#i mean. do i have some problems with the concept? yea. but overall its nice. still need to finish it

[qilingxiong]

If y'all like HK/Cantonese music or want to learn more about it, you should watch 《声生不息》 or Infinity and Beyond 👀

[destiny-smasher]

So! Episode 2 of Before the Storm! It was very good! If you haven't read my thoughts on Episode 1, here those are.

If you want an audio discussion about either episode, I've recorded podcasts with my girlfriend, @mollifiable, as well as musicians Riley Hawke and Koethe. Here’s what we discussed on Ep1, and here’s the podcast on Ep2. BEAR IN MIND I will be discussing a number of things from EPISODE 2, so you probably shouldn’t read this if you haven’t experienced it yet. There are some inherent problems I still have with this projects conception (which I got into in that first post back in September), but Epsiode 2 has gone a long way toward giving me faith in why this story is being made. Or, at the least, that it's being made with a lot of thought and care. I've played a LOT of story-focused, episode games, and honestly, I think this episode is one of the best I've ever experienced, overall. I still struggle with some elements of the story (ex. I just don't like Rachel as much as I think I'm 'meant to,' BUT I think that ties into what the overall story may be about), and I still feel frustrated that your team is being limited by the nature of the setup (why is this all happening over three days when it could’ve been over three years, for example), but Episode 2 just has so much good going for it and I felt like it really showed what can be done with a project like this. Like last time, I want to address this to Madeleine, Felice, and the entire team at Deck Nine directly – and point out how much it means to us that you guys actually reach back and communicate with us, even encouraging criticism. I'm proud of what your team has been able to accomplish with this episode and think it stands out in the genre in a lot of ways.

Let’s get to it.

That being said, I do want to offer my criticisms, so let's just get those out of the way first. First off, Samuel – yeesh. Sorry, I just really didn't like the scene with Samuel. Part of it is his new voice actor just sounding more...creepy? I guess I'd say? But also, his manner of speech and the things he said felt out of place. Not just for his character but with the story in general. In LiS1, Samuel comes across as mentally different than those around him, almost like a sort of sage in a way, engaging with the world in a different way than those around him (there's a similar character in Supergiant's brilliant Pyre who comes to mind). But here, Samuel felt like a cross between a psychiatrist and a guy taking too many drugs? That's perhaps harsh, but especially given that his character model/rigging didn't seem to carry over properly, I was just rubbed the wrong way by his presence in this episode in a way that hasn't happened with any other recurring characters. I appreciate the intent I picked up from his scene – to remind us that there's more going on than just what we can see on the surface – but I felt like it missed the mark of who Samuel was as a character without really establishing why he would be different in this way three years in the past. On a related subject – the adult characters in this episode, or at least some of them, felt weird. MOST of them felt more like caricatures than actual characters. Wells felt fine, and I actually kind of PREFER this take on Wells because he feels LESS like a caricature and more like an actual principle. I can even kind of see a headcanon link between this interpretation of him and the version of him three years having just kind of shed away his decorum from the stress of managing a school undergoing so many changes and financial problems. I really felt for Joyce, and I felt that David's character was finally presented in a way that lacked the cliché “military” skew that LiS1 forced too hard while simultaneously giving the audience an understanding of precisely why his presence in the household would push Chloe so far away (though I still find much of the Joyce/David stuff odd here because we already know where this all leads and nothing here really seems to build anything new from that). Characters like Rachel's dad, the theater teacher, Samuel, Skip, Damon, and Sean Prescott all felt...a bit too cartoony in ways. Damon maybe least of all due to the intensity of that scene and the nice subtext we can pick up (after all, money is a realistic and pragmatic motive to drive one to aggression) In general, the adults felt flatter and more cartoony than I think works for this setting. Not to say they should NEVER be funny or anything, just that I was repeatedly taken out of the story by how jarringly one-dimensional a line was, or how flat a voice delivery was, etc. Fortunately, this problem doesn't really carry over to the teens, who are, of course, the focus of the narrative. I also noticed more moments in this episode where characters' eyes were uncanny, staring straight ahead in unnatural ways – or mouth movements being weird (Samuel being the biggest example, to the point that it jarred me out of the story and distracted from his dialogue). Minor complaint, all things considered, but worth pointing out as I didn't really notice this happen in episode 1, which makes me worry that maybe things got rushed a bit too much? (you guys did release this episode weeks earlier than expected) On the upside, though, this problem did NOT exist when it mattered the most, so at least that detail was put into the important moments. All right, last nitpick – I found the whole “drugging” thing re: the pre-play scene to be in bad taste. On the one hand, I LIKE the premise, and how it really does a fascinating thing with developing/contrasting/comparing Rachel and Victoria (in a way that requires knowledge of alternate events, something only a video game could do), but on the other hand...ya'll made drugging teen girls in an active, malicious way this...joke. While I do love that BtS has more comedy in its tone, I found turning Victoria's drug-induced passing out into a JOKE to be kind of offensive, especially given that she can get drugged and murdered in LiS1 (and Rachel AND Chloe both get drugged and/or murdered?), and just...yea. All in all, I think the concept of this scene works, it's the execution that makes it feel insensitive and kind of worrying. (ex. Victoria passes out and fucking NO ONE calls a doctor or tries to help her, the camera fucking PANS on her unconscious body like it's this joke and the way the whole thing is framed just invites laughter on something that kinda sorta shouldn't be funny given the full context of this story) Anyway, it's kind of like the wine scene in the first episode, but worse in terms of implications, I guess? I'm not THAT torn up over it since it's brief, and everyone's OK in the end, I presume, but it just feels a bit tone deaf when SO MUCH of this episode is SO GOOD. It really took me out of the experience – but the layered nature of it (how Rachel gets her way no matter what, how Rachel AND Victoria are both willing to drug each other, how Vic can be manipulated while Rachel can't) makes it really intriguing. I think the concept here was intriguing, but the execution on stuff like this could be handled more thoughtfully. I could get into pacing issues, I suppose, but honestly, I've already critiqued enough, and I think this episode was really good, so I don't want to get too down on the details when I'm sure others will get into this topic. (like the canon inconsistencies, they’re there, but aren’t really detracting from the good stuff)

