Americans have been stripped of the right to walk

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, but that is a recent (20 year or so) transformation.  Vancouver's inner city used to be much like what he described, and probably worse given the amount of light and heavy industry that used to be here (think of what Yale town was before it was developed).  But now you are quite right. It is very family friendly.  Again part of the deliberate civil design plan to increase the amount of bike and pedestrian trips within the city, and surrounding suburbs, and reduce the amount of trips made by car.

To resurrect a lot of American cities for families you need to dramatically alter the way the educational system is funded and operated, bike paths and crosswalks just ain't what's wrong. Those are nice to haves, but parents who have options will never live where the schools are terrible.

Sure, urban renewal is a complicated issue.  But the bike and walking trails I was talking about are in the burbs as well as the city.  Amenities, shops, restaurants etc are all built in mixed use zoning areas in the burbs to create mini town centres that are within walking and biking distance.  One is relatively close to our house and is built in such a way that there is minimal parking so that it is much more convenient to simply spend a few extra minutes and walk rather than bother with the car.  That in turn generates a lot more pedestrian traffic for the shops etc in the area.

[mongers]

Lots of interesting data linked to this page:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pedestrians/pedestrians_and_cyclists_unprotected_road_users/walking_and_cycling_as_transport_modes_en.htm

Especially this pdf report by OECD, a direct link:
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24400/24472/2103492.pdf

Still haven't found any figures along the lines of pedestrian per 1million/1billion miles/km of journeys which would be a better indicator of pedestrian safety, as opposed to the more common pedestrian deaths per million population.

[Jacob]

A portion of municipal funding for infrastructure comes from the Provincial and Federal level.  Want a grant or funding for your pet project Mr. Mayor - lets talk about your community plan.  In addition municipalities pay directly for some of the cost of first responders such as fire fighters (who are likely to be the first on the scene to most medical emergencies)  Those are the direct costs and benefits that come immediately to mind.

I see what you mean. I wonder to what degree that played out, i.e. to what degree the people negotiating the funding and grants had that among their priorities, but it's an interesting theory.

Then there are the indirect benefits.  If less money is spent on health care at the Federal and Provincial levels that will leave more funding for other things that would benefit Municipalities.

Or cutting taxes or funding other projects. It's so easy to spend money... but yeah, in the abstract that makes some sense.

[crazy canuck]

A portion of municipal funding for infrastructure comes from the Provincial and Federal level.  Want a grant or funding for your pet project Mr. Mayor - lets talk about your community plan.  In addition municipalities pay directly for some of the cost of first responders such as fire fighters (who are likely to be the first on the scene to most medical emergencies)  Those are the direct costs and benefits that come immediately to mind.

I see what you mean. I wonder to what degree that played out, i.e. to what degree the people negotiating the funding and grants had that among their priorities, but it's an interesting theory.

Then there are the indirect benefits.  If less money is spent on health care at the Federal and Provincial levels that will leave more funding for other things that would benefit Municipalities.

Or cutting taxes or funding other projects. It's so easy to spend money... but yeah, in the abstract that makes some sense.

As I recall it there was also a lot of pressure being put on civic planners to design more socially responsible living areas by doctors organizations and various NGOs so its obviously a lot more than just the economic incentive.  But I think it does play at least some role. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Interesting. In my local Canadian experience there are plenty of child- and family- amenities in or near the city centres. Not so much right in the business district, but in the residential areas there are plenty of community centres, daycares, playgrounds etc.

We may have that in places like NYC, but it's almost an outlier in comparison to the United States at large. Most American cities have such poor school systems versus the surrounding suburbs that only very low income parents will live inside the city limits because they simply aren't willing to subject their kids to a very bad educational system. Thus, you see less stuff in the cities catering to children.

Education is probably the single biggest reason American cities have low % of families with children. It's tied in with the frankly retarded mechanism by which school districts are funded and ran.

The good school districts in NYC are so expensive that only the super-rich can afford to live in them anyways in an apartment sufficiently large enough to house a family.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Austin has the dual social/economic benefits of having a huge university downtown and the State Capital, that makes it well positioned. Although to be honest I was in Austin maybe two years ago and stayed in the Embassy Suites on South Congress and just a short walk away from my hotel it was a pretty gross city, so you may be overstating Austin a bit. It'd be a cool place to live if I was 25-30 with no wife or kid but I wouldn't want to live downtown.

Harsh. Well I disagree. But to be fair we rarely agree so there is that

Well like I said, if I was younger and had no kids, Austin would be great. But as a middle aged parent and husband, I just don't see us living there for many of the same reasons I'd think it's a great place to live if I were 10-15 years younger.

And to me that is, to a degree, what is great about America. If you want to live on a big piece of land with minimal services and few neighbors, we've got tons of it and it's relatively affordable. If you want to live in an inner city where you can walk to tons of restaurants, shops, the market etc in a few minutes time we offer that as well. If you want to live somewhere in between, where you can have a decent sized yard, a larger house, and quick (but car-based) access to shops/restaurants/services, we have that as well. Where I get het up is when people decide that one of those modes of living is intrinsically and morally correct, and the others wrong. That's very troubling to me.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Sure, urban renewal is a complicated issue.  But the bike and walking trails I was talking about are in the burbs as well as the city.  Amenities, shops, restaurants etc are all built in mixed use zoning areas in the burbs to create mini town centres that are within walking and biking distance.  One is relatively close to our house and is built in such a way that there is minimal parking so that it is much more convenient to simply spend a few extra minutes and walk rather than bother with the car.  That in turn generates a lot more pedestrian traffic for the shops etc in the area.

Eh, there's more trails for biking, walking and even horseback riding around here than you can shake a stick at. But they may not be immediately beside your house, they might be a short car-ride away, where you park and then go onto the trail. That's very common here.

I've also ran into a few suburbs like what you describe. Dublin, OH where the PGA Memorial Tournament is held is one example like that, a "bedroom" community, where it's a suburb of Columbus but instead of being comprised solely of housing developments and shopping centers connected via arterial roads, it's centered on a small little walkable town center that many of the homes in town can walk to for a little miniature city experience. I've seen a few places like that in New York as well but the name of the towns escapes me at the moment. Those are rare though--but yeah, I'd definitely be cool with more of that happening, no problems with it, in fact.

I'm a free market guy, but I'd also love it if cities found a way to make the neat gentrifying city centers a realistic living option for people who don't make $125k+ per year and have no dependents to worry about. I think it's unfortunate just as many major American cities are undergoing a renaissance the poor people that have  always been residents are being pushed out and largely don't get to enjoy said renaissance, while the white hipster class largely raised by parents who were part of the white flight movement are swooping in.