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

341–350 of 564 posts

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#341

Post by treis »

matkoniecz wrote: post #80
scandox wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think the double question mark is a tad disingenuous there. Everyone will have their own peculiar circumstances. We, for example, are a family of 4 and our shop for ten days is I would guess 30/40 kilograms. The grocery is 2.5 kilometers away and the journey includes one very dangerous roundabout. So I think a car is reasonable.

> The grocery is 2.5 kilometers away and the journey includes one very dangerous roundabout. Well, if city is so poorly designed that it requires cars, then you will need a car. For comparison, I have small supermarket 250m away (on the ground floor of an apartment block) - and I do not need to cross road to get there. And withing 250m there are several other shops like bakeries, pharmacies, haidresser, convenience s…

I'm guessing you pay significantly more for food at these local places than you would at a big box grocery store. Plus, you're less able to buy in bulk to get those time&money savings.

The other big factor that people miss in these comparisons are schools. Generally speaking housing in dense places with good schools is usually very expensive. People that can't afford that typically have the choice between crappy urban schools or good suburban schools. Most of them choose the good schools.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#342

Post by jbjbjbjb »

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…

In Europe walkability is great in cities but you usually pay a premium on housing because land is scarce.

You can walk in the suburbs but there’s often no where local to go because the shops, schools, and workplaces need a level of scale to be efficient.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#343

Post by zchrykng »

jseban wrote: post #314
CapitainEvident wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lack of 75-100 m2 (3 bedrooms) under €600,000 in walking distance from the most famous tourist attractions, I know as I looked. Smaller 2 bedrooms can be bought in the center of Amsterdam for €350,000 with a €35,000 deposit (10%). How is that not viable for a tech worker?

It's sort of viable, but you'd have to spend 2-3 years living in overpriced temporary sublets while trying to save up to that deposit, and still it just supports the original comment which was that you could only afford 2 bedrooms and even that is a push. To get one of those 600k apartments you'd have to flip your first apartment for the bigger downpayment, and that's gonna take another 2 years.

That 2 bedroom apartment costs way more than my 5 bedroom house that is ~420 m2. Housing prices in some places are crazy.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#344

Post by trutannus »

jbjbjbjb wrote: post #342
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…

In Europe walkability is great in cities but you usually pay a premium on housing because land is scarce. You can walk in the suburbs but there’s often no where local to go because the shops, schools, and workplaces need a level of scale to be efficient.

You'd be surprised. Housing in Berlin is cheaper by far than housing in the least walkable cities in Canada.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#345

Post by nradov »

It's bizarre how this article defines "nice" in terms of architecture and walkability. In the US most people care more about crime rates and school quality. If the local school is rated 2/10 and there are drug dealers in the neighborhood park then it doesn't matter how many shops and restaurants are within walking distance.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#346

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

nemo44x wrote: post #239
CalRobert wrote: post #21

The planet boils because Americans are afraid of living in places as beautiful as the ones they vacation in. If you're an American who'd like to escape, check out the Dutch American Friendship Treaty, or Portugal's new visa for remote work. PT's NHR tax program makes it very popular for FIRE too. It's not Amsterdam but moving to Dublin from LA did wonders for my happiness. The next goal is living somewhere my kid can…

There’s many towns in the USA where kids can walk to school and shops are walkable, etc. especially on the east coast there are numerous pre-war towns like this. But your experience is in California, a place notorious for being designed around the highway.

> There’s many towns in the USA where kids can walk to school

Especially where there's no bus transport within 2 mi of the school. Kids walk to school inches away from dangerous roads.

> many towns in the USA shops are walkable, etc

"Many" is doing a lot of lifting here. What's a good estimate of the percent of platted neighborhoods (or Census Designated Places or zip-codes or whatever) that are generally walkable? Less than one? Less than .1% or .01% or .001%?

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#347

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

CapitainEvident wrote: post #275
llampx wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did he buy or rent the apartment recently and from his own savings+income? Many such stories involve an old rental contract, a family-owned apartment or sizeable inheritance.

Bought from own savings and income 4 years ago with no help from parents, not a family-owned apartment or sizeable inheritance. Owner is an immigrant from a developing country, the exchange rate alone would be prohibitive for any family assistance.

>Bought from own savings and income 4 years ago

IIRC the housing market in the Netherlands 4 years ago was way more accessible than the madness of today so that's probably not a surprise that he could afford it. Ask him if he could have bought in the market of today please.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#348

Post by Jensson »

kharak wrote: post #227
jseban wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No because you only have to take the car once a week, and you have to walk 3 times per week. If you want to force physical exercise by inefficiency like that, what exactly are the machines that should be forbidden and which should be allowed? You can do a million things from scratch which gives you physical exercise, we all rely on using machines that saves us from this poor life, why put the walking/cycling on a ped…

Just no. It is more efficient for me. Really don't care that you don't want to accept that. So take your efficiency argument and scrap it. You want cars and want everything to be optimized for it. That is your actual point and we both know it.

Waling is free, you need the exercise anyway so time spent walking isn't wasted. Driving however is a waste of time.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#349

Post by throwaway0a5e »

542354234235 wrote: post #280
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…

> So any characterization of USA vs Europe positing Europe as some sort of walkable-heaven is really just idealized bullshit. Or that is just a strawman of what is clearly true, but not literally universal in every single individual location. Biking/walking is utilized at least twice as much in Western European countries as in the US, and often 3 times or more [1]. European cities are, in general , more walkable and…

>Biking/walking is utilized at least twice as much in Western European countries as in the US,

What's it look like when you include eastern Europe in that comparison?

I'm sure the rich half of the US bikes a heck of a lot more than the poor half too.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#350

Post by Pxtl »

throw0101a wrote: post #323
Pxtl wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walkability demands density, and density intrinsically is encouraged by smaller units. Now, obviously the economic factor you describe can exacerbate this, but fundamentally dense walkable neighborhoods can't have the kind of sprawly mcmansions some people have grown comfortable with in suburbia.

> Walkability demands density, and density intrinsically is encouraged by smaller units. You can have sizeable homes even in walkable neighbourhoods. Look at any suburb constructed pre-WW2: * https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+... * https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toron... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb You still have a (back)yard and can have a garage…

I live in exactly that kind of pre-war streetcar suburb and yes, I've heard suburbanites complain that the houses in these neighborhoods are too small and narrow and lack attached garages. So yes, even the moderate walkability created by streetcar suburbs is still requires a shift to noticeably smaller homes for many North Americans acclimatized to sprawl.
Post reply on HN