density, so extending metro lines out to the suburbs is very costly on a per rider basis. Japanese zoning regulations allow density to spring up wherever it is demanded making it more cost effective to build far reaching mass transit. The high ridership per km Euro outliers have small metro's located only in the city's core. The sprawling systems suffer in comparison to the Japanese cities.

This is all the more impressive by the fact that Japanese mass transit is largely privatized.

[Crawford]

Western Europe is also (generally speaking) somewhat wealthier than Japan, and vehicle costs are somewhat lower. Japan is also much more urbanized than Western Europe.

So one would expect higher transit patronage in Japan. Cars are generally more affordable and practical in Europe.

[ChargerCarl]

Last I checked it was basically on par with the large Euro countries. PPP adjustments are generally crap though, so it's difficult to compare.

As for car ownership, I'm not sure what Euro country's parking requirements are. The Japanese government forbids cars from parking on public roads and requires proof of a private parking space as a requirement for ownership.

[Crawford]

Also which European cities "perform poorly" in terms of transit networks and ridership? I can't think of any, at least not in Western Europe.

I mean, yeah, Rome has a limited subway, but still high overall transit ridership. And Rome is about as bad as it gets in Western Europe.

In Eastern Europe, OK, maybe some backwaters in rural Bulgaria or Moldova or somewhere, but those places are poor anyways, so I assume transit ridership is decent just because most can't afford cars.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also which European cities "perform poorly" in terms of transit networks and ridership? I can't think of any, at least not in Western Europe.

I mean, yeah, Rome has a limited subway, but still high overall transit ridership. And Rome is about as bad as it gets in Europe. Maybe some backwaters in rural Bulgaria or Moldova or something, but those places are poor anyways, so I assume ridership is decent just because most can't afford cars.

London does poorly per km of track. I think they're the data point in the far right corner.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

London does poorly per km of track.

London, overall, has low transit ridership? I find that hard to believe. They're counting Tube + Bus + Suburban Rail?

If anything, I would think London would have higher-than-average ridership for big cities in Western Europe.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Crawford

London, overall, has low transit ridership? I find that hard to believe. They're counting Tube + Bus + Suburban Rail?

If anything, I would think London would have higher-than-average ridership for big cities in Western Europe.

Well the heavy bus/light rail usage is a symptom of this problem. It's a means for solving the last mile problem that insufficient density around high capacity mass transit lines creates.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

London, overall, has low transit ridership? I find that hard to believe. They're counting Tube + Bus + Suburban Rail?

If anything, I would think London would have higher-than-average ridership for big cities in Western Europe.

It's not about whether London has low ridership but whether it has low ridership per km of track. A small rail system that serves only the densest parts of the city with the highest ridership potential will usually do better by that metric than a huge rail system that goes everywhere.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by memph

It's not about whether London has low ridership but whether it has low ridership per km of track. A small rail system that serves only the densest parts of the city with the highest ridership potential will usually do better by that metric than a huge rail system that goes everywhere.

Then the metric doesn't make much sense, IMO.

London has a gigantic rail network that covers the entire SE of England. It probably isn't going to have super-high rail ridership per mile compared to a city like Prague or Barcelona, which have smaller systems, with urban-focused Metro and proportionally less suburban rail.

I mean, if London had a crappier rail system, it would rank higher. Just get rid of all the suburban lines, and magically the system becomes "more efficient". That doesn't make much intuitive sense.

And London isn't a particularly high density metro, so individual lines shouldn't have crazy high ridership. Most of SE England is village-like; you don't have giant suburban commieblock slabs everywhere like in Rome or Madrid or anywhere in Eastern Europe. Why would suburban London villages generate massive per km ridership?

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

I'll quote the source:

http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014...-japanese.html

The source being a blog. Unscientific, biased, generalising, ignorant and with predetermined conclusions.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

The source being a blog. Unscientific, biased, generalising, ignorant and with predetermined conclusions.

He's a professional urban planner. If you think he's wrong I'd like to hear your case. My guess is you have nothing productive to add to this discussion though.

It's all sourced in the comment section btw.

[SHiRO]

There is no such thing as "an European approach to height and density" and there is no such thing as "a European model". So he's already wrong in his first sentence.

Furthermore, European cities have much higher peak densities (in their centers) than American cities and a lot of European cities have higher densities in their centers than Japanese cities even. As such, those models of density distribution in cities make no sense whatsoever. European cities look more like how Japanese cities are depicted and American cities (apart from NYC) look nothing like how they're depicted.

Subways are used as a proxy for transportation systems appearantly and the bulk of the highly efficient European systems is just ignored (as well as bikes).



And the guy is a traffic engineer (from Quebec), not an urban planner. How does this make him an expert on European and Japanese cities? (and he even acknowledges this is just his opinion and that he might be mistaken).

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

There is no such thing as "an European approach to height and density" and there is no such thing as "a European model". So he's already wrong in his first sentence.

