Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities from Scratch

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities from Scratch

#101

Post by romwell »

souprock wrote: post #100
romwell wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But when I want to get to work? Give me wide straight roads. Why? Is getting lost on the way to work a problem? A month into working anywhere, you learn all the ways to get there anyway. And a 45-minute tram ride to work on winding streets beats a 1.5 hour traffic jam on a nice, wide, straight 101 North any time.

Wait, what? You think a 45-minute commute is good? The 1.5-hour thing is simply beyond the pale. You need to get out of the urban megacity. I've lived in several parts of the USA. My worst commute was 20 minutes by car, and my current commute is 3 minutes by car or 15 to 20 minutes by foot. These were all software development jobs. The reason is that I choose small cities. I choose places that have suburban density,…

Well, my current commute is 30 minutes by bicycle (South Bay), but that's about to change.

And yes, I guess living in NYC for a while seems to have affected me in many ways :)

Re: The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities from Scratch

#102

Post by provolone »

rayiner wrote: post #79
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't do them that way. In my area, roundabouts are put in where traffic occasionally bursts from one direction, and where traffic levels are low. Because they quit working once traffic increases, because it can be impossible to get on if there's continuous flow from another direction. Maybe the lights reported are because the roundabout has outlived its usefulness? A stopgap before ripping it out.

> Maybe the lights reported are because the roundabout has outlived its usefulness? A stopgap before ripping it out. Yes, the roundabouts here in D.C. long ago outlived their usefulness. Unfortunately, ripping them out probably isn't in the cards.

Compare Dupont Circle to Connecticut & K st. Down at K & Conn. they need to use at least 5 traffic officers to direct the flow during peak times.

Meanwhile Dupont circle handles P street, 19th street, Connecticut avenue, Massachusetts avenue, and New Hampshire avenue. Plus there is the pedestrian traffic from the park and the metro stop at Dupont.

Can you imagine doing that with only traffic lights? How many officers would be required to massage that mess?

Unless you propose building a spaghetti mixer, I can't imagine a better system for drivers or pedestrians.

Re: The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities from Scratch

#103

Post by burfog »

gowld wrote: post #67
burfog wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a 100% urban mindset. I can't even imagine thinking that way. Other people find urban areas terrifying because each person present increases the threat. Crowds mean pickpockets and sometimes riots. Every person must be watched, and this is incredibly stressful. It's constant preparation for a fight-or-flight response. The non-urban mindset feels much safer with completely empty streets. The next best thing wo…

That is a 100% male driver mindset. A female mindset on a deserted road is constant preparation for assault. A bicyclist or pedestrian on a road full of cars is in constant preparation for a collision.

No. Being female only changes the nature of likely threats, slightly.

Assume the example person is walking. Fear of crowds is the norm for people with a rural/suburban mindset. Evidently, people with an urban mindset actually feel safer in crowds, which is difficult for me to wrap my head around.

The deserted road is safe, aside from wild animals.

In a crowd, the more extreme rural/suburban people would be keeping their hand near a concealed weapon. I suppose this feeling might be alien to a person accustomed to city life.

The above plays a role in the fact that rural/suburban people without jobs are often hesitant to move to cities. The stress would take a toll on such people.

Re: The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities from Scratch

#104

Post by jacobush »

cimmanom wrote: post #56
jacobush wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cul-de-sacs decrease criminality too. If you go down a cul-de-sacs to do recon, you look out of place.

That doesn't compute for me - at least not in an urban environment. You're safest on the street where there are the most people; and criminals aren't going to try to break into a building if there's an audience. High foot traffic leads to safe cities. Cul-de-sacs discourage foot traffic.

While I can buy that a cul-de-sac is not always beneficial, to me it's not hard to buy that it can lower burglary. Also if high foot traffic leads to safer cities depends a lot on how likely these people are to help out in any way. In some cities I'd fear onlookers are more likely to contribute to a robbery than help me out.

First, where the cul-de-sacs are in my town, there is virtually no violent crime. (Violence directed towards persons.)

