We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016) • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by btingle » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 11:43 PM UTC

black_puppydog wrote: post #159

ManFromUranus wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeless people using transit as a shelter is a huge problem, it makes transit undesirable. Also politicians are so milquetoast they won't address the problem for fear of looking like a 'bad guy' when in reality transit was never designed to be a homeless shelter, so homeless need to be forcibly removed from the vehicle and excluded from the transit system where possible. Eventually homeless ruin everything they touc…

Okay I guess I have to heavily adjust my view of public transit here. Given, I've only seen European transit systems, but none of them had a problem of that scale. Sure, the occasional junkie and drunk, but nothing even remotely bad enough to have an influence on my everyday transit behaviour. That being said: I prefer biking, and with two saddle bags I can easily do the shopping for two. And I've seen friends get e-…

Because solving the issue of homelessness (or poverty in general) would mean parting with precious, precious currency.

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

#192

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 11:46 PM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #173

drb91 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bit of traffic, or dropping a few bucks on an Uber/Lyft. How can this be true? Public transit allows your attention to wander and typically is much, much faster than traffic. Adding uber/lyft will get two of the worst attributes: traffic and high cost, although you’ll be able to do something else simultaneously. Furthermore, it’s not clear how parking fees affe…

As the GP said, there are people who are drunk, high, smelling of bodily fluids, etc. There are people who are rude, loud, etc. If this were stopped, then it might be better than being in a car.

>> As the GP said, there are people who are drunk, high, smelling of bodily fluids, etc. There are people who are rude, loud, etc.

Excuse me, but- where does that happen?

I mention in another comment that I live in a town in England, where I've never had any problems with homeless people in public transport. I also work in London, travel by rail across Europe and often use public transport in three different European countries, France, Italy and Greece. I have never noticed the kind of problem you and the GP flag up.

I'm getting the feeling that it's a problem local to a very specific part of the world and by no means a global issue that has to do with the nature of public transport, in general.

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

#193

Post by zanny » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 11:48 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #115

zanny wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US also has a ton of land. I stayed with family in a British suburb once, and everything was still neatly squished in together, even single-family houses, compared to the expansive yards of American suburbs. Kids could walk to school and everything.

Having a lot of land doesn't change the fact that no matter how much land you have, there is still a place everyone wants to be. You could have a million new houses built in Idaho and it wouldn't make a dent of difference to the LA housing market.

The US real estate market is built like it can go infinitely wide, but the real world demand and price structures show the reality that density matters.

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

#194

Post by philwelch » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 11:50 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #193

philwelch wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US also has a ton of land. I stayed with family in a British suburb once, and everything was still neatly squished in together, even single-family houses, compared to the expansive yards of American suburbs. Kids could walk to school and everything.

Having a lot of land doesn't change the fact that no matter how much land you have, there is still a place everyone wants to be. You could have a million new houses built in Idaho and it wouldn't make a dent of difference to the LA housing market. The US real estate market is built like it can go infinitely wide, but the real world demand and price structures show the reality that density matters.

There was definitely a hard way to learn that lesson.

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

#195

Post by ghostbrainalpha » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 11:50 PM UTC

sopooneo wrote: post #175

peterwwillis wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying citizens should solve the problem. And I know it's not your job. It's nobody's job. That's why nothing has been done. I mean, the stupidest thing about this is this isn't that hard a problem to solve. Homeless people are just regular people with a problem and no resources to fix it. You provide them resources and help and they are no longer homeless and no longer a nuisance. Instead, people see them li…

Like me, many people I know started out believing what you wrote. But now that I'm a bit older, most that I know who have actually worked to alleviate homelessness would agree that a large portion of the visible homeless have severe mental health or addiction issues. That is not to say the they are undeserving of compassion, rather they are deserving and in need. But to say that simply providing resources will fix th…

Have spent 5+ years working professionally on homelessness, this is something I can agree with.

We all want to "fix" the problem of homeless people misusing public transportation, but at least 10-20% of the homeless people I have worked with wouldn't even agree that a problem exists.

