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

91–100 of 344 posts

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

#91

Post by Karrot_Kream »

djsumdog wrote: post #75
johngalt wrote: post #24

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…

This is simply not true at all. There were countless small towns in America that had streetcars. It scales up quite well too. Your town turns into a city? Demolish the park-n-rides and turn them into stores. I hate this bullshit of "America is too spread out for transit." No, it is now. It's only happened in Jena, Germany is a town of $100k with 4 trams and 3 intercity rail stations. Chattanooga, TN, home of the famo…

> I hate this bullshit of "America is too spread out for transit." No, it is now. It's only happened in Unfortunately, the American population has also exponentially grown in that same time period. It really isn't that easy to switch back to streetcars or light-rail or bicycling, and if someone figures out how, it'll probably be the biggest infrastructural development of the next fifty years.

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

#92

Post by lgregg »

djsumdog wrote: post #76
lgregg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of the headaches could be avoided by zoning in ways that allow for density improvements to occur. We can't just build every new city as a planned green city too (i.e. Masdar City). I think it would be beneficial if there was some kind of standard at a state level for not just building codes but zone codes. It would also be nice if there was some kind of zoning and code for underground, so lower levels c…

American cities don't like to mix commercial and residential zoning. If you had a mix, you'd see more places with grocery stores you could walk to, like in London or Chicago.

I'm not sure which cities your referring too but even in towns like where my Dad grew up, a population of 40k, they're beginning to zone mix-use in urban areas.

As yardie mentioned, there is a huge demand for mix-use properties. To keep with Chicago as an example, I lived near a large area of small mutli-family (Du/Quad-plex or multi-story flats) and large single-family homes. There was plenty of commercial space but there was a huge local demand for mix-use property which led to it being developed. Called "New City" it was a tower on top of a movie theatre, a grocery store, with surrounding retail and restaurants.[0]

[0] https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9086253,-87.6488544,17z & http://experiencenewcity.com/

I wouldn't be surprised to see more zoning like that in small to medium cities, however, it's likely they would be more like landscrapers than skyscrapers.

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

#93

Post by spraak »

jimmaswell wrote: post #84
spraak wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the_gastropod below: > Cars are not the only solution here. Transporting a single disabled person does not require a 100+ horsepower 2-ton vehicle.

Rendering a webpage does not require an 800+ watt 50-pound computer setup. A balanced diet does not require flavor. Clothes do not require coloring. We can't just throw out having nice things because they aren't "required."

Your first analogy (50lb computer) is nonsense because that's exactly the point I'm saying: computers that fit on your pocket and are just a few grams can easily render a webpage. Who thinks that a 50lb computer is nice unless it's sophisticated hardware that can't be condensed? Cars are nice yes but there are plenty of other smaller and more nimble transportation devices. So weren't not throwing away nice things here.

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

#94

Post by slededit »

paulddraper wrote: post #49

> Websites like Zillow and Apartments.com offer calculations for commute length and walkability to everyday destinations like grocery stores If I'm walking to the store, do I (a) try to carry 20+ grocery bags home for my family of five or (b) make a grocery trip twice a week? I don't love either of those. And that's only groceries, not shopping in general. My wife got a 50lb bag of fertilizer from Tractor Supply yest…

Its pretty great to get groceries the day of on your way home from work. Ingredients are fresh, and nothing sits around wasting away in your freezer or fridge. Your town has to be setup well for it though.

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

#95

Post by InitialLastName »

jaredklewis wrote: post #85
InitialLastName wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd bet anything that your wife's small town in Italy was mostly settled and developed before cars, in a time when being able to get around town by foot (or by horse, at the fastest) was important.

Obviously. But it still seems optimal to build cities this way today, and it is surprising we don’t. With modern levels of obesity and pollution, why don’t we want walkable cities?

The (mostly American, mostly late 19th- mid-20th century) cities at issue were largely developed by people with cars in mind, before obesity and pollution were known issues. There's a lot of inertia to that kind of design.

