This is exactly the type of community I would like to retire to in five years. Without a car and related expenses, my retirement income would last longer. I don't want to live in Arizona, though, so hopefully more of these communities will be built in the near future.

The majority of well crafted and walkable neighborhoods will be out of reach financially for most Americans unfortunately. Maybe one day this will become the norm for the average person.

@Chario_

11 ай бұрын

That's mostly the result of the massive undersupply caused be decades of building everything around cars. Walkable places are in high demand, but they didn't really start getting built until the last decade or so in limited quantities, so naturally they're all going to be really expensive. The solution is to build a bunch of these places en-masse, so that over time the older developments will need to lower their prices to stay competitive with the newer ones. Most of the affordable old apartments you see now started off as high-end/luxury when they were first built decades ago

@ToyotaCamrySEv

11 ай бұрын

today’s new is tomorrow’s old. if we keep building walkable and sustainable they will keep becoming more and more accessible to everyone

Proud to say I live in a newly constructed apartment building in San Diego that contains NO parking at all! It's so nice to not have any curb-cuts for a garage entrance anywhere around the perimeter of the building.

What a great idea! As you said, there must be a good commuter transit system in place. In addition to parking minimum laws, zoning laws must be changed to allow for 2 to 4 floor apartment buildings.

It will be interesting to see if the retail shops like the market will have enough business to keep it viable. Often these idealistic mixed use developments loose retail tenants because there is not enough foot or auto traffic near the shops.

Culdesac should not be exempt from critique. One thing I can’t help but consider is affordability for such a tailored development. Yes, no parking minimizes rental costs; however, in many American cities pedestrian-oriented downtowns and developments are marketed as a premium rather than as an overall good (it reinforces the “urbanism for the wealthy” paradigm). A good example of this kind of issue is how Miami is designed, with urbanist infrastructure and transit concentrated in the business districts only. Meanwhile, car-oriented environments are often concentrated to low income areas and receive significantly less investment. Overall, while Culdesac may be considered a model urbanist community by some broad definition, I find it hard to believe that it would actually improve affordable housing once it opens. At the end of the day, building a single car-free suburb for the wealthy does little to help any underlying issues regarding car-centrism or affordable housing.

@subdomhourz7946

11 ай бұрын

Excellent point. Culdesac stinks of being a gated community for wealthy millennial self-described “urbanists”. If anything it’s going to make the affordable housing crisis worse

@Chario_

11 ай бұрын

​@@subdomhourz7946 How is building more dense housing going to make the affordable housing crisis worse? Ignoring the fact that the rents listed on their website are mostly around the average rent in Tempe (~$1.5k), even if the only people who live there are young people making six figures that still means there's going to be less people fighting over housing in other parts of town. It might not make a meaningful impact in making things better, but I find it really hard to believe it would make things worse

@nithinravi9600

11 ай бұрын

Culdesac is a brand new model trying to prove itself in a state that is notoriously car-centric. I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they intend to bring their pricing down in the future if they can succeed in Tempe.

@subdomhourz7946

11 ай бұрын

@@Chario_ you can build all the dense housing you want, but if your pricing out 75% of the local population whilst also selling people on the idea of car-free living, it sets an ugly precedent. It would be much more impactful to invest in transit expansion and up-zoning existing land for affordable mixed-use development in existing population centers. Developments like Culdesac only exist to pitch the idea of exclusive and expensive car-free neighborhoods to real estate investors.