Every city is a unique special snowflake, I understand. But yes, there actually is a generalizable European approach to height and density apparent to just about everyone.

So you're wrong in your first sentence.

Furthermore, European cities have much higher peak densities (in their centers) than American cities and a lot of European cities have higher densities in their centers than Japanese cities even. As such, those models of density distribution in cities make no sense whatsoever. European cities look more like how Japanese cities are depicted and American cities (apart from NYC) look nothing like how they're depicted.

It's not about density in city centers, it's about density along transit corridors. You obviously missed the point.

Subways are used as a proxy for transportation systems appearantly and the bulk of the highly efficient European systems is just ignored (as well as bikes).

The subway isn't used a proxy for anything. The fact is Europe does poorly in comparison when it comes to HRT utilization. Other transit modes, like streetcars, are used to make up for the last mile problem this creates.

And the guy is a traffic engineer (from Quebec), not an urban planner. How does this make him an expert on European and Japanese cities? (and he even acknowledges this is just his opinion and that he might be mistaken).

Which makes him 100x more qualified to comment on this than you...

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Every city is a unique special snowflake, I understand. But yes, there actually is a generalizable European approach to height and density apparent to just about everyone.

So you're wrong in your first sentence.

No there isn't (not by a long shot) and no I'm not.

It's not about density in city centers, it's about density along transit corridors. You obviously missed the point.

Those models don't make sense whatsoever, just admit it.

The subway isn't used a proxy for anything. The fact is Europe does poorly in comparison when it comes to HRT utilization. Other aspects of transit, like streetcars, are used to make up for the last mile problem this creates.

There is no "last mile problem" and in general Europe doesn't do poorly at all. Streetcars, trams, buses, walking and biking are integral parts of European transit systems which you obviously can't judge by looking exclusively at subway systems (on paper and not even in practise!).

Which makes him 100x more qualified to comment on this than you...

This is just one guy's opinion/fantasy, just because he has it written down in a blog doesn't make him right. He even admits it himself. It sounds like both he and you haven't even visited enough (or at all!) European cities to even be casual observers.

[ChargerCarl]

k dude

[memph]

I would say that in terms of where Japanese vs European city dwellers is, it's not clear that there's much of a difference in terms of who lives at high densities clustered around transit. At least that's my impression.

However, for workplaces, it does seem like there is quite a bit of clustering in Tokyo with highrise CBDs. Some European cities have highrise CBDs, but it's still quite common for European cities to have their office space at midrise densities.

Workplace densities near rapid transit are probably more important than resident densities for transit usage.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Then the metric doesn't make much sense, IMO.

London has a gigantic rail network that covers the entire SE of England. It probably isn't going to have super-high rail ridership per mile compared to a city like Prague or Barcelona, which have smaller systems, with urban-focused Metro and proportionally less suburban rail.

I mean, if London had a crappier rail system, it would rank higher. Just get rid of all the suburban lines, and magically the system becomes "more efficient". That doesn't make much intuitive sense.

And London isn't a particularly high density metro, so individual lines shouldn't have crazy high ridership. Most of SE England is village-like; you don't have giant suburban commieblock slabs everywhere like in Rome or Madrid or anywhere in Eastern Europe. Why would suburban London villages generate massive per km ridership?

The underlying idea is that per-km ridership is a measure of net efficiency, i.e. whether you're moving as many people as you can relative to the infrastructure you've got. Now, nobody's going to argue that the Tube in central London is pretty damn good (although I personally think the Paris Métro is the best system in Western Europe and quite possibly the world).

The reason why this discussion is getting messy is because the Tube isn't limited to the primary city (cities) the way the Métro is. Large chunks of it really do behave more like commuter rail, and even S-Bahn style commuter rail naturally has lower per-km ridership than a Paris-style métro. This implies that pure per-km ridership is not the best way to benchmark given a hybrid system. One could perhaps consider a system of hybrid benchmarking, where outlying sections of the Tube -- which mostly service suburbs -- are benchmarked as commuter rail akin to London's other commuter rail lines, while the inner sections are benchmarked to a métro standard of some sort.

All that said, there is one other potential sort of benchmarking which might be more oblique but more useful: profitability. But using that as a benchmark implies that you're running your urban rail network in such a manner as to turn a profit to begin with -- something we only expect out of East Asian (Japan and Hong Kong, maybe Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea?) urban rail networks.

[ChargerCarl]

Im not criticizing the systems per se, I'm criticizing the land use around them. Japanese zoning policies allows for density to spring up wherever it is demanded maximizing transit usage. Given the immense price tag of US transit projects it's important that we squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of whatever we can afford to build. So if I had to pick a model for the US to copy it would be Japan hands down.

And AFAIK there is no difference between urban and commuter rail in Japan. Theres the Tokyo Metro, but the private railways all provide the same level of frequent service in the city.