Live data from Hacker News

Streets with Nooks and Crannies Are Beloved and Endangered

theamericanconservative.com

51–60 of 148 posts

Re: Streets with Nooks and Crannies Are Beloved and Endangered

#51
post #14

As often is the case, cars are the elephant in the room. In the alley? We have rebuilt our urban spaces for cars instead of people. Now we wonder at what we've lost but have trouble connecting it to the automobile because t's ubiquitous and most of us can't imagine it otherwise.

Before there were cars there were horses. Some places are dense and cramp, the countryside is spread out. Talk of car cities or waling cities is mere confabulation. Some prefer dense cities, some the sprawling countryside of farms and having the nearest store an hour away. Why can’t people be free to live in less crowded, less crime ridden, less dirty and noisy locations if they prefer that?

> Why can’t people be free to live in less crowded, less crime ridden, less dirty and noisy locations if they prefer that?

Who says they can't? The question being asked was "why are there no nooks and crannies". Those by definition only appear in dense places. You can't have a nook in a large empty field.

Re: Streets with Nooks and Crannies Are Beloved and Endangered

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a lot of developments in the UK - certainly in London - are proposing zero parking. We had a (now shelved) plan near where I live to build 700 2 & 3 bed apartments in a new development with zero parking spaces in the design. This strikes me as blindly optimistic that of those 700 apartments (that will likely have between 2 or 3 people or more per apartment on average, so somewhere like 1500-2500 people) absolut…

Eliminating parking requirements is also starting to gain traction in the US: Seattle did it [0], and it's underway in Los Angeles [1]. Unfortunately it tends to make NIMBY opposition to development even more intense than it already is ("They'll use up all the street spaces!"), but fingers crossed we can keep this trend going. [0]: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sea... [1]: https://la.curbed…

Well that NIMBY response was the same here.

In London generally on-street parking is already at- or over-capacity, so adding an extra couple of hundred to a thousand people wanting to park their car in the surrounding 3 or 4 streets is not just NIMBY-style petty complaints of "I don't want someone parking outside my house" and so on, but more "there physically isn't enough space for even more people to try and park in the already over-capacity on-street parking - get a reality check, this isn't going to work".

I think there is a difference between those two responses

Re: Streets with Nooks and Crannies Are Beloved and Endangered

#53

It's illegal to build things without enormous parking lots and roads around them in most instances now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvUByM-fZk includes an illustration of how this even results in the destruction of nice, walkable places when old buildings are renovated in to apartments.

Quite a lot of developments in the UK - certainly in London - are proposing zero parking. We had a (now shelved) plan near where I live to build 700 2 & 3 bed apartments in a new development with zero parking spaces in the design. This strikes me as blindly optimistic that of those 700 apartments (that will likely have between 2 or 3 people or more per apartment on average, so somewhere like 1500-2500 people) absolut…

Why not both? It seems to both be more profitable for the developer and better for the environment.

Re: Streets with Nooks and Crannies Are Beloved and Endangered

#54
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. It's the main reason many European cities and Manhattan feel so engaging and alive in comparison to other US cities (just using my experiences). In walking cities you interact with the city itself -- you can stop and look at things closely, walk into a small store you've never noticed before, run into a friend and chat, or pause and just people watch. In car cities everything's far off and viewed through glass,…

The crazy thing is a minor change could make many suburbs much more walkable: put the stores on the street and parking in the back. Not sure why they started doing the reverse. I've lived in a lot of California suburbs that are still within walking distance to shops (~1 mile), but the experience is so bad because of the way they've arranged parking.

Bait parking is the sad reason. People are more likely to park and go into the store if they can see from the road that there are available parking spaces.

Re: Streets with Nooks and Crannies Are Beloved and Endangered

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just looked up the settlement: it seems crazy to me that the hotel could be held liable for the shooting. Is there really an expectation for the hotel to keep tabs on what its guests are doing? Edit: I looked into it further: MGM was insured for 751M for the payout and I suppose they figured an additional 100M to get it out of their hair was worth it. The existence of a settlement doesn't create a precedent, but I wo…

There is now. Prepare to have your bags checked, and hotel rooms inspected at least once, if not multiple times per day. It's a ludicrous settlement, and I'd love to see an explanation from the judge(s) that let the suit(s) proceed instead of throwing it out. The whole situation in America at this point is you're liable for anything and everything that could be connected to you (and definitely if it's on your propert…

Next time you check in to a hotel, notice that the little hanging sign on the door no longer has a side that says "do not disturb."