@Chario_

11 ай бұрын

I agree that Culdesac won't really make a massive impact in moving away from car-dependency on its own, but I see it more as a first-step in the process. One development like this won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, but if it can inspire more developments in a similar vein (ideally along transit), then you'd be able to make a real impact on both car-centrism and the housing crisis. It took countless developments over decades to create suburbia, so naturally it will take at least the same amount of work to undo it. And while I do empathize with the "Urbaism for the Rich" concern, I think it's an inevitability with the current state of things. Walkability is a sought-after commodity after decades of under-supply, so naturally when a good urbanist development pops up there's going to be a lot of demand for it. While I am in favor of adding some affordable housing requirements to these developments, the only real way to make Urbanism more accessible/affordable on a large scale is to build more developments _like_ Culdesac. That way, in 5-10 years the older Urbanist developments are forced to lower their prices in order to stay competitive with the newer ones Speaking of which, Culdesac isn't even that expensive as far as the Tempe's housing market goes. A lot of their 1 bedroom apartments cost around $1.4-1.6k per month, which is pretty close to the average in Tempe (~$1.3-1.5k)

I am going down there to see my daughter next week. I'll ride my bike there and check it out for myself, and I'll probably get lunch there. I like what they are doing, from what I've seen. Should be interesting.

Tempe definitely already had pre determined parking and zoning regulations. This development certainly needed a rezoning for a variety of things, including for reduced parking

What would concern me and isn't covered in the video is that once Culdesac locks its residents into their ecosystem, it might start to price gouge them with expensive coffee and groceries.

@enticingmay435

11 ай бұрын

That’s a great point. And you know it’ll happen, these developers build these types of projects not because they particularly care for good urbanism or the planet but because they saw an opportunity to make huge profits. People having no other choice but to pay these exorbitant prices for goods and services. Like a really bad HOA. It has the potential to become dystopian real quick.

@rogerhuang3450

9 ай бұрын

That is true. Not only the viability of community commercials should be a concern, but how the no-private-car promise is executed is another interesting question. Will the residents living there want to own a car after several months and search for parking spots in the neighbourhood nearby?

@durkbob2035

9 ай бұрын

There are grocery stores nearby in downtown Tempe. Would need to take transit though which isn’t ideal

@unconventionalideas5683

5 ай бұрын

They're working on a protected bike path that goes to the Target, so I doubt it will be too bad.

@jjman533

4 ай бұрын

​@@unconventionalideas5683who's paying for the bike paths? Less cars means less vehicle registration and gas tax revenues for the government. Perhaps an annual bicycle registration, bicycle tire recycling deposits, frame waste deposit, and other money grabs from bicycles like insurance fees will fund it in the future.

One thing I really dislike about culdesac is their pricing. Look at how much they charge for really simple apartments. You would get something like they offer for around half the price here in Germany, in cities where wages are actually higher than in Tempe, Arizona. You can't really ask for these insane amounts in the middle of the desert in my opinion, that's just not fair and makes people consider buying a home instead of renting for twice the amount that their mortgage would be.

@toadscoper4575

11 ай бұрын

Exactly, Culdesac almost strikes as being ‘faux urbanism’ similar to the dreaded lifestyle centers that were built during the 2010s. It’s like greenwashing but for housing

@PSNDonutDude

11 ай бұрын

That's market rents in North America. They're still developers that need to make a profit and the issue with these kinds of developmentts is they are brand new so expensive

@toniderdon

11 ай бұрын

@@PSNDonutDude "Market rents" for New York or San Francisco maybe but not for Tempe, Arizona.

@Chario_

11 ай бұрын

​@@toniderdon The exact median rent for Tempe varies depending on the source, but most of the estimates are in the $1.3-1.5k range for a 1 bedroom apartment. Most of the 1-bedroom apartments in Culdesac cost $1.4-1.6k a month. That seems like it counts as "market rent" to me

@jamalgibson8139

11 ай бұрын

​@@toniderdonTo continue piling on to this discussion, market rent in New York for a studio is around 3-4 k per month. It's similar for San Francisco. That's nowhere near what Culdesac is asking. I think people in Europe sometimes don't understand how truly fucked the US housing market is due to some really poor choices over the decades. Also, I don't understand why there's so much hate for building in the desert. It's just a valid to live there as nearly anywhere else. The main problem is the unsustainable land use, which is exacerbated by the more extreme environment in Arizona.

Nice

No parking should decrease the cost of rent but I’m curious if it is? Is rent here lower than an equivalent “normal” apartment complex in the city? Somehow I doubt it.

