Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods • Hacker News Board

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#261

Post by freeone3000 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 9:13 AM UTC

b112 wrote: post #246

freeone3000 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suburbia straight doesn't work. Requiring a car for transit means kids have to continually be chauffeured by adults to anywhere meaningful. Lack of local business means there's limited economic potential for the city - it's all in one tax district and redistributed around. Sprawl increases the cost of providing services like fire and police. You're taking on some significant burdens in exchange for not having your ne…

Canadian cities have suburbia, and public transit. Many have buses on main streets, which are typically a 2 or 3 block walk from side streets. Suburbia doesn't mean "have to have a car", it is just many like having cars. This sort of speaks to the prior poster, stating that many here are from big cities. Suburbia isn't low-density. It's only low-density compared to 'downtown'. Try living in actual, real rural areas.…

I grew up in a Texas town of 100,000, and it didn't have a single bus route until I was 14. The closest shop was a small bakery six blocks away, which was a godsend since that was the only shop within five miles. When half the usable space is parking, it's low-density. When you have houses plopped in the middle of a hundred-foot-to-a-side rectangle, it's low-density.

I acknowledge that it is, indeed, a gradient. But lots of points on that gradient are huge negatives to the people living there.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#262

Post by xvedejas » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 9:15 AM UTC

b112 wrote: post #260

xvedejas wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that this hazard is real, but I also see the term used in non-racist, non-sexist ways too, sometimes with disclaimers that "obviously this isn't just white women and not all white women are like this". I realize I am likely in the minority thinking that context matters, but I want to provide my sincere stance that I think it's sometimes reasonable to call someone a Karen, assuming proper care is take…

The problem is, people used to have non-gender, non-racial terms for people. For example, a person might be called an 'asshole' or 'bonehead', and this could be a person of any colour, any sex, age, etc. Yet now, it seems all sorts are labeling people based upon sex, colour, ethnic background, etc. It is, quite literally, the definition of sexual, racial, age discrimination. It is linking "external characteristic" wi…

I agree that the term "Karen" has its genesis as an insult, and one designed to effectively aggravate the people it describes. It's not surprising to me that it's a word people reach for when they want the impact that words like "asshole" have lost. I don't know why you would call someone an "asshole" if you want to be genuinely mean.

"Asshole" is as common as salt in our everyday language, but "Karen" is the spice.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#263

Post by dmurray » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 9:29 AM UTC

dgellow wrote: post #239

dodobirdlord wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~4-5 stories is totally sufficient to be "dense" compared to most of the US. Cities in the US sprawl absurdly flat. Consider that Paris is one of the densest cities in the world, and famously has almost no tall buildings.

By curiosity I checked some numbers to compare. Paris density is just crazy! When compared, Berlin (mentioned by cameldrv) really has a low density for the huge capital it is, at around ~3.9k persons/km². London seems to have around 5.5k, New York around 10.2k, while Paris is at a crazy 20.7k! Numbers from https://versus.com/en/berlin-vs-london-vs-new-york-vs-paris/... .

It's a bit exaggerated because Paris proper is only a small part of the urban region. It's more appropriate to compare Paris to Manhattan. Both house around 2 million people at 20k people/km², and both are in sprawling metropolitan areas of 10-20 million depending where you stop counting.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#264

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 9:35 AM UTC

barnabee wrote: post #259

madamelic wrote: post #2

Mixed use zoning is just about the best case situation for everyone. - Less reliance on cars, which results in less parking, which results in less traffic... it becomes self-perpetuating. - Better walkability - Knowing your corner store clerk or at least having a rapport with them - Healthier citizens, due to them walking everywhere (Go to NYC and see how few overweight people you see... not many unless they're touri…

As far as I can tell, "zoning" is just a bad idea. There's no such thing in the UK [1] and it still surprises me that it's quite a common approach. (As a kid I thought it was a game device employed to make urban planning in Sim City manageable. I still wonder if that series of games hasn't increased its prevalence.) Instead, in the UK you require 'planning permission' to change the land use of any building. This is d…

> I don't know anyone in this country, urban or rural dwelling, who can't walk to a shop or a pub

The average walking distance to a pub has gone up a lot in recent years due to closure, and walking on rural roads at night where there is no footpath is horrendously dangerous even if you carry lights. It's a nice idyll but it's no longer really true.

What you say about Simcity is absolutely true though. It doesn't correspond to traditional UK or most European cities at all. Medieval mixed walkable core, maybe not driveable at all; industrialish area down by the wharves now repurposed as offices and residential; Simcity-ish bit on the outskirts where somebody decided to build a grand scheme, like La Défense.

Zoning is starting to leak into urban planning a bit more, when huge housing estates are built with no shops, pubs, or facilities. As far as I can tell demand for housing outstrips everything else.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#265

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 9:36 AM UTC

brobdingnagians wrote: post #207

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is people want to call it "mixed zoning" but still have Karens on the central planning committee making stupid rules, e.g. they'll have "businesses" next to "residences" but a given plot will be explicitly designated as one or the other. What you really want is the small businesses which start off being operated out of the proprietor's residence. A hair salon in a converted living room, a restaurant servi…

Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time? I hadn't heard of it until a few months ago, and now it seems everyone is using it to refer to a certain kind of "middle class white woman". A term like that to describe a certain kind of middle class asian or black man would be very offensive. Are the days where we try to exercise civility and empathy gone? It feels like society h…

> Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time?

Sure. It's in the same way that "rapper" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time, even though when someone says "rapper" the image that comes into your mind is of a black man. Except that the connotation of "Karen" is strictly negative, so the people so described want to (archetypically in this case) take offense to it.