I want to add resources to "fix" the problem, but first you have to get all parties to agree that their is a problem to fix. There is a ton of grey area, and we don't talk about Hobo's anymore like we did in the 60's. But many people choose homelessness.

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

#196

Post by paulddraper » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 11:51 PM UTC

pchristensen wrote: post #176

paulddraper wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

City . I live in a city (to be precise Lehi City, Utah [1] population 65k). If we're talking large cities, say pop 400k+ (San Fran is 870k), then sure assume apartments. I didn't see any qualifiers; it seems the author is advocating these ideas for all cities. And 70% of Americans live in city/town/village/hamlet/whatever of less than 100k. [2] (Perhaps that is solely because of the aforementioned urban planning issu…

Saying that you live in Lehi, a small town, without mentioning that it's near the geographic center of a region of nearly 2 million is a little disingenuous. You're talking like you live in Logan, a similar sized town that's geographically and economically distant. Lehi is, in all ways but politically, a subdivided neighborhood of SLC-Provo. Given the businesses around I-15 and the train stations, it would definitely…

> a subdivided neighborhood of SLC-Provo

Sort of...but that area's huge. The Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem combined census area spans ten counties. Two million people over 25,000 square miles (For comparison, Rhode Island is one million people over 1,200 sq mi.)

> in all ways but politically

Presumably, city planning happens at the city level.

> But those can't be built regardless of whether people want them or not, due to zoning.

Considering the new townhouses and apartments that I see, that would mildly surprise me.

> Just because your municipality has a low population doesn't mean you live in a small town.

True. I still maintain that most Americans do (and prefer to) live in single-family residences, and that brings certain requirements for city planning.

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

#197

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 11:52 PM UTC

IneffablePigeon wrote: post #146

philwelch wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US also has a ton of land. I stayed with family in a British suburb once, and everything was still neatly squished in together, even single-family houses, compared to the expansive yards of American suburbs. Kids could walk to school and everything.

The fact that kids walking to school is surprising really highlights the difference. Growing up in the UK, people who got driven to school were the odd ones (depending somewhat on the area).

[deleted]

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

#198

Post by philwelch » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 11:52 PM UTC

IneffablePigeon wrote: post #146

philwelch wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US also has a ton of land. I stayed with family in a British suburb once, and everything was still neatly squished in together, even single-family houses, compared to the expansive yards of American suburbs. Kids could walk to school and everything.

The fact that kids walking to school is surprising really highlights the difference. Growing up in the UK, people who got driven to school were the odd ones (depending somewhat on the area).

There’s nothing more American than a big yellow school bus belching black diesel smoke.

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

#199

Post by robbrown451 » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 11:54 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #192

epicureanideal wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the GP said, there are people who are drunk, high, smelling of bodily fluids, etc. There are people who are rude, loud, etc. If this were stopped, then it might be better than being in a car.

>> As the GP said, there are people who are drunk, high, smelling of bodily fluids, etc. There are people who are rude, loud, etc. Excuse me, but- where does that happen? I mention in another comment that I live in a town in England, where I've never had any problems with homeless people in public transport. I also work in London, travel by rail across Europe and often use public transport in three different European…

San Francisco, for one.

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

#200

Post by Semirhage » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 11:57 PM UTC

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #195

sopooneo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like me, many people I know started out believing what you wrote. But now that I'm a bit older, most that I know who have actually worked to alleviate homelessness would agree that a large portion of the visible homeless have severe mental health or addiction issues. That is not to say the they are undeserving of compassion, rather they are deserving and in need. But to say that simply providing resources will fix th…

Have spent 5+ years working professionally on homelessness, this is something I can agree with. We all want to "fix" the problem of homeless people misusing public transportation, but at least 10-20% of the homeless people I have worked with wouldn't even agree that a problem exists. I want to add resources to "fix" the problem, but first you have to get all parties to agree that their is a problem to fix. There is a…

Surely the solution then isn’t more housing for them, but more mental health services for them? Treating drug addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal one might not hurt either. From my time in America I was amazed to see how little option there is for people who are mentally ill, and not rich. The “solution” embraced seems to be the streets, or jails.

Of course that leads to massive social decay.