Live data from Hacker News

New Cities

blog.ycombinator.com

621–630 of 710 posts

Re: New Cities

#621
post #78
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.

You mean like a subway?

Re: New Cities

#622
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 suck. Their layout is literally derived from concentric walls to keep invaders out. I love the history and architecture, but from a usability perspective they're far from ideal.

Safety > Cleanliness was the argument back then (not to assume they know they were filthy). Take both of those out of the equation, and there are still other reasons for density.

Re: New Cities

#623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They were regulated by materials and physics. Automobiles, HVAC, steel, etc. throw all of that out the window and can result in urban environments that aren't great for humans.

The kind of density you get in European towns built in the 1890s were higher than the typical SFH or 4 story max zoning limits in many places experiencing housing crises today.

If SF was rows and rows of 6-8 story buildings instead of being %50+ SFH, it would have a lot more capacity than it has today.

Re: New Cities

#624

I'm sure people have different opinions on this but one thing I like is variety and grunge. I don't really know how to explain it. I want more SF's Valencia between 16th and 18th and less Westfield foodcourt's. I want more Golden Gai in Tokyo and less Roppongi Hills. I used to want the Jetson's or Disney's Epcot. Now I want 150 tiny bars and restaurants each one holding no more than 20-30 people at best (generally).…

> grunge > Valencia

Classic

---------------------------

In all seriousness, both density, various older styles of architecture, and grime/decay/gunge/whatever make for more salient visually-surroundings. Why have upper-class europians flocked to Venice for hundreds of years[1]?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tour

Re: New Cities

#626

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…

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)…

Your point about taking your car and heading to Tahoe and Yosemite, strictly speaking, is correct. However, speaking only for myself, I do not find it particularly urgent to make long-distance trips - presumably for leisure - within ten minutes of making the decision.

The bigger question is - why is it strictly necessarily to have to use it for ten minutes - just to get milk?

And while most places in the US simply do not have it, the solution to public transportation scheduling is that they run so frequently no one bothers to check the schedule. This is, admittedly, a chicken-or-the-egg problem in most US cities, although some are starting to get it.

Re: New Cities

#627
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one ends up with shopping malls surrounded by four-lane streets with no crosswalks. You should look up the zoning codes in your city, as well as a zoning map. They are incredibly detailed, and extremely prescriptive. What we have in the US is very far from a market-based solution! And those rules and regulations absolutely have worsened with time. Look at cities from 100 years ago, how they had nice downtowns where…

And now let’s look at Europe. This is an official map of the city where I live: http://i.imgur.com/N0X8HTh.png (Screenshot of http://ims.kiel.de/extern/kielmaps/?view=stpl&coords=3257435... with the layer for zoning enabled and the layers for PoIs disabled) Purple are the areas for which any zoning restrictions at all exist – in the rest, no zoning regulations exist, as long as you follow normal building law, and get…

Thank you for the glimpse into your zoning codes - I rarely get a chance to hear ones from other countries explained, and they are always a fascinating counterpoint.

Re: New Cities

#628
post #268

I like how Y Combinator takes classical sociological questions, and they pretend to look for the solution. They seem to have a "final boss" approach to social science... Aren't urbanists, sociologists and architects working exactly on the same questions since forever? The idea that a new study can find a new “disruptive” solution is naive at best, or dangerous at worst. But, of course, I welcome more money to social…

Yeah, I would think that the first step would be to do a survey of existing literature. Might take a while. It's a worthwhile endeavor, but definitely a difficult one.

Re: New Cities

#629
post #67

From the footnotes: > [1] Two out of three people will live in cities by 2050 - an influx of 2.5 billion new urbanites. How much of that is by choice? I know quite a few people that wouldn't give up their rural lives willingly.

Also where does this prediction even come from? I don't think you can make extrapolations for 1/3 of the world's population.

Re: New Cities

#630
This sounds like an interesting project for YC research. Many of these questions are very open-ended and it will be exciting to see what comes out of it. However, one question in particular upset me as a Bay Area resident:

How can we make and keep housing affordable?

This question is frustrating not only because the problem is particularly acute but also because it is completely self-inflicted and solvable using what we already know.

Take a look at the 7 American cities with the highest rent: SF, NYC, Jersey City, DC, Boston, San Jose, LA https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/national-rent-data...

Then look at the 7 largest American cities that still practice rent control: NYC, LA, San Diego, San Jose, SF, DC, Oakland, Jersey City http://www.landlord.com/rent_control_laws_by_state.htm

Why? It's not a coincidence and it is causal. Rent control: A. Disincentivizes new construction. Simply put, over time, long-term tenants might not be paying enough to make a keep a building profitable. B. Causes owners to take recently-vacated, perfectly-habitable units off the market to avoid these same long-term un-evictable tenants (30,000 units are empty in SF alone. That’s 8.3% of the housing stock! http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2011/03/30/why-so-many-vac...)

These both result in less housing in total. A smaller supply coupled with the same demand will cause prices to rise as the few apartments that are available go to the highest bidder.

In a 1992 study, 93% of surveyed economists agreed with the statement "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available." http://www.factcheck.org/2009/02/when-economists-agree/ For comparison, the consensus that global warming is anthropogenic among climate scientists is 97% - just 4% higher. We rightfully ridicule our elected officials for being skeptical of global warming. Why don’t we also ridicule elected officials who support rent control?

If the problem is keeping housing affordable, the solution is simple. We need to phase out rent control laws and remove regulations around the development of new housing. For now, in the Bay, rent control is not realistically going to be touched for a few years. For the latter, there is evidence that Sacramento is starting to understand that we actually need to build housing to bring down prices http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-brown-afford.... If we are lucky, they might take this new insight and apply it to existing housing for a complete solution to this man-made problem.

A good article on the subject in general: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html

Post reply on HN