Posted at Gather on September 26, 2007.
Communities without roads is an exciting concept that allows people to live within walking distances of colleages, customers, friends, medical and educational facilities, shops, restaurants, etc. The sedentary lifestyle of many people is a result of the way cities are currently designed. Instead, we should facilitate the opposite, i.e. people coming out of their houses, offices, and especially their cars, in order to meet other people, getting better food and becoming more healthy in the process.
The car has come to dominate the urban landscape, resulting in a metropolitan conglomeration of suburbs, stringed together along highways. Our most fertile land is now used for roads and cars, and the industries needed to support them. About half the urban area is for buildings, mainly three-bedroom homes on small blocks of land. The other half is used for roads, parks and grassland between roads. A large part of roads, buildings and gardens is also used to park cars.
Ever less fertile land is available food. Global warming forces us to rethink all this. As prices of oil skyrocket, more land is being dedicated to grow bio-fuel, resulting in less land available for food. Also, more extreme weather conditions can be expected, resulting in increasing crop loss.
We need more land to grow fruit and vegetables, in ways as was once the case in traditional gardens and on smaller farms. One place to find such land is by converting roads and office blocks into gardens. This doesn't mean a return to those ‘good-old-days’ of small towns and villages. Instead, we should consider an entirely new type of urban design: communities without roads. Technological progress is not the enemy here. Better security and communication systems can help get such communities off the ground. Electric vehicles can be instrumental in getting such communities off the ground.
What I propose are communities with footpaths and bike-paths instead of roads. Houses would be built close together, around a local center of shops and restaurants. In communities without roads, houses could be smaller, since there's no need to park cars in front or in garages. Building houses close together itself reduces travel distances between them. Pathways to a nearby center could suffice for further daily travel, leading to shops, markets, restaurants, lecture and meeting rooms.
In such a center, people would conveniently eat in restaurants, without traffic and parking hassle and noise - just a short stroll by foot or ride on a bike or in an electric scooter. Eating out means less shopping, since food makes up most of our shopping. It also saves a lot of time - no more shopping, cooking, dishwashing and cleaning, no rubbish to get rid of. Walking more would be good for our health as well.
Living closer together means people could see each other more often, both at home or at such a nearby restaurant. Why travel to an office or University, when you can work or follow courses online? Homeschooling has long proven to be much more effective than school. Why should people be institutionalized, kids packed away into school, the elderly people into ‘homes’ and the sick in hospitals? Instead, we should encourage families to stay together as much as possible and as long as possible in communities without roads.
This would result in huge savings on the current cost of cars, roads, office buildings, car parks, garages, gasoline stations, etc. How much time and money could we save by reducing our daily travel between home and work? And how many lives would be saved if we had less car-accidents? Because of the shared walls between them, townhouses save on the cost of heating in winter and cooling in summer.
To start it off, a University campus could be transformed into a community without roads, where people live and come to learn and work. Anyone who would like to nominate one?
Communities without Roads
Extract from a post by Libertaria, January 23, 2005.
Have a look at the Segway and imagine it - communities without roads! Instead of driving a car, just walk to your local restaurants or meeting places. Also have a look at the iBot which is great for people who need wheelchairs - because it can climb stairs it gives easy access to many places. How about letting everyone who needed it use an iBot, instead of pouring money into improving wheelchair access to buildings?
Think about it! About half the urban area is taken up by roads and greenstrips between roads. A substantial part of roads, buildings and gardens is also used to park cars. Without cars and roads, we could live closer together; that would be great for people who complement each other in one way or another; they could live closer to each other and see each other more often. Instead of working in an office, we could do most things from home. In fact, you could work anywhere. The cell-phone motto appears to be: anything, anywhere, anytime! The same goes for learning. Why go to University, when you can follow courses online? Homeschooling has long proven to be much more effective than school.
In communities without roads, urban design could be changed dramatically! Houses could be smaller, as there's no need to put cars in garages. Without roads, houses could also be built much closer together - that in itself could reduce travel time. Simple pathways would be sufficient! Imagine it: communities without roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, railway tracks and railway stations! Such a new lifestyle could result in huge savings on cars, roads, office buildings, car-parks, garages, petrol stations, etc. How much time and money could we save by reducing our daily travel between home and work? And how many lives would be saved if we had less car-accidents?
Security systems can further help avoiding hostilities between people. Solar-powered motion sensors can trigger floodlights and alarms, which in combination with cameras can enhance security and lower health risks. Why not use satellites and interconnected WiFi LANs, instead of Cable-TV and phone lines? Mobile phones and GPS-technology can make great contributions towards our safety and security. All such devices need ever less power, while new technologies extend the usage-time of rechargeable batteries. If we used more GPS-enabled devices, motion detectors and surveillence cameras, we could increase safety and security in and around the home, thus requiring less emergency services.
