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

The next great urban reset

cnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: The next great urban reset

#21

Post by marcosdumay »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #18

> How it will play out exactly is uncertain. My bet is that financial pressure from broke Millennials to central bank asset bubbles finally running out of steam will converge with new technologies such as ‘automated everything’ to produce the perfect storm, toppling the current paradigm When complex societies collapse, is it right to say they will rebuild with a simpler system, not a more complex one? To realize the…

The article is not about society collapse (something the West does not see since the beginning of the Middle Age). It is about urban collapse, something that happens from time to time, mostly when new technology appears.

That later one can go into either a more or a less complex direction. You'll have to dig some better targeted evidence to predict it.

Re: The next great urban reset

#22

Post by rexgallorum2 »

This was definitely aimed at specialists and advocates of new urbanism. The writer is correct to a degree--post war urban planning (sprawl building) in the US has been a disaster and the paradigm is on the verge of changing (and it will be a generational shift). In some areas it has already changed--this is one issue the author talks about when referring to 'retreat' to urban districts that predate sprawl. I think that bit was referring to the recent tendency for 'walkable' pre-war urban districts to experience rapid gentrification, while post-war sprawl areas (in some cases inner ring suburbs) lag behind and decay. This model doesn't apply everywhere, but it is emerging in some places nonetheless. Right now you can easily find examples of new sprawl construction and rapidly rising property values in pockets of pre-modernist neighborhoods in a single city.

Re: The next great urban reset

#23

Post by rexgallorum2 »

I think we are currently watching a number of cultural currents and counter-currents (re)emerging, and the increasing interest in new urbanism and walkable, mid-density, mixed-use neighborhoods is one of them. You could tie it to a broader rejection of modernism and capitalist realism and a dozen other -isms that have defined the look and feel and very substance of life in the US since 1945, and an increasing tendency to look to the past for traces of alternative presents/futures that never came into being (see Mark Fisher). Hipster retro fetishism is only the tip of the iceberg.

Re: The next great urban reset

#25

Post by RobertRoberts »

viscanti wrote: post #8
lotsofpulp wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically, I think it makes sense that the less resources people use, including space, the better it is for the natural landscape.

People should be forced to use and own more resources than they want/need. Who cares that 6 individuals or families might have wanted an opportunity to have affordable housing and didn't need a larger personal area (because they couldn't afford it)? Shouldn't they just be priced out of the area so that existing home owners can preserve their monoculture? Seems like a cause worth fighting for.

I guess this situation can be easily misunderstood, we are talking small rural area here. With very cheap housing already.

The town near us already had this kind of housing built and it was all empty because they couldn't sell the houses because they were built too poorly. Plenty of older homes available.

This is _not_ San Francisco.

Edit: >Seems like a cause worth fighting for.

Only where it makes sense, if there is 100 square miles of open space around you, forcing the living space inside a small town isn't the same as using the left over space in a big city wisely.

Re: The next great urban reset

#26

Post by RobertRoberts »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #7
RobertRoberts wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am actually skeptical of any plan that calls for us to smash more people closer together. A development near my home wanted to smash 5 houses into the same location where 1 was before. With only 12 feet between, (6 feet of yard space for each house) chop down huge trees, etc... I won a small victory at city hall, got a bunch of people to show up, even measured the land and found their plans were 15 feet short! (gre…

Theoretically, I think it makes sense that the less resources people use, including space, the better it is for the natural landscape.

Theoretically in a way, but in reality, it's not better for people to have only rentals as options, and not be able to own land. It puts all the power into to few people's hands.

I suspect most people on HN live in large cities, and viewed my post as a negative, but I live in a rural area, and there is plenty of housing and space out here.

And the people that you think are altruistic about space, simply aren't.

Re: The next great urban reset

#27

Post by RobertRoberts »

ocschwar wrote: post #20
RobertRoberts wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am actually skeptical of any plan that calls for us to smash more people closer together. A development near my home wanted to smash 5 houses into the same location where 1 was before. With only 12 feet between, (6 feet of yard space for each house) chop down huge trees, etc... I won a small victory at city hall, got a bunch of people to show up, even measured the land and found their plans were 15 feet short! (gre…

" I am actually skeptical of any plan that calls for us to smash more people closer together." No such plan exists. People smash themselves closer together when it makes sense for how they want to live. There are plans to allow it. Those plans should go forward because we live in a free country.

I really should have clarified that my situation described was in rural America. I realize that in larger cities the situation may seem completely different.

The open space group that I ran into did not care about good quality housing, just making money. And they do exist, but since this happened many years ago, I don't have any of my paperwork left, and finding this online is very hard because of the nature of searching for "open spaces".

The businesses involved are all rich land developers. And the kinds of houses they built were not only in-appropriate for the location (think basements in the south, or crawl space in the north) and abused town ordinances, lied to city councils, etc... It's amazing that people would think this stuff doesn't happen.

Is this the mob mentality we have now? That because city people need open space, because it's in short supply, that when a developer sucks up the space and uses it up that it must be ok because a lot of people fit there? But when a home owner wants to have space they are wrong?

Re: The next great urban reset

#28

Post by RobertRoberts »

cpursley wrote: post #13
RobertRoberts wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am actually skeptical of any plan that calls for us to smash more people closer together. A development near my home wanted to smash 5 houses into the same location where 1 was before. With only 12 feet between, (6 feet of yard space for each house) chop down huge trees, etc... I won a small victory at city hall, got a bunch of people to show up, even measured the land and found their plans were 15 feet short! (gre…

You're part of the problem. Classic "Screw you, I've got mine" mentality.

Well this got personal fast. I live on a very small city lot in a small town in rural America. The lot next door was a slightly larger lot that had one house on it.

Later in time, a developer came along and put a split house on it, one for his father-in-law, and sold the other. I talked with this guy as he was building these houses. He was respectful and cared about the neighborhood.

I went to city council when this project came up for one reason, to support this developer. With a split house on this land, there is 20 feet and back yard space (about) and maybe 10 in the front, and 6 on each side.

I told city hall I approved this guys plans, and I was happy he was building something useful there.

I really wished people wouldn't jump to conclusions and ask reasonable questions before accusing and attacking.

Re: The next great urban reset

#29

Post by RobertRoberts »

notfromhere wrote: post #16
RobertRoberts wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am actually skeptical of any plan that calls for us to smash more people closer together. A development near my home wanted to smash 5 houses into the same location where 1 was before. With only 12 feet between, (6 feet of yard space for each house) chop down huge trees, etc... I won a small victory at city hall, got a bunch of people to show up, even measured the land and found their plans were 15 feet short! (gre…

suburb-style single-family tract housing isn't sustainable. You can live plenty comfortable in a large courtyard apartment as you would in a house, and bonus is its more efficient and environmentally sustainable to build that way

We live in rural America surround my forests, empty fields and agriculture. We have more land than we know what to do with. It's surprising that every commenter here made assumptions about my situation.

Re: The next great urban reset

#30

Post by notfromhere »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #29
notfromhere wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

suburb-style single-family tract housing isn't sustainable. You can live plenty comfortable in a large courtyard apartment as you would in a house, and bonus is its more efficient and environmentally sustainable to build that way

We live in rural America surround my forests, empty fields and agriculture. We have more land than we know what to do with. It's surprising that every commenter here made assumptions about my situation.

land isn't the issue. building out the infrastructure to support urban sprawl isn't cost-effective, and the property taxes alone rarely recoup the cost
Post reply on HN