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

541–550 of 710 posts

Re: New Cities

#541

Post by panic »

aestetix wrote: post #391
dang wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment breaks the HN guidelines in a bunch of ways, starting from the "I'm going to get downvoted" cliché. The rules here don't require you to agree with anyone, but they do require you to be civil, not call names, and avoid gratuitous negativity. The things you're saying about others here ("engineers who are detached from emotion and any sense of duty towards other people", "Sand Hill Road Gordon Gecko wannabe…

"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity." I would absolutely say these things face to face, because I believe them to be true. I'm happy to go into detail on the first comment, and the second is hyperbolic metaphor. You've seen "Wall Street"? I don't think it's so far off from the truth here. Also, the "downvoted" comment was less a cliche, but more an…

I just wanted to say I liked your comment, in particular the criticism about "blank slate" redesign being historically difficult, the need for study of problems and solutions in existing cities (and study of existing studies of cities), and the dangers of "success", especially given the pernicious reliance on metrics in the tech world today. That said, I can see why it was flagged: the jabs at YC and the tech industry in general are basically flame bait and aren't necessary to make your argument.

Re: New Cities

#543

Post by hueving »

justinator wrote: post #475
Kalium wrote: 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…

You sound like you are justifying your own choices with a strawman argument about what it's like to own a car.

My annual maintenance costs + insurance + licensing on my 15 year old car are about the same cost as renting a car for two days.

I think you vastly overestimate the cost of owning an older car.

Im also not sure you understand the term flexibility in the way most people do. Right now (as in within 10 minutes), I can be on my way up to Lake Tahoe or off to Yosemite. There is no other form of transportation that can work that quickly. Even with an amazing rail and bus network, you are beholden to the schedule and the overhead of local transit to the long distance station. With public transportation your life is dictated by the schedule of the transit, with a car you just leave whenever you feel like it.

Re: New Cities

#544

Post by rand1012 »

rvense wrote: post #267
thaumasiotes wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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). There's a bigger issue here. Suppose the grocery store was 10 minutes away. You'd still need to drive there, because how are you going to get the food back to your house? I have lived carless and had to make many independent trips per week to buy food. Being able to do it all at once…

I live in the centre of a largish city in Europe. Here there's a few supermarkets less than five minutes away on foot, and the last one closes at ten every day of the week. They're also on the way to and from most other places I go. Usually I just buy what I need for tonight and tomorrow on my way home, or go after dinner when I'm likely to want a quick walk anyway. Of course, I don't have kids and am generally not a…

I think a 24 hour economy should be a design goal of this city.

Re: New Cities

#545

Post by pdonis »

jakobegger wrote: post #471
pdonis wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

I mean that people get more benefit from it. What specifically counts as a benefit depends on the person.

> the appartements are exactly the same as they were twenty years ago.

This is going to depend a lot on what area you are in. In my area, much of the housing is fairly new, because either old housing was torn down and replaced, or housing was expanded into land that used to be something else (mostly farms or woods).

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

Any capital investment depreciates, and eventually you will need to reinvest in it in order to continue getting value from it. But suppose the average dwelling lasted 50 years before needing to be renovated or replaced, instead of 20. That would be an obvious benefit, even if the original purchase price of the dwelling was higher; in fact many people might be willing to pay the higher price in order to get a dwelling that would last so much longer.

Of course I understand that this is not what we currently see in most housing markets. But I think it is highly relevant to the question of whether "make housing cheaper" is always the right goal if you're trying to reinvent housing.

Re: New Cities

#546

Post by elihu »

gorkemyurt wrote: post #487

Location suggestions anyone? my 3 priorities would be; - close to Silicon Valley and California High Speed Rail - no one should really be living there (no status quo) - has to be close to a body of water (better climate) I think I found the perfect location! Link to Google Maps: http://tinyurl.com/gnzquv3 The exact point where the couple is drinking wine in the picture can be the Dolares park of the new city :)

Your spot looks really good, but according to Google it's a "Wildlife area", so politically it's not likely to be easy to get approval to turn into a city.

For me, proximity to Silicon Valley is not a priority. My suggestion is to use land in NW Oregon in the coast range. Most of it is very rugged, but there's some sort-of-flat land in the general vicinity of Saddle Mountain that's currently used to grow lumber. It's close to the beach but far enough not to be in the tsunami zone, and close to highway 26. Water is unlikely to be an issue, and it's close enough to Portland that it's not totally isolated, yet far enough away not be be a suburb.

I think one of the downsides of trying to establish a tech-hub city in the middle of nowhere is that tech hubs tend to have a symbiotic relationship with universities, and the latter are hard to create artificially.

Re: New Cities

#547

Post by Tossrock »

powera wrote: post #373

This is literally Burning Man. Burning Man creates a 70000 person city in the middle of the desert from scratch every year. It's exactly what you want to prototype any number of urban design theories.

It's interesting to note that Burning Man started out as a much more freewheeling, libertarian kind of place (shooting guns, driving around wherever you wanted, etc), and that as it grew, it encountered the natural outcomes that require restriction of individual rights for the common good. For example, after a couple in a tent were run over by a car driving around at night, they had to remove the general right to drive around freely. Now you have to go through an extensive process to be licensed, strictly follow the 5 MPH rules, etc.

Re: New Cities

#548

Post by megablast »

com2kid wrote: post #507
justinator wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I own a reliable econo-box that I bought years ago. Maintenance is almost nil, parking is less time…

Sure, but you are only looking at your costs. What about the costs to society, the pollution you cause, the dangerous environment you are part off.

Re: New Cities

#549

Post by cozzyd »

Spooky23 wrote: post #526
justinator wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I live a 10 minute drive, 45 minute walk, 75 minute bus from work. 30-60 minutes of my life = 125-250 hours a year.

If it's a 45 minute walk it's likely a 10 minute bike ride.

Re: New Cities

#550

Post by EarthIsHome »

cylinder wrote: post #203
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…

Same here. Also, the people who can afford it and have been in Manhattan their whole lives often have a car or two parked in garages. Brooklyn and Queens are still very car heavy as well. Also, after a while, those who can afford it (or those who can't but still spend) use Uber / Lyft / Gett / Juno / etc liberally. I haven't been in the subway for at least two months because I can't stand it anymore, and it's especia…

> I feel trapped here.

I find this sentiment interesting because I have the complete opposite feeling that you have. In my view, NYC is light-years ahead of Atlanta (where I live) when it comes to walkability, bikeability, and public transit. I would love to live in a city like yours.

Given that Atlanta is nowhere near NYC in those regards, it's weird that I feel trapped every time I get in a car here.

I don't own a car because I feel free without a car.

This goes to show me that even though I think NYC, Portland, Minneapolis, et al. would be amazing to live in, there are many other opinions and sentiments. :-)

Post reply on HN