Live data from Hacker News

Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

fastcompany.com

361–370 of 427 posts

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#361
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just afford - often time those suburbs specifically barred non-whites from owning property. Additionally red-lining and racist loan practices forced that wealth gap to grow. But I think that's separate from the car issue, mostly. Originally satellite communities had commercial services - local shops and the like. But those were phased out due to a lack of demand, I think due to societal shifts that were egged on…

Are you speculating or do you have specific examples? It sounds far fetched. Not to mention that whites are not even a majority in many of the wealthy suburbs. Many of Asian and Indian families.

Levittown, PA

St. Louis, MO.

Remember Ferguson? That's a 10 minute drive from the richest neighborhood in StL.

Look up North and South Delmar in St. Louis; the opposite sides of a single street. That's redlining.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#362
The fundamental problem is that we (in the US) live in a permission-based system, not a freedom-based one. In this example, you have to ask for permissions related to running a business and using land.

The system that you have to ask permission from has a particular vision about how things ought to be done, and does not handle change or non-conformity well - even seeing them as a threat.

One hallmark for identifying such a system is that when there is not a law about something, it is referred to in terms like "legal grey area" or "outside the law."

We need to change the system to allow for freedom and individual decision making, without asking permission from the system. Freedom is what is left outside the boundaries of the law.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#363
post #120
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first guess would be the car lobbyists doing. They are powerful enough to tear down so many street-car rails all over America.

Makes for a nice conspiracy theory but from what I’ve read many of them were going under and consumers wanted cars, not street cars.

Not a conspiracy theory.

Look up the Koch Brothers. They fund PACs that pretend to be grassroots campaigns to shut down public transit expansion and successfully unfortunately.

Also the street cars collapse was very much due to automaker lobbying, like someone else said, you don't need to kill it directly; just make it unsustainable. Basically how Republicans govern; you don't kill it directly, you just choke it to death.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think generally speaking people actively avoid walking on country lanes unless there's absolutely no other way of completing the journey. Some are extremely dangerous with sporadic, fast moving traffic (60mph limit on single lane roads with no pavements or usable siding whatsoever - and people will speed on top of that) and often extremely low visibility turns. 16% of pedestrian deaths sounds quite low until you fa…

Not that I make a practice of walking on country lanes in the US either, but when I've been on long distance walks in the UK and had to walk on a road for a stretch, there does seem to be a disproportionate number where there's a hedge or a stone wall inches from some twisty turny road surface. I've definitely walked stretches of road where I've felt very exposed, especially if the light was starting to fade.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, as a US citizen, they are not anything like described above. An American suburb is, basically by definition, never more than 15 minutes drive from a grocery store, a doctors office, a dental office, some sort of clothing store, at least one bar, at least one restaurant (usually 2+), at least one hair dresser, etc. It will usually all be ugly (strip malls are common), but it will be affordable and economically sus…

> An American suburb is, basically by definition, never more than 15 minutes drive ... which to a lot of the rest of the world is a really, really long ways and essentially "not in the same area".

I'm not sure why. The drive for me in Michigan to get to the nearest grocery store, was not meaningfully different than it was from, say a random suburb in the UK to get to the nearest Tesco.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#366
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you moved to a new town you were in a different school district. The great migration to the suburbs happened right after schools were desegregated in the US. White Americans moved to the suburbs to avoid their children from attending school with black children. Milliken v. Bradley was the last nail in the coffin. The return to cities has coincided with white people having less children and children at olde…

This started happening already in the 1950s before desegregation. The rise of suburbs is directly related to the boom years after WWII and how much development happened outside of cities, where throwing up a new subdivision was much cheaper, and the booming auto industry absolutely loved new demand for commuting.

