In the early 20th century, cars revolutionized modern life by transforming labor practices, civil rights, cities, arts, social life, and the environment in radical and dangerous ways. The relationship between the car and the city remains complex, involving numerous private and public forces, innovations in technology, global economic fluctuations, and shifting cultural attitudes.
Automobile cities have transformed urban growth in America, with transportation as a key variable. Before the 1950s and 1960s, the US had dense, European-style cities. The rise of the motor car led to the development of sprawling suburbs, while the “car-oriented city” model was superimposed onto the nineteenth-century railway city and pedestrian city. For the past 100 years, the automobile has transformed the lifestyles of millions of Americans, allowing for more autonomy and expansion.
Motor vehicles and paved roads have narrowed much of the gap between rural and urban life, enabling farmers to ship easily and economically by truck and drive to town when convenient. Institutions like regional schools and hospitals are now accessible by bus and car.
The automobile has also turned the landscape into real estate, colonizing ever more spaces that were once devoted to human interaction. It has transformed the economy by giving people easy transportation to restaurants and other activities but also causing congestion and pollution. Automobiles provide easier access to remote places and mobility, in comfort, helping people geographically widen their social and economic interactions.
One way automobiles changed the landscape of cities was in the need for parking. In the first two decades of the twentieth century, curb parking was the primary means of parking. The invention of automobiles has had a profound impact on cities, transforming them from small, compact towns into sprawling metropolises. The automobile gave people more personal freedom and access to jobs and services, leading to the development of better roads and transportation. Industries and new industries have emerged as a result of this transformation.
📹 Superblocks: How Barcelona is taking city streets back from cars
Modern cities are designed for cars. But the city of Barcelona is testing out an urban design trick that can give cities back to …
What are some of the sociological changes caused by the automobile?
The automobile has had a profound impact on the mobility of the US population, the development of remote areas, the ability to live farther from work in suburban areas, and increased access to goods and services. These changes have contributed to sociological shifts over time.
How has the automobile transformed modern American cities?
Cars have transformed cities since the early 1900s, with wide roads and parking spaces becoming increasingly important features. The mid-20th century saw the development of the suburban lifestyle, leading to urban sprawl and the decline of downtown areas. However, as we enter the 21st century, there has been a shift towards urbanization and sustainability, with many cities prioritizing walkability, bikeability, and public transportation to reduce car use and promote a healthier lifestyle.
This is evident in the rise of car-free zones and bike lanes in urban centers. Additionally, there has been a renewed interest in traditional city planning, focusing on compact, mixed-use neighborhoods that prioritize community and accessibility.
Despite efforts to reduce car use, the automobile remains a central feature of modern urban life, providing freedom, convenience, and access to opportunities. However, they also contribute to traffic congestion, airpollution, urban sprawl, and public health issues. It is crucial to adapt and find solutions that allow us to continue using cars while minimizing their negative impact on cities and the planet.
How did the rise of the automobile affect rural and urban America?
The automobile’s impact initially occurred in rural areas, where cars were used for weekend touring and recreation, rather than replacing existing transit in urban areas. The earliest paved roads were landscaped parkways along scenic routes, but urban drivers often rutted unpaved roads, causing discomfort for rural people. However, cars could help address rural problems such as isolation, high costs of transporting farm products, and labor of farm work.
By the 1920s, per capita automobile ownership favored the rural family. Adoption was uneven in rural areas, depending on income, availability of cars, and reliance on horses. Automobile manufacturers courted potential customers with advertisements promoting “Built for Country Roads” or “The Passing of the Horse”.
Highway construction in rural America was irregular, but it influenced rural settlement patterns. Post-World War I, fringe areas on the outskirts of cities were neither rural nor urban. Settlements along roads were populated with farmers, people who lived in the country but worked in the city, and service areas with various roadside businesses catering to automobile traffic.
An array of businesses began to catch the attention of motorists, including crudely built shacks, reasonably priced tourist courts, and the ubiquitous “motel”. Florida was an early leader in building accommodations for tourists, with 178 tourist courts and camps operating by the mid-1920s.
Why are cities built around cars?
The automotive city emerged in the 1930s as a result of the good roads movement, which sought to pave the way for the expanding automobile market. This movement favored individual liberties associated with consumption and the free market over restrictive governance of the built environment. By the 1930s, automotive industry interests, a growing minority of city motorists, and favorable political sentiment worked together to reconstruct city streets as reserved spaces for the automobile, delegitimizing previous users like pedestrians.
This transformative process was made possible by the development and deployment of symbols, codes, and laws that became the language of traffic signs and infrastructure design. By the end of the 20th century, the automobile and land sequestered for its exclusive use (road infrastructure) became synonymous with large North American and Australian cities. The term “automotive city” refers to the tendency of city design and configuration in many North American and Australian cities during the 20th century to prioritize the private automobile above mass transit systems.
What is the importance of vehicles in our daily life?
Vehicles are automatic means of transport that can be used for various purposes, including carrying people, cargo, adventure sports, and emergencies. They can be classified into road, water, or air vehicles, and can be used for various purposes such as carrying cargo, transporting people, or navigating through water. Some common transport names include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles, cars, railed vehicles, watercraft, aircraft, and spacecraft. Vehicles are typically powered by fuel, such as petrol, diesel, or other fossil fuels.
However, modern vehicles are primarily powered by electricity or batteries. The world’s first speeding ticket was issued in 1896 in the UK, where the driver was caught driving at a speed limit of 2 mph.
How did cars transform American society?
