[Porsche-O-Phile]

One word - privatization.

The notion of removing private vehicles from a city core is not new - it has been around for at least 70 years. Many architects and urban planners have envisioned pedestrian malls/thoroughfares with vehicle parking around the perimeter for commuter use.

I disagree that "more upscale shopping and dining" is the cure for all urban planning problems though. Most city planners can't think past this notion. It's a no-brainer because those are the kinds of businesses that can be bent over constantly with taxes, yet create an aesthetic appeal that keeps the suckers... er... customers coming back again and again. Therefore it's an easy sell to city councils and neighborhood council groups - what's not to like (other than the traffic)? It's a cash cow. Combine those with a bunch of high-priced luxury condos and apartments and you've got a recipe for (seemingly) unending revenue - or such is the theory.

The downsides are these sorts of developments create a homogeneity to urban settings which we see in the rise of American Generica - everything looks like everything else. It's played out and overdone. It crushes individuality and neighborhood/community character. It's just another variation on the Wal-Mart-ization of society. It also tends towards gentrification and runaway speculation as everyone tries to get on the gravy train (we've already seen this). Developments are skewed towards the high-end (i.e. "highest profit margin and highest tax revenue"). Poorer people are marginalized and forced out. These sorts of development projects (also seen in combination with overpriced condo developments for "mixed use") are extremely sensitive to changes in economic climate. As soon as things hiccup, they bomb and the associated tax revenues plummet. We're seeing this too - one of the reasons CA's communities are in such dire straits is because they're far too over-exposed to revenue dependence on projects of this type.

I'm not saying these are bad ideas - but they're bad ideas when copied all over the landscape to the ridiculous level of density we have today. Because of the associated risk, I believe they're also bad ideas for cities/governments to get involved with to any great extent. This is best left to private developers who are more in tune with risk management. Local governments must resist the temptation to go "all in" or to sell out their master plans for the "easy buck" during boom times (like so many did recently). I do agree that reducing traffic, street dedications and other space in the urban core just to accommodate parking is desirable though. Things are starting to get far too congested and pedestrian/vehicular use incompatibility becomes worse with increases in density.

One more reason to live in the sticks I guess. "The solution to pollution is dilution". In other words, move the pollutant (people) out of the cities. But barring that, I'm all for better urban planning initiatives.