The Lively & Liveable Neighbourhoods that are Illegal in Most of North America

The Lively & Liveable Neighbourhoods that are Illegal in Most of North America : ▶ this video The Suburbs Are Bleeding America Dry | Climate Town (feat. Not Just Bikes) : link

Just gonna also say the current US zoning laws are batty when it comes to sustainability. You shouldn’t segment commercial and residential zones and suburbia in general is a massive disaster. You want sustainable cities, you need high dense walkable cities with commercial spaces embedded. Sure move the giant factories somewhere else, but we shouldn’t oppose small scale sustainable businesses being embedded in residential zones. ▶ this video

Annnnnd why is it that cities aren't building denser housing? (it's because it's illegal. Because of parking minimums, density maximums, and level of service rules. Which exist because of cars. Which you need to go 10 miles because everything is so far apart. Because of those rules. Because of cars.) ▶ this video

AirBnB sux but zoning has arguably been a net negative on most societies in many ways ▶ this video link for me what I noticed lately is that in California it's impossible to have a quiet modern apartment because nearly 100% of modern apartment buildings are only allowed to be built on busy noisy high traffic streets. If you want a quiet street you're forced to buy/rent a house

Many of those codes have been designed to protect incombents from competition and various other forms of encouraging one form of living (car dependent) over others. Plenty of people in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, etc live happy lives in much much smaller living areas. This makes them more affordable. But building codes in many places in the USA disallow making places that small. Other examples of questionable codes are codes that require parking spaces, codes that require front yards, codes that require backyards, etc.... link ▶ this video

Oh boy you are in for a treat. Google parking minimums and single family zoning. And watch some videos from this channel: ▶ this video

> regulations or policies that push development away from suburbs and into cities. I misspoke. By "getting rid of suburbia", I mean getting rid of American-style, car-centric suburban development. You'll absolutely want to have development in the suburbs. And to do that, you don't need a lot of changes in regulations. Surely, you'll have to fight with NIMBYs, but these changes do not require massive regulations: - Upzoning all R1 zones, and abolish Euclidian Zone. Just by getting rid of exclusive single-family zones that are so prevalent in the US, and start allowing multi-family townhouses, mixed-use areas, you could recover basically every city that is not part of coastal metro area: ▶ this video - Transit-oriented development. City Beautiful has a great video about it: link

No but there is way less dependence on cars, at least in medium cities and up. Many developments in america just build suburban deserts where there is just more single family homes around you, where you have to drive to the next supermarket, both because it's so far away, and because sometimes there literally isn't a way for pedestrians to walk on. There are a few good videos on the subject: * link * ▶ this video * link

To back up what you said: The Lively & Liveable Neighbourhoods that are Illegal in Most of North America (Not Just Bikes channel) ▶ this video

The whole medieval cities designed for walking is not actually true. Not just bikes youtube channel( ▶ this video ) has a great video about this. Here he has taken Houston as an example.

Not Just Bikes talks about zoning in the US vs Dutch cities in this video: ▶ this video . My impression was that the US has more restrictive regulations on what can be built.

There is something in between NYC and an American-style suburb. I encourage you to take a look at Not Just Bikes [1,2]: [1] link [2] ▶ this video

Yes, and it's often referred to as 'gentle density'. The idea is to build relatively dense housing, but at a human scale - mostly 3-5 storeys. Combined with narrow streets that support walking and cycling, this creates enough density to support a 'real' city centre with shops, restaurants, offices and so on. I think these videos convey the idea well: * ▶ this video * link Of course, this is not to say that you _can't_ build other kinds of housing. But many cities are badly balanced.

Urban Design and police has become a kafkaesque mess. It has become near impossible to summon the political will to actually build something livable. Developments generally lean towards familiar and easy, instead of building anything interesting. Tragically, in many parts of the world, one of 3 types of plans fall in the easy+familiar domain. You have the grossly inefficient suburbs of the US, lifeless concrete planned cities of communist fame and wild-best of haphazard urban densification as seen in Indian cities like Bangalore. What's even worse, is that the average consumer is woefully under-equipped to recognize problems with this system until it is too late. It isn't until their kids start growing up that they realize how dead the suburb feels, and how the car dependence relegates one of the parents to a soccer mom nanny. Why it takes 2 hours to get to anywhere in Bangalore or why the incredibly dense concrete jungle feels spiritually dead despite how hard you try to fix it. Years of brainwashing towards the American dream and a tall condo with a view, really do not help consumers make informed decisions either. Not like contractors do user-studies anyways, but still. Funny thing is, these problems are already solved in some capacity. City has been studied to death for millennia. It is no wonder that people in modern 1st world countries, pay good money to spend 1 week in European cities that have been "preserved" as they were. I am not even advocating for some replica of