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

Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

practical.engineering

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 352 posts

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#341

Post by DidYaWipe »

tptacek wrote: post #332
DidYaWipe wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of many parking minimums is to protect the type of neighborhood you report living in. I lived in a pleasant neighborhood on Chicago's north side (Lakeview), which was a mix of SFH away from main thoroughfares and apartment buildings where they made sense. A real demonstration of what's possible, and (I think) what you're championing. I do believe it's possible. But it does require specificity and planning…

In Chicago at least, parking minimums were generally enacted as a package of policies to keep Black and Latino families out of neighborhoods. The Supreme Court struck down explicit racial zoning in 1917, which drove the creation of single-family zoning. Properties in Chicago were further "protected" by racial covenants, contractually preventing them from being sold to Black families. Those covenants were struck down…

Yes, by now we all know that every zoning decision 80 years ago was racist and evil. I'm talking about today.

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#342

Post by tracker1 »

Vespasian wrote: post #269
fooqux wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, this will always be Las Vegas. Walking the strip my first time while at a conference was enlightening. Seeing all the American tropes that I'd seen in foreign media within a square kilometer and with my own eyes left me speechless.

I loved my most recent trip to the US (it's been almost 10 years...wow) for anything but Vegas. Something really didn't mesh with me.Too much focus on fakery and "big" I guess. (Especially all that "Roman" and "greek" flair after having just toured the real deal a few weeks earlier) So we took advantage of the cheap accomodation and visited the stunning places around it.

Las Vegas is definitely something else... It's close enough that I've been in/through there several times over the years. That said, I just don't enjoy it. I used to enjoy a few good meals or a show stopping in on the way through as I like to do road trips. The customer service has sub-floored, the crowds have only grown and it's just far from even pleasant to where the show isn't worth it.

That's just my own take.

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#343

Post by tptacek »

DidYaWipe wrote: post #341
tptacek wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Chicago at least, parking minimums were generally enacted as a package of policies to keep Black and Latino families out of neighborhoods. The Supreme Court struck down explicit racial zoning in 1917, which drove the creation of single-family zoning. Properties in Chicago were further "protected" by racial covenants, contractually preventing them from being sold to Black families. Those covenants were struck down…

Yes, by now we all know that every zoning decision 80 years ago was racist and evil. I'm talking about today.

Not 80 years ago. Into the 1980s and 90s. I can give specific examples.

A thing to keep in mind: sweeping zoning changes don't happen that often! Once every 20 years --- not exactly, but roughly --- is about right. And over the last "80 years", they've tended to ratchet. Most major metros have never had a period of pronounced housing deregulation (like other industries did in the 1970s and 1990s), so insane decisions made in the late 1940s remain in effect today, but get retconned as if the quality of live protections they promise were part of the original deal, and not a knock-on effect of a system of residential apartheid.

There is no question that restrictive zoning (and its constructive equivalents, like setback requirements) satisfy real, valid preferences of some existing homeowners. That's not the debate. The debate is whether states and localities owe those homeowners the satisfaction of those preferences, and at what cost. The existing residents advocating for density are essentially free-riding. I don't have to blame them for doing that to see that it's not something to valorize.

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#344

Post by DidYaWipe »

tptacek wrote: post #323
DidYaWipe wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't the reason. The reason is that people who don't want to live that way have specifically chosen to live in an area developed in a different way. Why should that be destroyed or vilified? I see the appeal of both kinds of lifestyle. Some of my best friends live in nice Chicago neighborhoods where they don't need cars. They are not rich or even significantly "well-off" by most standards, and their homes did n…

The rules you're talking about were uniformly created as a way to replace de jure racial segregation, which was outlawed surprisingly early in the 20th century, with de facto racial segregation. People supply post-hoc rationalizations for density restrictions, and some of them might even be valid, especially as you get further away from urban cores, but just to be clear: the Chesterton analysis here says these fences…

The blanket rejection of zoning, based on century-old racist transgressions, is pointless and tired. I lived in high-density areas my entire adult life until four years ago, when I finally bought a house that is a considerable distance away from those areas. I didn't do so for racist reasons. I did so because I required more space for my professional and personal pursuits. So I really don't give a shit about why the neighborhood was built originally, or feel the least bit guilty about opposing attempts to "Manhattanize" it.

The defense of zoning is not "post hoc," since we're talking about today and in the future. The "racism" attack on it is ad hominem.

I'm not against development, or density in areas that are designated for it. I'm against the vilification of entire neighborhoods under a false narrative that veils a craven profit motive, in combination with an entitled gimme-gimme-gimme delusion that cheap housing is going to rain down on people who could but don't work for it... if only we wipe out those horrible houses inhabited by rich racists.