OK! With all of that out of the way, let me get into what I loved about this episode, which was most of it. Episode 1 was unclear and uncertain in what it was trying to convey, which makes more sense now that we have Episode 2, which dives right into what this story seems to be about – passion, and the good and bad that comes from it. Passion, to be clear, being different from love. Love is steady, consistent, like a stream of water, while passion is fast and bright and sudden, like fire. I could get into the elemental symbolism you could correlate between wind, water, fire and Chloe, Max, and Rachel, but I'm sure folks have done this already. I do think it's still worth pointing out just how great a job you've done so far using fire as a metaphor for Rachel and Chloe's relationship, both within the story presented here and overarching into LiS as a whole. You managed to work it into the actual plot, as well, in a way that doesn't feel forced or thoughtless – an entire episode later and there are still consequences from it. Having just experienced the CA wildfires a half hour away from my home, I can appreciate a certain level of fear and awe at how much can be affected by fire, even the air itself, and just how quickly it can spread and how much damage it can do in a short time. The fact that the title screen itself it an analogy about passion makes me super excited at the potential for episode 3. Absolutely love that the title screen doubles as atmosphere AND symbolism. Specifically, I have to call out the dream sequence here as being quite awesome. From the moment I saw the burning car with a shadowed figure, I already knew what the visual reveal at the end of the scene was going to be, and was still thoroughly satisfied. I absolutely love LOVE the metaphor William presents about comparing/contrasting light and dark in terms of how both can cause us to lose ourselves, lose our ways, and be blinded. The way this correlates to Chloe's loss of William, Max, and Rachel (darkness) to how she can be blinded by light (passion for Rachel, even excitement about Max's power later on) is all encapsulated in a single bit of dialogue that communicates such an underexplored theme in the medium, and one that makes telling this story from a teenage perspective suddenly feel 100% sensible instead of just a coincidence. Telling a story diving into the theme of passion just wouldn't work the same from a character too young or too old, because it's this part of the human condition that we experience passion the deepest and the hottest. Which brings us to the fantastic play aspect, which is one of my favorite moments in all of LiS at this point. The layers of meaning at work here were genius. First off, it's all a play – an act. And Chloe is trying to keep up, while Rachel is clearly experienced with this. Secondly, the connections between relationships in The Tempest to the protagonists is great use of intertextual storytelling. Thirdly, highlighting a Shakespearean play, which highlights passion from teenage youths, yet another layer. Fourth, they go off script, which itself has really interesting connotations in terms of this game itself existing in the first place as an “off script” piece of the story, as well as how the content of their moment carries an unrealistic, impractical hopefulness to it that is inspiring, but still an act in a play, involving magic and fantasy. Fifth, concluding the scene with the way the play ends adds this really awesome extra layer of meta expression – Rachel as a character gets to be expressed and represented in a way she originally was not, with the help of fans of the LiS developing this prequel, but also fans of LiS breathing life into Rachel before this prequel existed; PLUS the prequel itself is a performance that you, the development team, are putting on for us, the audience. There's just so much going on here, and the musical choices helped seal the moment's emotional impact. Even as myself, coming from the perspective of not trusting Rachel's judgment/actions, I felt as if I finally had a 'moment' where I truly understood why Chloe was so swiftly enamored with Rachel. It reminded me of moments I've experienced in my own past, though nothing as 'magical' as this. It also just highlighted how Rachel's character has power and influence over those around her despite being so young. All in all, bravo. This scene came together fantastically, and I think it's one of the most thoughtfully put together scripted scenes I've ever seen in a video game. This was the moment I fell in love with this story – not because of AmberPrice but because it was so well put together by everyone involved. I think this will probably go down as the highlight of this game when all is said and done. To back things up a bit, I did enjoy the premise of the junkyard stuff. I really liked giving Chloe's character a bit of breathing room on her own – the kinds of things she thinks to herself while exploring the environment showed a bit of Max's influence on her still being present even as she's trying to forget Max. I liked that we could pick different objects to help decorate/fix the van, as well, but the flow of the scene would work better if we could do it all in one trip rather than taking two trips – I found myself disoriented after placing the battery into the car, and by that point had lost track of where specific objects were, whereas it would've been more fitting to maybe have Chloe make note of the items first, or even gather them all up into a pile and let the player choose from there. I predicted and felt satisfied by how the truck was utilized as an analogy for Chloe as a person – broken, banged up, abandoned, lost, but if given enough attention and care, could be back up and running. The therapy session Rachel and Chloe have was also nice at building their relationship further.

