Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities • Hacker News Board

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#101

Post by iammisc » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 12:21 AM UTC

foxpurple wrote: post #10

iammisc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or... hear me out. You could just build walkable suburbs. Why there is a distinction between 'suburb' and 'smaller city' is beyond me, but there really is. A small city still has a walkable downtown core with apartments around which there is a small area of single family homes within walking distance to the downtown area. A suburb is just tracts of single family homes and nothing else for miles on end. No real 'busin…

You can kind of have it if you mean walkable to just the general store, a cafe and a few other things but you can never have everything because many kinds of stores can only exist with a certain population close enough. What I love about living in the city is literally _everything_ I need is within walking distance. I have not used a car or any form of public transport in months and have felt no need to, I can buy an…

I just disagree. I live in the very environment you claim doesn't exist

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#102

Post by epistasis » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 12:23 AM UTC

taeric wrote: post #99

epistasis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is far far far more economical to build walkable neighborhoods. They require far less infrastructure costs, from water piping to sewer to roads. Quite often the only places that can sustainably fund themselves on property taxes are walkable multiuse neighborhoods. A ton of suburbia is sitting on huge infrastructure bills that will come due in the near future. Car-dependent neighborhoods only exist because law prev…

This sounds good on paper, but you just have to look at how Walmart destroyed brick and mortar shops. They would build a single giant shop for an entire region and folks would drive to it in droves. That is to say, I want to agree. I just can't square that with how I've seen small towns destroyed by shopping centers that require cars for the residents to drive to. (Ironically, this is different from the situation tha…

I don't quite understand the contradiction. If you're talking about small rural areas, sure, but that's a tiny fraction of our population. And rural areas don't typically vigorously block apartment and walkable development.

And I haven't seen every rural town, but all of the ones that I know of have plenty of housing near a walkable core too. I know lots of rural people that have no trouble getting in 20,000 steps daily because of that walkability of homes neat the downtown.

But suburbia, the vast majority of our new housing over the past 50-60 years, is not rural, and is of a very different character.

Strong Towns has been reporting on this for years, from the fiscally conservative side. Though I don't call myself any sort of fiscal conservative, the data and analysis is very good, IMHO:

https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#103

Post by nomel » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 12:24 AM UTC

notJim wrote: post #31

standardUser wrote: post #4

Add up the roads, parking spaces, parking garages, gas stations (not to mention auto shops, drive thrus and car washes) and the total urban footprint is a gargantuan 50-60% by many calculations. That's not automatically a bad thing, especially if you are a car, but all of that space creates massive buffers separating all of the other stuff that humans want to walk to. To make it worse, those buffers are far and away…

Something I only recently learned is that zoning rules generally require housing developments to include a certain amount of parking. This drives up the cost of housing, because of the space required (either up or out.) Many cities are reducing or eliminating these requirements in an effort to make housing more affordable. However, it does mean that parking will become harder, as there will be more competition for st…

> However, it does mean that parking will become harder

In the city I'm near, using public parking lots means a 20 minute walk to your destination, with a $10 fee from all the time walking (or uber), with private parking costing around $15, and no meters in sight. This creates an isolated area that people never go to for a bite to eat, coffee, window shopping, or anything really, since it's a > $10 fee just to step on the sidewalk. Not surprisingly, there's incredible churn for the businesses down there (pre Coronavirus). The only people they have to service are the other businesses in the area and the few that live there. With coronavirus, it was all wiped out.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#104

Post by mulmen » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 12:24 AM UTC

taeric wrote: post #93

mulmen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have lived in highly walkable neighborhoods. They utilize highrises to increase density (supply) of housing and commercial space. Walkable areas are by necessity higher density, meaning they pack more supply into the same footprint.

Some do. I lived in upper Queen Anne in Seattle. Very few highrise houses and all very expensive now. I would be a liar if I said I didn't miss how walkable it was. I also lived in Buckhead area of Atlanta. Also very walkable for me, though there were a few high rises.

I lived in the Junction in West Seattle for 7 years. Highly walkable, lots of highrises in the core, but still lots of (very expensive!) single family homes. Now I live on Alki and it is much less walkable. I can get around but have to climb Admiral to get to a grocery store. Several of our bus routes were permanently closed.

