Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Cities

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 710 posts

Re: New Cities

#321

Post by jseliger »

sama wrote: post #78
davidw wrote: post #17

I think "old cities" are pretty good too: the kind where they were built for people, rather than cars, and where you could build things without a dense thicket of regulations almost entirely unrelated to safety. Another thing that seems to work well is limiting the amount of up-front large scale projects and growing incrementally. No one can plan for everything ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_pro…

Cars have a place in cities but maybe they should be in tunnels underground or something. I view money locked up in real estate as money in a very suboptimal place. We pay too much 'rent' in general; it'd be far better to try to make housing/office space cheap and have people invest the extra money in productive assets.

Paul Romer has done a lot of interesting, adjacent work on charter cities; this Econtalk episode is a decent introduction to his work: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/04/romer_on_charte.htm....

In the U.S., we've collectively done a lot, culturally and legally, to make real estate a principal savings vehicle for many if not most people, and this has had a lot of negative consequences. Zoning Rules!: The Economics of Land Use Regulation (http://www.amazon.com/Zoning-Rules-Economics-Land-Regulation...) by is a good introduction to some of them. Chapters 7 – 9 in particular explain how the 1970s saw the growth of zoning restrictions that have driven housing costs in urban areas relentlessly up.

I'd be curious about alternate land-ownership structures or incentives that make people view housing more as a service than as a good store of value. I don't know what that might mean in practice, but the idea itself seems important to me.

Re: New Cities

#322

Post by zephjc »

gre wrote: post #210
pasbesoin wrote: post #184

Soundproofing. It's a small fraction of building cost, but one that is most often omitted because short term profit is disconnected from long-term utility and benefit. I've experienced several absolutely miserably loud neighbors. Talk about destroying my potential. I moved to a house -- way more space than I need -- to get away from it. To end up with neighbors who blasted their car stereos -- think SUB-woofers -- al…

Light pollution is big for me too. I want to be able to see the stars and the Milky Way at night, why not? It's tangential to noise pollution.

I think the trick to that is to get rid of sprawl. You have a lot of people thinly spread out but still emitting light pollution. Move people in closer to city/town/village centers, out of meandering suburbs, you move the light pollution to centralized locations, and are able to leave more surrounding land for rural uses with little to no light pollution.

Re: New Cities

#323

Post by mikestew »

davidw wrote: post #200
curryst wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changing the way cars function inside the city is only part of what would need to change. Near me things just aren't laid out well for pedestrians. It would take me about an hour to walk to the nearest grocery store (not counting corner stores, because all they sell is junk food). Biking should be much shorter, though I can't say I've ever tried. We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large store…

> We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large stores and move back towards having a large number of smaller stores. That comes with it's own trade offs in planning an efficient city. Markets are a great way of finding 'the best' solution to problems like this, but they aren't allowed to function any more in most cities in the US because of the amount of rules and regulations about what can be bu…

From a post from davidw further down: You should look up the zoning codes in your city, as well as a zoning map.

I'll take you up on that, as it's been ages since I last did, and I don't recall having done so to any great detail for my adopted city of Redmond. And I get the impression that you might be a little more recently informed than I, so I should get caught up in the conversation. :-)

Re: New Cities

#324

Post by potatolicious »

mikestew wrote: post #308
davidw wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Central planning has been a colossal failure both in terms of the economy at large, and in terms of urban planning. If someone can make money by building a store, that's great, what's wrong with it? Zoning should be about keeping truly noxious activities away from residential areas, not about keeping a corner store away from where people could possibly walk to it.

Ah, I took a different take on your original post. I'll leave my original reply, as I still agree with the point, but I see where you're going with this and heartily agree. One of my main complaints with where I live is that it's a round-trip hour to walk to any store, yet $DEITY forbid that we put a corner store anywhere in my neighborhood lest a developer be prevented from plopping another house on that plot.

Agree in general - but keep in mind that $DEITY is often your neighbors.

Developers generally aren't the ones pushing for restrictive zoning laws, residents are. For decades Americans have lived under the impression that businesses near homes is somehow a corrupting influence, and that putting businesses far from homes is somehow a feature and not a bug.

The current suburban landscape in America is the result of both overzealous urban planners, too eager to create a magnum opus of central planning, and the residents who eagerly bought into the concept believing that the best life is a carefully manicured, highly restrictive one.

This is also why I'm skeptical of YC's thing here - this smells lot like how these misadventures in central planning have begun in the past. Sam's thought elsewhere about relocating startups to help bootstrap the new city's economy is also a bit disconcerting - these exist, they're called company towns, and they tend to be economically fragile (all non-diverse economies are) and good examples of central planning run amok.

