Streets Changing, Two Ways

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I follow a lot of Twitter accounts from urbanist transportation people, which has led me to think about how to remake my own city to be a more humane and livable place, more resilient in a warming world, and where people can live with little or no greenhouse-gas-emitting fuels. 

Here are two recent posts that are not in opposition, but that seem to be somewhat in tension, partly because one is speaking from a European perspective and one about trying to fix American city streets.

First, from Seattle's Queen Anne Greenways @QAGreenways:

To build resilience in the face of climate change, we should require at least 20% of residential street space to be de-paved and de-motorized.

THE GARDEN STREET. How to convert a standard Seattle neighborhood street into a woonerf.

• Add garden/living space
• Alter vehicular path
• Reduce car parking by half
• Add bike and delivery parking

Then, from Melissa & Chris Bruntlett @modacitylife:

We outline the Dutch blueprint for urban vitality on the Project Chatter podcast:

1. Build a dense network of high-quality cycle infrastructure
2. Filter unnecessary motor traffic through a circulation plan
3. Harness the synergy between cycling and public transport

Both of these ways of doing streets sound great, but if you compare the Queen Anne Greenways image, it's a lot greener than the Dutch photos, which look very livable to me, but have a lot more pavement in them. 

Yet the Queen Anne sketch seems like a street that's still mostly designed for cars, or that assumes cars will be a primary mode of mobility. It's definitely not set up for transit, at least.