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#345

Post by tptacek »

DidYaWipe wrote: post #344
tptacek wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rules you're talking about were uniformly created as a way to replace de jure racial segregation, which was outlawed surprisingly early in the 20th century, with de facto racial segregation. People supply post-hoc rationalizations for density restrictions, and some of them might even be valid, especially as you get further away from urban cores, but just to be clear: the Chesterton analysis here says these fences…

The blanket rejection of zoning, based on century-old racist transgressions, is pointless and tired. I lived in high-density areas my entire adult life until four years ago, when I finally bought a house that is a considerable distance away from those areas. I didn't do so for racist reasons. I did so because I required more space for my professional and personal pursuits. So I really don't give a shit about why the…

Almost nobody is buying exclusively-zoned property for racist reasons. But the availability of those properties under those terms is an intended consequence of racist decisions, and so it is fair to re-evaluate whether it's reasonable for those terms to be enforced by the state's monopoly on violence. I say that in most exclusively-zoned areas in or near urban cores, the clear answer to that question is "no": most of what's single-family zoned today should be upzoned to fourplexes. That argument is easy to make on the merits: there's a real (and rippling) cost to maintaining single-family zones near cities, and the benefits accrue to a fortunate few.

I say this as someone who owns an extremely and multivalently single-family property, the only property I own, and is working actively and primarily on upzoning that specific area. I have neighbors that would say what you're saying: you bought into wherever you live based on the promise that the state would commit arms to preventing any of your neighbors from admitting too many new residents. My response, when we succeed: "we are altering the deal."

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#346

Post by dreamcompiler »

psunavy03 wrote: post #144
hoten wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houston native here. I still guffaw when I see a massively lifted truck (but with a pristine bed, no scratches - so not even a work truck). Everything's bigger in Texas, including egos.

The best analogy I've heard for explaining Texas to non-Americans is that Americans view Texans the same way the rest of the world views Americans.

Every country has a Texas. In Canada it's Alberta. In Germany it's Bavaria.

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#347

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #345
DidYaWipe wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blanket rejection of zoning, based on century-old racist transgressions, is pointless and tired. I lived in high-density areas my entire adult life until four years ago, when I finally bought a house that is a considerable distance away from those areas. I didn't do so for racist reasons. I did so because I required more space for my professional and personal pursuits. So I really don't give a shit about why the…

Almost nobody is buying exclusively-zoned property for racist reasons. But the availability of those properties under those terms is an intended consequence of racist decisions, and so it is fair to re-evaluate whether it's reasonable for those terms to be enforced by the state's monopoly on violence. I say that in most exclusively-zoned areas in or near urban cores, the clear answer to that question is "no": most of…

[deleted]

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#348

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #345
DidYaWipe wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blanket rejection of zoning, based on century-old racist transgressions, is pointless and tired. I lived in high-density areas my entire adult life until four years ago, when I finally bought a house that is a considerable distance away from those areas. I didn't do so for racist reasons. I did so because I required more space for my professional and personal pursuits. So I really don't give a shit about why the…

Almost nobody is buying exclusively-zoned property for racist reasons. But the availability of those properties under those terms is an intended consequence of racist decisions, and so it is fair to re-evaluate whether it's reasonable for those terms to be enforced by the state's monopoly on violence. I say that in most exclusively-zoned areas in or near urban cores, the clear answer to that question is "no": most of…

[deleted]

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#349

Post by devilbunny »

missingcolours wrote: post #6
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #2

I only had a quick skim so far, but I did not feel like the article gave a firm enough rationale? I have seen scenarios in Texas when there is seemingly no other infrastructure or geography that could explain the over building.

The tl;dr to the article is "Texas freeways have frontage roads, which add at least one additional level to a traditional stack interchange, and that makes them taller than interchanges in e.g. California. The broader question I've always had, that's not addressed in the article, is "so why do California and Texas build so many stack interchanges while the rest of the country mostly does not?"

Lots of people, lots of highways, lots of land that wasn't occupied by houses and people 100 years ago. Pretty simple.

Stack interchanges are very common for high-traffic areas, some of which wouldn't necessarily show up on your mental radar.

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#350

Post by swozey »

anonym29 wrote: post #186
swozey wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Maybe for late 90's, but major metro areas like ATX, DFW, Houston, and SA have grown much more progressive in the last quarter century. Also, statistically speaking, you're less likely to be shot in a Texas LGBTQ-friendly venue than a Colorado LGBTQ-friendly venue.

Did you seriously just explain to someone who said they lived in Texas that the cities in Texas are progressive? ... I lived there, man. I even lived in those cities. I even said I recently escaped, not a quarter century ago.

I was 8 in the "late 90s" dude. How old do you think people on HN are?

Texas fucking sucks, even if you're in Austin, Houston or Dallas. Especially post-2020.

Post reply on HN