Is there a feasible way to own a car if you live in this development? say I use one occasionally for road trips, or to go camping and do other outdoors activities. It's hard to imagine getting that done on public transit. Or maybe does this development cater specifically to people who simply do not, and do not want to live that lifestyle?

@icemoneycooks5299

9 ай бұрын

rent a car for road trips or when you need to do something special.

Он слишком маленький чтобы достичь целей озвученных авторами проекта. Чтобы создать экосистему с такими характеристиками надо иметь государственную программу по развитию этих идей. Или хотя бы программу штата. Связать 10 городов по 30 000 жителей высокоскоростной железной дорогой. Иначе это будет просто микрорайон, а машины надо будет оставлять на соседней улице.

Conspiracy theorists would call this a 15 minute city, the rest of us just call it convenient

You would have to do so much within the complex. Coming out of it would be the metro taking you to predetermined stops. This sounds like a dystopian nightmare. Furthermore, a reasonable use of a car offers something invaluable: freedom to go where you want. Such is not the case with Culdesac, which with no parking actually has you controlled completely. You would have to be a good boy or girl who acts as they are told. And Cul de sac, in French, means a passageway which does not open into another street, it goes nowhere. Thus, the name of the complex is a warning. On the concepts of towns and cities, serious persons advocate those semi prisons with absolutely no cars and nothing else which makes our lives a little freer, a little better

@redneck96100

11 ай бұрын

A car offers freedom.... If you follow the terms and conditions set by big daddy government.

@theepimountainbiker6551

11 ай бұрын

So your feet, a bike, taxi, friend, uber........they all cant take you wherever you wsnt to go youre chained to this 1 place? Strange, I swore people walked everywhere for a few 1000 years before cars came along.

@Basta11

5 ай бұрын

People are free to live where ever they want. Its a choice. No one forced them into those apartments. Some people will not like it and move, some people will stay for a long time because it suits them. Over time, who knows, maybe the transit network and bike network will get better, maybe there will lots of things to do in that area as it develops. If not advocating against the car, but I am advocating for options. You want to live in a suburb, cool. Highrise downtown, ok. Car free neighborhood, alright you do you. Personally, I like a little bit of both - groceries, parks, schools, restaurants and shops within walking distances, but I also like having a car for my family.

Tempe is a very transit friendly city. Has lightrail, street car, different kinds of buses all around.. it’s very walkable lol. If you want to go outside the city to any place other than a few places in Phoenix, you’d need a car though. Culdesac is okay I guess? But it just doesn’t make any sense to live there. It’s expensive and in reality, you need a car to go to many places. If it was cheaper, more people would consider living there and taking Uber/Waymo. Plus, I live in a state like Arizona for the outdoorsy culture and nature. I need a car to take me to those places.

Promo sm

This type of development comes with the assumptions that you work in the same city you live, that yoy are close to grocery stores and shops, and that there is a reliable transit line. This is just developers being cheap and passing it off as green.

@Basta11

5 ай бұрын

Cheap and green are not mutually exclusive. For example, working remote allows people to save on office space and commute. Savings for the company, but also good for the environment. These types of development are cheaper, but also more green as it is ideal for people who don't use cars everyday. They bike, walk, work remote, or commute via train. The heating and cooling costs of these apartments are lower on average due to lower interface with the sun and environment. The shade and gardens also help in the cooling, water retention, and flood control.

Let's be honest, people are still gonna need a car in order to get to work or other things. So where do they park their car if they're not allowed to use the visitor parking and having no other parking spaces?

@Basta11

5 ай бұрын

Some people will certainly park on the street. Some people will find private storage, people already do that in other cities. However, many will not own cars but walk, bike, or use the train. Some people don't get out of the area that much. Some people work remote or work in the area so its not a problem. When the place gets more developed, they will have more amenities close by which lessens their need to go to other places. They can still go with taxis, ubers, car shares etc.

