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

Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

governing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 370 posts

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#311

Post by afarrell »

iammisc wrote: post #44
Schiendelman wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is subsidizing your housing appreciation when you don’t allow more housing to be built. The activists who are driving up the price of your property are the activists trying to stop upward growth. It’s pure supply and demand.

> Everyone is subsidizing your housing appreciation when you don’t allow more housing to be built. The activists who are driving up the price of your property are the activists trying to stop upward growth. It’s pure supply and demand. I advocate for building and development. I'm just pointing out that the activists that are supposedly rallying for 'high-density' just end up increasing my home price because (1) the h…

Building N units of dense housing also ends up simultaneously increasing the number of people allowed to live in a walkable neighborhood by N.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#312

Post by antb123 »

cletus wrote: post #17

No, they don’t. This is a classic example of listening to what people say vs observing what they do. And it’s a good lesson in product development. Ask your users “do you want X?” And the answer is inevitably “yes”. Ask them “do you want A or B?” And you’ll start to get a better approximation of user behavior. Better yet is observing actual behavior. In this case Americans have chosen the suburbs in droves. Americans…

I agree - but the answer may lie in extensive bike "Roads" for walkers and bikers.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#313

Post by iammisc »

another_story wrote: post #229
iammisc wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want a thriving business district with a mixture of local business you need to have density. I simply disagree. You can have single family homes and a thriving business district. Not ginormous mcmansions. But modest, good-sized single family homes. I disagree with your assessment because I've seen how great things can be in my own neighborhood. I'm not even suggesting no high-density housing. On the actual '…

The apartment buildings are what add density. People who live in single family homes will invariably take the extra 15 to 20 minutes to drive to Costco and save money.

Two things:

(1) I know this shocks most people used to cookie cutter American suburbs and cities, but you can put an apartment building in a small satellite business district surrounded by single family homes.

(2) Sure. We drive to costco as well. We also shop our local downtown. For example, every Sunday, the local bakery sells off their wares (very nice breads, pies, and cakes) for pennies on the dollar. We also often end up at our local grocery store for sundry items we've run out of or forgotten. Why is preventing people from ever going to costco any concern? I would never suggest to never drive... that's just silly moral policing. I just suggest walking most places because it's way nicer and less stressful.

Here's an example. I bike to my gym every morning. It takes 10 minutes. It'd actually take longer to drive given the stop lights. However, if I lived in the burb I was born in, I'd have to drive, because the nearest gym would be miles away. Or, I'd have to purchase my own gym equipment. Instead, in my city, I have a 24 hour gym within biking distance, and I only need to take neighborhood streets to get there. It's lovely.

There are many services people need regularly that aren't bulk grocery shopping and we don't need to drive to, things like gyms, haircuts, restaurants, specialty hardware, small groceries, etc.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#314

Post by CapricornNoble »

aix1 wrote: post #244
CapricornNoble wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan manages it pretty well. The mass transit system of Tokyo is well known. But the city is also zoned such that walking or biking from an apartment/house/hotel to a restaurant, supermarket, or even a major park or museum is easy and fairly safe. The roads are clean and well-maintained, and traffic really isn't that bad. Street parking is rarely allowed, but small parking lots are numerous albeit expensive. Biking…

> Biking and public transit moves most commuters off of the streets Help me understand this. Where do cyclists and ground-level public transportation go if they're not on the streets? > Then I quarantined in Tokyo for 2 weeks and everything was a convenient 5-minute walk away. Wait a minute, quarantined and walked around?

>>>Where do cyclists and ground-level public transportation go if they're not on the streets?

Cyclists are on the sidewalk, and use little ringer bells to signal to pedestrians to move outta the way. For public transit "off the streets" I was mostly referring to the subway system. Buses and taxis are still "on" the street but the users are out of privately-owned vehicles. I wasn't clear on that.

>>>Wait a minute, quarantined and walked around?

Technically "restriction of movement" not "quarantined", I get sloppy and often use the two terms interchangeably. Quarantine = you are COVID+, inside a specially-designated hotel, which you can't leave. ROM = you are COVID- pending additional testing, can stay in any hotel, but can leave your room for essentials such as groceries/take-out food.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#315

Post by refurb »

usaar333 wrote: post #201
refurb wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is actually more expensive outside of San Francisco, at least suburbs close to the city. I’d say there is more demand for a house with a yard in the suburbs than a 2 bedroom apartment in the city. Especially in a post-Covid world where people are working from home, who wants to be stuck in an apartment during the next lockdown?

