Culdesac: Car-free neighborhood built from scratch in Tempe
culdesac.com
culdesac.com
> We’re bringing together services like ridesharing, bikes and scooters, and same-day grocery delivery, so zero private cars means zero hassle.
Here's why this matters from someone who lives here: 4 months out of the year Tempe's average temperature is above 99F. This means one of the following:
1. Residents will heavily use ride sharing and delivery during the summer, just "in place of" owning a car.
2. Culdesac will install a ridiculous amount of outdoor cooling for its residents, one might imagine this will require a fair amount of water.
Don't get me wrong, this is a cool idea, but is Tempe the right place to do it?
There are many options like semi-underground homes that could have been trialed here which would have fit the local climate; but they aren't doing that. Seems like they are trying to create a one-size-fits-all solution which IMO will not work outside of California.
The local indigenous people have been building sustainable apartment blocks called pueblos for a long time though. They're surprisingly nice during the summer (approx. 80F inside), even without AC.
I think as you allow as a possibility in the end of your reply, it's not like it can't work, but non-ebikes and scooters might become a bit much for some people unless there's copious cover.
I've ridden mine in up to 35C and it's like stepping into an oasis compared to standing still in that temperature, more so if you wear clothing like loose fitting cotton clothing that benefits from the increased airflow.
39C is well above skin temperature so you're only going to get evaporative cooling and the effectiveness of that depends on humidity. It's possible the heating effect of the hot air blowing over your skin overwhelms the evaporative cooling and you are actually getting net warming.
Even if the humidity is low if you're not already drenched in sweet, it's going to feel awful.
Exactly. Before 1950s 90% of the people walked, rode bikes, horses, etc in all of these places, everyday, everywhere.
Billions still do all over the world in similar climates.
It's not like we need cushions, air conditioning, and so on, to go from one place to another in the summer heat.
Yes. And it sucks. There is a reason the founder of Singapore said it “made development possible in the tropics.” We don’t “need” indoor toilets either. But they’re pretty great. So are cars. Big SUVs with the AC turned down to 65.
Even more so a livable planet, and we're running out of that just so some cushioned entitled people can have "big SUVs with the AC turned down to 65", 24/7 burgers, and other BS...
Yes, it is stunning.
Especially when its being confused to something like a basic human right -- that everybody should just adopt, instead of the spoiled result of a consumerist society, enabled by first world wages and cheap energy (subsidised by exercising global power).
As is the idea that the lifestyle of your country (or your adopted country) is the best in the world, and everyone should follow suit, with big SUVs and AC to 65" -- and if they don't do it, it's only because they can't afford it (never mind that places that can very well afford SUVs and full-on AC blast, like in most of Western Europe, happen to shun both as tacky).
I'm very interested to see if this is true. Seems like the US (take it you mean US, not all of Americas?) is about 4% of the world population, so my guess would be that there is more non-US residents on HN than US residents. (but I don't actually have any insights into it)
Usually resident refers to people having their domicile somewhere, not just being influenced by something like culture. I think many countries around the world follow US culture, but that does not mean they automatically know imperial system.
If you added golf cart paths, the community becomes much more attractive. I’d take a golf cart 1/4 mile to an air conditioned bus stop/ride share stand.
Notice that this arrangement is quite unlivable for people with babies. Walking a child in a stroller 1/4 mile in 120f, to meet a ride share.... with what car seat? It would take any affluent new parents just a month before they nope’d out of that.
Also people live in cities up north that are much closer to living on the moon in a pod during the winter months. People live near jobs, family, housing and community regardless of how pleasant the weather is.
The middle of winter here is much more 'moon-like' than the middle of summer ever was in Phoenix. I basically have to don a space suit to go out in below 0 weather!
So depending on how you slice it, Tempe might in fact be more moon-like.
And obviously people can adapt (although the native peoples tended to be at higher altitudes in the summer). There are also construction techniques that mitigate the heat to some degree--but you're not going to see those in use at the local big box store.
You mention "the native peoples" (though I think you don't mean that as the indigenous people who lived there, but rather the more recent immigrants who have been established there for decades)? I know that I got used to the heat. And now when I visit, I find I have lost that ability.
I think one of the long-term failures in US construction has been 60+ years of eschewing vernacular architecture in favor of nation-wide standard building styles, and trusting in cheap power to work around any problems.
It's clearly possible to live in New Orleans w/o A/C, as that's what people did for centuries. The buildings can be designed to help with the heat, with high ceilings and ways to improve airflow. The culture can change to avoid being active in the middle of the hottest days (think 'siesta'). Even simple things help, like not walking fast, and wearing thin cotton clothing.