Cars revolutionized transportation, allowing people to travel and relocate more easily. They provided a new mode of transportation, making leisure travel more affordable for common folk. Before the invention of cars, people lived only a few miles from their grew-up place, which was a matter of choice and logistics. The rise of suburban areas was also made possible by the automobile. The trend to move further away took off after President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs created thousands of miles of roadway across the U. S., leading to more people moving. The U. S. is now the third-largest country in the world for residents moving per year, and many people are willing to relocate for work.
How did the automobile liberate rural Americans?
The automobile revolutionized society by providing freedom of choice, enabling family vacations, allowing urban and rural residents to explore new landscapes, and promoting independence among teenagers. It also provided a portable space for dating couples, facilitating relaxed sexual attitudes. However, traffic jams, accidents, and fatalities were common, leading to the need for state-level licensure and safety regulations. Despite these challenges, Americans continued to love their cars, and as more cars were purchased, their worlds expanded.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of Cars?
Cars offer personal freedom and convenience, allowing you to travel whenever and wherever you want, without the need for bus routes or ride-sharing services. However, they also come with inconveniences like maintaining registration and finding parking. FICOH offers affordable auto, home, and renters insurance to protect you, including the FirstSelect Portfolio, to help you make the most of your car ownership experience.
How do Cars make life better?
The automobile is considered one of the greatest inventions in human history, transforming various aspects of American society. It revolutionized industry, technology, and everyday life, allowing people more personal freedom, access to jobs, and services. The automobile also led to the development of better roads and transportation, industries catering to the demand for automobile parts and fuel, and services like gas stations and convenience stores. Henry Ford played a significant role in this development, as he invented the assembly line and Model T, making automobiles more affordable and accessible to the general American public.
The middle class in the United States expanded significantly during the early 20th century, allowing more people to afford cars and enjoy more leisure time. Cars also enabled people to travel between cities, leading to the development of paved highways and suburbs. This improved transportation of goods and contributed to the economy.
Automobiles also positively impacted women in society, as they allowed women to work in factory jobs and push for women’s voting rights during the 1910s and 1920s. Women drove around with “votes for women” banners and even gave speeches from their cars, highlighting the importance of women’s rights and personal freedom in America. The 19th Amendment, passed by the U. S. Congress in 1920, further impacted society.
What social factors affect the automobile industry?
The automobile industry is a rapidly growing sector, with cars becoming a fashion statement and a part of many developed countries’ lifestyles. The PESTEL analysis helps companies identify external factors that may impact their business, such as politics, economy, society, technology, ecology, and law. These factors can work together to develop the industry and help companies make strategies to address potential harms.
The automobile industry is highly profitable, with an EBIT margin of 6 in 2016, and is influenced by factors such as rising gas prices, pollution laws, and taxes. Technological innovations have opened up new customers, and the industry is also evolving with changing lifestyles. The PESTEL analysis helps companies identify potential problems and solutions in the future, enabling them to find solutions to address the challenges and adapt to the changing landscape of the automobile industry.
Which city is called city of car?
Pune, formerly the cultural capital of Maharashtra and a hub for modern architectural innovation in India, has recently gained recognition as India’s “Motor City” due to its significant expansion in the automotive industry.
📹 Future cities: Urban planners get creative | DW Documentary
Will the cities of the future be climate neutral? Might they also be able to actively filter carbon dioxide out of the air? Futurologist …
What we called “mixed use” planning here in the US, is what the rest of the world called how to build livable areas. Is it any wonder the most desirable and expensive areas in the US are usually the mixed use areas “grandfathered” in before zoning laws became so onerous after WWII? Completely separating residential and commercial zoning means you HAVE TO DRIVE just to get your groceries. No pop into local baker to get some bread, no walking to your favorite local restaurants for dinner. It lead to rise of the suburbs and urban sprawl. But now those suburban towns are going bankrupt because the expenses required to maintain those infrastructure and suburbs generate much less revenue per given area compared to cities. I suspect it also contributes to the feeling of isolation, alienation, and lack of community so prevalent in this country.
I was in Brussels on no-car day last year and it was a Utopia. People walking, cycling, skateboarding, roller blading down the wide streets. The city seemed more together and was far more peaceful. People need to have a little bit of vision that extends beyond driving a big car at 1mph through gridlocked city streets.
My city did something like this, I think they call them GreenWays. Certain roads were turned into bike/walk only roads, and a wide paved several mile walking path (the B-Line) was cut through the middle of town. So far I think it’s been very successful, at least in giving bikers and walkers/joggers a convenient and SAFER route to travel.
The problem is we see cars as a sign of wealth. An easy form of transportation between point A, and point B. Due to the immense nature of our American landscape unlike European cities, cars have begun to look like a necessity. We don’t have efficient mass transportation systems, and until we can remove the stigma of public transportation being ‘for the poor’ we’re never going to get anywhere any time soon.
American cities changed a lot after WWII, when the suburb was invented. Houses had gardens and a driveway, commercial areas had many parking spaces, and then even parking lots. This eventually led to cities being built to accomodate cars on a massive scale. Not what you see in Europe or Asia, where cities are densely populated and built vertically instead of flat and these cities were around before the car so they have been pedestrian friendly for some time.
