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

The Future of Cities

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 63 posts

Re: The Future of Cities

#11

Post by 1_2__3 »

baron816 wrote: post #8

"We do damage to nature...and we do less damage to nature when we occupy less of it." Edward Glaeser is the man.

I have to admit this line of thinking never really resonated with me, and it resonates even less as I get older. My goal in life is not to have minimum impact on my environment, and yes, that includes nature.

I think the nuance of the middle gets lost in these conversations. The right tends to think humans should have dominion over all (while ignoring the fact that we haven't "conquered" nature, and we have ample evidence of the carnage we cause when we think we have), and the left seems to take an Agent Smith view that we're a plague upon the planet and need to be contained, quarantined, and engineered until we no longer impact anything (while ignoring the fact that this flatly isn't possible, or even desirable).

So no, I do not believe that "we do damage to nature", because besides it being a nonsense statement, even the kernel of truth in it is wrong-headed in my opinion.

Re: The Future of Cities

#12

Post by lj3 »

[deleted] wrote: post #10
Synroc wrote: post #2

While I'm glad that this topic is getting addressed, that video was pretty difficult to watch. I know it would be unwise to spend extensive amounts of time on each topic in the video, but the way it was cut made it hard to think about the topic before moving on to the next part. Otherwise, this topic is likely what I want to focus my career in at some point, understanding how to improve the ways cities run, given how…

[deleted]

> My personal approach is to build up better and better datasets (simulated, some taken from open datasets like the Building Performance Database) to slowly but surely force some evidence into these discussions.

You'll fail using that approach. The NIMBYs don't make their decisions based on data. They make their opinions based on emotion. If you want to change their minds you need to appeal to their emotions. Run commercials in the NIMBY neighborhood that show poor, disadvantaged low income families who would get to live there if the tower went up. Make them feel ashamed for opposing towers and they'll stop opposing them.

edit: Yes, this is a bad example, but the point remains. You must hit them in the feels.

Re: The Future of Cities

#13

Post by [deleted] »

rhapsodic wrote: post #9

> For a rich white dude up in a 50th floor penthouse, “the future of cities” might mean zipping around in a flying car while a robot jerks you off and a drone delivers your pizza. The guy must think people of color are incapable of attaining that level of wealth. Unintentional racism, but racism all the same.

[deleted]

Re: The Future of Cities

#14

Post by lg »

1_2__3 wrote: post #11
baron816 wrote: post #8

"We do damage to nature...and we do less damage to nature when we occupy less of it." Edward Glaeser is the man.

I have to admit this line of thinking never really resonated with me, and it resonates even less as I get older. My goal in life is not to have minimum impact on my environment, and yes, that includes nature . I think the nuance of the middle gets lost in these conversations. The right tends to think humans should have dominion over all (while ignoring the fact that we haven't "conquered" nature, and we have ample ev…

everything from our pets to our lawns to our roads and farms does damage to biodiversity though, which ultimately makes all life less resilient.

Re: The Future of Cities

#15

Post by [deleted] »

lj3 wrote: post #12
[deleted] wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> My personal approach is to build up better and better datasets (simulated, some taken from open datasets like the Building Performance Database) to slowly but surely force some evidence into these discussions. You'll fail using that approach. The NIMBYs don't make their decisions based on data. They make their opinions based on emotion. If you want to change their minds you need to appeal to their emotions. Run com…

[deleted]

Re: The Future of Cities

#16

Post by snrplfth »

[deleted] wrote: post #10
Synroc wrote: post #2

While I'm glad that this topic is getting addressed, that video was pretty difficult to watch. I know it would be unwise to spend extensive amounts of time on each topic in the video, but the way it was cut made it hard to think about the topic before moving on to the next part. Otherwise, this topic is likely what I want to focus my career in at some point, understanding how to improve the ways cities run, given how…

[deleted]

I live in Toronto and this is pretty much how it goes. (The city works in spite of planning, not because of it, generally.) Planners come up with some grand region- or city-wide objectives, with lots of criteria and performance metrics, and then when it gets down to the gritty job of building new stuff, it's all "we don't like it, because it's not what currently exists!" No surprise that the really big development tends to happen on old industrial lands where there's not enough people around to really complain.

But of course, you can see how the incentives run. If somebody likes their neighbourhood the way it is, and doesn't want change, then if they don't complain about new developments to councillors and planners, they gain nothing. But if they do complain, then there's a chance they can get developments stopped. (Thanks, "community-based planning".) So the cost of complaining is quite small, but the rewards can be quite large.

Re: The Future of Cities

#17

Post by snrplfth »

[deleted] wrote: post #15
lj3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My personal approach is to build up better and better datasets (simulated, some taken from open datasets like the Building Performance Database) to slowly but surely force some evidence into these discussions. You'll fail using that approach. The NIMBYs don't make their decisions based on data. They make their opinions based on emotion. If you want to change their minds you need to appeal to their emotions. Run com…

[deleted]

And mostly, new construction is not for low-income people, just because it's new. Low-income people tend to live in older buildings that have depreciated.

Re: The Future of Cities

#20

Post by philippnagel »

lj3 wrote: post #12
[deleted] wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> My personal approach is to build up better and better datasets (simulated, some taken from open datasets like the Building Performance Database) to slowly but surely force some evidence into these discussions. You'll fail using that approach. The NIMBYs don't make their decisions based on data. They make their opinions based on emotion. If you want to change their minds you need to appeal to their emotions. Run com…

I guess most NIMBYs would oppose low-income families in their vicinity.
Post reply on HN