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

Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 564 posts

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#131

Post by Cthulhu_ »

the__alchemist wrote: post #126
fsloth wrote: post #8

Fantastic cultural divide. This is one of the reasons why I read HN. Most of Europe is more or less walkable - one reason is that the largest urban centers predate cars, but intentional design AF (anno ford) is also a factor. I can bike or walk everywhere, and the only reason I have a car is that it makes grocery shopping much, much easier. I am not very green or anything, I just like to keep things simple. You can c…

Related: Most European cities are comparably beautiful compared to North American ones. Pick a random European city, and it's probably more aesthetically interesting than any in NA. I'm curious why this is the case (Older / less centrally-planned? A subjective difference in tastes?)

Well, the USA is only ~250 years old and most of its planning was done in the past ~150 years, whereas most European cities date back to the middle ages or even before that, growing much more organically, often around a castle, wall, church, or all of the above. It's only in the past 100 years or so that cars are a thing.

But the other is just different approach to planning. I live in a relatively new, so-called "vinex" suburb [1], a neighbourhood built according to certain specifications - relatively small gardens, bike- and pedestrian safe, the only cars you see are the ones heading to- and from their house, the rest is redirected to a ring road. And, very low uniformity in housing designs; common themes, but a lot of diversity.

That said, at the moment we have a massive housing crisis - we need 100K houses in the next decade, probably more - and I feel like the only way to solve it is to build boring houses, big apartment complexes, that kinda thing. The alternative is population reduction, but nobody wants that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinex-location

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#132

Post by marginalia_nu »

null_object wrote: post #101
fsloth wrote: post #8

Fantastic cultural divide. This is one of the reasons why I read HN. Most of Europe is more or less walkable - one reason is that the largest urban centers predate cars, but intentional design AF (anno ford) is also a factor. I can bike or walk everywhere, and the only reason I have a car is that it makes grocery shopping much, much easier. I am not very green or anything, I just like to keep things simple. You can c…

Walkability isn't uniform across Europe, Scandinavia or even within a single country: other people have mentioned Stockholm - which is still a walkable town, even though car-traffic is prioritized over cycles and pedestrians[0] - but other towns in Sweden are definitely not modelled for pedestrians. Nyköping is a town I need to visit regularly, and there pretty much all of the grocery and larger stores have been plac…

I do think there is an ambition to be pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, but at the same time it seems very appealing to build sprawling American-style suburbs with big-metal-box-style commercial districts that are only accessible by car.

In smaller cities, you often have the same people setting lofty ambitions to become the bicycle capital of united federation of planets while at the same time greenlighting yet another massive mall at the edge of town because "oh my god $BIG_CHAIN_STORE wants to come here, we're gonna be like a big city now!", usually at the expense of the stores that are accessible by foot or by bicycle.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#133

Post by aixi »

null_object wrote: post #101
fsloth wrote: post #8

Fantastic cultural divide. This is one of the reasons why I read HN. Most of Europe is more or less walkable - one reason is that the largest urban centers predate cars, but intentional design AF (anno ford) is also a factor. I can bike or walk everywhere, and the only reason I have a car is that it makes grocery shopping much, much easier. I am not very green or anything, I just like to keep things simple. You can c…

Walkability isn't uniform across Europe, Scandinavia or even within a single country: other people have mentioned Stockholm - which is still a walkable town, even though car-traffic is prioritized over cycles and pedestrians[0] - but other towns in Sweden are definitely not modelled for pedestrians. Nyköping is a town I need to visit regularly, and there pretty much all of the grocery and larger stores have been plac…

I agree that it is idealised, but the point of comparison is the US which is an extremely car centric society, which makes Europe shine by default

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#134

Post by rsj_hn »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #132
null_object wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walkability isn't uniform across Europe, Scandinavia or even within a single country: other people have mentioned Stockholm - which is still a walkable town, even though car-traffic is prioritized over cycles and pedestrians[0] - but other towns in Sweden are definitely not modelled for pedestrians. Nyköping is a town I need to visit regularly, and there pretty much all of the grocery and larger stores have been plac…

I do think there is an ambition to be pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, but at the same time it seems very appealing to build sprawling American-style suburbs with big-metal-box-style commercial districts that are only accessible by car. In smaller cities, you often have the same people setting lofty ambitions to become the bicycle capital of united federation of planets while at the same time greenlighting yet anoth…

The problem is that to go from not needing a car every day to not needing a car at all is a huge leap that has a lot less to do with the geography of daily tasks and more to do with the geography of everywhere you'll go, as well as things like crime and pleasantness of local spaces, etc.

That's why 85% of German households own a car, even though many of their cities are more walkable. Being more walkable doesn't get you to being car free, it gets you to fewer miles driven. But if your goal is to be car free then you need to focus on a lot more than getting groceries.