There's a different set of techniques for living in the desert SW. Thick adobe is the traditional method to delay heat transfer so the day's heat doesn't reach the inside until the cooler nights. Open the windows in the morning to cool the house, then shut them for the rest of the day.
However adobe specifically is more expensive than stick and frame construction methods, and requires more maintenance than slapping on a bunch of insulation and installing a big-ass A/C. There are other approaches than adobe - I'm have only rudimentary knowledge of the topic though, mostly a grab-bag from living in New Mexico for 7 or so years.
But you're right. Especially for a dry climate like the Southwest, there are a lot of construction/architectural techniques--especially for standalone dwellings--that can go a long way towards eliminating/reducing the need for A/C.
In general, climate control is also just more of an expectation these days for many people. I live in an old farmhouse in central Mass where you get maybe a couple of really hot spells over the course of a summer. And additional fairly hot/humid days.
I have a small window unit I sometimes put in but a lot of people almost can't believe I don't have whole house A/C which I would consider largely unnecessary.
Back in the 1980s there was an ad campaign for Miami - "Miami, see it like a native." That didn't refer to the Tequesta or the Calusa, nor even the more recent Seminole, but to long-time residents, primarily European-derived.
Basically, the difference between definitions #1 and #2 in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/native .
FWIW, what you wrote about going to higher altitudes in summer made me think more of (rich) people in NYC or Boston going to the Catskills and Berkshires for the summer. Related to that, my family spent several summer vacations in the Appalachians of North Carolina, or visiting family in Michigan. There's also the many snowbirds who winter in the Sun Belt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowbird_(person) ). There's also the farmers who bring their cattle to the summer pastures, though transhumance isn't common these days.
In case anyone was curious, the temperature in Phoenix has reached 120F on three days in recorded history: June 25--26, 1990 and July 28, 1995.
They're apparently intending to supplement this with car sharing spaces, which might help, and if you _work_ along light rail, this might be doable. They also mention they'll still have parking spaces for guests and such, so that means, ostensibly, they'll need to police them? Or just because they're not reserving spaces for residents, the demand will always outstrip the supply.
Either way, while I agree that transitioning away from dependence on individual automobiles is a noble effort, this concept has its work cut out for itself here. That being said, I have several friends who go car-free here, so...
Imagine that the city started charging for the 'free parking' everywhere, either through permit schemes or parking meters, created photo enforced no stop tolling for major highways and busy commuting corridors and reduced property taxes w/ low income exemptions for the new driving fees.
You would get a revolt even with the tax reductions.
Small localized new greenfield experiments like this is not political suicide for a city to approve.
That's not what I was implying.
* Wide right-of-way required for travel, stretching out cities, making walking impossible
* Pedestrian safety: driving successfully requires full concentration
* Both drivers and pedestrians experience stress. Traffic drives even the calmest to madness.
* The industries that support cars are vast and environmentally destructive.
The list goes on and on...
It's a fantastic place to live.
“Culdesac's mission is to build cities for people, not cars. We're the first post-car real estate developer, and our goal is to build the first car-free city in the US. We're starting with the first car-free neighborhood built from scratch - that's Culdesac Tempe, a 1000-person neighborhood that opens Fall 2020.”
So, like an apartment building, but horizontal?
From another article: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2019/11/19/... :
"which will be on 16 acres near Apache Boulevard and River Road" ...okay, so roughly in line with what I was thinking, though even more dense. https://goo.gl/maps/yDu9Zt96GKAi4KfR8 is the location. Judging from the satellite view it looks like it'll be spread across the four areas around that block (with some of the old existing structures getting torn down). If you've never visited Tempe, there's been a lot of recent new downtown development ~3 miles west of this location.
"The project falls within one of Tempe's opportunity zones, which could allow investors to take advantage of federal tax breaks." ...Interesting, the deadline for these projects (i.e. for investors to fund them and get a capital gains deduction) to get funding into a QOF-registered LLC working in a Qualified Opportunity Zone is 12-31-2019 from my understanding, so that's why it's happening now.
"An apartment development with no parking for its expected 1,000 residents..." This is where I'm a bit questioning on whether this will really be a place one wants to live in over the long run. It seems like solely a large distributed apartment complex rather than a community/neighborhood with stakeholdership.
e.g. choosing suburbs to simplify car ownership, and then relying on the car every day.
Explain how a car owns ME, not a straw man.
Anecdote: my brother-inlaw lives in Chicago (one of the places in the US where not owning a car is quite practical), and purchased a car. Why? Because he attempted to do a home renovation himself over the course of a winter without one. Hauling around tools, materials, and himself on a bike in snow and slush was not something he ever wanted to repeat.
Plus, Chicago is a place where it’s far easier to be car free if you’re wealthy. The north side is where most of the density is, and the highest real estate prices.
I judge Chicago (minus the extensive suburbs) as more of a one car per family situation. Which is better than most of America but not car free.
In Tempe Arizona, this will never work.
I can now purchase heavy groceries and get them home without tipping someone etc.
I exercise less but having a backyard with privacy, a car, and peace and quiet is what I want at this stage in my life.
Now you need a better job and probably stuck in traffic more often in service of the car. No wonder rideshare and rentals are taking over
I have a very old car but rarely use it, am realistic about it, and prefer walking and metro when possible.
Does life not involve responsibilities? How does this imply OWNERSHIP over oneself? Tally that actual amount of time all of these responsibilities actually involve rather than assume that the rest of us are overwhelmed by your exhaustive list.
"traffic tickets, parking tickets, toll roads, parking fees" higher rent to pay for parking, fuel, police surveillance, dealership sales scams, etc."
It didn't take long before you had to stretch to find these nearly insurmountable obstacles.
"Now you need a better job and probably stuck in traffic more often in service of the car."
Did you stop to consider that this better job that wasn't available without a car might be a reason why you also have a higher standard of living and more liberty to spend your newly acquired free time doing what you enjoy?
"No wonder rideshare and rentals are taking over"
Ever heard of buses, trains, and taxis? It isn't like these things never existed as options that people -- including car owners like yourself -- have used before.
"I have a very old car. . ."
So does it OWN you? The point of contention here is ownership. Before the car, people may have owned horses. Owning a horse involved a lot of responsibilities as well, but it also provided a service for people. That doesn't imply that the horse owned the owner.
I guess the public transport system is almost non-existent.
I'm glad my country isn't an oil producer. We're less rich, but if the GDP per capita difference all goes to buying a (30k$ berline electric) car to feel free...
I have never learned to drive (35). As a California resident, I've only been in a car twice in the past three months. From January through April, I wasn't in a car whatsoever for 3.5 months.
~"The only problems cars solve are problems cars cause."
I have 40 kilometers to work and bus density here is never more than once an hour. If I want to be at work on time I have to leave on the last bus the day before work, or I'd have to be late every morning. Even in that case of leaving the same day and accepting being late to work I'd be away from home for 14 hours at minimum.
I have 10 kilometres to the nearest grocery store, and like I said bus density is not great. Even if I planned to do all my shopping on days of I'd be away from home for three hours at minimum, instead of a round-trip time of around an hour by car.
That's just for easily planned daily things. Doctor, dentist, bank, etc? Forget about it.
Not everyone lives in a place where being car-free is an easy choice.
It seems to me a bit of a chicken and egg problem.
Not to mention, there are other things, such as green spaces, good schools, and work for spouses, which make living “closer to work” impractical.
The difference equates to ten times the average yearly salary here. That's the difference.
You get a whole lot of miles (and cars) for that price...
The only way to green that up in the long run (besides carpooling), I suppose, is doing something crazy like making cars accessible to everyone that run on sunlight and last a million miles.
Part of the current mess is almost certainly due to the low cost of transportation and society pushing the cost onto future generations, but people literally can't live car free in some areas of the world right now and you need to pony up the dough to fix infrastructure etc. first before people can give up their cars.
Otherwise you exacerbate an ongoing socioeconomic divide between the rich and the poor.
Hence, people overestimate how easy it is for others to live car free.
Here in Belgium there was this funny event where someone from the green party would do everything by bike. She would give it as example that it was definitely possible for everyone.
Once she was elected in the government, she started using a car because "the job required it". So yeah, what about the rest of us?
My local representative uses public transport, and recognizes 30% of the populace does not currently drive.
And yes I know the usual argument that everybody should be living in the city.
For people in rural places or exhurbs, sure live out of your car.
What do you mean?
If a family with two small kids and a dog wants to visit relatives that are 10km away, I imagine a car solves lots of their problems.
> „The only problems cars solve are problems cars cause.”
Looks like it’s closer to:
„Cars solve lots of problems, e.g. they give us more options for choosing a place to work or a place to live; at the same time they cause problems too.”
I know a couple who sold their cars when they moved to SF. But they still use short-term and daily rentals a lot.
Having the stuff they're talking about is commonplace in some countries (eg. Netherlands, Denmark).. but for the services, trains etc. to work, the whole urban area needs the right (high enough) density. I'd like to see a plan of this.. The quoted sentence does not inspire confidence in me.
Also, just for example Amsterdam is uniformly medium density until you reach the edge of the city where it immediately turns to farmland. There is no useless low density suburban sprawl, in which services cannot function (because there would not be enough people living in its catchment area)
But, if I'm living/working there, I probably have to drive to my job, for far greater access to stores, to outdoor activities, to visit friends who are more spread out, etc. Sure, you can sometimes extend a college lifestyle for a few years but, for most people, that doesn't really work long term.
