Live data from Hacker News

New Cities

blog.ycombinator.com

471–480 of 710 posts

Re: New Cities

#471
post #454
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I view money locked up in real estate as money in a very suboptimal place. I don't think this is a good view to take as a fully general statement. People invest capital in real estate because they get benefits from it. If the benefits they get are worth more to them than the benefits they would get from any alternative uses of the same capital, then putting that capital into real estate is optimal for them. > it'd…

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean by more value from an investment?

I see housing prices have been growing enormously in the last few years, but the appartements are exactly the same as they were twenty years ago.

I don't see how I can get more 'value' out of an appartement that is older, not renovated, and costs twice as much.

Re: New Cities

#472
post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thought about this. My thought has been, bump the street level up one story to create a pedestrian / bicycle promenade and move building entrances to the second floor. Keep the existing street below intact, with parallel parking etc. Essentially build a boardwalk above a commercial street, so that traffic can flow below. (Though for ventilation purposes, it would be best if most cars at street level were electri…

That reminds me of a 1920s drawing of the "city of the future" that had several levels of roadway with a promenade or pedestrian level on the third or fourth story: https://worldstreets.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/future-city...

Yea it's also a pretty common sci-fi / cyberpunk fantasy city design dating back to Fritz Lang's Metropolis, influenced by the Art Deco "city of the future" ideas like this floating around at the time.

In NYC at least the lower levels are already present. But the only part where we got the pedestrian level correct so far is the High Line... which has been hugely successful. There's really no reason these types of park-like promenades only have to be built on top of existing disused structures however. More could be built, it's just that people need to understand that there is return on investment for building an elevated pedestrian-only street level.

Re: New Cities

#473
post #255
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, markets are a great way of finding what makes the most money for those who build the stores. That may be "the best" solution that is also aligned with the interests of the people who live there, but it might not be.

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.

how do you build roads without central planning?

Re: New Cities

#474
If you can get a few hundred people to move with you, there are a bunch of towns with very, very small populations. Can see a list here: http://www.city-data.com/smallTowns.html

not sure how easy it is for outsiders to buy any land in these tiny population cities.

I am not sure why they don't list towns with fewer than 200 people. Anybody know where to get that data ?

There are even some small counties: http://www.davickservices.com/america's_100_lonliest_countie...

Re: New Cities

#475
post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cars are on a pedestal not only because of convenience and speed, but because they're the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator? I don't own a car, and I'm sure many other people in my city don't either, so no: it's not the lowest common denominator for us: walking is. Cars are themselves very expensive and require a massive amount of infrastructure to function. Look around a city and think of al…

Have you considered that with infrastructure in place, cars enable an immense amount of individual flexibility? To my mind, it seems somewhat plausible that cars rose to dominance because they enabled individual flexibility for the masses atop pre-existing and extensible infrastructure.

Flexibility? I don't own a car, and haven't for the last decade (and only had a car for maybe a year of my life). This year, I've been driven in a car about four times in > 170 days. So let me talk about flexibility.

Think about how much a car costs to buy and own (purchasing, upkeep, insurance, gas, parking, storage) - then put a price on that in hours you work a year. I bet it's a lot! Maybe weeks out of every year. Now, think of not having to work those days, because you don't have car, and those expenses do not apply to you.

What would you do with all this time you know have? So many things! I can't even imagine what to do first!

Cars enable convenience, not flexibility. But it comes at a huge price: a financial price, an environmental price, and a huge price on the standard of living in the negative direction - not just for people living in fancy cities: the oil field worker, the car factory worker, the people living in third world countries mining some of those conflict materials you all need. There's no free lunch.

You can argue about a single car, and how much convenient it is for the individual, but we're talking about something we've produced in the hundreds of millions. There's huge effects of this invention.

You know what happens to cars and cities? People live far away from their jobs. Then they talk about their hellish commute. And how much gas costs. And how their neighborhood is boring. And how there's not parking. And how the car needs to go into the shop. And on and on and on. These may all be transparent to you, but without a car, I hear it all the time, and I'm happy - so very happy to be off that spinning wheel.

Having lived in Europe a little while (had to do something with all that free time!), intelligent, forward-thinking people, living in cities without cars, because these cities were designed before cars. Other options are created, like public transportation system (and bike sharing schemes) that don't have whatever stigma they have in the states.

I don't know for this topic if I'm willing to trade "flexibility" for a massive amount of complexity.

Re: New Cities

#476
How does one size fits all fit cultural diversity?

So the parents want schools easily reachable on safe side street sidewalks, the recent grads want those sidewalk accessible zones to be bars and all night dance clubs. Some people go out every night to drink (probably a bad idea) and want the local bar. Other people want an enormous plot of parkland to drop the country fair and other activities on the weekends only for their "going out". Some regions have a tradition of scarcely larger than one room churches, others have a tradition of megachurches. Others have mosques or temples, how do you make the Buddhists, the tiny church Baptists, and the megachurch prosperity gospel people all happy?

How about history? People who lived in high crime area will prefer a police station to a public library. People who lived in the country will prefer a park over a shopping area. People who recreationally shop will want shops for the sake of shops even in a time of Amazon and UPS delivery. Or worse, they'll demand the little shops, then not shop there.

Some cultures don't see education and learning as very important or worth funding... just put a small dumpy school in the giant park reserved for it? Everyone has to say they love the arts, as a rounding error nobody goes, so do you build a concert hall for the symphony that no one listens to, or not?

How about hobbies and social clubs. Do you zone the freemasons temple and the model railroad club like a church? Or force that stuff into the basement of commercial areas so the sidewalks aren't rolled up and put away at 5:30pm every night?

How do you handle social signalling vs real life? Like you need XYZ to be socially acceptable, but real world requires ABC instead. Do you build for XYZ to get funding but no one lives there, or build ABC and be hated but people fight to move in? Hardly the first time in the history of humanity where what people say and what they want diverge.

The midwest has an interesting zoning solution to loud and obnoxious industry of which we have a lot (although more automation and fewer employees every year) and lack of parking, and thats taking advantage of border zones and raised highways. My retired mom lives a block from the border of a shopping mall, sounds awful according to "I hate cars" people, but its actually incredibly walkable, calm, quiet almost all the time, perfect for both pedestrians and car owners.

You can even run into psychological issues. Do you ban introverts by banning residential border fences to force people to interact even when they just want to chill? You could zone mandatory front porch onto residential to encourage porch culture in summer evenings. Or if the locals are the type you don't want associating, maybe ban porches and decks if they're just going to cause trouble and crime and noise and get arrested.

Re: New Cities

#477
Well, if we're going pie-in-the-sky, my perfect city: 1. Scales traffic by distance from downtown, IE: a. Autobahn type speeds outside of city limits (90+mph) b. Expressway speeds connecting major sections of the city with dedicated public transport (45-80mph) c. Bicycle/small car speeds connecting (15-30mph) local districts d. Walking to specific destinations within an area 2. Automated solutions for each speed (examples) a. Dedicated city to city rail. Hyperloop. b. Express vehicles stopping at major sections running on a loop. Subway, Monorail, Taxi Service. c. Small, single-person vehicles. d. Walking or people-mover type vehicles

All moving of people/products would be a matter of scaling up and down within your range. Each range would only allow that class of transport (so, no cars/taxis in a walking area, no walking in an expressway area)

I could probably spend days listing the problems this would solve, but some examples:

1. Practically eliminate pedestrain->traffic interactions that lead to accidents and annoyances 2. Eliminate parking problems 3. Improve general health (walking in local areas) and much less (if any) road-rage type issues 4. Improve product delivery times (assuming we could get distribution networks to work together) 5. Improve the appearance of the city (no roads in/by your parks) 6. Improve the appearance of homes (only sidewalks go to homes!) 7. Improve the mobility/freedom of individuals (no need to buy a car/get a license, simply find the right public transport) 8. Instant tourist attraction as everyone will want to come see/experience this new type of living

Again, I could go on. It seems to me that designing transportation is the primary issue, branching out into all others.

Re: New Cities

#478
post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that with infrastructure in place, cars enable an immense amount of individual flexibility? To my mind, it seems somewhat plausible that cars rose to dominance because they enabled individual flexibility for the masses atop pre-existing and extensible infrastructure.

Flexibility? I don't own a car, and haven't for the last decade (and only had a car for maybe a year of my life). This year, I've been driven in a car about four times in > 170 days. So let me talk about flexibility. Think about how much a car costs to buy and own (purchasing, upkeep, insurance, gas, parking, storage) - then put a price on that in hours you work a year. I bet it's a lot! Maybe weeks out of every year…

Friend, I live a life not so different from yours. I'm suggesting that other people choose to have cars now - and historically as well - because they find that the advantages for them outweigh the disadvantages for them.

You may want to consider that other people may make their choices for reasons they personally find compelling in the context of their individual lives.

Re: New Cities

#479
post #25

Look to how Tokyo does things. A few takeaways: - mixed use zoning: reduce requirement for long trips by mixing many compatible types of commercial with residential, and remove single housing type developments. Also, allow many smaller apartment complexes mixed with single family houses, instead of segregating housing types. - street design: No more hierarchical/dendritic street layouts. That is, no more dead-end str…

Does the perfect city really need to focus on higher population density? It seems like less density is ultimately what most people would want.

yes. nature hybridized with human living. future forest primitive

Re: New Cities

#480
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.

how do you build roads without central planning?

You could just build a big grid and let it evolve from there.

I'm not talking about "libertopia" here, so yeah, I think government has a role. Just that that role in terms of zoning should be radically shrunk.

Post reply on HN