I sincerely hope anyone applying to this is very well versed in urban planning and its history world-wide, because there have been many misadventures in planning, and those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Re: New Cities

#325

Post by BurningFrog »

davidw wrote: post #17

I think "old cities" are pretty good too: the kind where they were built for people, rather than cars, and where you could build things without a dense thicket of regulations almost entirely unrelated to safety. Another thing that seems to work well is limiting the amount of up-front large scale projects and growing incrementally. No one can plan for everything ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_pro…

Old cities were built in much more unregulated ways, without planning commissions, neighborhood meetings, zoning and other bureaucracy. Just people filling their own needs on their own property.

Re: New Cities

#326

Post by sotojuan »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #223
ploxiln wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in NYC. I enjoy being able to take the subway to many world-class establishments in under 45 minutes. If/when I have children, I'm getting the fuck out of here. Many (most?) people do the same. There are huge numbers of people here, so of course there are lots of children here. They're either super wealthy, or really not living up to my standards for quality of life. (I was not raised in a big city.) If you se…

I feel like this comment applies to Manhattan but not greater NYC. I also live in NYC and many of my coworkers have children. They all live out in Queens, though. Areas like Forest Hills have a cute suburban feel and are car-friendly but also afford solid public transit options. Sure, it might cost more than a comparable house in the suburbs, but you can find a full house for under $1mm.

Plenty of non-rich people with children in Brooklyn too (Sunset Park at least).

Re: New Cities

#327

Post by st3v3r »

nickff wrote: post #131
massysett wrote: post #93

"How can we make rules and regulations that are comprehensive while also being easily understandable? Can we fit all rules for the city in 100 pages of text?" If you give arbitrary power to those who enforce the rules, sure, they can fit in 100 pages. If you don't value predictability and consistency of enforcement, sure, they can fit in 100 pages. In fact, the rules can fit onto one page. The Ten Commandments are pr…

I am of the opposite view; if the people do not know and understand the rules, then then they cannot be expected to abide by them. There are so many criminal, civil, and regulatory laws that the people could not possibly be expected to know, that the system is unfair. Lawyers will often say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but that is a manifestly unreasonable doctrine when even the regulators, legislators, an…

It's complex because there are many, many edge cases in laws. And not all of them are codified, but many are discovered after the fact, and so court rulings become part of the law.

Re: New Cities

#328

Post by st3v3r »

nickff wrote: post #149
maxerickson wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So pointing a loaded pistol at a clerk while robbing a store is then not using the firearm?

No, pointing any firearm at a clerk would be assault (with a weapon), whether or not it was loaded. If I told you that I went to a shooting range and used my gun, what would you think? That I'd pointed it at stuff? If I said that I went out onto the street and used my rifle, you would not surmise that I had looked over the iron sights. note: I do not own a firearm

You'd still be using the firearm, though. You wouldn't have shot it, but you used the threat of shooting it.

Re: New Cities

#329

Post by dragonwriter »

davidw wrote: post #200
curryst wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changing the way cars function inside the city is only part of what would need to change. Near me things just aren't laid out well for pedestrians. It would take me about an hour to walk to the nearest grocery store (not counting corner stores, because all they sell is junk food). Biking should be much shorter, though I can't say I've ever tried. We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large store…

> We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large stores and move back towards having a large number of smaller stores. That comes with it's own trade offs in planning an efficient city. Markets are a great way of finding 'the best' solution to problems like this, but they aren't allowed to function any more in most cities in the US because of the amount of rules and regulations about what can be bu…

> Markets are a great way of finding 'the best' solution to problems like this

...assuming perfect knowledge and the absence of externalities, either of cost or benefit, since (assuming perfect knowledge of costs and benefits) markets optimize the net utility of the direct participants in each exchange, but not net social utility (because externalities are ignored.)

Re: New Cities

#330

Post by nchammas »

MajorLOL wrote: post #221
chris_7 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a narrow street, less people drive, and thus there is no issue getting an ambulance through. I see ambulances stuck in traffic on Manhattan avenues all the time (we should put grade-separated bus lanes on all of them, IMO, partially so that ambulances can always get through).

>If you have a narrow street, less people drive, and thus there is no issue getting an ambulance through. Huh? If you limit supply, demand goes down? Your logic would say that the solution to Los Angles traffic problems is to close half the lanes and wait for people to sell off their cars?

Relevant reading:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_destruction

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearing_traffic

Post reply on HN