Something that wasn't as apparent in episode 1 because it simply needed time to grow was the whole way that Rachel is presented as someone who is flawed. Because the story is from Chloe's perspective, there's maybe too many limits on how this can be developed, though we'll see how the finale handles things, but I really liked that all of the flaws we already know about her character from stuff in LiS1 felt contextualized in this episode. She can be manipulative, short-sighted, impulsive, and even self-absorbed, but it's not malicious or even intentional all of the time. Rachel herself is in a similar position as Chloe – they're teenagers – she is still figuring herself out, what she really wants, who she really wants to be, and how she can achieve those things. All of my doubts, concerns, and fears about this relationship between them all feel validated by their dynamics, by the theming and foreshadowing, and yet it simultaneously makes sense why and how they'd end up together – out of teenage passion, and a shared sense of longing to feel both needed by someone else and taken care of by someone else. The scene after the play, in the street, had a great sense of aesthetic to it, which felt like it was from a teen romance film from the 80's or something. The imagery of the scene highlights the nature of this whole story – a splash of light along a dark road that is Chloe's teenage years. The multiple ways this scene can play out depending on previous choices was neat, too. I was especially intrigued by the possibility of making the “Friendship” choice in Ep1, then asking for a kiss here in this scene – there's this amazing bit of animation in Rachel's face that really shows her thought processes clicking together in an ambiguous way that really fits her character. I'm also super curious as to what will come of the bracelet bit, since Rachel surprisingly gives it to Chloe if you ask for it, despite the fact that we know she ultimately gives it to Frank. There's multiple possibilities of what that could entail, and I'm really interested in seeing how that plays out. This actually reminds me of how much I liked the way decisions from episode 1 have branched out here. Rather than decisions having a single static meaning later on, you have aspects from Episode 1 lead to different branching possibilities of how scenes play out. The outcomes are usually the same, but still, it makes the story feel more dynamic, and I like how these aren't always super obvious. There's a lot of examples of this, from telling Rachel that Chloe feels romantically or not, to stealing the money, to what you do WITH the money, and some other smaller things, too. Great work with this stuff, it helps us see different angles to the characters when we have these options, and highlights what LiS was originally about re: characters – perspective is everything. And yet, Rachel seems almost immune to things in a sense, which is appropriate given how her character works and how she influences those around her. I liked the scene with Frank in the RV and the way it contrasts and compares his future self to his past self. Which reminds me, this episode had a bit more interesting 'character development through environment,' which was a highlight of LiS1 that felt missing from Ep1 of Before the Storm. Whether it was Frank's RV, Elliot's dorm room, the Amber household, or, most poignantly, Drew's dorm room, you guys did a great job letting us learn more about the characters through the environments. While you could argue that it doesn't quite match Chloe's character the way it does Max (and I'd argue that the whole nature of trying to socialize and make friends itself already is kind of against Chloe's character in Ep1), I think it works well enough and just makes sense from a game design standpoint. I liked that we got more opportunities for graffiti in ways that weren't just straight up wall graffiti (ex. Crossword, drawing on the newspaper photo). I glossed over this last time, but part of what I've been frustrated by with Before the Storm is the way Chloe at 16 years old...already feels like Chloe at 19, but slightly more awkward. Episode 