Re: Streets with Nooks and Crannies Are Beloved and Endangered

#56
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a lot of developments in the UK - certainly in London - are proposing zero parking. We had a (now shelved) plan near where I live to build 700 2 & 3 bed apartments in a new development with zero parking spaces in the design. This strikes me as blindly optimistic that of those 700 apartments (that will likely have between 2 or 3 people or more per apartment on average, so somewhere like 1500-2500 people) absolut…

Why not both? It seems to both be more profitable for the developer and better for the environment.

Because there isn't enough space. 4 or 5 parking spaces is the same footprint that a 1 bedroom apartment would consume, then multiply that by the number of floors which is often between 4 or 8 in the outer parts of "central" London.

So 4 to 5x25000 for parking spaces, or 4 to 8x650000.

Underground parking is possible but rare - you see it more these days, but then it costs significantly more than just a tarmac lot outside both to construct and to purchase a space in. Multistorey aboveground would take up space that would be used by apartments and would never get past planning approval in a residential area.

Re: Streets with Nooks and Crannies Are Beloved and Endangered

#57

It's illegal to build things without enormous parking lots and roads around them in most instances now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvUByM-fZk includes an illustration of how this even results in the destruction of nice, walkable places when old buildings are renovated in to apartments.

Quite a lot of developments in the UK - certainly in London - are proposing zero parking. We had a (now shelved) plan near where I live to build 700 2 & 3 bed apartments in a new development with zero parking spaces in the design. This strikes me as blindly optimistic that of those 700 apartments (that will likely have between 2 or 3 people or more per apartment on average, so somewhere like 1500-2500 people) absolut…

" think their usual rationale of being "environmentally friendly" is really wake-washing/cover for wanting to fit in more apartments that sell for £650,000-1,000,000+ each, vs parking spaces which only sell for £25,000 each."

...and?

The fact that apartments cost more than homes means that the market values that area more highly for human habitation than for car habitation. Perhaps you simply can't afford to store your car there.

Also, what are you talking about? Lying? Please support your statement before leveling this accusation.

Re: Streets with Nooks and Crannies Are Beloved and Endangered

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before there were cars there were horses. Some places are dense and cramp, the countryside is spread out. Talk of car cities or waling cities is mere confabulation. Some prefer dense cities, some the sprawling countryside of farms and having the nearest store an hour away. Why can’t people be free to live in less crowded, less crime ridden, less dirty and noisy locations if they prefer that?

Because sprawl has enormous externalities that the proponents thereof refuse to pay for, and likely couldn’t actually afford without massive subsidies. I know lots of people have a homestead fetish (which I don’t deign to understand), but it’s not sustainable.

I keep seeing the word "homestead" lately. Is that a thing now?

Re: Streets with Nooks and Crannies Are Beloved and Endangered

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eliminating parking requirements is also starting to gain traction in the US: Seattle did it [0], and it's underway in Los Angeles [1]. Unfortunately it tends to make NIMBY opposition to development even more intense than it already is ("They'll use up all the street spaces!"), but fingers crossed we can keep this trend going. [0]: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sea... [1]: https://la.curbed…

Well that NIMBY response was the same here. In London generally on-street parking is already at- or over-capacity, so adding an extra couple of hundred to a thousand people wanting to park their car in the surrounding 3 or 4 streets is not just NIMBY-style petty complaints of "I don't want someone parking outside my house" and so on, but more "there physically isn't enough space for even more people to try and park i…

"get a reality check, this isn't going to work".

If I gave out free hot tubs then there would pretty quickly be a hot tub shortage. The problem is that parking is the leasing of public land for insanely low amounts for private property storage. You are forcing everyone around you to pay for your private property storage because you don't feel like paying for it yourself.

After all, can I pay the council the £100 a year (or whatever tiny amount it is) for an on-street parking spot so I can store my hot tub? Have a little garden? No? Then perhaps we shouldn't let you store your metal box there either unless you're willing to pay market rate for the land.

Keep in mind that any time you say developers must be forced to add room for parking, they were trying to add room for humans and NIMBYs told them places for cars to sleep were more important.

Post reply on HN