The City After the Automobile: An Architect's Vision

Rating:
Summary: It might be flawed, but it doesn't shy away from the ideal.
Review: Flaws there might be. Logistical errors there might be. Totally impractical aspects there might be. But none of it detracts from what this book is. Some architects build to the practical present, and some build to the ideal future. Safdie does the latter. Genius does not require anything more than vision, and this book glows with that. A new way to live; a better way to exist. Humankind has never, in all the spans of history, moved forward. It has always been dragged by a few farsighted and great individuals. Buy this book. Read this book. And see an apsect of our future that will one day be a reality. It won't be Safdie's vision through and through. But it will be Safdie's vision. Leap in on the ground floor now, as humanity prepares to embark on its next stage of growth - without even realizing it.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting but nothing new in this book
Review: Persons interested in finding ways to get cities out of the auto and rail transit mess will be disappointed - because Safdie doesn't know anything about urban transportation. He does know about humane architecture and his thoughts on this subject are very good. He suggests two new urban transportation modes. One is the Utility-car, a small rentable probably electric car that is sitting around everywhere ready for you to use - if you have the right smart card to make it go. This is not a new idea as it is already being done widely in Europe and even in the U.S. The other is the Conveyor which is highly similar to Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) which has been worked on by many people around the world since the early 1970's. The Raytheon Company is building a U.S. version right now called PRT 2000. Beyond transportation, Safdie suggests we need the New Cardo, a linear downtown that has lots of street life. This idea appears in a plan for the Urban Detroit Area prepared in the 1960's by Doxiadis and Associates for the Detroit Edison Company. The book highlights the fact that architects and urban transportation planners never talk to each other. Apparently, architect's don't read the literature either. Persons interested in a advanced transportation technologies can see what is available and learn the history of this field at a website called Innovative Transportation Technologies: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jbs/itran

Rating:
Summary: An Architect's Inaccurate View of Urban Mobility
Review: THE CITY AFTER THE AUTOMOBILE by Moshe Safdie. I found it an interesting review of urban architecture and what many might find as more desirable high density living, assuming your dream is high density living. However, in my opinion, this book offers little in the way of mobility solutions. One idea Safdie presents is the availability of U cars, presumably government provided, at airports, office buildings, park & ride lots, etc. His system would save time parking but that is so little to be gained in return for such massive trade-offs. He maintains that aspect alone would allow rail to displace airline usage in the northeast corridor, make urban rail greatly used, etc., failing to recognize the inherent weaknesses in the "transfer" system he would make worse. I could not determine how this improves on the present rental car or taxi system or why we would want to replace the existing system with a national system of providing cars for everyone everywhere. I found the logistical questions unanswered; the assignment of personal responsibility for bad driving unaddressed; as well the notion that every possible origin and destination would have to be provided with the maximum number of cars that would ever be needed at any one time at all times and in all places. The notion of all of our mobility provided by and maintained by the government is something that our society would not accept and could not afford. Mr. Safdie's demonstrated knowledge of transportation history, transportation, in general, and transit, in particular, leave much to be desired. He perpetuates that myth that streetcars were put out of business by car, oil and tire manufacturers. He believes that intercity high speed mag lev systems running at 300 miles per hour are applicable within urban areas. How many stations could you have in an urban area and allow for trains to get to and slow down from 300 MPH speeds. He talks about economies of scale disregarding the higher costs of living in dense "downtown" areas. Safdie's contention that communication and culture can exist only in high density appalls me. Melvin Y. Zucker

Rating:
Summary: An Architect's Inaccurate View of Urban Mobility
Review: THE CITY AFTER THE AUTOMOBILE by Moshe Safdie. I found it an interesting review of urban architecture and what many might find as more desirable high density living, assuming your dream is high density living. However, in my opinion, this book offers little in the way of mobility solutions. One idea Safdie presents is the availability of U cars, presumably government provided, at airports, office buildings, park & ride lots, etc. His system would save time parking but that is so little to be gained in return for such massive trade-offs. He maintains that aspect alone would allow rail to displace airline usage in the northeast corridor, make urban rail greatly used, etc., failing to recognize the inherent weaknesses in the "transfer" system he would make worse. I could not determine how this improves on the present rental car or taxi system or why we would want to replace the existing system with a national system of providing cars for everyone everywhere. I found the logistical questions unanswered; the assignment of personal responsibility for bad driving unaddressed; as well the notion that every possible origin and destination would have to be provided with the maximum number of cars that would ever be needed at any one time at all times and in all places. The notion of all of our mobility provided by and maintained by the government is something that our society would not accept and could not afford. Mr. Safdie's demonstrated knowledge of transportation history, transportation, in general, and transit, in particular, leave much to be desired. He perpetuates that myth that streetcars were put out of business by car, oil and tire manufacturers. He believes that intercity high speed mag lev systems running at 300 miles per hour are applicable within urban areas. How many stations could you have in an urban area and allow for trains to get to and slow down from 300 MPH speeds. He talks about economies of scale disregarding the higher costs of living in dense "downtown" areas. Safdie's contention that communication and culture can exist only in high density appalls me. Melvin Y. Zucker

Rating:
Summary: An Architect's Inaccurate View of Urban Mobility
Review: THE CITY AFTER THE AUTOMOBILE by Moshe Safdie.I found it an interesting review of urban architecture and what many might find as more desirable high density living, assuming your dream is high density living. However, in my opinion, this book offers little in the way of mobility solutions. One idea Safdie presents is the availability of U cars, presumably government provided, at airports, office buildings, park & ride lots, etc. His system would save time parking but that is so little to be gained in return for such massive trade-offs. He maintains that aspect alone would allow rail to displace airline usage in the northeast corridor, make urban rail greatly used, etc., failing to recognize the inherent weaknesses in the "transfer" system he would make worse. I could not determine how this improves on the present rental car or taxi system or why we would want to replace the existing system with a national system of providing cars for everyone everywhere. I found the logistical questions unanswered; the assignment of personal responsibility for bad driving unaddressed; as well the notion that every possible origin and destination would have to be provided with the maximum number of cars that would ever be needed at any one time at all times and in all places. The notion of all of our mobility provided by and maintained by the government is something that our society would not accept and could not afford. Mr. Safdie's demonstrated knowledge of transportation history, transportation, in general, and transit, in particular, leave much to be desired. He perpetuates that myth that streetcars were put out of business by car, oil and tire manufacturers. He believes that intercity high speed mag lev systems running at 300 miles per hour are applicable within urban areas. How many stations could you have in an urban area and allow for trains to get to and slow down from 300 MPH speeds. He talks about economies of scale disregarding the higher costs of living in dense "downtown" areas. Safdie's contention that communication and culture can exist only in high density appalls me. Melvin Y. Zucker