New urbanism event being held in Austin
Austin Business Journal
11:17 AM CDT Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Austin's efforts to create a denser and more active urban core have helped
it land a major conference that will draw an estimated 2,000 attendees next
A new Gfk Roper study shows Americans developing especially positive attitudes toward New Urbanism and neighborhoods where people live near each other (New Urbanism phrased another way).
Judging from a report in the Denver Post, this study is a keeper. Here are a few quotes:
Some people have argued that even if compact cities are terrific at attracting single people, they will never attract well-off families. But an article in today's N.Y, Times
(at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/nyregion/23kid.html) suggests that if a city is attractive enough and compact enough, it can get affluent families back. Money quotes:
Does anyone has some links to some studies which support the environmental benefits of mass transit? I am specifically looking for the energy efficiency, energy consumption, NOx, SOx, CO, of subway a/o trains.
Rethink needed on Clyde regeneration, says US expert
GERRY BRAIDEN March 13 2007
The vision for the regeneration of the Clyde will need to be re-worked if it's not to become an opportunity lost, a leading US expert in urban renewal has warned.
Seattle voters officially rejected both the viaduct replacement and a four-lane tunnel options on Tuesday’s ballot, showing that more and more people are starting to share the vision articulated by John Norquist of CNU, Scott Bernstein of CNT and Seattle's Cary Moon and fellow advocates -- a waterfront complemented by improved surface streets and transit service, not an ovescaled highway. Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, the council’s vocal surface-transit cheerleader, is proposing an ordinance to require the DOT to study this option. Still, some, including Mayor Greg Nickels, are skeptical of Steinbrueck’s plan that would rely heavily on the grid to absorb traffic.
George Will wrote a column at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR200703...
which to some extent parrots the conventional road lobby wisdom. My thoughts on the relevant parts of his column:
Readers delivered a reality check this weekend to Jennifer Lang of the Independence Institute after she penned an op-ed piece in the Rocky Mountain News that trotted out the kind of anti-urbanist canards that get pro-sprawl Libertarians and their principles twisted up in knots. A number of readers were having none of it when Lang suggested that large-lot subdivisions were the natural choice of most Denver residents and that development based on 1950s-style automobile-oriented planning didn't run up government budgets.
One argument I've seen a lot of in the media runs as follows: "Even though we've increased road space again and again in city after city, we still haven't done enough because road space has not kept up with vehicle miles traveled." What doesn't smell right about this argument?