Imagine having to walk in the scorching heat of Phoenix, Arizona… no thanks

@diegoflores9237

11 ай бұрын

It's called "walkable fanaticism". These people building a "walkable" complex in Arizona never stopped to think that is insane to continue building in Phoenix with its extreme weather.

@user-cr1iz8fw6h

6 ай бұрын

@@diegoflores9237Yep. Exactly. I was born in India and over there, you have to walk and take the train/bus everywhere. It’s a 100 degrees with 90% humidity. I was just drained of energy everywhere I went. Feels like a downgrade going back to that. Arizona is nice and modern right now, Tempe is already very walkable and bikeable if you want to.

@user-cr1iz8fw6h

6 ай бұрын

Or Dallas or Vegas summers or Minneapolis winters. There’s no one size fits all solution like these urbanists dream about.

What all these car free walkable people fail to mention is that car oriented cities are already built. Do they propose tearing them down and building "walkable" cities? Have they considered the US government is $30 trillion in debt, and people and corporations are similarly in debt. We can't rebuild the country to make it more walkable since our economic heyday is already in the rear view mirror. Sure we can build vanity projects here and there but our cities are going to continue to be car oriented

@jordanrobinson690

11 ай бұрын

Or maybe spending on the infrastracture to make these types of transformations is a boon to the economy. This kind of work employs tons of people. Also... Corporations are most certainly not in debt. They are making record profits, and that money stays at the top. Consider that the government is also spending $12 billion per year on a flying murder machine that's 10 years behind schedule.

@redneck96100

11 ай бұрын

Car oriented development can be gradually built to be more walkable over time. Infrastructure requires regular maintenance, and during this maintenance you can alter the design of said infrastructure instead of tearing down a city immediately and building it all new.

@AdamM

11 ай бұрын

There actually are plenty of videos out covering this subject. 👍

@Basta11

5 ай бұрын

This is a private initiative. No government money. The only thing the government did was to allow it to happen. When building restrictions are lifted, developers will build what people want. People are diverse, their needs and wants are diverse. They want housing close to work just as much as single family neighborhoods. Walkable mix use neighborhoods do not need huge government funding. If you look at all the walkable towns, they don't have much infrastructure. Its the other way around, car centric low density sprawl require plenty of government funding for infrastructure maintenance. Services are more expensive to provide for larger areas.

That minimum parking law is extremely important. If you take that away, say goodbye to free parking. No thanks

@jordanrobinson690

11 ай бұрын

"Free" parking isn't free.

@Chario_

11 ай бұрын

Getting rid of minimum parking requirements doesn't mean you can't build parking, it just means developers get to actually choose how much parking they build instead of having to comply with an arbitrary standard

@jonathanchang1574

11 ай бұрын

@@Chario_ What it means is that if developers don't build parking and there isn't sufficient transit infrastructure, the residents will be forced to park long-term all around the city, increasing (not decreasing) clutter, forcing the city to raise parking prices. The crux of transit oriented design is that there is a transit system to orient upon, but it's a chicken-egg problem in America. There's no immediate profit to investing in transit first before the commercial development, but designing development in this way without a functioning transit would be a disaster. A city shouldn't push costs onto its residents with the reasoning that cars are a luxury and to dissuade them from owning one. It wouldn't likely work without a feasible alternative. People still need to go places and get to work.

@jordanrobinson690

11 ай бұрын

@@jonathanchang1574 But in the past cities have done exactly what you're saying - pushed cost onto residents. Highways and wide roads aren't free, they're paid for by taxpayers, same as a transit system would be. Parking infrastructure is paid for by taxpayers and also cuts the amount of space that can be used for residential or commercial uses - the same uses that bring tax income to cities. As far as "There's no immediate profit to investing in transit," there doesn't need to be. How profitable is the interstate system? New highways, expressways, and bypasses? In some cases they collect tolls, sure, but are they profitable? A transit system needs to bring people from point A to point B, not necessarily turn a profit.

@jonathanchang1574

11 ай бұрын

@@jordanrobinson690 Great, now go convince the city managers.