However, there is a decent amount of burglary and break-ins. Now, if you are going to do that for profit, you'll typically need some form of transportation to get away swiftly before the police gets on your track. Either a moped or a car, depending on the bulk of the loot you are planning on acquiring.

Before a burglary, you'll want to do recon. I can tell you, from the point of view of someone who was looking for property to buy, driving or walking down these cul-de-sacs will get you noted. People know each other there, if not by name, then by looks and what their car looks like. As an outsider, having your license plate number written down or a being snapped with a cell phone camera is par for the course.

Also, some of the suburban cul-de-sacs would have almost no foot traffic not intended for that street anyway, when the street in question is on a leaf or twig.

Re: The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities from Scratch

#105

Post by burfog »

eesmith wrote: post #75
burfog wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a 100% urban mindset. I can't even imagine thinking that way. Other people find urban areas terrifying because each person present increases the threat. Crowds mean pickpockets and sometimes riots. Every person must be watched, and this is incredibly stressful. It's constant preparation for a fight-or-flight response. The non-urban mindset feels much safer with completely empty streets. The next best thing wo…

Please define "urban". Cul-de-sac layouts are usually in suburban regions. Is that included in 'urban'? Or are you comparing urban cores to exurbs or rural regions? I've walked outside at 1am in a city with no one else on the streets. I've walked at 1am in another city with a lot of people on the streets. I can tell you that I felt safer when there were more people on the street than just me. Which would make you fee…

I think all of us (you, me, cimmanom) are assuming that cul-de-sac layouts are not urban.

Due to bad navigation, I walked through a bad area of western San Francisco on July 4 during mid day and then again on July 5 at around 2 AM. As a non-urban person I might be clueless, but I felt a lot less terrified with the deserted streets at 2 AM. Fewer people means fewer threats. I don't assume bystanders will somehow help me.

The idea that "criminals aren't going to try to break into a building if there's an audience" was proven wrong right after I left, with the Wells Fargo museum robbery happening in broad daylight with a crowd and a traffic jam.

Re: The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities from Scratch

#106

Post by eesmith »

burfog wrote: post #105
eesmith wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please define "urban". Cul-de-sac layouts are usually in suburban regions. Is that included in 'urban'? Or are you comparing urban cores to exurbs or rural regions? I've walked outside at 1am in a city with no one else on the streets. I've walked at 1am in another city with a lot of people on the streets. I can tell you that I felt safer when there were more people on the street than just me. Which would make you fee…

I think all of us (you, me, cimmanom) are assuming that cul-de-sac layouts are not urban. Due to bad navigation, I walked through a bad area of western San Francisco on July 4 during mid day and then again on July 5 at around 2 AM. As a non-urban person I might be clueless, but I felt a lot less terrified with the deserted streets at 2 AM. Fewer people means fewer threats. I don't assume bystanders will somehow help…

I still don't know what you mean by "urban".

I linked to a report concerning cul-de-sac streets in London. Do you think that I think London is not urban?

I also linked to a Wikipedia page which makes an explicit connection between "suburbs", "urban planning" and culs-de-sac, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_end_(street)#Suburban_use... .

No one is seriously making the absolutist argument that "criminals aren't going to try ... if there's an audience".

There was a Jan. 27, 2015 Wells Fargo museum robbery in San Francisco at 2:26 a.m - https://abcnews.go.com/US/wells-fargo-museum-gold-robbers-pl... . If that's the one you mean, and you believe it is a valid data point, doesn't it cast doubt on your views?

For me it makes little difference, as the actual argument is one of statistics. Any one data point has little weight. The report I linked to gives those statistics, and references to similar reports.

Re: The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities from Scratch

#107

Post by cimmanom »

burfog wrote: post #103
gowld wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a 100% male driver mindset. A female mindset on a deserted road is constant preparation for assault. A bicyclist or pedestrian on a road full of cars is in constant preparation for a collision.

