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

Why Many Cities Have No Money

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 424 posts

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#401

Post by avar »

detaro wrote: post #315
jimktrains2 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, Florence is beautiful and lovable, but I personally like the possibility to also drive to a commercial center, buy what I need for a few days, drive back home and park my car in a closed garage conveniently connected to my apartment via a lift, or my house via a door. Why? That sounds like hell. If I had to drive everywhere for everything I'd go mad.

How do you get from " also have the option to " to " had to drive everywhere "? I don't own a car, but I can completely understand why having the option to take one for occasional larger shopping trips is nice. Friends and family with cars do that, but they still make 97% of their trips without the car.

Because there's no such thing as just giving you the option to use your car. Once that option exists people will use cars, more car use requires bigger roads, more spaced out shops due to parking, and eventually gigantic junctions and highways.

Soon enough what used to be a 500 meter walk turns into walking 2 kilometers because of all the car-related infrastructure in the way, which then becomes a self-reinforcing feedback loop as more people own cars, so they're willing to travel longer distances, reducing the business & zoning incentive to make things walkable.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#402

Post by LordKano »

WWLink wrote: post #390
LordKano wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You raise a valid point. I just looked at my local code book of ordinances and they do cover a lot, including the number of parking spaces by square footage. In my experience, in a smaller town, these things are primarily used as a weapon to punish otherwise bad businesses. For example, we had a bar whose patrons became a neighborhood nuisance. They began to enforce the letter of the law for every violation until the…

That sounds pretty bad. If you make everything illegal then only selectively enforce the laws...

In the USA, that seems to be the model at all levels of government.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#403

Post by astrange »

gozur88 wrote: post #367
JamesBarney wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an expenses stand point it seems intuitively obvious that the per capita cost of individuals is lower in high density areas. And from a tax revenue standpoint city's get ~4.5x of their revenue from property taxes than from sales tax. And most suburbanites, like urbanites probably spend most of their tax near where they live.

>From an expenses stand point it seems intuitively obvious that the per capita cost of individuals is lower in high density areas. A lot of things that seem obvious aren't actually true. >And from a tax revenue standpoint city's get ~4.5x of their revenue from property taxes than from sales tax. And most suburbanites, like urbanites probably spend most of their tax near where they live. The city has some control over…

Is it because people in cities can afford it?

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#404

Post by aianus »

avar wrote: post #401
detaro wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you get from " also have the option to " to " had to drive everywhere "? I don't own a car, but I can completely understand why having the option to take one for occasional larger shopping trips is nice. Friends and family with cars do that, but they still make 97% of their trips without the car.

Because there's no such thing as just giving you the option to use your car. Once that option exists people will use cars, more car use requires bigger roads, more spaced out shops due to parking, and eventually gigantic junctions and highways. Soon enough what used to be a 500 meter walk turns into walking 2 kilometers because of all the car-related infrastructure in the way, which then becomes a self-reinforcing fe…

I don't think this works in places with cold weather. A 5 km drive in the winter is so much more pleasant than a 200m walk.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#405

Post by detaro »

avar wrote: post #401
detaro wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you get from " also have the option to " to " had to drive everywhere "? I don't own a car, but I can completely understand why having the option to take one for occasional larger shopping trips is nice. Friends and family with cars do that, but they still make 97% of their trips without the car.

Because there's no such thing as just giving you the option to use your car. Once that option exists people will use cars, more car use requires bigger roads, more spaced out shops due to parking, and eventually gigantic junctions and highways. Soon enough what used to be a 500 meter walk turns into walking 2 kilometers because of all the car-related infrastructure in the way, which then becomes a self-reinforcing fe…

More cars don't require bigger roads. That's exactly the point where pushback has to happen, and does in cities where a compromise works. If increase in traffic does not mean a scramble to accommodate it using your car becomes less attractive, which stabilizes the traffic level. That of course requires a culture which values public transport/bikes/walkability over cars.

