The Truth about American Cities - Part 1 - Strong Towns [ST01]

Another source making similar claims and who claim to back them up are Strong Towns: [LINK] I haven't looked into it, but I heard about it via the YouTube channel Not Just Bikes whose creator makes videos based on his experience and on his reading of Strong Towns. Starting point: [VIDEO] Disclaimer: I'm a dirty European with a natural bias against American suburbia and I haven't read the strong towns book. Also strong town's presentation looks a bit like a cult but that might just be my impression.

It will become a necessity in a few decades. Single family homes that are up to code don't bring in enough tax revenue to pay for the infrastructure that is necessary to suport them. Same thing goes for strip mals. You can try to run a deficit forever, it is just a really bad idea. [VIDEO]

I think this is due to how car dependent North America is. There are so many aspects that are missed in these pictures or what you are for example experiencing. It's not that you're situation is improving, it's most likely not. But that's not due to car independent cities being bad, it's because changing from being car dependent to car independent is hard and takes time. I would recommend you have a look at Not Just Bikes on YouTube, a Canadian that moved to the Netherlands. He talks about car independent cities in Europe, more specifically The Netherlands and compares it to car dependent North America. Here is a video that talks about how these "car independent" countries are still the best to drive in compared to others: [LINK] . Regardless, I would recommend you check out a few other of his videos, most importantly his series on the US non profit organisation "Strong Towns": [VIDEO] . It think it's about sharing the message that placing public transport, cyclists, and pedestrians in the forefront is better for almost everyone involved, including drivers, and especially people who live in cities and towns.

Yes, the solution is to keep scaling up. _No_ economy can _sustain_ American style suburban growth. Read about 'the growth ponzi scheme' [1] or watch a video [LINK] [VIDEO]

Profitable. For whom? For the municipiality a 6 lane street vs a two lane street with public transport and bicycle lanes can make the difference between neverending debt and prosperity. Places with good public transport and bicycle infrastructure and denser mixed use pay more tax revenue. Spread out urban sprawls and suburbs give the municipiality a lot of street surface to maintain, for very little tax revenue in return. A good introduction on that part is the strong towns playlist by the youtube channel Not Just Bikes: [VIDEO]

I love this YouTube channel. They did a series summarizing the findings from Strong Towns - US-style suburbia is fundamentally unsustainable. [VIDEO]

Fixing infrastructure is not always useful. Infrastructure for low density suburbs is a money pit that bankrupts cities. Here is a good playlist that explains why this is the case: [VIDEO]

thats why most of US towns are bankrupt or near bankrupt and need federal funds to function, literally a ponzi scheme[0]. Strongtowns is an organization that study better urban policies[1] [0] [VIDEO] [1] [LINK]

> You can’t go back and relayout every American town and city. You don't actually need to do this! Its a fantasy that you somehow need to re-design your city to make improvements. In fact, by simply removing some harmful regulation you can already do 100x better. Removing the function based zoning. Allow mixed use as default. Removing lots of the other regulation such as minimum lot size, offsets and so on. US city were not designed for cars, and mostly they are simple grids, and that's totally fine. Changes in pricing for things like water, move to block pricing and increase price depending on how much infrastructure is required. The tax system should move from property based to land based. Cars need to be slowed down, lanes need to be made thinner, and add a protected bike lane. This is actually a case where US insane wide streets come in handy, space for bike-lanes is already there. > Not to mention that many/most Americans don’t want to live in your utopia. I’ve lived in walkable, lively parts of cities. Now I live in a stand-alone house and drive everywhere and I much prefer it. Even rural and small towns or even villages can be walkable. And your taxes are likely not covering the infrastructure required for you live-style, you are subsidized by the poorer parts of the city you live in. Also evidence shows, that areas such as I suggest are getting a huge amount of demand and are really expensive. So I think evidence is clear that there is a huge amount for such developme

If you are from the US and wonder whats up with the bike hippies: All cities you know are car-centric infrastructure, and i'd have a hard time seeing the problem also. Just watch this: [VIDEO] Im dutch and despite being able to ride over in 5 minutes and park my beautiful car right behind the stores, i still prefer to use my bike for daily groceries to get there faster and easier. The cities are designed for this. A bike never has to cross a 4-lane road with homes nearby.

I think everyone should watch the Not Just Bikes YouTube channel especially their series on Strong Towns [1]. It shows just how bad parking mandates are and just how bad American car centric city planning is. As they article pointed out, you need such vanguard cities to pave the way for better cities, with less parking and fingers crossed, fewer cars. [1] [VIDEO]

No, suburbs cost more per capita than people living in the inner city, generate less tax revenue and end up becoming a net negative to municipalities: [LINK] The whole series of videos from Strong Towns are good, you should take a look: [VIDEO]

Not rebuilding, but at least not building more of it. But this exact mindset is why the US can't be helped and will be the last one to go low on carbon. The whole culture is built exclusively on unlimited space and resources. Suburbia is much younger than a 100 years btw: [VIDEO]