Currently it’s being very criticized here in Spain by public opinion and newspapers. I hope the criticism results in a better concept for the “illes” and everyone here can benefit By the way. Just let me say somethimg mildly negative about the article. The spanish guitar is not typical from this region of Spain, and it’s a little bit annoying to hear it every time documentaries or articles in youtube talk about Barcelona and its surroundings. Just think of a article about NYC with Country Music and you’ll get what I mean
Living in a superblock neighborhood and it’s a great concept, increases the quality of living extremely! I really don’t care about noisy humans, also in the evenings in front of bars and restaurants, but the traffic noises and the space occupied by cars are a dilemma we can fix and make our cities amazing for inhabitants and visitors 🙂
Been in Barcelona not long ago and taking a car is a very bad decision. You enjoy walking and seeing people around, it’s such a great atmosphere. You don’t even realise how much you’ve walked once your back at home. I never noticed that Barcelona did this on purpose to reduce the gases realised to the air, it makes so much sense now! Taking the train or bus is also enjoyable, I just love Barcelona so much!
Yeah I lived in the capital of Poland for most of my life and now for 3 years I’m living in Texas USA. Truth be told I’m sick tired of the American mindset. They think that its impossible for anyone without a car or being in a car to get anywhere. A lot of them prefer to use a car because it’s easy. I can see the cuz stores and other leisure places are always separate from houses from people. The us government really should think how they do stuff.
I lived in Barcelona for 11 years. This kind of works because they have a good public transportation system with underground trains and buses. This is not the case for many American cities (Seattle for example). Also even though this is terrific for people who live in the city, it just makes it much more difficult for the thousands of people that do not live in the city but go into it every day for work, etc.
I left the US in October 2019. I’ve traveled throughout Europe, and now am traveling throughout South America. I haven’t had a car since leaving the US. I’ve taken airplanes, ferries, trains, subways, trolleys, busses, bicycles, a rare taxi, Uber and walked. It has been wonderful and liberating, and far less expensive than owning an automobile. The American automakers and oil giants lied to the US population in the 1950’s. They enslaved the US consumer with car ownership, not liberated.
Mom and pops shops would thrive over huge stores in a walkable neighborhood. You’re not running from the traffic jam or huge commute time, you can really know people around and really connect with your neighborhood. Telling as someone who lives in a walkable place, I have a bakery just across the street, my gym is a five minute walk, the corner store I go to get my groceries (when I just need a little something) it’s a less than five minute too. It’s just a better way of living.
This is a very interesting concept but the US is too tightly tied culture wise to cars. I ride a bike a lot for exercise and it is quite common for me to be hassled by car drivers because I am using “their” road and perhaps obstructing their movement for 5 – 10 seconds it takes to safely pass me. Just think how enraged they would get at a 6MPH speed limit. The US is NOT good at implementing city redesign that would alter this car centric culture.
I’m from the US and I lived in Southern Bavaria for a year and a half. When I was in Europe I never even seriously thought about owning a car. It would have been fun to drive over some mountain passes, but it’s so way to get around it doesn’t matter. When I returned to the states I was immediately sad to be driving, knowing that it’s a necessity that I’m chained to it here. Driving feels so isolating, I’d rather read or socialize or nap on a train. It’s sad that America is the way it is. If only we’d spread out and made these cuties organically
Where I have grown up and lived, walking and public transport were both easily accessible, used and needed. I grew up walking a lot and didn’t think I would get a car until after college when I may have to move out of my city. I grew up between NYC and London. I didn’t get a license until we moved from London to the south of the USA. While in London we had to drive to work, it was very very far, but where we lived, we were able to walk and did walk to the shops, the mall, the movies and to church. I loved it but thought there were too many cars. The best time ever was we had a massive oil shortage dramatically effected everyone. We had to work at a local office, most cars were off the road and while walking to the supermarket it hit me. The air was so clean and I loved it, but I noticed the difference when a car drove past which changed it immediately. It was in the moment when I thought, why don’t we live like this all the time, we could some up with different solutions, it would be better for everyone.
This could only work in cities, never a suburban town. In texas, atleast where i live if you dont have a car, you’re basically stuck, theres no buses, trains, only ubers, which the cost is just ridiculous if you used uber as your primary transportation, also which requires someone else to have a car. Also the only buses here bring you to the city and thats it. A car is a necessity in some places unless you want to walk to work at 4 am everyday which would take 3 hours to get to, I think cars are a necessity in most places ( I used the 4 am example because thats when i work, so getting there without my own car is near impossible) except if I spend 24$ total there and back everyday to get with an uber which is ridiculous
I lived in Barcelona for a couple of years and then I’ve moved to USA for a while, in Miami. The difference was huge. American cities are Not Urban but Suburban ones, very much spread all over a huge territory with one floor houses which make distances very long and impossible to live without a car. It was almost like staying in the countryside. Not shops next to my house, not open spaces where to meet other people, not people in the streets..only cars. When I used to walk people looked at me like I was a weirdo and gays approaching me all the times. So, it was a bit depressing. Public transportation is not efficient, because not sustainable, few people for each bus stop does not offset the costs. Same for metro. I think the right model is the European city, in particular the Spanish one, where the outskirt is like city center, tall buildings with a lot people living in, which incentives to open shops and business in general having a lot of customers and not needing to use the car all the time obviously, because everything is nearby. Cheers from Madrid 😉.
Because of Covid, they shut down the main streets to cars in a little mountain tourist city called Banff where I live. It was a really cool feeling to be able to walk in the middle of the road and from one side of the street to the other without any worries. It made it feel like those old “Western/Cowboy” main streets you would see in the movies.
I love it. Making cities ‘liveable’ again. The existing model more or less only functions as a “from A to B” space, thanks to the dominating cars and roads. Although it is not that bad in many European cities, I’ve always wondered why we haven’t been better at integrating elements of parks and green spaces into the city itself, instead of them typically being ‘isolated’ pockets in a city.