But as long as a large majority have cars, you are going to have a car focused city, which is exactly what most European cities are once you get out of the touristy downtown areas. So at best the walkability metric will give you a small downtown area that is not car-focused. That downtown area will be populated primarily by tourists, and most locals will live outside it, in a more car accessible part of the city.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#135

Post by easytiger »

torben-friis wrote: post #85
nivenkos wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The walkability comes at the cost of tiny housing though. Like here in Stockholm even 60m2 is getting very pricy (~350-450k USD). The main issue is that there is just nowhere near enough housing to keep up with population increases, seemingly anywhere in the Western world. And housing has become a "store of value" against inflation for investors, driving up prices and becoming a retirement fund for landlords and home…

>The main issue is that there is just nowhere near enough housing to keep up with population increases, seemingly anywhere in the Western world. Not sure about Sweden but at least here (Spain) housing being bought for investment is much more of a problem than physical unavailability. And I don't mean it as a store of value: People (and companies) buy houses to rent them and have the rent payments pay for the mortgage…

If it's so easy, do it yourself then?

Who do you think funds the building and maintenance of property?

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#136

Post by ivanhoe »

rekado wrote: post #76
jseban wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah and if you stopped doing that and instead used a car to buy your groceries or ordered them delivered to your doorstep, you would have more free time and more energy. People want free time and energy. Just because it "works" for you to walk in the cold rain carrying groceries in a backback, doesn't make it the best solution. If there are better solutions, why insist on doing it the worst possible way?

Oh, you misunderstand. Involving a car would most definitely not make it a better solution. I have no interest whatsoever to involve cars in my life. Having to share the roads with them is bad enough. (The arrogance of space is ridiculous.) Deliveries: these cost little because people aren't paid properly. If I wanted to pay them properly, I wouldn't be able to use their services much. So instead of normalizing explo…

> and with different supermarkets in almost every direction, within 10mins on foot they most definitely can be avoided.

You do realize that this is just your privilege? Most of people don't have everything in the walking reach, some would have to bike up a hill for a few kilometers to get to a shop, etc?

Don't get me wrong, it's great that you can, but it's just a lucky consequence of where you live, not something that's universally applicable to everyone.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#137

Post by Aeolun »

sokoloff wrote: post #116
torben-friis wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The main issue is that there is just nowhere near enough housing to keep up with population increases, seemingly anywhere in the Western world. Not sure about Sweden but at least here (Spain) housing being bought for investment is much more of a problem than physical unavailability. And I don't mean it as a store of value: People (and companies) buy houses to rent them and have the rent payments pay for the mortgage…

> Basic needs really shouldn't be investment material. Companies providing and selling food, energy, and consumer staples are investment materials. I don’t get why housing should be a special carve-out and don’t see a workable answer to how to provide food for everyone while banning all investment in companies that grow or sell food. These companies are invested in precisely because these are basic needs. The company…

But this clearly isn’t true for housing. Landlords keep buying up more and more, supply only goes down, and the prices keep going up.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#138

Post by pornel »

sokoloff wrote: post #116
torben-friis wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The main issue is that there is just nowhere near enough housing to keep up with population increases, seemingly anywhere in the Western world. Not sure about Sweden but at least here (Spain) housing being bought for investment is much more of a problem than physical unavailability. And I don't mean it as a store of value: People (and companies) buy houses to rent them and have the rent payments pay for the mortgage…

> Basic needs really shouldn't be investment material. Companies providing and selling food, energy, and consumer staples are investment materials. I don’t get why housing should be a special carve-out and don’t see a workable answer to how to provide food for everyone while banning all investment in companies that grow or sell food. These companies are invested in precisely because these are basic needs. The company…

Basic food is subsidized and regulated. Even in the US: corn subsidies, grain reserves, and the Onion Futures Act.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#139

Post by jseban »

_vbnz wrote: post #114
torben-friis wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The main issue is that there is just nowhere near enough housing to keep up with population increases, seemingly anywhere in the Western world. Not sure about Sweden but at least here (Spain) housing being bought for investment is much more of a problem than physical unavailability. And I don't mean it as a store of value: People (and companies) buy houses to rent them and have the rent payments pay for the mortgage…

I agree completely, at least here in Sweden it's harder to rent flats out, so this is less common (it might change next year though when the conservatives/nationalists win). IMO I'd make renting restricted to government monopoly (like alcohol sales in Sweden, and the old first-hand contracts system), and property ownership restricted to your residence only, and then build much, much more whilst stopping mass immigrat…

Renting is basically already restricted to government policy in Stockholm, and the result is 15 years waiting time to get a flat.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#140

Post by [deleted] »

makeitdouble wrote: post #108
akanet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that increasing housing supply is similar to "trickle down" economics is common in discourses of housing policy in America, but it is misguided. Reagan's notion that increasing the margins of the wealthy would induce them to pass profits to workers was mistaken in that its proposed mechanism was entirely altruism. Price reductions in housing from an increase in supply do not occur because the rich voluntar…

My point is that increase in supply alone doesn't automatically lead to less domination. For instance increasing the supply of high quality affordable housing by 2% in a place where there is high demand might not mean 2% more people will get the houses at a good price. It can mean instead that investors buy 2% more houses in that area to rent it at a price aligned with the market value. Wouldn't it be ok then if the…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN