cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/28348030
I think most old European cities have stores and people living above the store. Houses are way to expensive to not use them, and lots of small stores don't need 2 stories.
I'm actually jealous of Bob. He has a wife that he loves, 3 kids that he loves, a rival across the street that easy to hate, because he went to the Jan 6th riot, another rival in the food inspector who's just mad at him because Bob stole his girl. He owns his own business doing what he loves, and has 2 close friends that visit him near daily.
Sure his finances aren't the best, and his resteraunt is struggling, but he's living his dream!
On top of that, he has sworn allegience from a biker gang. Plus Marshmellow loves him, and Marshmellow is awesome!
It's a little worrying that he has full delusional conversations with food and cooking tools though. That may be something he should see a therapist about. But hey, nobodys perfect.
You forgot one of the most important things, he loves his job and wouldn't change it for the world.
P.S. Is anybody else disappointed by the new Marshmallow voice actress?
No more Chad, is now Bob.
We've got a whole area of my Australian suburb dedicated to a bunch of these, all adjacent to a beautiful park and I believe they're all subsidised by our council if I recall correctly.
I am passionate about this subject even if I don’t belong in this community.
Zoning is important. It’s what prevents a nuclear power plan next to your house.
The isn’t is that they don’t allow multi-use zoning. There’s very little reason you can’t have commercial below residential.
Zoning is important. It’s what prevents a nuclear power plan next to your house.
When looking at the Netherlands, you can both have a store at a house, AND a nuclear power plant that's not built right next to a village (it'll be a small kilometre away, since my country is rather densely populated).
Lots of shops like that in the Europes...
Plenty in the US, too
I'm in San Francisco and there are tons of mixed use buildings, in both "sharp" and well-off neighborhoods alike.
You ever been to a city that's not San Francisco? One that's newer? I think you'll find that those kind of places are vanishingly few.
Hmmm just got back from lunch at a brew pub that had condos above it.
Like yes, zoning is used for a whole bunch of bullshit, but the second you get anywhere even remotely urban this is extremely common. This sounds like it’s from someone who grew up in suburbia hell and really just wants to move into a city but doesn’t know that.
A big part of the problem is in North America, they won't build that type of development anymore. New developments are almost exclusively either residential SFH or commercial strip malls. Prevously a building was flexible enough to go from a grocer with apartments above it then to a financial office then to full residential with relatively minor renovations in between. Now walmart has rules saying another big box store cant buy their abandoned big box store to prevent competition.
I live in Jersey, and mixed use is very big just about everywhere (not including South Jersey, I don't know anything about South Jersey). The idea of a walkable downtown made a very big comeback in the last decade or so.
Think it's still allowed here in the UK. As a kid me and my family lived in a flat above the take away (take out restaurant) that my mother worked at.
This is how I felt about all the one way streets in downtowns. Always hated them personally but assumed someone somewhere must have had a good reason behind it that I didn’t know.
But no… they’re just awful in basically every way.
This doesn’t make sense to me; of all places, downtowns in cities are where one ways should exist. How would adding traffic in the other direction, wider roads, and more complex intersections benefit downtown?
This is a misunderstanding of the issue. We aren’t talking about changing the road width here at all, just the lane number and direction. Most of these old, downtown streets were always narrow two-way roads. The difference is that oncoming traffic in the road and having only one lane in each direction dramatically lowers vehicle speeds, meaning these one ways are hugely more dangerous than the two way streets they replaced. In my city (which actually invented the downtown one-way!), 100% of pedestrians killed in the downtown area in recent years were killed on these one way streets. Yes, every single one.
To explain the history in more detail, when the field of traffic engineering emerged and it was decided that rate of personal vehicle flow was to be the sole design criteria for all roads in the US, narrow two way streets presented a problem. They couldn’t be widened due to adjacent development, and they were frequently congested and did not allow high speeds because of the close proximity of oncoming traffic. It was theorized that by converting them to multi-lane one ways, higher traffic flow would be accomplished.
As with other schemes to pack more vehicle throughput into urban areas, this seemed to work for a short period. It was deemed highly beneficial to the emerging political elites who had largely moved to the suburbs but worked in downtowns. Poor, minority, and other downtown residents who could no longer use or even safely cross the street on foot were deemed unimportant. Or more cynically, this danger and discomfort to the undesirables was another added benefit that might encourage them to leave the highly profitable business districts being built in their neighborhoods.
Before long, the new infrastructure for commuters enticed more and more suburban development and virtually everyone who could afford it moved out of downtown, and with this, traffic congestion increased dramatically. This is where the benefits of increased traffic flow disappear—adding more lanes in tight city streets where there are many intersections doesn’t really speed up traffic much at all when you reach even moderate traffic density due to all of the turning and lane-crossing required to navigate. Actually, this slows traffic and makes downtown streets safer during rush hour, but unfortunately they’re still extremely deadly at off hours, especially at night when fewer cars are on the road and visibility is poor.
In short, one way roads are dangerous and don’t really benefit anyone. In my city even local businesses have been agitating to get rid of them because they make it very difficult to pull over or cross the street to shop or eat. Eliminating them is a great and easy way to make city streets much safer and more pleasant without spending a lot of money or inconveniencing anyone.
