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

We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

devonzuegel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 344 posts

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#11

Post by jimmaswell »

Someone1234 wrote: post #7
dleslie wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth. _All_ can be designed to be accessible to such. Moreover, the choice isn't between only pedestrians or only cars; there exists combinations of the two that are more favourable to pedestrians but allow access by vehicle for those that need it.

> Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth. If people cannot traverse the distance required, it doesn't really help. For example someone with bad osteoporosis, and who doesn't have a $10K+ wheelchair and a $75K minivan to carry it, won't really gain much by theoretical ADA sidewalks if the distance is too far. Claiming stuff is "disabled accessible" witho…

Then maybe these pedestrianized areas should have small fleets of scooters that people who need them can use, like large grocery stores tend to have.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#12

Post by [deleted] »

jschwartzi wrote: post #10
kenjackson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the person you're replying to is saying that you should build exclusively for one class of people. You need to look more broadly when you design cities.

The point of the article is that what is being done in places like San Francisco is what looking more broadly looks like. It's not ableist to allow people who'd prefer not to drive to bike or walk instead, and it's also not ableist to build our cities to allow these different modes of transport in addition to cars. Framing it like it's ableist ignores the near century of subsidies and prioitization of the automobile…

[deleted]

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#13

Post by yongjik »

Someone1234 wrote: post #3

I agree, but "people" should mean all people, not just the able bodied. Cities keep on inexplicably designing these cool pedestrian only areas for the able bodied and young. There are people who can only travel limited distances, so if you set the beach front back half a mile, you've now cut it off from many older and disabled people. What I am saying is: For the physically young and able, vehicle-less areas as great…

> The distance from a car door to a shop is a good ten minutes, so she simply doesn't go there. She goes to out-of-town supermarkets with disabled bays right near the entrance.

...which is rather ironic, considering "ten-minute walk from parking lot to shop entrance" is an almost unique American suburban problem: we need huge parking lots because everybody's driving.

Construct a city so that 95% of the people take public transportation, and you can keep parking space for the rest 5% who really need it, and they will be practically at the front door when they get off.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#14

Post by redial »

Someone1234 wrote: post #7
dleslie wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth. _All_ can be designed to be accessible to such. Moreover, the choice isn't between only pedestrians or only cars; there exists combinations of the two that are more favourable to pedestrians but allow access by vehicle for those that need it.

> Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth. If people cannot traverse the distance required, it doesn't really help. For example someone with bad osteoporosis, and who doesn't have a $10K+ wheelchair and a $75K minivan to carry it, won't really gain much by theoretical ADA sidewalks if the distance is too far. Claiming stuff is "disabled accessible" witho…

Maybe the solution is to share those wheelchairs. Not everyone needs one all the time.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#15

Post by dbatten »

Rather than trying to force some particular vision of "the good life" on people, what if we tried to price transportation and other things appropriately?

For example, get rid of the gas tax. Toll all state and federally funded roads. Scale the toll according to the amount of wear and tear the vehicle causes for the road. Price something in to account for emissions. Make sure the tolls are high enough to pay for the road and its ongoing maintenance. Cameras capturing license plates at intersections can keep track of everything (tolled highways near me already work this way). Bonus points if you get municipalities on board and reduce property taxes being spent on transportation.

If you started doing stuff like this, I think people's choices will start to change. When it costs $5 to drive 30 minutes in to work every day, people are going to choose to live in big houses with big lots in suburbia and drive everywhere. When they have to pay the full cost of making that drive, their preferences may start to change.

Yes, a lot of stuff would have to change to get people to agree to this sort of thing and make it work. But the author is already talking about re-making cities, so we might as well do it in a way that maximizes freedom and consumer choice... right?

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#16

Post by p49k »

Someone1234 wrote: post #7
dleslie wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth. _All_ can be designed to be accessible to such. Moreover, the choice isn't between only pedestrians or only cars; there exists combinations of the two that are more favourable to pedestrians but allow access by vehicle for those that need it.

> Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth. If people cannot traverse the distance required, it doesn't really help. For example someone with bad osteoporosis, and who doesn't have a $10K+ wheelchair and a $75K minivan to carry it, won't really gain much by theoretical ADA sidewalks if the distance is too far. Claiming stuff is "disabled accessible" witho…

You’re right: such city designs should be accompanied by good universal healthcare and accessible public transportation, like most other wealthy countries, so that neither of these would be an issue.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#17

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Someone1234 wrote: post #7
dleslie wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth. _All_ can be designed to be accessible to such. Moreover, the choice isn't between only pedestrians or only cars; there exists combinations of the two that are more favourable to pedestrians but allow access by vehicle for those that need it.

> Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth. If people cannot traverse the distance required, it doesn't really help. For example someone with bad osteoporosis, and who doesn't have a $10K+ wheelchair and a $75K minivan to carry it, won't really gain much by theoretical ADA sidewalks if the distance is too far. Claiming stuff is "disabled accessible" witho…

> someone with bad osteoporosis, and who doesn't have a $10K+ wheelchair and a $75K minivan to carry it, won't really gain much by theoretical ADA sidewalks if the distance is too far

One solution to this is this person should move closer.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#18

Post by WhompingWindows »

We definitely need to transition from a car-centric to a person-centric urban landscape. Free public storage (parking) of personal property is a blight, and it's reprehensible that polluting and environmentally damaging personal vehicles are given primary consideration in hundreds of cities. I do agree that it's ethically questionable that many of the wonderful commercial districts give up 10-20% of their land to park cars for a handful of citizens. Let's get solutions in the here and now to these car-centric nightmares.

However, let's also build for technology coming down the pipeline. Urban planners today need to think about the coming tsunami of driverless vehicles, as well as the steadily increasing trends of cycling, scootering, e-bikes, and other electric last-mile solutions. These technologies may not make a huge impact like the car, but if they do, our policy-makers should be planning for these potential game-changers.

For instance, with self driving cars, we must ask what will be their effects on institutions like city buses? Does it make sense to have massive often under-utilized buses which don't drop you at your desired location, or does it make better sense to have smaller, 5-10 person self driving vans which can dynamically adjust routes, dropping off riders at much more desirable locations? What about cycling, scooters, and such - will these become increasingly popular as self driving vehicles start to penetrate? I know I'd bike a lot more places if I didn't have to deal with very unskilled and inattentive drivers all over my narrow-streeted city. Does this mean, somewhat paradoxically, that self driving vehicles will actually reduce the number of vehicle trips in a city, while increasing other modes of transit? Will self driving vehicles in non-urban settings actually increase vehicle miles traveled, as couples in expensive metropolis areas realize they can commute twice as far if they get to kick back and relax during the journey?

The implications of these technologies, and others we haven't seen yet, are potentially massive. We need to bring these transport modalities into the discussion whenever we talk about reshaping our urban landscapes.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#19

Post by Someone1234 »

jschwartzi wrote: post #10
kenjackson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the person you're replying to is saying that you should build exclusively for one class of people. You need to look more broadly when you design cities.

The point of the article is that what is being done in places like San Francisco is what looking more broadly looks like. It's not ableist to allow people who'd prefer not to drive to bike or walk instead, and it's also not ableist to build our cities to allow these different modes of transport in addition to cars. Framing it like it's ableist ignores the near century of subsidies and prioitization of the automobile…

You're taking away a mode of transport some disabled people depend upon, you have to take their needs into account while doing so. Simply adding ramps and slapping ADA stickers onto everything isn't an actual answer, just a convenient way to simplify the problem.

If you go from heavily vehicled areas to large pedestrian areas where vehicles are banned, you've gone from one extreme to the other. In both cases disabled people are left behind.

> The fact is that us able-bodied people need spaces that we can enjoy too.

I thought that was everywhere, including nature.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#20

Post by maxxxxx »

Someone1234 wrote: post #3

I agree, but "people" should mean all people, not just the able bodied. Cities keep on inexplicably designing these cool pedestrian only areas for the able bodied and young. There are people who can only travel limited distances, so if you set the beach front back half a mile, you've now cut it off from many older and disabled people. What I am saying is: For the physically young and able, vehicle-less areas as great…

But when you are really old or disabled you can't drive either and then you are totally screwed. And your electric wheelchair is not usable in a typical US town.
Post reply on HN