E.g. in my hometown every building in the city core is accessible by car, but you have to take narrow, often single-lane side alleys to get there, the major paths all are pedestrian only. All that means taking a car there stays the exception for when it really is useful to do so. Tons of inner-city routes that are faster to walk than to drive. The further out you get, the more car-friendly things get, but public transport bridges most of it. Density is key to maintain that, it makes public transport and local businesses viable and puts pressure on cars.

Making large areas completely pedestrian-only isn't really politically viable, even here in Germany, but the compromises IMHO can work out fine, and people move to areas that have the characteristics they like.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#406

Post by jdietrich »

vanderZwan wrote: post #339
a3n wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do people do who can't bike?

First, we have a law called Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning [0] (and a 2015 update to it), which means "law for societal support", specifically aimed at helping everyone partake in society. Part of that is monetary support to buy, for example, a mobility scooter[1] if you have a disability that limits you in your freedom of movement otherwise. Many elderly use this. Also gaining in popularity recently is the so-ca…

Cyclists never retire, they just buy a tricycle.

Hase Bikes in Germany build a wonderful range of adapted bicycles and tricycles that can accommodate almost any disability. If you're capable of moving your arms or legs, there's a cycle that will work for you.

http://hasebikes.com/

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#407

Post by nommm-nommm »

aianus wrote: post #404
avar wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there's no such thing as just giving you the option to use your car. Once that option exists people will use cars, more car use requires bigger roads, more spaced out shops due to parking, and eventually gigantic junctions and highways. Soon enough what used to be a 500 meter walk turns into walking 2 kilometers because of all the car-related infrastructure in the way, which then becomes a self-reinforcing fe…

I don't think this works in places with cold weather. A 5 km drive in the winter is so much more pleasant than a 200m walk.

I live where it's cold and I disagree. Winter is the time I really wish I could ditch my car for good. You car is just starting to get warm at the end of 5km unless you've warmed it up ahead of time. And you have to clean it off and shovel it out which sucks.

As long as you are dressed appropriately then a 200m walk in the cold is nothing.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#408

Post by cptskippy »

tropo wrote: post #383
cptskippy wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Big box retailers sell things in big boxes. Err... I think we have different definitions of what a big box retailer is. Big box is a reference to the shape of the building and not what it sells. Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-box_store

Yes, but why is the building like that? The building is a big box largely so that it can sell large items. You can't fit very many large items in a small store; small stores typically limit themselves to small things. You could sell refrigerators in a small building. The selection would be very limited, and there would be a high risk of stock running out. The refrigerators out on the floor at a Home Depot or Lowe's t…

It's not about size, it's about quantity. Big box stores are warehouses and that allow for pallets of product to easily be moved around and put on the floor for consumption.

It has nothing to do with the size of the product being sold.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#409

Post by a3n »

mercer wrote: post #397
mamurphy wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume that they learn how to bike. If you meant to ask "What about people that physically can't ever bike (but can drive)?" What percentage of the population, honestly, do you think that is? Out of shape people can lose weight and eventually learn to bike. Very few people can-drive-but-not-bike, and surely exceptions can be made for them.

Funny coincidence: just yesterday I helped out a (to all appearances) rather old man who had dropped his keys and had trouble leaning down to pick them up. His hands were shaking as I handed him the keys, and he gave off a very frail impression. He was cycling when he dropped his keys. I remember being impressed by the fact that while this guy had so much trouble bending down, he was riding a (regular) bike. I've als…

No doubt. I wouldn't take away anyone's bike (unless I was their child or spouse, maybe), but I'd worry about old "frail" people on bikes. Their strength and flexibility declines (in general with individual exceptions), and a fall can debilitate or kill old people. Glad to see that three-wheelers are an option.

Re: Why Many Cities Have No Money

#410

Post by gozur88 »

astrange wrote: post #403
gozur88 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>From an expenses stand point it seems intuitively obvious that the per capita cost of individuals is lower in high density areas. A lot of things that seem obvious aren't actually true. >And from a tax revenue standpoint city's get ~4.5x of their revenue from property taxes than from sales tax. And most suburbanites, like urbanites probably spend most of their tax near where they live. The city has some control over…

Is it because people in cities can afford it?

Things don't cost more or less based on what people can afford.
Post reply on HN