One way streets have another function - it’s to help direct traffic. Properly used, it allows you to have minimum entry and exit points.
The issue with downtowns is that there are too many intersections. If you take a line of like a mile, take out all the cross streets in between, and make it a one way to arterials, you’ll have better results.
But, yes, too many vehicles is also a problem.
I understand the principle but you simply can’t turn a dense city street into a limited access highway. We tried and it does not work, and has huge unintended side effects.
Okay so as much as I don’t fit in because I like cars, it’s not just about making things one way. You also have to replace lanes with public transport. And you have you have walkable pedestrian only areas with multi use zones
The problem is that downtowns by their nature are pedestrian zones. It’s unavoidable. You can’t have a freeway that’s also a pedestrian zone and that’s why so many people are dying. Not to mention what I said above—you would need to eliminate almost all intersections which would make it impossible to get to your destination. Without spatially huge interchanges (impossible to build without demolishing the city you’re trying to bring people to), the intersections that remain would still disrupt traffic flow.
You just can’t have high speed roads in heavily populated areas. It’s not safe and congestion prevents them from functioning as designed. If there is a great need for this then it needs to be underground, but this is usually too expensive to consider.
But yeah those other things are definitely needed in downtown areas.
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with because I don't think we disagree. I'm not advocating for removing intersections to make arterials or freeway/highways. I'm not advocating for raising the speed limits.
I'm not sure what the equivalent of MS paint for linux is so it's hard for me provide a graphical example.
Let me try one more time with text. If we still seemingly disagree, I'll try to provide a graphic.
The way cities /should/ be designed are that you should use bigger roads to get close to your destination, and then take smaller roads to get there.
So highways -> arterials -> roads -> streets.
So, if I'm traveling to London, Ontario, Canda, I would take the 401/402 into the area, then take Wonderland road to get to the block I'm looking for, and then if that lands me in a neighborhood, I might have to take another small street to get to my final destintation.
So if a city is made of rough grids, you'll still have one or two of those roads be arterials in from the highway, then major roads, then small streets.
From a motorized vehicle point of view, the pain points are intersections because you have to let other vehicles into your path. If you have very small grids, then traffic will stop very often.
If we keep a grid pattern, and we remove most of those intersectinos and make bigger "grids", we can keep traffic flowing LONGER because there are less places vehicles need to stop. No interchanges -- just intersections. Yes, it would still disrupt flow, but you can minimize that throughu the use of PROPERLY SIZED ROUNDABOUTS (traffic circles, for those of us in the US).
Furthermore, unless you can add an arbitrary number of lanes, adding more lanes does not reduce congestion (I'm looking at you Texas). There's basically an acceptable amount of congestion/slow traffic. So if we make more lanes, more cars will fill it. If we take away lanes, people will find other alternatives (ie. biking, walking).
The thing is, many municipalities have really stupid rules about parking spaces and, more importantly, they allow above grade parking spaces. This is a very inefficient use of space. If you /really/ want to accomodate parking, build it underground and don't make it an eye sore.
So, what is the better solution? Use mixed-use zoning to create areas where, if provided, parking is below grade, commercial is at/above grade, and above commercial is residential. This reduces the need for residents to leave the walkable area. And we simply increase walkable areas. And we build public transportation for those of us that need to move between areas.
Also, we REDUCE the speed limit to something that makes sense (again, I'm looking at you America) with infrastructure (read: narrow roads, service-use only roads, speed bumps) so that people will find alternatives. And goddammit we can actually use the acres of wasted space devoted to roads.
And again, I don't belong in this community because I like cars. So what would I do for myself? All roads in a city center should be narrow with really slow speed limits. We should have "toll roads" like the Nurburgring so we can actually enjoy driving our cars instead of being stuck during the commute.
Let me know if we still disagree.
Zones belong in Sonic games and nowhere else.
(I'm joking btw)
The one between the koreas is fairly interesting
Still not as bad as some of the zones that got cut from the game.
We do not talk about
what the fuck was sega thinking
Genocide City Zone
I guess they were thinking that they were going hard on selling Robotnik's characterization as an evil overlord, LOL. I mean, the whole plot of the game was that he was genociding all the animals by turning them into cyborg slaves, after all.
"Sega does what Nintendon't," indeed!
I feel like it might've been a translation issue. Had the level actually made it into the game, someone probably would've realized that the name was a bit much for a video game about a blue hedgehog taking on an egg themed villain.
Hmm... maybe it's my 2025 perspective talking, but as someone who played Sonic games as a kid I think they should've gone for it. As a name for a level conceived as a mix of Metropolis Zone and The Machine from Sonic Spinball, the name seems entirely descriptive and appropriate.
The word "Genocide" has been watered down a lot lately and that's not a good thing. Calling everything genocide has an effect of normalizing it. Using it in a video game played by children, after those children grow up they hear the word and have the vibe of a video game level and don't feel like genocide is anything important.
Not in many places in the US anymore, but in many other countries you still can.
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags: