To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars • Hacker News Board

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#231

Post by bckygldstn » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #79

I'd hate walking everywhere, having to get tiny amounts of groceries every day instead of stocking up every 2 weeks, etc. Walking/standing all day at conventions feels like death and a half a mile trip to the fast food places around here turns from 2 minutes to 10 minutes if I walk, which I tried when someone from Europe said that's walking distance. Walking such distances just makes me constantly wish I was driving…

I'd hate waking to Safeway every other day, but I loved doing tiny regular grocery shopping in Europe. It made it easy to always have fresh produce and spontaneously plan interesting meals.

A lot of it comes down to how the cities and grocery stores are designed.

In the US you drive to a shopping mall, navigate through a sea of parking, walk maybe 1000ft of aisles, then spend 5 minutes in the checkout process waiting, scanning, bagging, and paying.

In the European cities I've lived in and visited, mixed zoning means you're likely to have a supermarket near your house or work so doesn't take any extra time to travel to, there's no parking so you just walk in of the street, the stores are about the size of a 7-Eleven so it's fast to find what you want, then the whole checkout process is crazy efficient.

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#232

Post by bluGill » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

ozzyman700 wrote: post #133

bluGill wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot mix a new development like that. Building a house is expensive, so only the rich and upper middle class can afford it. The poor always have and always will live in the houses the above lived in some years back and left for something newer. What planners need to do it make sure that when the rich vacate the neighborhood they left behind is good. Part of that is making sure that some of the rich decide to re…

"Mixed Income Housing" is becoming more and more prevalent, it decreases segregation by forcing proportions of new development to include low income housing. Possibly your statement: "You cannot mix a new development like that. Building a house is expensive, so only the rich and upper middle class can afford it. The poor always have and always will live in the houses the above lived in some years back and left for so…

One of two things are happening: either the mixed income is richer and middle class - as I already said; or the rich are paying extra for their house to subsidies the house of the poor. Probably a mixture of each.

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#233

Post by JDiculous » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

LoSboccacc wrote: post #42

dukoid wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copenhagen is amazing in this regard. I'd recommend to just watch anything from Jan Gehl on Youtube if you're interested in this topic: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jan+gehl

population: 600k not exactly a challenge now is it. the dynamics for cities with 6 million inhabitants are on a whole different scale because while building can pack people in three dimension transit has relatively few 2d planes to be built upon.

You don't need a car in NYC, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and Hong Kong, all cities with populations greater than 6 million (well Singapore is 5.6m).

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#234

Post by francisofascii » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #88

benj111 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you expand? I'm not sure if you agree with the parent, or against the new deal.

The green new deal comes from a place completely detached from reality rather than anything remotely feasible. Remember, the green new deal not only included destruction of all fossil fuel industries (aviation, non electric cars, trucks, trains, etc) but it also included provisions for people who weren’t willing to work (used to be in the FAQ). It started as a plan to completely restructure the US into the most socia…

So you don't think 100% from renewable energy is feasible? If not, then, shouldn't we be creating policies to preserve more fossil fuel to give us more time? It is finite, after all. What exactly is your plan?

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#235

Post by magduf » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #146

Shivetya wrote: post #40

Cars are not the cause of the issue with cities, cars are symptom of bad zoning and regulation which more times than not prevents owners of property from doing what they want. when every new building requires effectively bring special interest groups, politicians, regulatory boards, and unions, their due is it a surprise cities are not getting better. they are serving a politically connected elite, not the people who…

People who merely want to live somewhere don't yet have a voice in how that place is governed. This is good. Gov't should represent the interests of the citizens in it's jurisdiction.

No, it shouldn't, because then you get the problem most cities in America have: too many commuters creating too much traffic, and not enough high-density housing. SanFran is the poster child for this.

A better method is what they have in Japan, where local government has almost no power at all to control how land is used.

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#236

Post by philwelch » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

dkural wrote: post #194

philwelch wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not entirely clear that racial animus was the primary motivating factor. Once civil rights legislation was passed to stop housing discrimination, for instance, there was also black flight, when middle-class black families also moved to the suburbs. It’s also not clear how one is supposed to reverse the effects of white flight; when middle-class whites move into a majority-nonwhite urban area, this is usually con…

My issue is the article doesn't once mention this as factor at all . I also object that one needs racial animus to have racist policies. "I've got no animus towards blacks, I just don't want to share large chunks of civic life with them" is racist. Blacks wanted to move to the suburbs due to lack of city & civic infrastructure in black neighborhoods - as the whites fled; so did polling stations, hospitals, banks, sto…

I guess the racial theory is still incomplete because it doesn’t explain why the socially dominant group (whites) were the ones to move. If you take the perfectly reasonable assumption that whites had the most power in society, the obvious question is: why did they flee to the suburbs themselves rather than just forcing the black population to move out into the suburbs? The answer must be that the whites perceived the suburbs to be a more desirable place to live. From that perspective, the racial injustice wasn’t white flight, it was denying black people the freedom to move to the suburbs themselves—which is exactly what they ultimately did when given the opportunity.

I’m not trying to dismiss racism as a causative factor. I guess I’m just saying it’s like living in a sawmill, and racism is the sawdust. The sawdust causes lots of problems by itself, but it also gets all over everything else. Suburbanization was something mid-century Americans of all races desired; it just happened in a racist way.

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#237

Post by TheCoelacanth » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #137

myself248 wrote: post #123

Funny how the loudest voices in these sorts of articles are always from places with temperate weather.

And places that are already dramatically denser than the vast majority of the developed world. Over the weekend I found myself looking for a place in Europe in satellite view, outside of an urban core, and I was struck by how many single-family houses there were, complete with driveways and cars. Here on HN I have been led to believe that Europe is a utopia of forward-thinking people too concerned about the environme…

By definition, places with high population-density are the places where a lot of people live. It is not a "bubble".

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#238

Post by michaelt » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

isostatic wrote: post #101

rfrey wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure 20-somethings are more civic minded. They voted in the last election at participation rates consistent with the last 40 years for that age group. Participation rates will probably increase as they age. Unfortunately priorities tend to change as people age too.

And they'll move out of the cities into suburbia in their 30s, as they always do. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47529562 Over the past decade, about 550,000 more Britons left London than moved to it. This trend is not unique to London; it is seen in many big US cities, including New York, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles. ... People arrive in their 20s looking for jobs, then retreat in their 30s. Although it seems more…

  People arrive in their 20s looking for jobs,
  then retreat in their 30s.

Terraced house in London: £675,216 [1]

Terraced house in Hertfordshire: £380,897 [2]

The only surprising thing here is people are having to save until their 30s before buying a house.

[1] https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html [2] https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-Hertfordshire.ht...

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#239

Post by bluGill » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #67

mtberatwork wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the US went to the other extreme and is only slowly turning around. US car manufacturers are doubling down on large trucks and SUVs and the current administration continues to thwart progress on tackling climate change and other societal concerns. I would say the US, at least on a macro level, is still on the "other extreme" path.

And yet not a pip when the new governor of California, Gavin Newsom announced that the high speed rail projects there will be scaled back, markedly.[1] [2] Between Los Angeles and San Francisco, no less ! Atleast not from these pro high-density living and pro urban transit folks. I don't get how you pick and choose what you'd like to criticize and what you'd like to champion on one side and what you conveniently igno…

That rail would do little for density. It might (at a more reasonable cost) be a good thing, but density is about things close to home, high speed rail is about getting people far from home.

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#240

Post by ak217 » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #226

ak217 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Millions of people around America get their kids around the neighborhood just fine without a car. If you continue to insist that cities be designed around your limited vision, then you should be forced to pay for the full externalities of your car-centric lifestyle. The rest of us are tired of paying so you can waste our resources.

You need to cite a source for that. Infact if anything, despite the very very recent free-range kids movement to liberate kids from the dependence on parents, its the opposite - kids get ferried everywhere, from high school sports practice sessions to neighborhood store visits.

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pdf/Community_SRTSfederal_Trends....