Currently, the most fertile land is taken for urban use, most of it for roads and gardens (with grass as the dominant crop). With more land available for hobby farming, growing fruit and vegetables could be cheaper and the cost of food could come down dramatically. In a new urban design, houses could be built around restaurants and meeting places. People can more easily go out to eat in restaurants, because there's no traffic and parking hassle, it's just a short stroll or ride on the Segway instead. Many restaurants have embraced wireless services, so take a notebook with you and you're really connected for a business lunch! Or, take a Tablet PC and use a stylus to scribble down your notes and share them! Eating out means less shopping, since food makes up most of our shopping. It also saves a lot of time - no more shopping, cooking, dishwashing and cleaning, no rubbish to get rid of.
Related comments posted earlier
Libertaria - Communities without roads - January 23, 2005
Perhaps such communities could be built as a University campus, an old-folks resort or holiday retreat, where people could came to visit and have an apartment or second home or so. It will have to be in a nice climate, because if it's too cold or rainy, people will want to use cars. Deserts are therefore good places to start up such communities, there's also a need to preserve water, there's plenty of sun for solar energy and there's no urban infrastructure to start with as it's so remote.
Deborah - Communities without roads - January 24, 2005
I think we should seriously consider banning all cars that create pollution and greenhouse gasses. Furthermore, we'll need to look at alternatives to burning coal to generate electricity. We need to look at alternative ways to generate energy.
Sam Carana - Communities without roads - January 27, 2005
Banning cars doesn't necessarily mean prohibiting them legally. Simply putting up "no access"-signs would still require police, courts, fines, even prisons. That means extra cost and trouble, which could indeed be politically unacceptable. Cars could instead be banned by default, e.g. people could decide to stop using cars if they became too expensive, compared to alternatives. Or, people could decide to stop using cars because of the environmental damage. What I like about the idea of Communities without Roads is that cars can effectively be banned (from the inner community) by designing communities without roads. Building houses closer together effectively keeps cars out without the need for police, etc.
It's done before in the inner city where cars are banned from the main shopping street, which is turned into a pedestrian-only area, if necessary by putting up poles. The same for shopping malls, university campus, festivals, etc. Some area definitely see an economic and social benefit in keeping out cars altogether. Instead of applying this to a small area only, we should look at applying it to entire communities.
Sam Carana - Communities without roads - January 28, 2005
[We should] plan communities without roads and with footpaths and bikepaths instead. Plan houses close together, around a local center of shops and restaurants. Redesign existing cities so that people have to travel less.
Sam Carana - Ten Recommendations to deal with global warming - April 8, 2007
We should start building such communities without roads on university campuses, designing small houses for staff and students to live around shops and restaurants. Small houses need less heating and air-conditioning. If we leave out roads, garages and other car-parking spaces, they can be built closely together, so anyone can easily walk or bike their way around. That would be more healthy as well!
Sam Carana - Ten Recommendations to deal with global warming - April 9, 2007
I propose one tax specifically on supply of energy that adds extra heat. What I want to avoid is that the proceeds of this tax go back to the polluter, e.g. in the form of tax deductions or subsidies for capture and sequestration. Also, I don't want the proceeds to be used to subsidize higher energy bills of the poor, as that would defeat its purpose - after all, if the rich can afford to pay the tax and if the proceeds help to poor to pay higher bills, then there will be little or no benefits in terms of global warming. Therefore, I propose that proceeds of this tax will be used exclusively to subsidize supply of energy that doesn't add extra heat.
Furthermore, I propose a tax on sales of meat. This tax should be used to support environmentally-friendly developments, such as communities without roads. I propose communities without roads and with footpaths and bikepaths instead. Houses would be built close together, around a local center of shops and restaurants. Existing cities could be redesigned so that people have to travel less. The tax on the sales of meat could be used to create such communities, e.g. by supporting vegetarian restaurants, bicycle shops and other environmentally-friendly outlets in such communities. Anyway, such communities could incorporate wind turbines and devices like Klaus Lackner's artificial trees, in which case they could be supported by proceeds of the tax on meat.
We should seriously reconsider public transport, in fact, we should look at redesigning the entire way cities are built. Many people go by car to the railway station, because they live too far from the station to walk. Look at how many cars are parked around any suburban railway station! All the space needed for car parking further isolates railway stations from the houses around them, just like railway tracks and highways cut up communities into isolated parts.
Already now, a taxi can be much more efficient than public transport, since buses and trains follow a set route, stopping only at set points. Many buses and trains remain virtually empty at off-peak hours, consuming huge amounts of energy in vain. Many people avoid public transport for the long waiting in inhospitable environments with high crime risks and lack of service. If taxi services were deregulated, there would be far less need for public transport.
The idea of communities without roads is that there is very little need for public transport, but it doesn't mean that people are locked up inside their homes. Terms like homeschooling and working from home may give that false impression. In fact, most homeschoolers I know love to go out (e.g. to see other homeschoolers) and they are more outdoors than kids who go to school. Similarly, working from home means that one spends less time commuting, time that can be spent at exhibitions, conferences, in restaurants, shops, etc. New technology more and more allows people to work when and where they want, while greater efficiencies mean that one can achieve more results in less time.