2 helped resolve some of this by putting her outside of her comfort zone more and highlighting her vulnerability, cynicism, and uncertainty (whereas Chloe at 19 kind of doesn't give a shit and dives head first into everything and doesn't care what anyone thinks). I also really love the multiple ways you've referenced that Chloe was originally a “nerd” like Max, and has gradually been straying away from that – and yet, it's still part of who she is (and ends up showing itself later on in LiS1, like how she seems to know more about time travel theory than Warren does). In particular, I loved how she pulls up different characters' web search histories – something that doesn't specifically take much effort, but that most people wouldn't think to do. This in and of itself was a really clever way of adding more to character development for those involved. (“why won't puppy eat steak” is hilarious to me and I can't get over it for some reason) The entire scene with Mikey, Drew, and Damon was wonderful. I loved the multiple outcomes and how none of them are specifically good, and any of them can feel in character for Chloe. I think Damon's character feels a little one dimensional here, BUT the context makes sense – he wants his fucking money. He's collecting debts after suffering a huge monetary loss. Of course he's going to be single-minded. As a side note, I loved the small but significant bit re: Damon's e-mail to Frank. Props to whoever came up with that. What a brilliantly subtle way of telling us so much about Damon's true character and his relationship with Frank. Going back to the conflict at the dorm, I loved that you took a bully character who appeared simple and effortlessly fleshed him out enough to feel legitimately believable with real motives. I loved how I was able to figure out the passcode to his lock organically given everything I had seen, and how I then used that knowledge to express what I felt would be in his best interests in the conflict – even though, as my girlfriend pointed out, it might not have been the best long-term outcome. I wish we'd seen more of Mikey and Steph, but what was there was still good. Steph's brief convo with Chloe I saw coming in a good way, and I really liked how you presented it. I liked the bits we got with Samantha and Skip, as well, thought I'm wondering where you're going with Samantha and Nathan. I was actually really frustrated with the Backtalk sequence with Skip, but then, I think that was the whole point. Speaking of, I really didn't like Backtalk in Ep1, but it was overall much better here. In Ep1, Backtalk was like some weird 'Be an Asshole' thing, and it felt weird how the game inherently encouraged you to do this. In Ep2, there were multiple times where I felt unsure if Backtalk was 'the best' way to go, and even then, most of its uses felt much more organic. It wasn't just about being a jerk to make someone feel bad, there was often some organic purpose to it – talking Victoria out of being in the play in a way that made her feel like it was her own decision; trying to get info out of Frank; trying to get into a dorm you weren't supposed to be in; trying to stick up for Rachel in the face of discipline, or trying to help her confront her father. In every case, there was an interpersonal motivation – Chloe wasn't doing it for something she specifically wanted, or just to make someone feel bad, but to try and do something for someone else. Also, they felt more like arguments, or ways of manipulating someone, rather than straight up insults. In some ways, it reminded me of things in TellTale's The Walking Dead Season 2, using more manipulative dialogue to resolve a situation rather than just brute-forcing things. This also contributes toward the theme of 'influence' regarding Chloe being influenced by Rachel so quickly and easily that she's even picking up some of Rachel's tactics (which, one could argue, she uses later on when she's older). This being said, I'm hoping that in Episode 3 we're given a more high-stakes situation that can be resolved using those more manipulative mannerisms, which gives the Backtalk mechanic a “climax” of sorts.

