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

21–30 of 344 posts

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

#21

Post by drblast »

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…

Oh yes.

I just had surgery that requires me to be on crutches for a few months, so I'm temporarily disabled.

If you're young and able-bodied (like me pre-surgery) and want to understand what it's like to not be young and able-bodied (which you almost definitely won't be at some point) you should put your right leg in a brace, and try not to let your foot hit the ground for a day or two and try to live that way. The ground is lava for one leg.

"Walking distance" means about a block or two before you get sore from crutches or your arms get tired or your hands fall asleep.

Disabled access is a godsend, everywhere. And while I can't cook a meal in my own kitchen because I can't move around and hold a plate of things at the same time, I can drive to get takeout and carry the bag inside.

The world changes when you can't easily walk.

Edit: Those electric scooters at Costco aren't as fast or fun as they look.

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

#22

Post by epistasis »

dbatten wrote: post #15

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 r…

A bigger impediment to building walkable spaces is that zoning and codes usually prevent it from being built. From parking minimums, to very low maximum heights, to limiting the number of units that are allowed to be built on a plot of land.

All the regulations put a cap on density, to prevent it from ever happening.

Instead, some cities should try putting a floor on density: maximum number of parking spots (perhaps only enough for those with limited mobility), minimum building heights, and minimum number of units per parcel.

Or, just let people build what they want. That would also result in getting more walkable neighborhoods, which are super valuable, both to the residents and cities.

Legalize density.

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

#23

Post by taeric »

dbatten wrote: post #15

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 r…

I'm not sure the simplistic model would work that well. In part, because it creates a massively difficult bootstrapping problem. Is also a fairly ugly negative reinforcement mechanism.

Consider, in no way can you fund the creation of a new road with such a toll. Since tolls, by definition, only apply to usage of existing ones.

More, what happens when an unforeseen natural disaster hits? Suddenly toll costs sky rocket because the road was expensive to repair. Of course, at that point, you are back to the bootstrapping problem. If it raises tolls such that it is expensive to repair, how do you fund the removal when people stop using it?

So, yes, I agree pricing the externalities into the system are a good idea. But like most good ideas, it is also very very very easy to get wrong. To disastrous results.

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

#24

Post by johngalt »

This is one of those scaling vs. switching cost problems. If you have a small town, then cars are a better option than transit. In a large metropolis, transit is better. The problem is that as a city scales up, each individual step results in continually adding infrastructure for cars without ever making the active decision to switch, and redesign the entire city.

When a small town grows into a medium, it makes sense to add car infrastructure rather than rebuild everything. Again when you grow from medium to large it remains cheaper to add that new interchange rather than change the fundamental structure of the city. Growing from large city to metropolis often means incorporating other cities and their car based infrastructure, and making a coordinated move to anything else is extremely difficult/expensive.

Edit: I doubt we could properly identify the "next big metropolis" early enough to put the proper infrastructure in place. Even if we could, the politics surrounding who gets the infrastructure spending would cloud the process. Neither do I think we could simply set up a new metropolis some where and "build it correctly from the start".

The best bet is to find a means of bootstrapping the conversion of existing metropolises to walkable/dense/transit oriented methods. How do we mortgage the immense future benefits to apply pressure to make changes now? Is there an achievable half step toward the goal that provides enough benefit to drive the rest of the conversion? When I'm confronted with a switching cost vs scaling cost problem in operations, I would be putting in dual use infrastructure. Maintain compatibility while removing dependency.

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

#25

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

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…

>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.

Well it doesn't have to be but it certainly can be. Like that GP comment up there ^^^ said, making walkable spaces that require foot travel can certainly be ableist to those who can't do that.

I mean I could rephrase your comment in a way to say "it's not ableist to allow people who'd like to use the stairs to use the stairs and it's not ableist to build our cities to allow stairs" - except if what I mean by that is that I want the city to build places where stairs are the only option then yes, it is ableist. And if what I mean by "walkable" is that I want the city to build areas where walking is the only option then it's the same deal.

>Framing it like it's ableist ignores the near century of subsidies and prioitization of the automobile in the US.

No it doesn't. Those subsidies have nothing to do with what is being discussed. It's a completely separate issue.

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

...

Lol, just reread what you said.

>We need to find a way to inhabit the same space without inhibiting each other.

By which you mean you would rather the able-bodied not be inhibited by having to accommodate the non-able-bodied?

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

#26

Post by brockers »

dbatten wrote: post #15

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 r…

Thank you. I always getting a little angry at these "We should..." posts that are posted by a modern philosophe who has some idealized way of seeing the world and is more than happy to limit other peoples choices to maximize that vision.

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

#28

Post by maxxxxx »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #17
Someone1234 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Closer to what if doctors, shopping and other places are spread over miles?

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

#29

Post by Finnucane »

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…

Accesibility is important, but for decades, urban centers were sacrificed to benefit suburban, car-dependent sprawl. Even now, much urban development is burdened by mandated parking requirements. But where space is at a premium and traffic congestion is already a nightmare, why encourage more cars? Private cars don't have to be the only option (here in Boston, the MBTA has services for the disables, and apparently Uber and Lyft are making a little progress in this area).

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

#30

Post by drewr »

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…

If you can get the able-bodied out of their cars, then there's more room for those that really need a car. I only take my car when it's not practical to walk or ride my bicycle. And probably 80% of the time I'm in my car, I could easily be on my bicycle but there's no safe way to get where I'm going.

It's also a myth that disability automatically equals driving. I have a friend with impaired vision who can't drive but can ride a bicycle. I would like for him to be able to do that as safely as possible.

Post reply on HN