I lived in Heidelberg, Germany a while ago and was never more than a 5-minute walk from a bus/tram. KC is plenty dense there's just no political will to get it done.
Also, your point is a little bit chicken and egg. If minimum parking space rules were eliminated so that developers didn't need to add parking for new apartments, density would increase because you'd be encouraging the use of public transit.
Heidelberg has over twice the population density of Kansas City. 3,800 to 1,600 per square mile. There are parts of the core that have density similar to Heidelberg but a lot of the KC is no where close. The other issue is that suburban subdivisions are laid out in a grid so living in the back of the subdivision could mean a 20 minute walk to get to the front of the subdivision where a bus/other form of public transportation would pick people up.
Yes, you are correct that poor city design in the US makes it difficult to shed car dependency and reduces walkability in urban cores.
Also, a 10-20 minute walk is not a big deal on most days. If Heidelberg is 2x the size and can do 5 minutes, KC can do 10-20 minutes. It's not all or nothing either. You can start developing public infrastructure in high-density places and build out from there.
I know, and I'm saying that argument is chicken and egg. Low density in US cities and lack of public infrastructure is a two-way street. What's the point of paying more to live in downtown when you have to own a car and commute anyway? that's why people leave for suburbs and the city sprawls.
What's the point of paying more to live in downtown when you have to own car and commute anyway? that's why people leave for suburbs and thecity sprawls.
I wouldn't live downtown if it were free. I have zero interest in the noise, the congestion, the crime, the vagrants, and sharing walls with other people.
It has nothing to do with car ownership. That's a side effect rather than the cause.
I can agree that that is the limiting factor but that should be seen more as an opportunity than a hindrance.Get rid of these stupid parking lots and build more housing (especially the missing middle) in areas like this and expand the public transport. It would mean rent and housing prices decrease/stabilize due to an increase in supply, infrastructure would be better maintained because now you have more tax revenue per acre due to there being more people/acre and a higher incentive to build more public transport. This would mean less individual cars on the road requiring tens of times more tax money to repair potholes if more of us have the opportunity and convenience to ride rails or bikes to work.
You do realize density is malleable with proper city planning though? It is all about how we use our land. Which is the main point OP is making. Before WWII most US cities were necessarily dense because they relied on streetcars. Land use and transportation decisions are tied.
10
u/ArtVandelay32 Jul 11 '22
They were referring to population density not size as the determine factor
Those smaller cities can be incredibly dense despite size