I like the way that you've been able to build this sense of supernatural occurrences without actually showing anything supernatural. The All-Seeing-Eye, the recurring Raven imagery, the weird shit going on with Chloe and others seeming to be having mysterious, prophetic dreams (even Elliot and Frank seem to be having them), the way the ash fall at the end of the episode foils the snowfall at the end of Ep1 of Life is Strange. This builds to a fascinating moment at the end of the episode where, for the first time, perspective SHIFTS from Chloe to Rachel, only for a few seconds, but in a really neat way that leads you to FEEL like something supernatural is about to happen, only for it not to. In a way, this feels like what your overall story could be about in a sense, though it'd be downright odd at this point to have NO answers or resolution regarding what I described above. One of the original game's biggest flaws was how it drummed up mystery only to leave things unexplained or unresolved in ways that damaged the actual plot. Dream sequences don't necessarily do this, but with how much emphasis you've put on them and the Raven/Eye imagery, I feel like there must be a purpose you have here – especially if members of your staff are getting ravens tattooed on their bodies. Naturally, Rachel's mom seems tied to all of this, if not the origin point of it. And I can't help but wonder if we'll even get a perspective shift near the end of the story from Rachel's point of view, if only to help imply or insinuate some things that tie into unanswered elements of Max's story. Speaking of Max, I was much more happy with the 'letters' in this episode, as they spend very little time needlessly bashing a character who wasn't even present, and more time on Chloe quickly becoming obsessed with Rachel – which all makes sense with the arc you seem to be going for. I liked the extra allusions to Chloe's future with Max, such as the maze and William's remark about a “beauty” to come in the future. It's such a complicated thing to tackle – and trust me, I've spent two years and hundreds of thousands of words trying to tackle it myself with these same characters – but I finally have come to a place where I can appreciate the balance you've managed to find between supporting the good elements Chloe and Rachel had going for them, while also implying the bad elements and the reasons why Chloe would develop feelings for Max later on. On a personal level, I relate with Chloe a lot in regards to her relationships (I relate with Max in a lot of ways, too, but that's a separate matter). I have lived through both long term and short term experiences of passion, romantically and platonically. And I have been romantically involved with people who remind me of Rachel. And I think that's part of why I just...don't like her, personally. BUT I am at a place now, after this episode, where I like her as a CHARACTER, even if I don't like her as a fictional person. I never can fully let my guard down around her, but can totally understand why Chloe would (and did), and have been there. And now that I have the context of this episode, I can finally start to see what 'the point' of this story seems to be, which makes me very curious to see how it is resolved. Lastly, again, great job using mocap and facial animation to heighten realism for a lot of scenes. While I noticed more “flat” moments than before, it never detracted from the important moments having that level of detail to make them bring out an extra layer of inevitability. From Chloe knocking at a dartboard to finger-gun gestures, to subtle but complex expressions, just a lot of great expressive details going on here. On that note, I noticed a real improvement in Rhianna’s performance. She felt like she wasn’t trying to mimic Ashly Burch or Ellen Page and was instead just finding her own interpretation of the role, and it works MUCH better. In a way, I still feel a constant sense of ‘this isn’t exactly Chloe’ but not in a bad way, just a...different way. Instead of feeling distracted by her actress being different, I felt instead like I was being more absorbed into this alternate interpretation of the character. Both Hannah and Ashly needed some time to fill into their roles before ‘the good stuff’ really came out in their performances, so I’m really looking forward to what Rhianna might pull off in Episode 3, and what she can do in the future after this role, when she isn’t burdened by the complexities of this kind of situation. I could go on, but I've ranted stream-of-conscious style long enough. I still have some more broad strokes issues with this game’s narrative, but then again, I have issues with the original game’s, as well -- and this story isn’t done yet, so I want to wait until I have the full context before I comment on those broad-scope design elements. I hope at least some of what I've written here is helpful to your team, and that my critical comments highlight just how good a job you guys did with this second entry. Regardless of how I end up feeling about Episode 3 of Before the Storm, I am really happy for your team and what they've pulled off here, and am very supportive of what you seem to be trying to do, as delicate a balancing act as it surely is.

[skrskrskr]

Let's improve Berkeley’s great bike network with some Dutch-style woonerfs

What's a woonerf? At a high level it is a street that values pedestrians more than cars. Why does Berkeley need woonerfs? After half of a year joyfully biking through the city, I’ve discovered a few areas where the network needs some repurposing.

To start though, let's talk about what works in Berkeley. Part of what makes the city so great for bicyclists is inherent to its suburban sprawl. A majority of the streets in the city have bike markings like sharrows (shared arrows), and many more could have them sprayed down today. Low traffic levels there mean that less experienced riders, like families with young ones, needn't worry about safety. Especially on the newly paved ones.

Those streets, the streets with low traffic volumes and sharrows, are Class 4 bikeways, meaning that bicyclists are designated to use the same roadway as cars and trucks. But Class 4, that means there are 4 classes? Yes! Although there’s a bit of discrepancy on what the classes are, or if there's only 3 classes, or even their order.

Generally this is how it goes: Class 1 includes separate bike paths. Paths that go through parks, designated bike/multi-use paths, etc. Class 2 includes cycle tracks. Bike paths on the sidewalk or protected by a lane of parked cars. Class 3 are your typical bike lanes, you know, green lanes, a graphic of a bicyclist. And finally, we know this one, Class 4 include the roads with designations for bicyclists to ride on (sharrows).

It is good to remember that, like various alcohols, these classes aren’t inherently better than one another. There’s no reason to be creating separate cycle tracks on your typical local road, as is there's no reason to be pouring Grey Goose into a mix-drink. That's why we're fine with the Class 4 accomodations on those local Berkeley streets.

Like many good networks, Berkeley's bike network ranges through each of the four classes above. On top of that, I've noticed while biking through, flourishes of transportation accommodations that can’t necessarily be tied down to a specific classifications. These additions are often great, but there are some that, while introduced with good intentions, end up feeling less than ideal. Take this street for example:

This isn't an uncommon scene within Berkeley: a residential local road with a few speed bumps.

Most people hate speed bumps, but drivers do especially. They see a nice comfortable road to drive down, and then a huge annoying hump that will scrape up their car. What they don't realize though is that they'd sped up and were speeding well above the speed limit. Those wide roads, especially those without any curves, create an environment that drivers feel safe going faster. Unfortunately, the mortality rate drops significantly between 25mph and 35mph, so that extra speed can be very deadly, and thus the city installs speed bumps.

The bumps will encourage a percentage of recurring traffic to find an alternate route, one without bumps, but they do nothing for drivers unfamiliar with the area. By the time they see any sort ofsign, new drivers will have turned down the road. And for bicyclists and pedestrians, the bumps are less annoying, but the uneven ground can still prove dangerous.

So while the bumps are doing what they were designed to do: slow drivers down and keep the neighborhood safe. The problem is that they do so in a way that isn't just annoying, but obviously annoying. It is a design that feels unfair.

