Life in the Spanish city that banned cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Life in the Spanish city that banned cars

#341

Post by ergothus » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 3:24 PM UTC

sunshinelackof wrote: post #329

As a kid in the early '90s the corner market, grocery store, schools from elementary to high, both jobs I had, and park were all within a 10 minute walk -- and that was in the suburbs. Cars don't need to be a requirement for daily life even in the suburbs it just requires good planning or planning at all.

For the past 50 years or so, the literal books on good design (according to the govt of the US) have specified cul-de-sacs, which offer the promise of less vehicle traffic but actually guarantee MORE traffic, because you can't have good walking paths. From a plane you can get an idea of how old an area is - old ones will have cul-de-sacs, middle-aged ones will have a fern-like structure with dead end streets that have only lines of cul-de-sacs coming off of them, and recent ones will have this fractal-like shape of cul-de-sacs of cul-de-sacs of cul-de-sacs. In those environments, nothing is walking distance (and walking paths start to become labyrinthine swirls if you actually wanted to walk them) so vehicle traffic increases.

Re: Life in the Spanish city that banned cars

#342

Post by NPMaxwell » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 3:24 PM UTC

InitialLastName wrote: post #327

deelowe wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As one of these so called "white flight" people, I can't describe how much such statements frustrate me. I didn't move from the city because I'm a racist or don't want to be around people of color. I don't want to be around people period . Living in the city stresses me out. The constant noise, the issues with drunk people randomly knocking on my door at 2am, the couple of times I woke up to people fighting in the pa…

> Amazingly, non white people feel this way too... Part of the reason the trend is called "white flight" is that for a long time and in many places non-white people were prevented by bank, municipal, real estate office and HOA policy from purchasing houses or even getting mortgages in the suburbs. Calling it white flight isn't always an accusation of racism against the people who were fleeing, more against the people…

Yes. If folks are interested, here's more about that: http://books.wwnorton.com/books/The-Color-of-Law/

Re: Life in the Spanish city that banned cars

#343

Post by jrockway » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 3:24 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #336

Urbanists who hate cars like to tear down freeways. E.g. in SF they tore down the Embarcadero and Central freeways, instead of repairing and extending them. This of course forces more cars onto the streets, making life worse for everyone.

But to be fair, San Francisco did not even want the Embarcadero freeway and proposed a tunnel that the state nixed. When the thing collapsed in an earthquake it was a pretty easy choice to not spend money building something the city didn't even want.

You do have to agree that not having to walk under a urine-soaked freeway to get to the waterfront is an improvement to the city. The tunnel would have also been fine, of course.

Re: Life in the Spanish city that banned cars

#344

Post by wahern » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 3:25 PM UTC

Barjak wrote: post #287

>People don’t like being told they can’t drive wherever they want, but Lores says that while people claim it as a right, in fact what they want are privileges. This strikes me as the fundamental issue.

Modern discourse about "rights" has become twisted. Some day we need to realize that one person's right is another person's prohibition. A society needs to choose its rights wisely lest the unintended consequences result in less overall freedom.

In a healthy civil society legally enshrined rights are less important because you can trust that everybody's freedom will be maximized, at least to a first-order approximation. In unhealthy societies legal rights are often cold comfort.

Re: Life in the Spanish city that banned cars

#345

Post by 8xde0wcNwpslOw » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 3:25 PM UTC

Barjak wrote: post #287

>People don’t like being told they can’t drive wherever they want, but Lores says that while people claim it as a right, in fact what they want are privileges. This strikes me as the fundamental issue.

Applies to a lot of things though. Just think what else you could replace the first part with, and whether it qualifies as an argument at all.

Re: Life in the Spanish city that banned cars

#346

Post by ghaff » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 3:25 PM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #135

nrjames wrote: post #100

Raleigh converted Fayetteville Street to pedestrian only back in 1977. It ended up killing all of the businesses there. https://www.wral.com/news/local/story/163829/ The city reopened it to traffic, however, and "revitalized" the area, resulting in a booming downtown economy: https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-may-learning-... I love pedestrian districts in cities. Copenhagen comes to mind. However, pedes…

True, though I don’t know if it would have the same effect today. There’s 5000 people living downtown today, which is very new. When I go downtown, I usually don’t park on Fayetteville, I usually park a few blocks away and walk.