I don’t mind the flamenco and “rumba”, although being cliché, it’s Spain at the end of the day but it’s not the kind that represents Barcelona the most, I would’ve chosen something in between or some typical Catalan music. But despite that (and not important to me at all) you guys made a very good job documenting this. I studied it in highschool and I was shocked to see so fewer cities use this planning, which to me is one of the best in the world. Thanks for showing to the world this not noticeable but interesting aspect about my city. Hope America can learn somehting from it.
This website doesn’t seem to understand why USA is the way it is. These places like Spain are tiny and they’ve been around for over a millennia where buildings were build, and build for pedestrians. Cars didn’t exist in Spain for a long time. USA on their hand, comparatively, is a very new nation. All the shops are close to each other like in NYC, NYC being one of the few cities where having a car isn’t really necessary. In other places in USA, especially Texas where I live, you need cars to travel from point A to point B. In America, if I don’t have a car, I’d need a cab to get anywhere. It’s almost as if Vox wants us to be reliant on the state. What works for one country, will not necessarily work for another.
Interesting. I would have thought that making cars drive longer distances around these “blockages” would have increased pollution. I guess fewer turns means fewer intersections and traffic moves more smoothly. I wonder if they computer simulated the flow. That optimization effort would be something to see.
1:14 realy? thats exactly how i ever build in simcity4 or cities skylines… and it dosn’t worked everytime! just imagine you want to go from the inner top left to the up right corner of the picture. sure, walking because its faster but what if your way didnt end there? i bet all here will use the car still for this.
It is more than just cars. It has to be about natural areas, trees, gardens, parks. The amount of trees, that I see removed, in big cities, and residential properties, has a huge impact, on CO2. When you remove huge natural areas, and build residential, or industrial buildings, that is now a huge loss, to the air being cleaned, by those natural areas.
This is a little like Copenhagen. Being hailed to have such a great infrastructure, but, in the end if you’d put either Barcelona or Copenhagen in the Netherlands they would both pale in comparison. It’s a great step for Barcelona, one of the most beautiful cities in the world, but we need even more radical thinking than this.
I once visited Charlotte, NC and was really surprised by how inefficient and little they get things done because of the excessive need for driving. They spend 20 minutes driving to the bank, then another 30 minutes to the Post Office, then another 30 minutes to the stores. They are moving at very high speed all day long (40 mph average), but get SO LITTLE DONE in a day. Where I come from, I can walk to a bank, post office, and store all within 3 minutes.
Great article but as someone who has lived in Barcelona for 16 years, this plan has only made traffic horrible, more expensive, bikes everywhere (and I mean Everywhere). And by closing some streets to cars, it’s increased crime. Also, car ownership has decreased but now everyone own a motorcycle so they can pass everywhere in the city and sneak on little streets. So no we don’t have a solution. Also car ownership is still way higher than cities in the US northeast like NYC, Boston, Philadelphia…
Barcelone was originally designed with this in mind, only decades, centuries, of compromises had changed it to begin with. Its much easier to reverse something back to its original structure. The excuse it was designed before cars is meh, it was designed for with a car-like traffic system in mind. the cityplanner didnt know of the impact of cars, but he did know we would get a “free floating traffic system”, and the width of the streets reflects that
Also don’t forget that my beloved Barcelona is a motorbike city, while there’re still a lot of cars, Barcelona is driven a lot by motorcycles, unlike other cities like Madrid, the clima of Barcelona is usually quite nice, so a lot of people do like my father, and ditch the car in favor of his motorbike, or do like me and use the public transport, that’s almos as fast as using a car, allows you to use the time to study, and is in no need of parking, that without counting the green aspect of it. It’s not uncommon to see wealthy men in suits get off in Diagonal. What I mean, is that trying this alone might not be enough, superblocks are an option here because cars are not at all a big deal, in america where everyone uses a car would be hard to implement, perhaps in NY it would be plausible with the help of his great subway system.
Meanwhile back in realitiy, most U.S. cities outside of the extreme coasts have abysmal public transit systems. In southern climates, particularly along the gulf of Mexico in states like Texas, Louisiana, Florida, etc… the heat and humidity for the overwhelming majority of the year make commuting in air conditioned space a necessity for civil decency. Nobody wants to show up to work drenched head to toe in sweat. Now, having said that, closing off neighborhoods to through traffic is not a unique idea. It’s not new. And most large cities could benefit greatly from massively improved public transit to get people from where they live, to where the jobs are, because let’s be honest, in most American cities, the two are spread WIDELY apart…
Pure demagogic discourse. This is a strategy to bash the weakest link of the chain (the citizens and their cars) of the pollution issue. The greatest pollution in Barcelona comes from the surrounding industries (which are not attacked by administration), from the transport of goods (which is not attacked by admin) and from cruises in the port (each cruise counts as 12,000 cars a day)( and they are not attacked by administration). So administration wants to solve the whole issue by making life difficult for private cars, and cars only. And this is done even when no new budget or care is provided to public transport. Barcelona has ALWAYS been a city in which pedestrians can walk; this is nothing new. Just so that you all know.
Great article. I always found that Barcelona is very avantgardist when it comes to transportation. The subway, the bus system, the shuttles to and from the airport that is both cheap and efficient. I’m from Paris, I lived in Toronto and currently living in Tel Aviv and yet I find that Barcelona is a great model to follow when it comes to transportation and how the city is organized for social life. Definitely one of my favourite cities! Go Barcelona 🙂
I lived in Pamplona (500km away from BCN) in the 90’s. Except for the old part (Casco Viejo and 1er y 2do Ensanche, the latter looking a lot like BCN typical square blocks), the whole city is thought for the pedestrians. Even the blocks seemed huge (about 400m per side), they were mostly filled by huge pavement or green spaces, plus parking lots, filling the rest of space with buildings of a standard height (abuot 8 o 10-story ones). Walking there was just a pleasure, and every place you stepped your foot on seemed a good place for kids to play in. What a wonderful, well-planned city!