1. Here's some sample temperature data for Tempe: https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/tempe/arizona/united-s... If I leave my house in 90+ degree heat to go somewhere that's 10+ minutes away, I'd much rather be in an air conditioned car. With that being said, I could probably adjust to the heat and would be fine.
2. How would I travel from Tempe to the outside? Would I walk to a location where my car's stored (e.g. outside Tempe) or would I take public transportation?
so it means
sex in a bag
No, cul de sac means dead end (as in a road that ends)
> I got some ass last night
Try going on Tinder in Paris.
*Edit: I never stated it didn't also mean "dead end"
People need to wake up to the reality that kids demand cars. How will school pick up and drop offs work? How will you take your kid to lessons? What about that play date you setup? What about going to school at your kids school for an early pickup 4p from office?
You can make it work without cars if you are fit, are lucky to have your office and kids' school in the city near to each other - but often "time" is a critical factor and you need the flexibility that a car offers.
That is ludicrous. We've only had cars for a hundred years.
The fact that it's difficult is BECAUSE we built cities around cars. Schools normally have districts so that they're nearby to the kids, if your kids school is in another suburb then frankly that's your poor planning. If you set up play dates with kids two 'burbs away, again, why did you do that? Places like Japan have no issues with no or low car families, the kids take public transport, walk, or take their bikes. You can ride your bike with them or join them for the train ride if you want to make sure they're safe, but the idea that kids need to be transported around in cars is ludicrous.
> but often "time" is a critical factor and you need the flexibility that a car offers.
Public transport and biking is often faster than cars in denser car centric cities, and good public transport is on time so you can plan accordingly. Not all cities have good public transport, I get that, but that's the problem we need to solve. We've already tried cars, it's not working.
The issue isn't that we need cars, it's that we need a better city built around moving people without cars. You're looking at the problem in the wrong direction.
Also, I would be very curious how many folks commenting here have kids vs. single men/women who ride their bikes and hate that they have to share the road with cars.
Oh, yes it is. I see comments on the internet like, "bike friendly? But what about kids??" as if kids explode if they get too close to a bike, all the damn time.
Somewhere in the commenter's mind, they're aware that there are bike friendly places where people have kids, like the Netherlands, and it works just fine. But they don't want to admit it, so they pretend they don't know. If you point it out to them, they'll find whatever the most obvious surface differences are between that place and where they live and insist this makes it impossible to draw any lessons.
I have a kid and we live car-free in Munich. We use walking, biking (including an electric cargo bike), buses, and trains. Works great. I don't dispute that sometimes it would be nice to have a car for the convenience, for things like going to Ikea or ski trips, but overall it's worth it for us to avoid the hassle and expense of car ownership.
On the other hand, I accept that when we move back to the states, unless we're in NYC we'll probably need a car. Oh well.
As such, this line of reasoning that if it works in Netherlands will work here seems vacuous. You need to consider the realities on the ground vs. making one off statements.
So, better start now. The longer you wait, the longer it will take.
”We should build for the future vs. the past.”
A future where we have to significantly decrease energy use in order to limit global warming?
”who ride their bikes and hate that they have to share the road with cars.”
Who says cyclists have to share the road with cars? Any decent infrastructure has separated cycling lanes wherever cars go over 20 miles per hour.
Kids in particular, have a lot to gain. A bicycle has thrice the speed of walking, so riding a bicycle makes a kid’s neighborhood about ten times as big (when comparing road system built for cars with one built for people, the difference is even greater)
And with it, their parents have a lot to gain, as kids riding their bike to school/friends/sports means parent do not have to drive them there.
Older kids had to take the bus, bike or walk, which worked just fine too.
I know most cities and neighborhoods aren't set up for that in the US, but if it can be done in Europe it can be done elsewhere.
If america has a problem, it is 'protecting' its youth from the 'big bad world' rather than helping them to explore it.
And stop with your America has this problem and Europe doesn't. Each country has its pros and cons. And people make choices accordingly.
> People need to wake up to the reality that kids demand cars.
Public transport may take more time than driving, but the time spent with kids can be considered quality time, and the overall stress of the parents is likely to be lower.
edit: but good catch about the marketing fail that is not showing any families with kids
You can be frustrated by the comment but please try to grow empathy for parents. Raising kids takes a lot out of you. You are juggling n number of things and time becomes a major constraint. So unless everything (home, school, office) is nearby within walking distance, the number of viable solutions beyond cars go dwindle down significantly.
School drop off and pick up is even easier because you sail right past the massive traffic jam at the school from everyone trying to do this in their personal cars.
I would even go so far as to say that this whole "kids demand cars" mindset is a part of the problem.