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

#96

Post by zanny »

coldtea wrote: post #90
johngalt wrote: post #24

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…

> If you have a small town, then cars are a better option than transit. In a large metropolis, transit is better. Were did that came from? In a small town, you can get by fine with walking, bikes and so on -- like tons of Europeans do in tons of small (and even larger) towns, including towns where cars are totally forbidden and others were (because the town was built in medieval times and its buildings still stand ju…

US towns stopped building as a dense collection of buildings at the end of the 19th century. Modern "towns" are a dozen or so old buildings from that era surrounded by dozens of square miles of urban sprawl mcmansion housing.

Fundamentally the US simply has a density problem at all grades of construction. Its just more apparent in cities where the overconsumption of land per capita impacts more people.

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

#97

Post by oftenwrong »

jpernst wrote: post #80
oftenwrong wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my observations, walkable neighbourhoods can be great for disabled people. I live in a very walkable neighbourhood where there are many homes, businesses, schools, and more in walking distance, as well as bus lines and a subway station. Everything within 10 minutes at a normal pace. There is a home for people in wheelchairs (not sure of the correct term) down the street from me, and the people that live there ar…

As a disabled person who's spent his entire life dependent on others for transportation basically anywhere, I'll confirm how badly I'd love to live in a place like that. (I understand if you don't want to say where you live, but any hints to narrow it down or other places like that you know of?) It can't be overstated how confining it is when anything you'd like to do or see involves logistical wrangling to work out…

I live in Boston, Massachusetts. Unfortunately, it is an expensive place to live (probably because actually walkable areas like this are so rare in the US), and I may not stay much longer with the rate of rental increases.

If you do live in an area that is more car friendly than anything, a van might be the better option: https://nicolagriffith.com/2018/05/26/new-car-an-accessible-...

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

#98

Post by pm90 »

earlz wrote: post #47

I do a lot of traveling for business and staying in a city like Dallas, St. Louis, or some suburbia part of the bay area is absolutely my least ideal place to stay almost always. I love that uber exists, but my favorite part about traveling is walking around and doing photography so that I'm not just sitting in a depressing hotel. If everything interesting is at least 2 miles apart, it's hard to enjoy a city. And esp…

Texan cities are all very car friendly and pedestrian unfriendly. It is just not possible to get anywhere without a car, and people will look at you strangely even if you walk down to the grocery store a mile away or so. One fine Houston morning, my friends and I decided to walk down to the strip mall for lunch after a night out; the sidewalks were unmaintained and cracking, but also... we were the only ones walking! It was quite a shock to me to see that, especially since the roads were chock full of traffic.

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

#99

Post by moltar »

Zaskoda wrote: post #62

I'm one of those folks who would love to drop everything I have going to wander off into the desert/forest/underwater/whatever with the intention of bootstrapping a new city from scratch. The more I talk about it, I've found that there are a lot of people who would love such an adventure - if we could all just find some effort worth getting behind. It's sort of like starting a hippy commune, only with high-tech inten…

It’s possible and been done. See this doc for a good example of this happening in US:

https://www.netflix.com/title/80145240

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

#100

Post by airstrike »

isostatic wrote: post #72
reaperducer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Why? Studies show that narrower streets cause cars to drive more slowly, making neighborhoods more livable. (Less noise, among other factors.) There are other methods used that also cause cars to slow down - road humps, textured (fake cobblestone) crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, pedestrian bump-outs, replacing parallel parking with angled end-in parking, etc... When you have raised sidewalks traffic spee…

How about all those amazon deliveries? I'm all for banning garaging on roads, and I don't see why private cars need to be driven in the centre of major cities at all, especially during the day. Things like the London congestion charge for all cars from say 7AM to 9PM (depending on when transit is running well) are great, although should really scale with the value of the car. But when the supermarket drops the weekly…

> How about all those amazon deliveries?

That's what the drones are for

Post reply on HN