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

The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

chrisnorstrom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 138 posts

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#71

Post by philwelch »

anamax wrote: post #63
jseliger wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you/we trying to force density when it's so obvious that most people want the exact opposite? The problem is that the playing field isn't level: as Edward Glaeser points out in his book, The Triumph of the City (highly recommended; http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Health... ), there are numerous institutional barriers to urban living, including, in no particular order: 1) Mortgage interes…

> It's pretty obvious that a lot of people want density Yes, but folks living in suburbs don't stop folks who like density from having it. It's interesting that suburb dwellers never complain about other people's living choices. It's always the city fans who can't tolerate folks who want something else. BTW - If you want high-density housing, you're going to have shared walls. It's unclear why you blame suburbs for t…

It's interesting that suburb dwellers never complain about other people's living choices.

No, they just vote against spending any public money on things like public transit, or against raising car and gas taxes. If suburbians paid their own way I wouldn't mind them either.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#72

Post by tsotha »

jseliger wrote: post #61
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you/we trying to force density when it's so obvious that most people want the exact opposite? [edit] I had in a house in a great neighborhood in the city within walking distance of grocery, restaurants, buses, etc., and I still moved to the suburbs. Obviously density's not the only thing people want.

Why are you/we trying to force density when it's so obvious that most people want the exact opposite? The problem is that the playing field isn't level: as Edward Glaeser points out in his book, The Triumph of the City (highly recommended; http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Health... ), there are numerous institutional barriers to urban living, including, in no particular order: 1) Mortgage interes…

>It's pretty obvious that a lot of people want density—if they didn't, housing prices in NYC, DC, Seattle, San Francisco, and others wouldn't be so high.

You're making the assumption people want to live there because of the density and not because there are certain types of jobs that pay more in big cities. I could make twenty or thirty percent more if I moved to NYC, but that's something I'll never do.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#73

Post by potatolicious »

ditojim wrote: post #31
gfodor wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is less about that and more about trespassing on a random person's property in order to get around.

i lived on a variety of cu-de-sacs until i was 30. cutting thru neighbors' yards was never considered "trespassing" in those neighborhoods, especially for kids/teens.

Most suburbs have fences, no? The one where I grew up it'd be impossible for me to get to a house 100 feet away without hopping fences, and that's generally seen as poor form.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#74

Post by tsotha »

wmoxam wrote: post #69
bdunbar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never understand the attraction of suburbs Low taxes. Lower cost of living. Privacy of a detached house. The lack of 'city' noise. Letting my kids play in the yard, on sidewalks. Letting my kids tear around the cul-de-sac. I've lived in the country, I've lived in the city, I've lived in the 'burbs. I prefer the latter, now. Maybe it's just me. I live in a smaller town, my commute is a five minute drive. YMMV.

Are taxes lower in the suburbs of most American cities? I thought they'd be higher due to lower densities (more roads, sewer pipes, etc per capita to maintain). At least that's the case here in the Greater Toronto area ...

It's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, you need to run the sewer pipes farther, for instance, but the land occupied by utilities is much cheaper, labor is cheaper, and it isn't a major catastrophe if you have to close a suburban street while you're burying the sewer pipe.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#75

Post by potatolicious »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #32
stygianguest wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never lived in a cul-de-sac (which btw is french for a dead-end street), but spent my childhood playing outside all the same. Narrow, one-way streets, with plenty of speed bumps. I walked to school. Currently I reside downtown, overlooking rails (the trains go quite slowly and make a noise far more agreeable than that of cars). There's a market under the rails, fruit vegtables and other foodstuffs at daytime, sm…

Space. Your own greenspace. I live in the country now and it's even more remote, but when I lived in the 'burbs it was on a 1/2 acre lot behind a nature preserve. I could look out my living room windows and not see anything but trees -- not a neighbor in sight. My kid could climb trees, look for frogs, go "treasure hunting" all day long. The dogs could go outside without needing to be leashed, or walked. And we could…

> "but when I lived in the 'burbs it was on a 1/2 acre lot behind a nature preserve"

If this was a typical American suburb, I'd be inclined to agree, but you have to realize that your suburb is a statistical anomaly compared to the much more urban suburb that most Americans live in.

For most Americans, a suburb still means being miles from nature, it also means being jammed into row after row of houses butting shoulders with your neighbors. The "true suburb" (i.e., a suburb as it was originally envisioned) is a rare thing.

For these "urban 'burbs" there is really no benefit to the current layout of meandering streets and cul de sacs - it just forces people to drive more, disconnects neighborhoods, and makes transit impossible to provision. There would be very little lost converting these to neighborhoods with a stronger retail presence and sanely laid out streets.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#76

Post by specialist »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #33
justinph wrote: post #10

The density in cul-de-sac neighborhoods is still too low to make it possible for residents to get to any of the basic services they need (school, grocery, etc) without driving. Adding a few roads to shave a mile or two off a commute or trip the store isn't going to make much of a difference. Our (american) cities desperately need urban growth boundaries to force density.