But we don't want accidents, especially fatal ones, so how do we slow drivers down? Well, as I mentioned before, drivers like wide open straightaways, so let's look at the opposite: curves! And what would you know, Berkeley actually has its fair share of these too. Like this one:

Wow! Of course drivers are going to slow down when there's another vehicle coming straight at them. Even the possibility and poor visibility is enough to slow down traffic. Bicyclists and pedestrians however won't have to slow down from their already lower speeds. The best part about the curved streets though is that they don't feel unfairly designed against drivers. Drivers will feel more uncomfortable but they won't be able to find a particular thing to blame it on.

Unfortunately, even if the parcels and Right of Way allowed for it, it would be much too expensive to curve every roadway.

So what do we do? Well the Dutch have a great solution, because of course they do (the Dutch are masters of tranportation). It revolves around the width of road we can use. Look at that photo above again, and look at how much space the cars actually need. The Dutch saw this and decided that it was too much wasted space. Cars need around 6 feet, not 12 in each direction. Not to mention the 8 feet for parking or another 4 for a shoulder. The unnecessary space, they decided, could be literally anything. A park? Sure! A coffee stand? Absolutely! Parking? Yea, why not. And the best part, they could do all three, and snake the roadway around them all.

This is, as the title suggests, a woonerf, which translates literally to "living yard" or "residential ground". While our current American streets and culture gives too much space to cars, woonerfs try to balance things more evenly.

They are more applicable to smaller streets in denser cities, but their principles can still be applied to the suburban Berkeley. There's actually some areas that I've already seen the ideology applied. Here, on Stuart St, by some cooperative homes where older members of society walkabout, we see some semblance.

And at street level:

Wow, now look at those curb extensions and that textured crossing. Drivers won't fly through there. And for good reason, as the older community there likely isn't as agile as the general public, and we don't want them to feel trapped in their homes. That extended curb and textured crossing call attention to the area, and by increasing visibility and reducing the overall distance to cross, hopefully making the residents feel safer walking around their community.

There is still a big difference between Stuart St and dutch woonerfs though, so I wanted to explore how far we could go with the concept. I've created some mockups to compare.

Now I want to restate our goals. This is a residential street, so it will still see the occasional trip from residents, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, etc. We can't simply close it off with some bollards at both ends. Overall we do want to shift the priority away from cars and towards pedestrians and bicyclists. Woonerfs make fantastic links in bike networks, and being close to the bike boulevard connection of Milvia and Russell, Stuart St would be a great link to have. Finally to make things easier I'm going to assume that parallel streets could easily carry any sort of relocated traffic.

All that being said, let's take a look at what a Stuart St focused on pedestrian safety like if it were built out to better support bicyclists and the older pedestrians nearby.

And when we take a closer look at street level:

So what's been done? Well, most drastically, I've reduced the road to a single, shared travel lane, suggested only by the different color/texture of the pavement. This is to make drivers feel as uncomfortable as possible so they grow aware of their surroundings and slow down. Since this travelway is flush with the curb, when cars do meet on Stuart St, there's enough room to pull to the side to let someone pass. Again, cars are quite narrow and they don't need feet of padding if the speeds are low. By giving cars the bare minimum, they will have to treat the other forms with higher respect.

With that newfound space I've provided an attractive public space. Benches, a playground, and general space that simply isn't deathly, black pavement will encourage kids and adults to come to the street to play, meet, and relax. That is a vital characteristic of the woonerf, the "living" aspect which attracts users to the space. What good is a place safe from cars if it's not attractive enough to see use?

At this point some would make a ruckus about parking, and yes, while this space is trying to shift focus towards pedestrians and bicyclists, there is still a need for vehicle parking, especially near an older community. Fortunately the woonerf design incorporates so much flexible space that we can easily assign some of it to parking. In fact, the ideology is so forgiving that I've barely moved any of the existing parking. There's plenty of spots for people to park to visit their grandparents or just hang out in the area.

For pedestrians and bicyclists in the area, the new design is much safer and inviting. This would only affect Berkeley's bike network on a micro level, but if more streets were evaluated in a similar way and woonerfs were integrated on a macro level and figuring out how to operate the network as a whole is another piece.