I don't know the history of the mall in Raleigh but I suspect at least part of the issue was that, at the time, downtown Raleigh probably wasn't a place a lot of people wanted to walk around. As you say, there are a lot more people (and companies) downtown today and more upscale restaurants, bars, etc. Though, even today, like a lot of smaller cities that have had something of a renaissance, most of the places the average upscale professional would want to walk to are in a fairly small area.

Re: Life in the Spanish city that banned cars

#347

Post by NPMaxwell » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 3:25 PM UTC

deelowe wrote: post #221

Sharlin wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many suburbanites, however, have the entitled attitude that cities should accommodate their car trips to dense areas at the expense of people actually living there. Often their mindset is that cities are strictly where people go instead of where people live . In the US this mentality is exarcebated by the white flight and the decay of inner cities, but does also exist in Europe.

As one of these so called "white flight" people, I can't describe how much such statements frustrate me. I didn't move from the city because I'm a racist or don't want to be around people of color. I don't want to be around people period . Living in the city stresses me out. The constant noise, the issues with drunk people randomly knocking on my door at 2am, the couple of times I woke up to people fighting in the pa…

At least one of your challenges is addressed by the OP: "The constant noise"

Re: Life in the Spanish city that banned cars

#348

Post by quincy_daniels » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 3:26 PM UTC

I would like to take this moment to advertise a project currently under development in my city:

https://beltline.org/about/the-atlanta-beltline-project/atla...

The Atlanta belt-line is mostly being built on top of old light rail line around the city. The idea, as I understand it, is to provide a pedestrian and (unfortunately) cyclists only pathway that connects many of the notable places around the city. On this pathway, there already exists a large amount of beltline and road accessible shopping/restaurants/bars. There are plans to build a large amount similarly accessible housing on the beltline as well.

I assert that this strategy is a better alternative than closing off convex sections for cities similar to Atlanta. What would define a city similar to Atlanta? One that is not very dense, with some undeveloped or neglected land in urban areas, and whose centers of social activity are decentralized. By saying the centers of social activity are decentralized, I mean to say that the major parks, stadiums, shopping developments, chic neighborhoods, and so on, are dispersed around a few mile radius of downtown. Shutting of any two square mile area to car traffic would fail to capture more than a few of these places, and cause worse traffic problems elsewhere, which is costly regardless of how you approach it.

There are some downsides to the beltline of course, mainly its cost, but you get the same opportunity for a pedestrian urban experience, without overtly turning it into a political battle.

Re: Life in the Spanish city that banned cars

#349

Post by calebh » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 3:26 PM UTC

montenegrohugo wrote: post #66

fudgy73 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

totally agree, but a question for you and others - what's the point | what's going to happen | why is so much $$ being put into autonomous vehicles?

In relation to the transportation-problem being discussed, autonomous vehicles are much better than normal privately owned cars because (in theory) they do not need any parking, at least not in premium inner city ground. They can just drive away and park somewhere where they aren't disturbing anyone, and come back when needed. Alternatively, if they are part of a car sharing service, the % of time the car is not bein…

People buy cars with their worst case transportation requirement in mind. By moving car ownership to an external fleet, people will be free to only use the extra transportation capacity as needed. Why are we spending all of this energy to accelerate giant metal boxes when most of the trips in cars are only to get a person from point A to point B? It's incredibly inefficient. Self-driving cars and electric bikes are going to completely change the transportation paradigm inside of dense cities.

Re: Life in the Spanish city that banned cars

#350

Post by ummonk » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 3:28 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #188

alkonaut wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cars (especially privately owned ones) just do not make sense going forward Inside cities that is. One must remember that a lot of the people that move around in a city every day don't live in the city. And for many of them a car is a requirement anyway. For me the car is a sunk cost - I have it for the rare times I need it (I don't need it to go into the city), but buying/maintaining/insuring it is mostly a fixed…

Many suburbanites, however, have the entitled attitude that cities should accommodate their car trips to dense areas at the expense of people actually living there. Often their mindset is that cities are strictly where people go instead of where people live . In the US this mentality is exarcebated by the white flight and the decay of inner cities, but does also exist in Europe.

To live within reasonable walking / public transport distance of my workplace in SF, I'd be paying about a thousand dollars a month more in rent. If you don't want me to commute in from the suburb, build more housing in the city and bring down market rent there.