Queen Anne benefits from being in Seattle and the economic benefits that has to businesses that make a neighborhood walkable. It’s also just very old and was built when walkability was a necessity. Unfortunately it is prohibitively expensive because higher density development is difficult or impossible.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#105

Post by taeric » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 12:25 AM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #102

taeric wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds good on paper, but you just have to look at how Walmart destroyed brick and mortar shops. They would build a single giant shop for an entire region and folks would drive to it in droves. That is to say, I want to agree. I just can't square that with how I've seen small towns destroyed by shopping centers that require cars for the residents to drive to. (Ironically, this is different from the situation tha…

I don't quite understand the contradiction. If you're talking about small rural areas, sure, but that's a tiny fraction of our population. And rural areas don't typically vigorously block apartment and walkable development. And I haven't seen every rural town, but all of the ones that I know of have plenty of housing near a walkable core too. I know lots of rural people that have no trouble getting in 20,000 steps da…

But... talking about the rural areas is enough to destroy the "if you build walkable areas, folks will live there." Right?

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#106

Post by twelvechairs » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 12:27 AM UTC

notJim wrote: post #31

standardUser wrote: post #4

Add up the roads, parking spaces, parking garages, gas stations (not to mention auto shops, drive thrus and car washes) and the total urban footprint is a gargantuan 50-60% by many calculations. That's not automatically a bad thing, especially if you are a car, but all of that space creates massive buffers separating all of the other stuff that humans want to walk to. To make it worse, those buffers are far and away…

Something I only recently learned is that zoning rules generally require housing developments to include a certain amount of parking. This drives up the cost of housing, because of the space required (either up or out.) Many cities are reducing or eliminating these requirements in an effort to make housing more affordable. However, it does mean that parking will become harder, as there will be more competition for st…

The original purpose is literally to stop cars parking on streets.

Carsharing services are a game changer for urban people who use a car once a week or so (go to the shops, visit family, etc.) And should be substituted in any requirements at a 30:1-50:1 ratio or thereabouts. Developera still need car parking to attract many buyers however

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#107

Post by taeric » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 12:28 AM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #104

taeric wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some do. I lived in upper Queen Anne in Seattle. Very few highrise houses and all very expensive now. I would be a liar if I said I didn't miss how walkable it was. I also lived in Buckhead area of Atlanta. Also very walkable for me, though there were a few high rises.

I lived in the Junction in West Seattle for 7 years. Highly walkable, lots of highrises in the core, but still lots of (very expensive!) single family homes. Now I live on Alki and it is much less walkable. I can get around but have to climb Admiral to get to a grocery store. Several of our bus routes were permanently closed. Queen Anne benefits from being in Seattle and the economic benefits that has to businesses t…

Right. But whenever I hear that "walkable places are expensive", I hear folks talking about places like Seattle. Or downtown Atlanta.

What places are we talking about that are a) highly walkable, b) expensive, and c) not at capacity?

(This is a genuine question. I fully cede that I could just be completely miscalibrated for this.)

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#108

Post by bcrosby95 » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 12:30 AM UTC

iammisc wrote: post #6

foxpurple wrote: post #2

I recently moved from a house in the suburbs in Australia to an apartment in the city. Got rid of my car and now I just walk to everything I need. I couldn’t be happier. Driving was such a huge stress on my life that is now gone. I can get anything I need within a 10 minute walk. The thing is it just doesn’t seem like the average person is willing to give up single family houses to gain walkability. For me, I would n…

Or... hear me out. You could just build walkable suburbs. Why there is a distinction between 'suburb' and 'smaller city' is beyond me, but there really is. A small city still has a walkable downtown core with apartments around which there is a small area of single family homes within walking distance to the downtown area. A suburb is just tracts of single family homes and nothing else for miles on end. No real 'busin…

Our suburb has some medical and dental offices in the center of it. Yay, something I do a couple times a year is within walking distance. Talk about useless.

Groceries are about 2 miles away. Which would be bikable if the infrastructure was there. In my experience it would be easier to reach bikability than walkability. Most suburbs are already somewhat bikable aside from the infrastructure.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#109

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 12:34 AM UTC

dghlsakjg wrote: post #90

MarkLowenstein wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never run into a walkable city center where there was one super-obvious and convenient place to park--maybe a gigantic underground garage--and then you walk everywhere from there. Feels like that might work. The attractive city centers have nice stuff, but too few people who live within walking distance to keep them in business and in good shape. They need a way to bring in suburbanites and visitors to supplemen…

Amsterdam has big parking lots outside the city center. If you park there you get a free transit pass into the city I believe. Makes a lot of sense really

Montreal is similar. Parking downtown: horrible. Parking out in the 'burbs and then riding the metro into town? easy, and lovely. For a lot of things, anyway.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#110

Post by specialist » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 12:34 AM UTC

There are ~1.2 billion cars globally. Expected to grow to ~1.8b by 2050? About the time many carbon zero targets are supposed to be achieved.

And yet. Any proposal that a tiny fraction of all the cheddar supporting automobiles be repurposed for nefarious questionable uses, like maybe add a few bike lanes, triggers a violent reaction accompanied by charges of being an anti-car jihadist.