New Cities • Hacker News Board

Re: New Cities

#671

Post by stank345 » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:58 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #52

It is a mistake to assume that because cities were the most efficient way to organize people in the past, they will continue to be so in the future. Given the trend towards remote work, socialization and shopping, there is a lot less of a need for density. Instead of asking "how can we make the city of the future" we should instead be asking "how can we create a habitats for humans that promote happiness, health, har…

> I believe that people are happier when they have a sense of connection and belonging in their community. Cities discourage this. > I believe people are happier in environments that feel more natural and alive. Cities discourage this too. > I believe people are happier when they have a sense of personal space and privacy. Another mark against cities.

I strongly disagree. I grew up in a rural area with the nearest neighbor a quarter mile away and there was just no one around. There was no community to speak of (at least that I felt). I felt very disconnected as a teenager and was basically trapped until I turned 16 and got my driver's license.

I now live in a major, walkable city and much prefer it. There are universities, the arts, amazing restaurants, and all of it is accessible via subway/bus/train (we don't have a car, just use the occasional ZipCar when we need it). For green spaces, we live next to a park. We live on a side street that is very quiet, so no noise pollution issues. Our neighborhood is very residential but is close (a few blocks away) to night life.

I really can't imagine a better setup.

Re: New Cities

#672

Post by camikazeg » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 3:30 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #382

Britain tried this after WWII, building about 20 "new towns".[1] China is doing it in a big way right now. Building isn't the hard part. The usual problem is a lack of jobs. Check out the US census population projection for the next 50 years.[2] Population is leveling off, and if immigration is restricted, it will decline. Most of the EU countries, and Japan, are already in population decline. Also see Fig. 6, "Depen…

I think that you inadvertently pointed to a piece of the puzzle that is pretty important, but retirement communities are a problem, not a solution.

The ideal city is habitable to people of all ages. I don't know if you can make it happen with a top down approach, because I think that it is cultural, but in some cultures the old people are involved in the lives of the young. They are active, they assist with childcare, they pass down old recipes, they bring multi-generational families together, etc.

Ushering the old off to separate communities to die sounds pretty miserable.

Disclaimer: I'm (hopefully) going to be old some day.

Re: New Cities

#673

Post by mempko » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 3:39 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #255

st3v3r wrote: 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.

The alternative to central planning does not have to be markets. There are other forms of decentralized decision making.

Re: New Cities

#674

Post by Ma8ee » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 4:01 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #670

Ma8ee wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grow up with a mother without a car. Both school and shopping was within walking distance, and when we got older and chang d school within easy 15 minutes bicycle distance. And this was not in a city center, but in a suburb. And most importantly, not in the US. The problem with the US is that everything is built for cars, which means that all the distances by necessity becomes huge to fit all the roads and the park…

You don't really seem familiar with the U.S. suburbs. They weren't built for cars, they were built for agriculture originally, then for people who wanted yards, land, and more freedom. I grew up in a suburb of Chicago. I could walk to two grocery stores, but each took 30 minutes each way. I also grew up across from both my grade and middle school, a horse ranch, a gym, and a massive park. I loved my childhood because…

I lived for two years in Ann-Arbor, not that many hours drive from Chicago. Almost all of US suburbs were built to be suburbs planned for everyone to drive whenever they wanted to get somewhere. They aren't countryside that organically grown into suburbs. It's just ridiculous how long it takes to just cross the parking lot outside a mall by foot if you get the idea to actually walk there.

We had a forest behind our house, a soccer field where we also played bandy in the winters, 10 minutes walk to the horse range, a golf course that also was used for cross country skiing in the winters, 5 minutes to the commuter train that took you to the city center in 15 minutes, lakes we swam in the summers and ice-skated in the winters. Markets for food within easy walking distance and a decent mall within easy bicycle distance. I bicycled everywhere when I didn't use public transport. I didn't even bother to get a drivers licence until I was a bit over 30, and the only reason I got it then was because I was planning some long holidays in the US. You don't need to center you society around cars and driving to have a very high and pleasant standard of living.

Re: New Cities

#675

Post by malyk » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 4:04 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #587

malyk wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just spent a couple of weeks and paris/barcelona and I'd say you could probably do it faster by subway/walking than by car especially when you figure in the cost/annoyance of finding and paying for parking. There's a huge "but" there though. We rode the metro over 30 times in those two cities and never waited for a train for more than 3 minutes. Both cities have trains coming every 4 minutes at all hours of the day…

Europe definitely has better public transit. And parking is a problem in an urban area (though that issue goes away with a taxi or self-driving car). But I think you're glossing over a fair bit with your description: > When you can pop into a metro that is ~5 minutes from your flat, be on the train in less than 4 minutes, and be within ~5 minutes walk of wherever you want to be ...assuming that where you want to be i…

You are definitely correct. I did the same thing for Paris right after posting. Times were 1.8-3x what driving would be. But, experience tells me that the extra time oftentimes tends to not be an issue, mostly because of the cognitive differences between operating a personal vehicle and passive transportation.

But if you are in a rush and you know parking will be easy then yeah, jumping in the car would be fastest.

Re: New Cities

#676

Post by lr4444lr » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 4:15 PM UTC

jseliger wrote: post #321

sama wrote: 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.

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 Econom…

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

Land as a store of value is related, but different than housing as a store of value, especially in cities.

Re: New Cities

#677

Post by throwanem » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #556

DorintheFlora wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you should read some history. IIRC, at some point, car companies bought up public transit infrastructure and shut it down because less public transit was good for sales. #canyousayconflictofinterest? Linky: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_con...

Friend, I am aware of the "streetcar conspiracy". I am also aware that streetcars died out for reasons well beyond conspiracy. I am further aware of many areas where cars are very useful that never had streetcar systems to be destroyed by GM.

Not for nothing, but did you ever hear anyone say that a stranger who calls you "friend" isn't one? If not, you have now.

Re: New Cities

#678

Post by paulryanrogers » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 4:30 PM UTC

megablast wrote: post #548

com2kid wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This. Sadly even all electric cars have significant externalities.

Re: New Cities

#679

Post by st3v3r » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 4:32 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #521

st3v3r wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If someone can make money by building a store, that's great, what's wrong with it?" There can be plenty of things wrong with it. I don't subscribe to the idea that whatever makes money is instantly the best thing. And I never said that I want to keep corner stores away from where people could walk to it. I said that leaving everything up to the "free market" doesn't always yield the best solution for everyone. It on…

> And I never said that I want to keep corner stores away from where people could walk to it. That's currently what we have; nothing at all resembling a free market where you can buy a piece of property and more or less do what you want with it. The rules and regulations in place are absolutely about enshrining the car-centric city. With a more market-oriented solution, some people could have their "burbs" and others…

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. A market based solution has no reassurance whatsoever that this would happen. As I said, markets only work to find the solution that makes more money for those with capital. That does not mean that it will be the best solution for those that actually live there. It's just as likely that a piece of property would be turned into a trash dump or strip club than it would be turned into a grocery market.

Re: New Cities

#680

Post by justin » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 4:36 PM UTC

ugh123 wrote: post #560

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #13

> We now have major technologies such as smart grids, autonomous vehicles, etc Not really. Autonomous vehicles are still coming. We don't know what infrastructure we'll need to support them just yet. Will there be a standardized way of powering / recharging them? What non-autonomous needs will they have and how to we handle them (because there will be some e.g. mechanical repair, rescue, etc)? Sure we can "guess" bas…

> Wait, Adora is part of YC? I was really surprised by that too. Looking at her and her co-founder's handling of the shutdown as well as the overall fact that they just couldn't execute (raising money isn't executing). I'm not sure what track record and skills she really brings to this.

I competed with Adora when I was running Exec. Under Adora, Homejoy had impressive execution on the early stage: they were very good at customer acquisition, hiring talented employees, and raising capital. All things that are important in the early stage startups.

Homejoy had missteps after that initial period. But sometimes you learn as much or more from failure as you do from success.