April 24, 2016
Often, there is an opportunity to build out street systems as part of a
new development. This would include any greenfield situation, and many
infill projects where large blocks of land (industrial, big-box retail,
freeway teardown, or even the reassembly of small parcels of land) are
rebuilt. In any of these situations, it is a relatively easy matter to
adopt Traditional City design principles where they are appropriate, in
particular an abundance of Narrow Streets for People, combined with a
smaller amount of Arterials and Grand Boulevards. In practice, these
Narrow Streets for People may be "private streets," functioning as
streets but within the context of a single privately-owned piece of
land, and thus not under the jurisdiction of a municipality. This is
common in mobile-home communities, probably some gated townhouse
community kinds of situations, outdoor shopping centers, amusements
parks, ski resorts that include condos, and so forth.
April 12, 2015: Narrow Streets for People 4: Organizing the Street
22, 2015: Narrow Streets for People 3: A Shopping Center Example
March 15, 2015: Narrow Streets for People 2: Subtleties of Street Width
March 8, 2015: Narrow Streets for People
13, 2014: Arterial Streets and Grand Boulevards
Also, there are often existing streets that are basically in the Narrow
Streets for People format, of less than forty feet wide, but which
would benefit greatly from a rebuild or other such improvement. This
includes many "alleys," and also many streets in cities in Europe or
Latin America, which are not very wide, but are in an Arterial format
of segregated central roadway/sidewalks, or are perhaps dominated by
However, in many other cases, the situation does not allow for creation
of whole new streets, and also, the existing streets may be of typical
19th Century Hypertrophism width of 80 feet or more from building to
building. It does not take too long to figure out that you can't really
"narrow" a street, as you can't move the buildings closer together. So,
you have to deal with what you have.
As a result of our American history of both 19th Century Hypertrophism,
various forms of 20th Century Hypertrophism, both of which do not have
any street type smaller than an Arterial, we now have way too many
streets that are Arterial in form -- although not necessarily Arterial
My point today is that there are a great many things that you can do to
improve these kinds of situations. And, they are genuine improvements.
So, go ahead and do it. However, we should nevertheless recognize that
these improvements are small-scale tweaks on a fundamentally flawed design, not new ideal
forms in themselves
In other words, they are not
appropriate designs for situations where we have the ability to create
street forms from scratch
(In practice, they might be appropriate designs for Arterial or larger
streets, but these are a minority in the Traditional City form.)
Among various Arterial Hacks, we have two basic categories:
that take a street
that is Arterial in form (but perhaps not in function), and make it
into something that is not Arterial in form and function.
If a street is Arterial in function, as a major throughway for motor
vehicles, then it should probably remain so. We will need some such
streets. But, there are many streets that are Arterial in form (large
central roadway for dedicated vehicle use, often onstreet parking, and
sidewalks) but not Arterial in function, such as a typical suburban
2) Things that take a street
that is Arterial in form and function, and improve it, while remaining
Arterial in form and function.
Things in this category can also serve as models for Arterial streets
in new development as well. Quite a lot of attention is being paid
these days to Arterial upgrades, with the use of segregated bike lanes,
BRT lanes, removal of onstreet parking, "complete streets" etc. so we
won't spend much time on this today.
Among Type 1 hacks, we have:
Center roadway infill.
proposal uses the center roadway for building infill. Existing
sidewalks (10-15 feet wide) become two Narrow Streets for People on
either side. This looks to me like it could create rather good
outcomes. The problem is that it is very dramatic, very permanent, and
also must have the support (at some level) of existing property owners
on that street. Thus, I find that it is a solution that would require a
lot of confidence -- confidence in a good outcome. I think there might
be a lot of this at some point, but probably not in the "first wave."
Rather, after being proven over hundreds or even thousands of
successful examples of "blank slate" developments, people might be more
willing to accept it in these existing situations.
One problem of this is that the center roadway is typically not quite
wide enough. True, there are some Arterials with very wide roadways;
but these are probably also Arterial in function (lots of traffic), and
not appropriate for an infill project. Street spacing in dense
Traditional City neighborhoods is
commonly around 100 feet between streets. This allows two 50-foot-deep
plots. However, the available space in these situations might be more
like 40-60 feet. That suggests either very small 30-foot-deep
plots--which certainly can be done, and would allow very small but
affordable townhouse-type plots of perhaps 20x30 feet. A larger
apartment building, however, might make more sense with the full
60-foot width, which would then have street access on two sides. All in
all, these can still lead to quite favorable outcomes.
Selling off the central roadway to developers would obviously generate
a lot of revenue. One way to get the support of existing
landowners on the street would be to give them some of that revenue.
Think about the potential selling price of acres of prime urban land in
a place like San Francisco. If existing property owners could get 50%
of that revenue, do you think they might agree to it? I think you could
get at least 50% support if something like that were offered, enough to
greenlight the project.
Despite the somewhat dramatic nature of center-roadway infill, it is an
idea that is widely shared enough that I think it could get a
surprisingly high level of support. So, perhaps we will see some
developments here before too long.
Center infill proposal for McAllister Street, San Francisco, from
pedestrian conversions seem to have happened in China. The street was
probably a Arterial in its original design, 80 feet or more from
building to building, but was later rebuilt with one flat paved surface
from one end to the other. Motor vehicles are rare, mostly for things
like deliveries and pickups, and probably banned during most of the day.
This can create a decent result. However, the width is very, very wide
for a street for pedestrian use only. The result is something of a
barren, empty effect unless there are literally thousands and thousands
of people there. Only a few places can be the kind of major destination
can attract these kinds of crowds. So, it is not a solution that can be
applied to very many places, basically just some limited examples in
major city centers.