Why are you/we trying to force density when it's so obvious that most people want the exact opposite? [edit] I had in a house in a great neighborhood in the city within walking distance of grocery, restaurants, buses, etc., and I still moved to the suburbs. Obviously density's not the only thing people want.

> it's so obvious that most people want the exact opposite?

Ah yes, the fabled "free market".

Subsidize sprawl with money looted from urban areas. People move the burbs. Claim it's demand driven.

What impresses me is that people increasingly choose urban despite the sprawl tax.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#77

Post by dbfclark »

tsotha wrote: post #72
jseliger wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you/we trying to force density when it's so obvious that most people want the exact opposite? The problem is that the playing field isn't level: as Edward Glaeser points out in his book, The Triumph of the City (highly recommended; http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Health... ), there are numerous institutional barriers to urban living, including, in no particular order: 1) Mortgage interes…

>It's pretty obvious that a lot of people want density—if they didn't, housing prices in NYC, DC, Seattle, San Francisco, and others wouldn't be so high. You're making the assumption people want to live there because of the density and not because there are certain types of jobs that pay more in big cities. I could make twenty or thirty percent more if I moved to NYC, but that's something I'll never do.

Not necessarily -- people may want to live there in spite of the density, since not everybody is like you in turning down a 30% salary bump to avoid the big city. But it's definitely true that dense expensive places are dense and expensive because people want to live there. The regulatory problem being pointed out is that it's borderline-illegal to increase densities almost everywhere, despite increasing prices. It is all but certain that if there were no regulatory incentives for one level of density over another that there would be a lot more density than there is now.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#78

Post by specialist »

anamax wrote: post #63
jseliger wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you/we trying to force density when it's so obvious that most people want the exact opposite? The problem is that the playing field isn't level: as Edward Glaeser points out in his book, The Triumph of the City (highly recommended; http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Health... ), there are numerous institutional barriers to urban living, including, in no particular order: 1) Mortgage interes…

> It's pretty obvious that a lot of people want density Yes, but folks living in suburbs don't stop folks who like density from having it. It's interesting that suburb dwellers never complain about other people's living choices. It's always the city fans who can't tolerate folks who want something else. BTW - If you want high-density housing, you're going to have shared walls. It's unclear why you blame suburbs for t…

> but folks living in suburbs don't stop folks who like density from having it.

Yes. They do. That giant sucking sound you hear are the burbs bleeding the urban tax base dry.

Further, in my area, the burb leaders cock block anything that smells like it might help the urbans.

My city would be sparkling and new if we didn't have to subsidize the standard of living of all the deadbeats in the burbs.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#79

Post by davidandgoliath »

specialist wrote: post #78
anamax wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's pretty obvious that a lot of people want density Yes, but folks living in suburbs don't stop folks who like density from having it. It's interesting that suburb dwellers never complain about other people's living choices. It's always the city fans who can't tolerate folks who want something else. BTW - If you want high-density housing, you're going to have shared walls. It's unclear why you blame suburbs for t…

> but folks living in suburbs don't stop folks who like density from having it. Yes. They do. That giant sucking sound you hear are the burbs bleeding the urban tax base dry. Further, in my area, the burb leaders cock block anything that smells like it might help the urbans. My city would be sparkling and new if we didn't have to subsidize the standard of living of all the deadbeats in the burbs.

"My city would be sparkling and new if we didn't have to subsidize the standard of living of all the deadbeats in the burbs."

That is a silly notion. Are you assuming those out in the burbs don't pay property tax, vehicle related taxes, tax on purchases and every other tax in existence?

I'm positive we'd all learn quite a bit if we actually dug into the numbers.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#80

Post by bdunbar »

wmoxam wrote: post #69
bdunbar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never understand the attraction of suburbs Low taxes. Lower cost of living. Privacy of a detached house. The lack of 'city' noise. Letting my kids play in the yard, on sidewalks. Letting my kids tear around the cul-de-sac. I've lived in the country, I've lived in the city, I've lived in the 'burbs. I prefer the latter, now. Maybe it's just me. I live in a smaller town, my commute is a five minute drive. YMMV.

Are taxes lower in the suburbs of most American cities? I thought they'd be higher due to lower densities (more roads, sewer pipes, etc per capita to maintain). At least that's the case here in the Greater Toronto area ...

In my experience, yes. But I haven't lived everywhere - a fellow who lives in LA might have a different experience than a guy living in Wisconsin.
Post reply on HN