I was thinking about Downtown Crossing as soon as I saw what exactly this article was about, and it is indeed very pleasant to walk without fear of being run over. It’s a VERY small area here that isn’t far from Boston Common, Commonwealth Avenue, and Beacon Hill, however, and the street is almost entirely commercial. I’ve often contemplated skating to work, but I was run over while riding my bike when I was eight-years-old and am now deathly afraid of not being on two feet while not on the sidewalk. If something like this were implemented here, in the less central and wealthy neighborhoods of Boston, I’m sure it would crazy complicated and probably expensive, but I=it would give me more options to improve the quality of my health and level physical activity.
I don’t think people like this are ever going to learn. There were “planned” cities in ancient times but most European pre-industrial cities grew in an organic manner with narrow streets based on the human scale. People lived in the area in which they worked. Families grew and lived in the same neighborhoods. Then the industrial revolution prompted authorities to demolish huge sections of cities to create railways and industrial sites, which was followed within 100 years by the car. The road engineers went power mad. They also knocked down huge areas of cities to build highways and bridges to transport people out of town to their places of work. Now the exact same sort of Utopian people have come up with a solution to the problem their predecessors created, ban the cars that take the population who live in cities to their workplaces several miles away. “Well, they can use public transport” you say? Not in America, in fact not in many places because our western society has been developed as a car dependent society. We need the freedom to move around. We were told to do so only a very few short years ago. Where are the electric car charging devices? Who voted for Big Brother to ban cars from the city? As has happened time and again since world war 2, another generation of graduates who think they have found the magic answer are now embarking on the latest level of disruption which will inevitable lead to difficulty for the ordinary working man who never, ever gets asked their opinion on this stuff.
Search up Hong Kong…there’s a lot of cars, but most people depend on walking and public transportation, which is a lot better than New York City’s subway. The underground trains take you all around the city, I believe large cities like Los Angles could invest in some, I am aware that they did, but it’s simply not enough.
The issue is that without cars, you lose agency. You’re not able to buy a bunch of grocery stuff. You cant go where and when you want. That grocery store within walking distance is now the only grocery store you’ll ever go to, which means they get to price gouge the customers. It’s hard to buy stuff. It’s hard to get rid of stuff and how else is Garth supposed to dispose of the bodies?
Free public transportation and “no car zones”, along with adequate free parking, would solve a lot of problems. If every other road was a “no car zone”, that would save a LOT. If only from the lack of a need for intersections, with the appropriate walk-overs and walk-unders, for pedestrians. (They are cheaper then underground and raised roads.) The internet has been the biggest contributor to less traffic, but also less local business. Both going hand in hand with one another. Local businesses die-off, due to an inability to compete with the online stores that are not paying high rent for “previously prime locations”. Now those locations are even higher rent. Not because they are prime locations, but because so many shops are moving out and land-lords are trying to sustain the gross income from the few tenants that exist there still. (While they rent themselves into debt.) Add that to the general shift in moving… People are moving out of old, nasty, slumlord locations in the rotting, overpriced cities. Headed to the suburbs and “going tiny”, as rent rises and mortgages fall behind. Never even caring about attempting to pay back the remainder of debts… Because the last thing they are worried about is getting more credit than they should have had in the first place. Being cozy “living small”, resulting in them actually being able to finally “live large”. All the kings horses and all the kings men… Nothing will save a gutter town from the wrath of greedy men. Except the final starvation of those who now run those ghost-towns without anyone left to feed the greed they need.
Back in the 1980’s, Barcelona had warehouses and factories in the city and there were no shopping malls so everyone shopped in their neighborhoods. Then came hypermarkets outside the city, the mayor moved the “Mercat del Bourne” outside the city and closed the factories. Now, Barcelona is full of old people, dogs and tourists. The jobs are outside the city so young people moved out.
I think it is a great idea but nothing is plain paradise just because it is a good idea. For example, once you define a superblock how people that do have garage in their home, buildings and parking spaces and are located inside this superblocks, are going to get in and out? If there is a store or depot inside a superblock that need access to vehicles to load and unload how you going to solve this? Maybe the solution comes with adaptations with time, for example, changing stores and depots location to roads that give access to them and move stores and shops that does not need to inside superblocks. Develop special kind of motorized karts like those of supermarket for people to go shop for grocery inside the superblocks. And with time only allow residential/offices areas with garages/parking spaces conected with roads for vehicles access.
honestly, i think cars can be very good if managed in the proper way, barcelona sounds like the best mix, you have cars going around the neighborhood/superblock, so that you can take it if you need to move to the other side of the city but if you only need to go to the groceries store you can just walk to it
Car’s are the biggest curse and blessing to humanity, seriously IF all the cites we’re pedestrians-favored, you’re one step out of your house door from a celebration of life-culture-cafeteria’s-shopping-social life-HUMANITY, cars should be used so rarely going to airport’s and other cities, not an everyday tool
i’m not saying these and 15 min cities are bad ideas, in fact i had these ideas and the concept of vertical cities as just economically superior models to most of western development in terms of cost. just dont try to limit me from anything. do not infringe on my rights, start finding new rights to give me
I mean, think about it. What is the most space-efficient way to transport humans? Not a car. You could fit 20-30 people in the space of a sedan? Maybe 40 in an SUV? Now imagine hundreds of thousands of cars. Also, no accidents, traffic management, pollution. Large scale human transportation in the future will be about being able to move individuals quickly in a small space rather than having the capacity for many and not always using it. Modularity at its finest.
American cities are car centric because of the compendium of laws that make it so. For example, minimum parking requirements, zoning, building restrictions (height, setbacks), lots of money for roads and highways, subsidized gasoline, federal home loan subsidies, low interest rate policies by the Federal Reserve.
Using Flamenco as a soundtrack in Barcelona…. It’s like playing country music in NY. Doesn’t mean there are some that do it there… but you would never associate NY with country music. We are not all flamenco and bulls here (actually bullfighting is banned in Barcelona). A part from that…. very very good job with the article.
I live in Las Palmas, another spanish city and we made the entire city center into a superblock, I drive my car often since I live in the outskirts of the city and I cant express how much better it is. Instead of driving through traffic I drive around the busy area into a massive parking lot and then get to enjoy an entire day out walking about, running into people I know, shopping and eating good food
living in Tokyo you realize that most of your friends dont own cars either, you can take the subway system, the overground railway system, the monorail systems and the bus systems everywhere, plus every stop on the train and subway places are going to be hotspots for activity. dont really need a car in most places.
In USA, cars are not only part of the culture but the infrastructure has been built with them in focus. The article addresses some of that. What makes all more challenging for the same changes to cities becoming more pleasant to the ones who live in it is the fact Oil, Car and Energy industries are very much aligned to keep the dependency on automobiles.
I think the idea overall is great. I enjoy both driving and long walks as a pedestrian. My main concerns are bad weather, good public transport and shopping. Many times I go out for a long walk 4-5km to the Super Market. If I do a larger shopping carrying it on public transport is very inconvenient and difficult. . Think a large sack of potatoes/onions, water melon, over 20kg of shopping. Imagine carrying that alone on the bus….Let’s forget the heavy shopping for a while. Sometimes in London for certain buses you need to wait 20 minutes or more in the cold. I’m talking about when the temperatures outside are just few degrees below zero and it’s windy especially. Thus I found myself in many many situations regretting I didn’t drive a car .I only wanted to point out that this plan doesn’t work for everyone and every situation. I agree that is great for tourists and certain people but it can create a lot of inconvenience for others
I mean, do we realize how big the US is, and how broad cities are? I live 13 miles from where I work. By bike, that’s an hour ride to get to work. And 13 miles is pretty close to the office compare to most peopl that travel 30-40 miles to get to work. Tell me how riding a bike for 2 plus hours to get to or from work makes sense.
Sadly, if you bring this topic up to most Americans they’ll just dismiss you and say, “well, that’s just how it is… America is big.” Someone needs to do a better job explaining how creating walkable neighborhoods is a benefit. You can’t change something that isn’t even being discussed. Currently, a US conversation on this topic is non existent. You’d find more ppl promoting bigger stroads.
Problem is, most U.S. modes of transportation isn’t meant to carry masses. I don’t think that the MTA nor LA Metro can carry the full capacity of their respective operating area since cars are unanimously chosen over buses and taxis. We also have massive supercenters, so it’s easier to drive to one Walmart and get everything on your list than to walk around looking for every individual item at a separate location.
The only issue I see is that the big US cities aren’t European cities. People love to think that integrating European ideals and solutions would solve an entire different continent’s problems. These European cities has existed for thousands of years, London is almost 2,000 years old. While Philadelphia is only over 300 years. It’s like cheating a test from 2012 with a paper from 1932.
Our local 4 lane road was converted to 2 lane road with 2 lane bike road. Traffic jam times have doubled, air pollution got worse, people wasted more gas idling at red lights. Meanwhile, about 5 people used bike lane IN SUMMER. NO ONE USED BIKE LANES ENTIRE WINTER. So please be honest with reporting about this in colder countries.
What about the increased traffic at the boundary of superblock …it will get worse for ppl living there..there are so many issues with ppl and the system..These days we come with great maps and structural design but the problem.. crowd don’t build up there..where everything is planned according to modern technique… however where there is always crowd and old popular place/market its impossible to redesign them..it will cause inconvenience and reduction in popularity..these are horrible bottlenecks today 😢
The fact that this documentary is called “Urban Planners get creative” but there are no actual urban planners in it, only corporations and architects talking about what cities should be. I like the spirit of the documentary, it brings interesting topics to the table. However, I think there is a misconception about what urban planning/design is and the range of professionals who collaborate in it.
To plan our cities we usually forget the role of geographers, and I think that we need to know where to place urban functions first instead of desing concrete spaces. We need to know and plan the way this places are going to interact with the rest of the city (for example from a mobility point of view), and make them the most functional and optimal from the most ecological, social and economical point of view. So, in conclusion, architects should not be in charge of planning cities but in designing the diferent places that make them up. This is the big mistake of urban planning nowadays.
future cities should be about walkability, public transport, and electric bikes scooters and carts. any talk of future cities with cars is more about the continued profitability of car companies and not really about genuine sustainable living a bit disappointing to think that so many people agree that we have to change the way we are living, but don’t realize transportation has to fundamentally change as well
For many American cities there’s an opportunity to TURN THE BULLDOZERS AROUND and rebuild back toward the core. Disassemble the building which cannot be upgraded. Reuse the components of the buildings. Reuse/repurpose concrete, asphalt, etc etc. Upgrade utilities. Stop destroying virgin lands, agriculture. Endless work available, unemployment tamed. Plenty of money to be made. It’s time… TY DW!
I like the idea of adaptive reuse, this is uncommon in the US where I work, most architects want their building to stand out and most of the time the existing structure has to be demolished. A lot of times the existing structure is just single family house, making way for apartments, so it is really hard to use existing structure. But the concept of studying the structure until a solution presented itself resonates w me since that’s also my approach to architecture and design. I wish we can do more though…
I can’t believe they are teaching resourcefulness like it’s something new or innovative. Since the beginning of time people have always used what’s in their immediate surroundings to build homes, buildings and other structures. Urbanization and industrialization destroyed the world and made everything more complicated than it needs to be. This documentary highlights this.
theres lots of smart people here but zero wisdom. just tech bro nonsense. weve had the answers to this for centuries. build dense, build public transportation, build for humans. the fact that most of these groups are building with cars at the center of their plans is proof that they will fail. its like adding another lane to fix traffic. we know it doesnt work. only car alternatives work
I have a dream.,. Building Moroccan Riad architecture in cities, having a vertical garden in the center, growing vegetables, maintenance by it’s own residents. These vertical garden technology already exists. The typical Moroccan Riad is about 3 story height, with a courtyard in the middle, sunlight, small fountain ⛲. The hostels I stayed in marakkesh, Fez, & Chefchauen all have little fountain, balcany looking inwards the courtyard, some with orange tree. The apartment I lived in Plano TX in 2000 has a community garden, sprinkler took care of the garden. I was the only one who frequently gather the endless mints, chives, Basil, rosemary etc for my cooking, make mint soup, mint tea. Next life I want to be urban planner 😊
In New York and urban farming, the biggest logistics problem is heavy trucks carrying produce from rural areas into cities with thousands of tons of diesel to burn, New York City on a small scale makes hanging gardens of Babylon. Our life is car depending life every, the step of life not just the heating of the house and water and cooking but transportation, food delivery garbage disposal, etc. is car depended lifestyle. The smell of diesel and hundred of oil stains on asphalt.
Any sustainable city concept that focuses on buildings and architecture first is a complete joke and WILL fail. (see every attempt in history starting with Masdar). The foundation of a sustainable city must come from smart Urban Planning. Smart planning can nearly ELIMINATE energy and time cost for transportation and utilities. It’s why 1950s neighborhoods in NYC still outperform 2020s high efficiency developments in Houston on energy and travel times. – Most of the needs of every resident in a city must be available within a 15 minute walk. – Mass transit, pedestrians, and bikes MUST be prioritized over private cars. Sorry, no amount of technological development will change this. The math simply is not there to have universal car ownership and still be sustainable. PERIOD. – Renewable energy, insulation, electrification, etc are great as a bonus but not nearly as impactful as the above.
A wonderful documentary coverage about several engineering instruction opinions for future cities & how they arranging essential requirements for human future lifestyles in progressively forms ….these suggestions occurred in several different world 🌎 countries..DW always sharing excellent subjective documentaries thanks for sharing
Cities in the future will be housing many less people. With the crash in the population which has already well underway, you will find cramming people into small itty bitty places will result in small families and no one in the future to do any work. Remember it takes family’s to have 2.3 children to just hold your population level. Can’t do that in small cramped apartments.
I don’t get why they show Dubai when talking about ‘future’? Dubai urban planning is even worse than most American cities which are totally car dependent and unwalkable. Dubai is designed for cars, not people. It’s one of the most hostile places for anyone who is not in a car. Even crossing a road at dedicated places is stressful and dangerous. Please STOP showing or mentioning Dubai when talking about ‘future’.
I love the docu’s you make. DW brings high-quality, informative and inspiring content that never bores in a stylish and minimalist way without falling into the trap of sensationalism. I just think it’s a shame to talk in English over the interviewees instead of adding subtitles. I think it’s a bit disrespectful and anglocentric and I hope you consider leaving some space for these people and their beautiful languages.
Would you share with your viewers how much one of these documentaries cost? I’m in Romania and this kind of documentaries would inform people way better than the news. Maybe National TV stations in the EU should create a Think Thank and share information translated across the Union. Unfortunately many don’t understand English that well but that should not be such a big problem anymore. Or even better, double them for the functional illiterate and add sign language.
Nice work! Thank you. This documentary showed some of the usual big-corp techno-bullshit that requires millions of semiconductors we may never have, but also some beautiful down-to-earth projects that we can start implementing now with what we do have. The former can never be scaled to all humanity, while the latter might. Innovation needs not be all tiny shiny devices!
Some strange statements here. Reusing old buildings is hardly a new idea nor is using local materials, which is why there is so much brick cos there is a lot of clay. It’s also strange to say clay (presumably for bricks) is not as durable as concrete. Brick is a very durable material and can last thousands of years. Company towns is not exactly groundbreaking either irrespective of the technological gloss
Nothing said here is new. Traditional architects have been saying this for 100 years since modernism. Now they call it their idea to build with local materials and use mixed used traditional urbanism. And they will still manage to make buildings of a reasonable size with traditional and natural materials ugly.
Summary: 1. The problem with building future cities is we must demolish the old building to make the new ones with sustainable purposes. It requires energy! 2. Old buildings constructed with concrete and sand, which no longer is scarce commodities, have a considerable carbon footprint. So, moving to natural materials is one of the possible solutions. Natural material: wood, clay, etc. 3. Toyota and Panasonic are on the way to making future city projects. 4. Future city of berlin: lifestyle approach customized by resident data, keyless access, energy generating on-site, car sharing, 5. Toyota lab City: the problem of the city is traffic, pollution, and safety. Technology like AI, digital twin, and data-driven decisions for city development hope to be helpful 6. Panasonic lab city: everything develop collaboratively with residents, data-driven, and photovoltaic to support energy 7. Valdaura labs: using wooden material, following the principle of the natural system, the building should absorb the co2 not emit co2, everything should be produced locally, distribution is part of the industrial era, – the building is the tree and the city is nature. – biocities: cities that follow the principle and rules of the nature – being connected globally with digital networks but being productive locally – bring farming inside the cities 8. Stuttgart, Germany: using green hydrogen in the basement and photovoltaic in the roof. 9. Future city of Barcelona: cities become part of nature to promote life, urban naturalization, using wood to construct 10.
I think this article conflates between urban planners and urban designers. Personally, as an urban planner, I don’t get to design anything but public policy like tax rates, development charges, and meetings for public projects like how to finance a 30-year bond for a sport center. All of the designing stuff are contracted to architecture and engineering firms. None of what shown in the article is an urban planner’s job.
We need to get rid of cars. Period. Trains to everywhere. Makes it much cleaner and easier. The only time personal vehicles should be used is in rural areas. But we should put an end to suburban living once and for all. Make schools, markets etc within walking distance to where people live so they can finally get out of the car. At least here in the US.
Plan A: demolish an old factory and replace it with homes for 3 families that will be thermally efficient, and require smaller amounts of heating. Plan B: reuse the old factory to produce homes for 2 families, that will be so thermally compromised that you need to install curtains to reduce the heated area, leaving the concrete walls to lose heat, and probably become damp. So reusing old factories is a good idea? Yes, but only if the space is used effectively. If the Plan B homes are bigger than those in Plan A, why not reduce them so that 4 families can live there? That will at least reduce urban sprawl as more houses are needed. Though why anyone would chose to live in a dystopian slum is something that I do not understand. I know that we have to do something, but many of the ideas here are frankly half-baked. For example many places may only have raw materials that need a vast amount of energy to process them, and would use more energy than transporting better materials.
What I understand is every developed country understand the way forward to sustainable future and understand they need to change a lof things which does not suit to the new model. At the same time change requires great amount of energy. And energy means more pollution. This will be very long way to walk but I am excited to see this happening in great scale. This will be a next revolution.
Personally I don’t suppose I would either build or buy a house made out of clay. The cooling property of clay has been said it’s best feature, beyond that with all the possible environmental hazards, strong winds, and crazy people, seems the building material should be sturdy enough to not crack or come to ruins. Interesting the exploration of material use and the future has retained it’s place in the discussion. 😅
Can we please also say environment and the damage we’re doing in many ways (not just carbon) vs solely the more political term climate. Let’s hope future energy will be truly clean and respect choice and privacy. Edit: How does destroying more old growth trees and green space (ecosystems) help? Recycle, reuse and incr zero waste? Incentivize community food gardens and home ones incl smart cities? All would cut down on corp damage and pollution no?
The production of green hydrogen is a very wasteful process to use all the excess energy from the project’s solar. Yes hydrogen is cool, but it’s much much more energy efficient to just use electricity. Even just exporting excess electricity to the neighbors would save so much effort and equipment. It’s really amazing anyone convinced them to install all the hydrogen equipment. Did Toyota push for that? They and the fossil fuel industry have been the biggest proponents of hydrogen. It’s like the Bored Ape Yacht Club of energy sources.
It would be better to stop dithering and simply go car free. Humanity already knows how to live this way. Holland does. Mix in Feldheim. Integrate food production. localize everything. Think like a dark ages monastery or a manorial estate. Self sufficiency as climate whiplash destroys regional, national and global resources, infrastructure etc. Mega projects and large grids will die under constantly shifting water resources and extremes of drought and flood.
As a planner, a problem with this article is that they do not really define what exactly planning is in this context. I’m assuming integrated development planning? If so they’ve not addressed affordability (not well), culture, economics (not well), as well as the management of politics, people, and power relations; which is a crucial aspect of planning. It should be noted, that Urban Design is not exactly planning, though is close to master planning which is displayed in this article. Utopianism visions are great, they inspire us to think about what we could achieve and strive to be better. I particularly love the idea of building with nature and resources inherent to the local area that was mentioned….. However, a direct 1:1 of a utopian vision often comes with numerous costs (either economically, socio-culturally, or environmentally) or all in implementation.
Honestly I couldn’t get past the point where at first the architect talks about the need for repurposing standing buildings to reduce emissions while the next cut is to egomaniacal corporations building new cities on a green field. I stopped perusal, this isn’t the way forward, even further decline from our natural essence, but providing VR waterfalls (assuming the real ones are cemented over)…
This is a bunch of BS… New houses build from wood? Isn’t a major problem deforestation ? Trees don’t grow that fast in order to be used for building…They will deforest poorer countries. That’s all Solar Panel on building ? What will you do in the winter for energy? I highly doubt that does panels are enough for all citizens of the block Hydrogen in building basements with complex machinary? Imagine the buidling cost + monthly transport And let’s not forget the digitization of modern cities = surveillance + control. It’s more delusion and orwelian nightmare
We have to change the design of our cities… and what do we see in this article? Pedestrians get a ‘nice winding’ path. Sorry but pedestrians use human energy and need the most efficient paths through a city, not amusing, curvy, up and down, waste of energy. Let car drivers perform as ballerina’s, but they get a straight road… though they do not have to pay with muscle energy. Urban design is NOT about the houses, but about the city in which they are situated. Not saying the people in this article are good or bad, but have nothing to do with urban planning.