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

Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

danrodricks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 389 posts

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#241

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #149
bertil wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most common criticism I hear against cities is that they are loud. Cities aren't loud; cars are loud. You experienced a bad compromise of having high density of a city and the high car ownership of suburbia. Like a "stroad," a road that is trying to be a street, it doesn't work. Try to spend a week in a place with walkable density and no cars: Amsterdam, Oslo, or closer to US, Disney Land.

Cars aren't that loud. Trucks, buses, and trains are loud, and that is what you have a lot of in urban areas.

Unless they're made badly, trains are very quiet! They sneak up on you. Cars, trucks, motorbikes, and construction sites are loud.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#242

Post by Ekaros »

I say we wait until someone demonstrate area working which totally bans all types of vehicles. Only allowing ambulances and firetrucks. Absolutely nothing else, no vans, no taxis(or ridesharing). Maybe provide wheelchairs for those that need.

Keep this going at least for 10 years and see how much the people will enjoy it.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#243

Post by trimethylpurine »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #144
marssaxman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There really are not plenty of places in the US where you can live a good, urban, non-car-oriented life, and you can tell that is true because the ones which do exist tend to be very expensive, showing that they are in high demand. You clearly do not desire an urban lifestyle, and I won't try to change your mind about that, but those of us who do want urban living generally don't find that our choices are either plen…

I think it's because urbanites keep getting suckered into letting builders do "condensed affordable housing" under the false premise that more housing means cheaper housing. Obviously that would only be true if the units were owned by competitors. Where one contractor owns all the units they set the prices, and they have no reason to make them "affordable." Just condensed.

For the downvoters, nice of you to hope I'm wrong but unfortunately: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-and-w...

Honestly who is downvoting this anyway? Do you work for big contractors or just like unaffordable housing as long as it's condensed? Evil much?

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#244

Post by lionkor »

Ekaros wrote: post #242

I say we wait until someone demonstrate area working which totally bans all types of vehicles. Only allowing ambulances and firetrucks. Absolutely nothing else, no vans, no taxis(or ridesharing). Maybe provide wheelchairs for those that need. Keep this going at least for 10 years and see how much the people will enjoy it.

In switzerland there are towns like Zermatt, Saas-Fee, Wengen and Mürren that are car-free.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#245

Post by PeterisP »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #203
Mawr wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anybody need to buy 12 liters of milk when the store is 5-10 mins away on foot? Reality in a lot of european cities is fundamentally different to most of the US.

Because I don't want to go to store every two days, and the prices in local small stores are higher than in a larger, discount store. I buy a pack of milk, and I'm good for a month.

In a walkable city you go by a store every time you go outside - you come back from work, you pass by a store or two where you can buy fresh groceries. This has also an impact on healthy diet, giving access to fresh goods which wouldn't possibly last a month and thus wouldn't get eaten if people drive shopping every few weeks.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#246

Post by aidenn0 »

sfpotter wrote: post #127
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing worse than having I5 is not having I5. There really isn't enough north-south corridors to replace it (15th, 99, east/west lake...really that's it), given that I5 is close to the water and a huge hill as it comes in across from UW. It is already non-viable to expect a 20-30 minute commute into the city. We saw what happened when the Palestine supporters blocked off I5 a few weeks ago...on a weekend with…

There are no major highways through Manhattan. The city is better for it. Drive around the lake if you need to get past the city.

How do you get from the GW bridge to the Cross-Bronx Expressway if there are no major highways through Manhattan?

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#247

Post by Ekaros »

nradov wrote: post #82
apendleton wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is solvable with parking permit programs. Make street parking in those surrounding neighborhoods resident-only. And then people considering living in the "underparked" neighborhood who need parking will have no alternative but to select units that include parking, or live in another neighborhood (and if enough people opt not to live there, developers will include more parking to satisfy demand). This is a proble…

Where do guests park when they come to visit?

They don't. It so simple. Or they walk or bike whole distance.

I think after we have fixed the car parking, we really should start looking into those bikes and ban them from street parking.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#248

Post by abdullahkhalids »

Ekaros wrote: post #242

I say we wait until someone demonstrate area working which totally bans all types of vehicles. Only allowing ambulances and firetrucks. Absolutely nothing else, no vans, no taxis(or ridesharing). Maybe provide wheelchairs for those that need. Keep this going at least for 10 years and see how much the people will enjoy it.

What a ridiculous straw-man extreme argument. When people say "car-free" they do not mean 0 cars. They mean a city where the incentive structure has been changed so driving cars is expensive and annoying, while walking or transit is easy and simple. But in such a "car-free" city, there should/can be

* emergency vehicles * other essential government vehicles like post office, garbage, etc. * commercial delivery vehicles (dozens per 1000) * taxi services (dozens per 1000) * personal vehicles for those with disabilities * personal vehicles for those who are willing to pay a lot of money+time for them (hopefully not many dozens per 1000).

You are thinking that the terminal goal is no cars. But the terminal goal is to live on Earth in a sustainable fashion so we don't destroy the only habitable ecosystem for humans. Fewer cars is a secondary goal in service of this very reasonable requirement.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#249

Post by aidenn0 »

dns_snek wrote: post #195
tzs wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities were loud long before cars. See https://www.medievalists.net/2016/02/the-noisy-middle-ages/ https://daily.jstor.org/a-history-of-noise/ https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/a-19th-cen... https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.64.5....

Practically none of those sources of noise pollution apply to modern urban areas. How many blacksmiths do you have working on your street today? We've driven out nature, we don't have livestock or any animals other than rats and a few birds, we don't transport cargo on carts with wood & metal wheels, we don't live in industrial areas that produce noise pollution, we have laws governing loud music and such. Above all,…

I stayed in a hotel in a city recently. I wish the cars were the loudest thing. There was an ice-skating rink blasting music until after midnight and then a jackhammer at 6am. Needless to say, I didn't sleep well.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#250

Post by shiroiuma »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #236
stefan_ wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All cities will forever have "bad traffic". Car transport capacity is plain abysmal.

Tokyo's traffic is pretty reasonable, actually. It's quite surprising. I rarely encounter a traffic light where all the cars don't make it through, unless there's construction. This is probably because train transport capacity is prodigious, and driving is expensive.

That's exactly it. Almost no one actually drives anywhere: most of the cars are taxis, and most of the rest of the vehicles are commercial (e.g. cargo trucks). When most of the people outside are taking a train, walking, or riding a bicycle, there aren't too many cars on the roads and consequently there isn't much traffic. The busiest places I see are near logistics centers, with lots of truck traffic coming and going.

Also, driving isn't expensive in Tokyo at all, it's actually free except on the toll highways. What's expensive is parking: with few places to park, and it being expensive to rent a parking space in your apartment, it's not that affordable or practical to drive. People also aren't allowed to own cars unless they have a place to park them, so we don't have the problem of car owners fighting over scarce street parking like many other cities.

Post reply on HN