Also, many people are currently locked up inside their homes because they have nowhere to go. This is especially a problem for elderly people who are afraid to drive a car and who are afraid to walk the empty streets in the suburbs. Town planners have designed urban nightmares, with most activities centralised in specialized buildings, e.g. medical care and education preserved for schools and hospitals. Shopping is concentrated in malls and most offices are centralized in the CBD of each city. This kind of design and zoning results in suburbs stretching out further and further along railway lines that bring people daily into the city. Suburban houses are occupied by few people during the day, people literally go there to sleep.
Communities without roads is an exciting concept that allows people to live within walking distances of colleagues, customers, friends, medical and educational facilities, shops, restaurants, etc. Again, this doesn't mean people are to be locked up inside. The sedentary lifestyle of many people is a result of the way cities are currently designed. Instead, we should facilitate the opposite, i.e. people coming out of their houses, offices, etc, meeting other people, getting more healthy food and becoming fitter.
The car has come to dominate the urban landscape, resulting in a metropolitan conglomeration of suburbs, stringed together along highways. Our most fertile land is now used for roads and cars, and the industries needed to support them. About half the urban area is for buildings, mainly three-bedroom homes on small blocks of land. The other half is used for roads, parks and grassland between roads. A large part of roads, buildings and gardens is also used to park cars.
Ever less fertile land is available food. Global warming forces us to rethink all this. As prices of oil skyrocket, more land is being dedicated to grow bio-fuel, resulting in less land available for food. Also, more extreme weather conditions can be expected, resulting in increasing crop loss.
We need more land to grow fruit and vegetables, in ways as was once the case in traditional gardens and on smaller farms. One place to find such land is by converting roads and office blocks into gardens. This doesn't mean a return to those ‘good-old-days’ of small towns and villages. Instead, we should consider an entirely new type of urban design: communities without roads. Technological progress is not the enemy here. Better security and communication systems can help get such communities off the ground. Electric vehicles can be instrumental in getting such communities off the ground.
What I propose are communities with footpaths and bike-paths instead of roads. Houses would be built close together, around a local center of shops and restaurants. In communities without roads, houses could be smaller, since there's no need to park cars in front or in garages. Building houses close together itself reduces travel distances between them. Pathways to a nearby center could suffice for further daily travel, leading to shops, markets, restaurants, lecture and meeting rooms.
In such a center, people would conveniently eat in restaurants, without traffic and parking hassle and noise - just a short stroll by foot or ride on a bike or in an electric scooter. Eating out means less shopping, since food makes up most of our shopping. It also saves a lot of time - no more shopping, cooking, dishwashing and cleaning, no rubbish to get rid of. Walking more would be good for our health as well.
Living closer together means people could see each other more often, both at home or at such a nearby restaurant. Why travel to an office or University, when you can work or follow courses online? Homeschooling has long proven to be much more effective than school. Why should people be institutionalized, kids packed away into school, the elderly people into ‘homes’ and the sick in hospitals? Instead, we should encourage families to stay together as much as possible and as long as possible in communities without roads.
This would result in huge savings on the current cost of cars, roads, office buildings, car parks, garages, gasoline stations, etc. How much time and money could we save by reducing our daily travel between home and work? And how many lives would be saved if we had less car-accidents? Because of the shared walls between them, townhouses save on the cost of heating in winter and cooling in summer.
To start it off, a University campus could be transformed into a community without roads, where people live and come to learn and work. Anyone who would like to nominate one?
The sprawling suburbs syndrom: daily commuting for more than an hour, neighborhoods without pedestrians and neighbors who don't know each other, yet who try to outdo each other regarding the number of bedrooms and toilets in their mansions and the number of cars that fit inside their garages, while in between the concreted driveways the dominant crop is grass.
Instead, a few thousand people could each have most of the facilities they need close by, i.e. within walking distance from where they live. People who wanted to could have gardens and grow fruit and vegetables, to be sold at markets in the local center. Such centers could cater for a few thousand people who live around such a center, with distances short enough for everyone to be able to walk or use bicycles or scooters, without needing any roads. Indeed, the absence of raods and cars makes that people can live close together. Yet, those centers could be interconnected by road, rail, boat or plane. Visiting another center would be quite different from the daily commuting we see now happen. Many people now sit in the car for more than an hour daily, to go to work, to do shopping, for meals and entertainment. Life very much evolves around cars and roads.
The way cities and suburbs have grown isn't the result of some natural law of urban growth, James, but it's the result of some very specific planning based on principles that now look pretty much outdated in many respects. There's nothing wrong with reconsidering those principles, James, and to try out some new configurations and designs that could work much better in the light of peak oil, health and obesity, social coherence, demographic changes, etc, etc, and of course global warming with all its consequences that are yet to make their full impact.
As global warming becomes an increasingly urgent issue, there are many calls for action. Many call for standards to be set, to achieve a reduction in pollution. In some cases, it seems to make sense to set a standard or to simply prohibit a product or service that causes too much pollution. However, there are several arguments that make tax more attractive compared to standards and outright prohibition. Taxing supply of energy that was generated by burning fossil fuel can often be a better alternative to achieve reductions in pollution. As such taxes make pollution more expensive, markets could work out what was the least polluting alternative.