But, like rappers, Karens don't actually have to be of a particular race or gender, even if the stereotypical combination is the most common. It's racist and sexist to assume that all Karens are white women. Some rappers are Karens.

So "the disappearance of tiny businesses in residential neighborhoods" isn't attributable to "all those middle class white women" so much as all those busybodies on the zoning board who want to tell everybody where not to set up shop, i.e. Karens (of whatever race and gender).

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#266

Post by quietbritishjim » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 9:51 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #265

brobdingnagians wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time? I hadn't heard of it until a few months ago, and now it seems everyone is using it to refer to a certain kind of "middle class white woman". A term like that to describe a certain kind of middle class asian or black man would be very offensive. Are the days where we try to exercise civility and empathy gone? It feels like society h…

> Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time? Sure. It's in the same way that "rapper" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time, even though when someone says "rapper" the image that comes into your mind is of a black man. Except that the connotation of "Karen" is strictly negative, so the people so described want to (archetypically in this case) take offense to it. But…

> so the people so described want to ... take offense to it.

This is very much a straw man. If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black. And if I see a term that is derogatory towards women, I have every right to object, even though I'm not a woman.

In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if you actually have the characteristics that the term refers to. If true, that would simply invalidate the opinion of everyone who objects. But, just like with race and gender, you can object to that term even if its implied meaning genuinely doesn't match your personality type. Especially if you're objecting to the specific term, not to the principle of insulting that personality type.

Edit: to make it a bit more concrete, imagine the term "little black men" had been used instead. Upon objection, you replied "no, no, no, the term term doesn't necessarily refer to actual black men, just people that behave a bit like black men". That is very much what the term "Karen" is like.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#267

Post by rsynnott » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 9:54 AM UTC

osdiab wrote: post #57

smoe wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never been to an US residential area and only "know" them from tv shows. Are they really pretty much completely devoid of businesses as this article indicates? No grocery / mom and pop stores, bars, restaurants, hair dressers etc.? That sounds very inconvenient. I always assumed you'd get some basic commercial everywhere.

I grew up in a wealthy American suburb, the nearest grocery store was a 40 minute walk from my home, and I would have looked like a madman for simply walking on any street in the entire city because literally only beggars don’t ride cars. I’m glad to be living in Tokyo now!

Do people not even walk for leisure/exercise?

Just reading this makes me feel kind of claustrophobic.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#268

Post by CraigJPerry » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 9:56 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #264

barnabee wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, "zoning" is just a bad idea. There's no such thing in the UK [1] and it still surprises me that it's quite a common approach. (As a kid I thought it was a game device employed to make urban planning in Sim City manageable. I still wonder if that series of games hasn't increased its prevalence.) Instead, in the UK you require 'planning permission' to change the land use of any building. This is d…

> I don't know anyone in this country, urban or rural dwelling, who can't walk to a shop or a pub The average walking distance to a pub has gone up a lot in recent years due to closure, and walking on rural roads at night where there is no footpath is horrendously dangerous even if you carry lights. It's a nice idyll but it's no longer really true. What you say about Simcity is absolutely true though. It doesn't corr…

Is it true that walking on rural roads at night is horrendously dangerous? I was thinking less traffic means its probably safer than the collisions that happen when pedestrians step off the pavement in town.

I found something that kind of supports this notion but isn’t really conclusive

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Wonder if you have a link to share?

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#269

Post by ramblerman » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:05 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #265

brobdingnagians wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time? I hadn't heard of it until a few months ago, and now it seems everyone is using it to refer to a certain kind of "middle class white woman". A term like that to describe a certain kind of middle class asian or black man would be very offensive. Are the days where we try to exercise civility and empathy gone? It feels like society h…

> Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time? Sure. It's in the same way that "rapper" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time, even though when someone says "rapper" the image that comes into your mind is of a black man. Except that the connotation of "Karen" is strictly negative, so the people so described want to (archetypically in this case) take offense to it. But…

That’s not the same.

I think it would be more like calling a random middle eastern terrorist a Mohammed.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#270

Post by barnabee » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:12 AM UTC

CraigJPerry wrote: post #268

pjc50 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know anyone in this country, urban or rural dwelling, who can't walk to a shop or a pub The average walking distance to a pub has gone up a lot in recent years due to closure, and walking on rural roads at night where there is no footpath is horrendously dangerous even if you carry lights. It's a nice idyll but it's no longer really true. What you say about Simcity is absolutely true though. It doesn't corr…

Is it true that walking on rural roads at night is horrendously dangerous? I was thinking less traffic means its probably safer than the collisions that happen when pedestrians step off the pavement in town. I found something that kind of supports this notion but isn’t really conclusive https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Wonder if you have a link to share?

Interesting about the average walking distance to a pub going up. My rural friends and family must be lucky as they don't seem to have been affected (and here in London you're unlucky if it's more than two mninutes).

I'm not sure about the data for pedestrians being hit on rural roads, though the UK has very low rate of per capita pedestrian fatalities overall, among the lowest in the EU according to [1]. Anecdotally I have never felt unsafe walking on rural raods. I can see how some of the narrower "A" roads (major single carriageway roads with no central reservation, sometimes heavy lorry traffic) might be, though these usually but not always have pavements for pedestrians and if not there's generally an alternative.

Either way, compared to my (admittedly limited) experience of suburban and rural America there is still a big (and welcome) difference. I hope that any downward trend can be arrested/reversed.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/...