No. Being female only changes the nature of likely threats, slightly. Assume the example person is walking. Fear of crowds is the norm for people with a rural/suburban mindset. Evidently, people with an urban mindset actually feel safer in crowds, which is difficult for me to wrap my head around. The deserted road is safe, aside from wild animals. In a crowd, the more extreme rural/suburban people would be keeping th…

You’d keep a hand on a firearm just because here are 3-5 other people on the same 250-foot long stretch of concrete? That’s the most antisocial thing I’ve ever heard.

And yeah, that would make it unsafe.

Re: The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities from Scratch

#108

Post by eesmith »

burfog wrote: post #103
gowld wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a 100% male driver mindset. A female mindset on a deserted road is constant preparation for assault. A bicyclist or pedestrian on a road full of cars is in constant preparation for a collision.

No. Being female only changes the nature of likely threats, slightly. Assume the example person is walking. Fear of crowds is the norm for people with a rural/suburban mindset. Evidently, people with an urban mindset actually feel safer in crowds, which is difficult for me to wrap my head around. The deserted road is safe, aside from wild animals. In a crowd, the more extreme rural/suburban people would be keeping th…

So, "urban" for you only means something like "urban core", eg, Manhattan, or the loop in Chicago, yes?

Why should we believe that "Fear of crowds is the norm for people with a rural/suburban mindset" is correct?

None of my aunts and uncles who were born and raised on a farm appear to have a fear of crowds. Most of them left the farm when they became adults ... and moved to cities.

For certain, most people from suburban areas do not have a fear of crowds. Otherwise, who goes to "crowded suburban malls" https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22crowded+suburban+mall%22&t=ffsb... ?

I read a book last night about ranchers in the mid-20th century. These are certainly rural people. Yet the ranch hands would go to the fair or rodeo, which certainly had crowds.

Re: The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities from Scratch

#109

Post by eesmith »

jacobush wrote: post #104
cimmanom wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't compute for me - at least not in an urban environment. You're safest on the street where there are the most people; and criminals aren't going to try to break into a building if there's an audience. High foot traffic leads to safe cities. Cul-de-sacs discourage foot traffic.

While I can buy that a cul-de-sac is not always beneficial, to me it's not hard to buy that it can lower burglary. Also if high foot traffic leads to safer cities depends a lot on how likely these people are to help out in any way. In some cities I'd fear onlookers are more likely to contribute to a robbery than help me out. First, where the cul-de-sacs are in my town, there is virtually no violent crime. (Violence d…

The Wikipedia article I linked references a report, which I also linked to, and summarizes the "higher foot traffic" more specifically as "local movement is beneficial, larger scale movement not so".

Presumably, local people are more likely to help out.

(As an aside, domestic violence is highly under-reported. It's almost certain violence directed towards persons occurs in some of those cul-de-sac houses.)

I've not had that experience walking down culs-de-sac.

In any case, it sounds like an easy way to do recon would be to walk a dog through the neighborhood. Making sure to pick up. Or put a camera mount on your roof and slap a sticker on the side saying "Google Street View Vehicle."

Re: The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities from Scratch

#110

Post by OpenBSD-reich »

travisjungroth wrote: post #63
lou1306 wrote: post #12

Since nobody has cited it yet, see Christopher's Alexander "A city is not a tree" [0] for an architect's take on "natural" vs. plannes cities. [0]: http://worrydream.com/refs/Alexander%20-%20A%20City%20Is%20N...

Wow I enjoyed this essay. I'm enthusiastic about graphs, and have spent a few dinners with my girlfriend imagining designing our perfect city. I didn't expect to run into a well-written article at the intersection of those topics. For anyone interested, the ethos of our dream city is walkability. High density, mixed use buildings. The main "streets" are walking and biking only, with limited roads for service vehicles…

My dream city is one where the building layouts are not densely placed, where easements are quite large to accomodate both wider roads and greater parking area, where everyone drives a motor vehicle, where every 'intersection' is an over/under like freeways are so there are no intersection signals and flow is nearly always constant. A city where pedestrians have no easy access to putting foot on roadway, and where bikes are not allowed on roads for being an impediment to motorists. Also this city would have 24-hour public transport.
Post reply on HN