Another possibility is to fill in the area with something. Outdoor
restaurant seating, or some kind of outdoor market, can fill in large
Arterial-size areas, leaving what amounts to a Narrow Street for People
of perhaps 15 feet wide. This is fine -- if you have an abundance of
restaurants with outdoor seating, which is probably only feasible in a
few downtown locations.
Recent Arterial converison that uses most of the available space as
restaurant seating, leaving an effective Narrow Street for People of
about 15 feet wide. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
One possibility is to bisect the area longitudinally, creating what
feels something like two narrower streets side-by-side.
Arterial conversion bisected by trees and planters, creating two
narrower spaces. Bubliai, Lithuania.
Arterial conversion bisected by a line of small vendors, creating two
narrower spaces. Sanya, China.
seem to be attracted to the idea that a street can be "shared" between
motor vehicles and people on foot. This is very common in the Narrow
Streets for People format, of widths typically of less than 25 feet
from building to building. This is possible because the narrow width
tends to dramatically slow down vehicle speeds to under 10 miles per
hour; and also, because streets of this size typically have little
traffic to begin with, as there is no reason to drive on such a small
street unless it is your final destination. Vehicles would rather stick
Typical Narrow Street for People that allows vehicle and bicycle use.
Note trucks in rear. Tokyo, Japan.
Cars and people getting along together. Ginza district, Tokyo, Japan.
Recent "Shared Street" experiment in Kensington, London. Compare the
building-to-building width with Tokyo examples.
Using this format in a larger, Arterial-size space tends to cause
confusion and conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. In the larger,
emptier space, vehicles naturally drive a little faster. If vehicle
speeds rise from 10 miles per hour to even 15 mph, that can cause a
distinct feeling of threat and danger to people walking. The natural
conclusion is that vehicles and people should be separated, which of
course returns us to the Arterial form even if perhaps with the use of
bollards or planters rather than curbs. Also, the large, open space
naturally attracts more vehicle traffic, as it seems like the street is
more appropriate for vehicle use.
"Shared streets" that are not Narrow Streets for People (under 25 feet
in width) generally do not work well, and are not recommended.
To these three common solutions, I would add a few more suggestions:
1) Park conversion.
use the street space as something like a park. There would still have
to be a street, as buildings will need some kind of street access.
However, it might be a Narrow strip of pavement, of perhaps 10 or 15
feet wide. This could leave 60 feet or more of width. The first impulse
would be to put the street in the middle, with two narrow strips of
greenery on each side. This is the typical format of the "Arterial with
green buffer," which is common worldwide. However, a better solution
might be to put the street on one side, which would allow all 60 feet
(for example) to be used as something like a park.
So basically, with an 80 foot ROW, you could have: 15 feet Narrow
Street for People format; 60 feet "park"; 5 feet sidewalk along
opposide side. This might be particularly welcome in 19th Century
Hypertrophism residential examples, such as a street of New York City
townhouses, where residents might enjoy the new "park" right in front
of their door.
2) Square conversion.
large widths that result when Arterial-size streets are
"pedestrianized" are not appropriate for pedestrian use alone. However,
they are common for urban squares. The difference with a "square" is
that it is roughly square; in other words, a defined and contained
space, not something endlessly long like a
street. Thus, one thing to do with a converted Arterial is to segregate
it latitudinally (across the street) into a series of squares, using
something to enclose the space. This
could be done with cheap/removable barriers like potted trees, perhaps
some kind of temporary or removable structure ranging from
street-vendor tents to food trucks to some other kind of prefab
structure, or perhaps with long-term construction.
11, 2015: Parks and Squares 4: Smaller Squares
16, 2015: Parks and Squares 3: Squares
2, 2015: Parks and Squares 2: Smaller and Closer
26, 2015: Parks and Squares
The main point today is that, as people want to experiment with
Traditional City design principles to make better Places for People in
existing cities, they will naturally look for solutions for existing
Arterial roadway-type situations. There is nothing wrong with this.
However, these "Arterial hacks" should not be used as templates for new
construction, where street width, design and layout can be defined from
scratch. In that case, use Traditional City forms: Narrow Streets for
People, Arterials, and Grand Boulevards.
Here for the Traditional City/Heroic Materialism Archive
Here for the Traditional City/Heroic Materialism Archive
Here for the How Banks Work series
Click Here for the NWE
Six-Month Ultimate Health and Fitness Program
9, 2016: George Gilder Takes On The Big Question: What Is So Great
About "Stable Money"?
3, 2016: Credit Expansion and Contraction in the 1920s and 1930s
24, 2016: The Simple Simplistic Simplicity of "Nominal GDP Targeting"
19, 2016: The "Price-Specie Flow Mechanism"
3, 2016: The Myth of "Price Instability" During the Gold Standard Era
28, 2016: Let's Take A Look At Hudson Yards
25, 2016: The One Chart That Makes People Into Gold Standard Believers
21, 2016: Problems of Coinage
February 14, 2016: The Balance of Payments
February 9, 2016: Why So Many Historians Agree With Ted Cruz On Gold
7, 2016: Blame Benjamin Strong 2: So Obvious It's Hard To
January 31, 2016: Blame Benjamin Strong
January 24, 2016: The Gold Mining Boom of the 1850s
January 21, 2016: 'Nominal GDP Targeting' Is Just Another Red Herring
To Divide Conservative Monetary Consensus
January 17, 2016: David Hume, "On the Balance of Trade," 1742
January 11, 2016: Steve Forbes Shows The Way Out Of Governments' Spiral