> the rise of suburbs is directly related to the boom years after WWII

The idea of suburbs was created by Levitt & Sons when building Levittown, PA post-WWII. A neighborhood that had explicit terms that the owners would not sell or rent to non-white people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right "little black men" isn't quite analogous, I couldn't think of a first name that as obviously belongs to a specific race as "Karen" is obviously female. A sibling comment gave a great example of "Mohammed", but instead of their example imagine that Mohammed was being used exactly like Karen, just for someone unnecessarily obstructive. And then someone uses it claiming, oh no, just because I used that name…

> And then someone uses it claiming, oh no, just because I used that name doesn't mean that it's meant to refer to Muslim or Arab people necessarily. Oh really? It was just a total coincidence? Come on, clearly not. Suppose I use "Shaq" as a stand in for a generic basketball player. I'm obviously making reference to a specific famous basketball player who happens to be a black man, so is that racist and sexist? Asian…

> Suppose I use "Shaq" as a stand in for a generic basketball player ... is that racist...?

Assuming you mean a negative stereotype, so for example not just a basketball player but one who does it instead of studying academic subjects: then certainly, yes. Imagine someone saying "oh those guys won't have a clue, they're just a bunch of Shaqs". Even if Shaq is the name of a real person, the racist undertone is clear.

> ... so is that ... sexist?

Not so much, maybe borderline, just as Karen is only borderline racist.

> The original Karen (from /r/FuckYouKaren) was a real person named Karen.

I dispute that many people using the term know exactly who that Karen is, and even moreso the people hearing it. To most, it simply sounds like a generic name that white middle-class women are likely to have.

(After a little Google research it seems there actually isn't an original Karen. KnowYourMeme (not exactly a reliable publication but relevant here!) had a few candidates but no clear winner - in fact the main contender was just a bad comedian using it for an unspecific annoying woman. In a post I found on /r/FuckYouKaren itself no one had any ideas. But that's all irrelevant anyway, if people using the term don't know.)

> If using a woman's name is sexist then so would using a man's name. ... And if it's "fantastic" to select a female ... sometimes it goes the other way too.

Actually, by "avoidable" I meant there's no reason to use any name at all. But let's put that aside.

Look, I get it, I honestly do. Equality really means treating people equally, and that means if we're allowed to use a male name as an insult then we ought to be able to use a female one too, right? I actually do think it makes a lot of logical sense.

The problem is that it only makes sense if the current base line is men and women already being treated equally - then adding extra opportunities, compliments and even insults equally would preserve equality. In practice, current societal norms are absolutely flooded with little microagressions that subconsciously make men and even women themselves think of women as somehow less important than men. I remember a very awkward encounter at a team building exercise where a colleague (actually a fantastically nice guy) jokingly let me go first at something with a cheeky "ladies first" comment, only to realise a female colleague was actually nearby (near enough to cause a bit of confusion!). Note that one woman jokingly accusing another of being a man would never be an insult, even jokingly.

Yes I realise there's the odd extreme feminist that genuinely thinks men are less important or worthwhile than women (e.g. those that say that men accused of sexual assault by women should be assumed guilty). But those numbers are absolutely dwarfed by men who think less of women. In that context, your idea (allowing insults that reinforce stereotypes against women in the name of equality) does not make sense.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is helpful context. Wow, they really don't want to see their neighbors. Safe roads require unobstructed sight lines.

For pedestrians, yes that type of road is fairly dangerous. But for cars it's not too bad, drivers know they need to pay attention and nobody is going at high speeds. It's also easier than you might think to see oncoming cars, especially when it's dark and their headlights are on. Fortunately/unfortunately that type of road is becoming slightly less prevalent, as efficient modern farming means hedges are maintained l…

TBH it doesn't seem too safe for cars either. You couldn't possibly see deer or other animals until they had already jumped into the road. Any normal hazard like a car stopped for a flat or lumber that fell off a truck is more hazardous in this situation.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#370
post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/... .

As dmurray commented there's differences in what is counted. Another difference is that Paris proper has relatively small parks, whereas Berlin has several huge ones as well as lakes. So yeah, Paris is dense, but if you compare block by block the differences are smaller.

Even the (by far) most dense borough of Berlin is only at 14,373/km²[1], though. That's considerably lower than almost all of the Parisian boroughs[2]. Even the whole city's average is 20,000/km². From the point of view of most American cities with some obvious exceptions, the difference is probably indeed not that noticeable though.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verwaltungsgliederung_Berlins

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrondissements_of_Paris

Post reply on HN