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

321–330 of 344 posts

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

#321

Post by ManFromUranus »

btingle wrote: post #191
black_puppydog wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't solve the issue of poverty. Poverty is as unsolvable as stupidity, or having people you don't personally get along with in the world. Those aren't solvable problems. Poverty is relative, so there will always be "poor" people. Even our poor people rich compared to Indias. And I assume you are fine with spending other peoples money to solve homelessness, or spend from the "commons" as is the typical solution to this issue. You want to spend while requiring nothing in return for that spend. So easy to make trite little comments that show you "care".

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

#322

Post by ManFromUranus »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #208
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…

> Eventually homeless ruin everything they touch and society needs to find a way to deal with them Although your rhetoric is terrible, you're not entirely wrong there. But using jackbooted thugs to kick homeless people off public transport is not the solution though, and doesn't achieve anything. It simply pushes the problem somewhere else. You need to actually solve the causes of the problem, rather than trying to c…

>Now they have no means to move anywhere (or they'll just steal bikes), and they're just going to shelter anywhere else that they can, including breaking into buildings.

They already do all of these things.. and also they befoul public transport and harass people on the subway and buses.

You merely assume I want to do unethical things to them meanwhile you don't really condemn their unethical behavior denying their agency while amplifying mine. I think we should just round them up and take them to a place outside of town that feeds them clothes them and gives them whatever drink and drugs or amusements they want so long as they stay there. ALL benefits are contingent on life reform so they can continue to receive benefits if they leave, or they must stay there (kind of like a gilded cage).

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

#323

Post by ManFromUranus »

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 they are a money pit, more and more and more money is required. The more resources and infrastructure you build to "help" them simply pulls more of them to you, which then requires more money to maintain and on and on.

The most basic standards of care and concern are absent from them, they litter and loiter and harass and stink and steal without any regard. So attract them to your city at your peril.

>That being said: I prefer biking, and with two saddle bags I can easily do the shopping for two

^This right here. You don't come into contact with them ever, so you don't see the problem. You probably never will but you cluck cluck whenever somebody who does have to deal with them complains.

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

#324

Post by btingle »

ManFromUranus wrote: post #321
btingle wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can't solve the issue of poverty. Poverty is as unsolvable as stupidity, or having people you don't personally get along with in the world. Those aren't solvable problems. Poverty is relative, so there will always be "poor" people. Even our poor people rich compared to Indias. And I assume you are fine with spending other peoples money to solve homelessness, or spend from the "commons" as is the typical solution…

I think my original comment may have been a bit too snarky. But countries like the US could absolutely be doing more for their poor and downtrodden than they currently do. And yes, I guess I am fine with spending "other people's money" (AKA money belonging to people who don't need it) if it means that the quality of life for those with the least advantages was improved.

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

#325

Post by MR4D »

davidw wrote: post #52
MR4D wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your point gets missed by many people. Europeans tend to have cities that have been around much longer than cars have, and you can see it in the design - they were built back when horses were the fastest mode of transportation. Many small American towns were built after the introduction of the automobile (or at least significant chucks of the towns were). Trying to undo history, or even taking a new mode of d…

The town I live in now, Bend, Oregon is barely over 100 years old, which is pretty new even for the US. And yet the downtown is still fairly walkable, if perhaps not quite as much as an Italian town. The really bad stuff only really started coming out after we got zoning and then accelerated with post WWII development. Can we make something just as walkable and nice as those Italian cities? Maybe not, but we can cert…

You give a great example - and raise an even better question:

  Can we "fix" cities to be more functional in a world dominated by autos?
I wonder if we can. It seems like inertia has become so great that it will take many decades to overcome this. In Houston, I think this easily could take 1/2 a century or more.

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

#326

Post by grasshopperpurp »

rorykoehler wrote: post #250
calohorn wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If homeless people on buses are a problem where you live, that has nothing to do with public transport in general. When you hear of people being aggressive, high, inconsiderate, or here in Portland two people had their throats slit on the light rail recently near my house, it makes the public not feel comfortable using the public transportation. Since it's called public transportation and these things effect the p…

It has nothing to do with public transportation. Wrong level of abstraction. It has to do with the fact the US is turning into a inequality dystopia.

This is exactly right. It's the price people pay for living in a place that doesn't care about its people.

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

#327

Post by grasshopperpurp »

Semirhage wrote: post #200
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Surely the solution then isn’t more housing for them, but more mental health services for them?

Agree with your other points, but both is the correct answer. It'd be wasteful to treat someone's mental health and leave them in a situation that deteriorates their mental health.

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

#328

Post by davidw »

MR4D wrote: post #325
davidw wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The town I live in now, Bend, Oregon is barely over 100 years old, which is pretty new even for the US. And yet the downtown is still fairly walkable, if perhaps not quite as much as an Italian town. The really bad stuff only really started coming out after we got zoning and then accelerated with post WWII development. Can we make something just as walkable and nice as those Italian cities? Maybe not, but we can cert…

You give a great example - and raise an even better question: Can we "fix" cities to be more functional in a world dominated by autos? I wonder if we can. It seems like inertia has become so great that it will take many decades to overcome this. In Houston, I think this easily could take 1/2 a century or more.

The suburb I lived in, in Italy was mostly built out after widespread use of automobiles.

And yes, it was walkable, because things were close to one another.

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

#329

Post by bluGill »

rmc wrote: post #317
bluGill wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco probably does have more homeless than England, but that is a likely a case of lieing with statistics. Which is to say there are external factors that make homeless likely to migrate to San Francisco meaning you will find other places "near" San Francisco with much less homeless.

Yes, I'm sure the social welfare system in San Francisco is better than England.

It is better than the options elsewhere in the US. Note that temperatures above freezing all winter is already a significant improvement. There are very cold states that have a great social welfare system, but weather makes them undesirable.

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

#330

Post by supertrope »

DrScump wrote: post #292
jacques_chester wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since they largely solve most of the problems of cars, while still being cars They solve air pollution and some of noise pollution. But they don't magically cause people to carpool. And even if they did, net passenger density for buses is higher, rail substantially higher again. An NYC subway R160 carriage can, in the space of about 4-5 car lengths, carry about 250 people, meaning those trains move a thousand or mo…

They solve air pollution They displace air pollution to wherever the generation plant is, except for rare areas served by 100% nuclear/hydroelectric/solar/geothermal.

While the only 100% hydroelectric regions I know of are the pacific northwest USA and eastern Canada, I live in an area with 60% hydroelectric and nuclear. 30% is natural gas. The last 10% is a split between coal and renewables. So a battery electric vehicle is 65% near zero emissions, and 95% is less polluting than oil. (Without considering the inherent efficiency of battery powered motors vs. internal combustion engines. Or the environmental footprint of manufacturing "green" machines, building concrete containment domes for nuclear plants, nuclear waste disposal, or methane leaks).

Even pure displacement of air pollution to smokestacks is a huge plus in places like midtown Manhattan where the most respiratory health harms due to particulates, NOx, ozone, etc. are taking place. Less kids getting asthma, people getting heart attacks/strokes, premature births, etc.

Post reply on HN