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

The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s

theamericanconservative.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s

#31

Post by notahacker »

kazen44 wrote: post #24
egypturnash wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here, have a look at a representative sample of images: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=new+orleans+french+quarter&bext=ms... Just look at any of those wrought iron railings. From a purely functional viewpoint they could do their job of being a railing to stop you from falling off the balcony with a series of plain vertical bars. But they are these elaborate concoctions of decoration and detail that someone had to cast, be…

One of the supposed reasons for this is the relation between labour and product prices. Before WW2, labour was far cheaper then materials, especially in Europe.

Labour being cheap made elaborately designed wrought iron balconies possible for relatively modest housing. It didn't make them necessary (and relatively speaking, the iron itself was a lot more expensive then)

Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s

#32

Post by asifgonionuio »

I would have more respect for the author if they criticized these regulations in spite of the fact that they have clearly improved the appearance of these businesses. All of these buildings are better-designed and more distinctive than any McDonald's I've ever seen. Pretending that an ordinary McDonald's is anything except ugly is disingenuous.

Although the teal arches are stupid.

Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s

#33

Post by rdiddly »

rizwank wrote: post #20
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most new development in the US look terrible indeed. I’d rather get overprotection than those buildings everywhere in my city.

And what about the subsequent pressure on new ever growing need for housing?

What about it? If there's ever a mass exodus to Freeport ME, the people trying to service that need will follow the rules while serving the need. Or they'll get out of that market and someone else will do it. In the "worst" case the local property owners get higher prices which is a win, and the aesthetic rules maintain the (presumed) attractiveness of the town, which is a win. Shrug emoji? The locals hold all the cards, and I'm not even sure that's a bad thing.

Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s

#34

Post by Ididntdothis »

I like it when buildings look different. I find it super depressing when you drive across the US countryside and everywhere looks totally the same. I think it’s much nicer to have some standards where business have to fit the place instead of the usual soulless cookie cutter style.

Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s

#35

Post by chrisseaton »

wcunning wrote: post #2

There are so many examples of this sort of thing. I am frustrated by the ease with which buildings are declared historical sites and how often that designation happens after somebody buys a piece of property to develop it. I think it would be far fairer to the purchaser (and the seller, who makes out like a bandit unfairly) to mandate a 90 day stay when a large parcel is sold to allow for filing of historical paperwo…

I think people's priorities are protecting the vulnerable buildings. It's not nice if it's a surprise for someone who buys it, but if the building needs protection then that's the most important thing and there shouldn't be a deadline on doing the right thing.

Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s

#36

Post by nine_k »

lostlogin wrote: post #15
wcunning wrote: post #2

There are so many examples of this sort of thing. I am frustrated by the ease with which buildings are declared historical sites and how often that designation happens after somebody buys a piece of property to develop it. I think it would be far fairer to the purchaser (and the seller, who makes out like a bandit unfairly) to mandate a 90 day stay when a large parcel is sold to allow for filing of historical paperwo…

> There are so many examples of this sort of thing. I am frustrated by the ease with which buildings are declared historical sites and how often that designation happens after somebody The flip side of this is that developers don’t have a good record. Cheap, badly done developments and a history of buying, then revealing their true plans. “Oh, it turned out to be structurally unstable, so we have to demolish”.

There is a balancing act between living in a museum and retaining no historical memory.

Most cities with any history to speak of preserve a few areas built out with edifices that are especially beautiful, and / or historical significance.

I would rather my city demolish and rebuild a slums district, even if that district used to be a city's landmark. Unless such a place can sustain itself as a museum and a tourist attraction, I think the life conditions of the current population are more important than the desire to have a living memory of everything.

Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s

#37

Post by edoceo »

rdiddly wrote: post #33
rizwank wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about the subsequent pressure on new ever growing need for housing?

What about it? If there's ever a mass exodus to Freeport ME, the people trying to service that need will follow the rules while serving the need. Or they'll get out of that market and someone else will do it. In the "worst" case the local property owners get higher prices which is a win, and the aesthetic rules maintain the (presumed) attractiveness of the town, which is a win. Shrug emoji? The locals hold all the ca…

Moving in for the McLobster. I'm there next week, can't wait ;)

Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s

#38

Post by esoterica »

rdiddly wrote: post #33
rizwank wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about the subsequent pressure on new ever growing need for housing?

What about it? If there's ever a mass exodus to Freeport ME, the people trying to service that need will follow the rules while serving the need. Or they'll get out of that market and someone else will do it. In the "worst" case the local property owners get higher prices which is a win, and the aesthetic rules maintain the (presumed) attractiveness of the town, which is a win. Shrug emoji? The locals hold all the ca…

> the local property owners get higher prices which is a win

Preventing people from being able to afford a place to live so entrenched interests can accrue hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment appreciation is not a “win”.

Even if you think that the interests of long term “locals” should be privileged (which I disagree with, all men are created equal yada yada), rising property prices don’t benefit all locals, just “local property owners”, as you’ve observed. Local renters and even the kids of local homeowners who eventually want to enter the property market themselves are hurt by constrained supply.

Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s

#39

Post by asveikau »

captainbland wrote: post #5

> Locals seem to be content with all four developments If the locals like it, and they're the ones who are going to be using it and looking at it all the time, then frankly who cares what the "reception online" is?

Irony alert: I suspect if you asked those behind a thing titled "American Conservative" if they liked federalism, they would say yes. But the gist of this article seems to be that they don't like local control of regulation.

Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s

#40

Post by PhasmaFelis »

captainbland wrote: post #5

> Locals seem to be content with all four developments If the locals like it, and they're the ones who are going to be using it and looking at it all the time, then frankly who cares what the "reception online" is?

Yeah, it's weird, right? His argument seems to be "some dudes on the internet are mocking X, therefore X is objectively bad and a real problem." The problems with that principle should be obvious!

If he wanted to talk about overbearing zoning boards hurting their communities, there's probably a good discussion to be had there, but "some McDonald's are kinda weird and that's terrible" is not a good starting point.

Post reply on HN