> Housing is actually more expensive outside of San Francisco, at least suburbs close to the city. Not per lot SQ feet

Why would you look at just the lot sq ft and ignore the house or other factors?

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#316

Post by agumonkey »

voisin wrote: post #257
kumarsw wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to this is plentiful, well-placed municipal parking garages priced cheaper than street parking. Santa Monica does this where they have about 6-7 city-run garages spaced throughout the city with easily visible electronic signage indicating the amount of available spaces. Street parking is much more spare and priced higher. It's an enlightened alternative to tearing down buildings for more single-level lot…

The solution is better rapid mass transit between and within cities!

biking is cool too

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#317

Post by germinalphrase »

erosenbe0 wrote: post #179
nomel wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

I grew up on the outskirts of Chicago. Mostly built in the 1920s or 1950s. Everything you need is within a one mile walk, even Home Depot. Cinema closed down but Walmart opened up about two miles away. Plenty of street parking, alley garages, and lots of nice amenities. Only moderate rat load. I think this is the type of neighborhood people like, when the schools are good, at least. Lots of neighborhoods used to be l…

Feels like one of those “better is worse” situations. Yes - “most” people prefer the selection/prices if Target over the (relatively) overpriced mom-and-pop store, but downstream effects weren’t clear, undervalued.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#318

Post by GordonS »

beardyw wrote: post #259

On one of my relatively few visits to America, from my hotel room I could see the zoo less than half a mile away. In reception I asked the best route to walk there. There was a stunned silence and outright puzzlement, as if I had asked what trains I needed to catch to get to Patagonia[1]. No one was even certain it was possible. In the end I worked it out OK, only having to wait at a level crossing for a seemingly in…

Hah, I had a really similar thing happen the first time I went to the US, something like 10-15 years back in Houston!

The office was only a mile or 2 from the hotel, so I thought I'd walk. On my way out, the receptionist asked where I was going and if I'd like her to call a cab. I replied that I was going to walk to somewhere close by, and her eyes just about popped out of her head - "you can't do that, it's far too dangerous to walk!".

I walked anyway of course, looking out for anything even tenuously dangerous, and found nothing. It was most puzzling! I later conferred with local colleagues in the office, who reiterated what the receptionist had said - nobody walks anywhere!

Coincidently, one morning I too met an enormous freight train at a level crossing - it was actually pretty amazing waiting multiple minutes for such an incredibly long train to pass!

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#319

Post by throw0101a »

antb123 wrote: post #306
throw0101a wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's hard to find because those two preferences are in direct, irresolvable conflict. Plenty of places that were built pre-WW2 have people walking for groceries and such, cycling and taking transit to work, and yet still have cars (street parking and back yard garages) for other longer distance errands: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb Two go-to…

After living in Europe for a while Toronto is "ok" but still very car dependent. I would point to Scandinavia (Finland, Denmark, etc) and parts of France and Germany as places that have cars but maintain walkable, bikeable cities.

Toronto is one example of where neighbourhoods were built that are not Manhattan- and Hong Kong-level densities, but are still not entirely car dependent. They were built semi-recently, and not some long-ago time period that is unrealistic to try to recreate.

They also have recognizable architecture that is not from the Middle Ages or Napoleonic age. You can explore some of these neighbourhoods (in Toronto and elsewhere) and realistically visualize similar houses being built today.

Of course Toronto suffered from the same automobile malaise as many other North American cities, first in the 'inner suburbs' (North York, Scarborough), and later in the "905".

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#320

Post by spamizbad »

habosa wrote: post #261

Sometimes I think Americans don’t know how badly they want this. Americans will tell you how wonderful European cities are with their small streets and their public squares filled with great restaurants. They think we don’t have cities like that because we’re lacking some fundamental European-ness. No. We just put cars everywhere. Cars ruin everything. Now you have wider streets. Louder streets. More dangerous street…

Americans aren’t homogenous: those who adore European cities aren’t the same ones demanding parking minimums at their local neighborhood groups. Those people don’t give a hoot about European cities: they just want everything within a 10 mile radius of where they live to be easy to drive to and don’t want to think through or be reminded of the externalities.
Post reply on HN