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

New Cities

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 710 posts

Re: New Cities

#11

Post by joshmlewis »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

If you're going to have a dense, intercity area, I suppose I'd argue that the question isn't about "human-driven cars", which brings up the largely unrealistic consideration of self-driving cars on ordinary roads, but simply: Build the city center entirely around public transit. Rail is incredibly efficient, and in a system where you are designing the city first, I'd forgo roads entirely. Why bother with buses if you…

This is a good idea when considering how people will get around in their daily routines, but I'd be interested in hearing your perspective on how goods, services, and infrastructure would operate with entirely no roads?

Specifically getting food/goods/supplies to businesses, restaurants, hospitals, and other facilities that are required for such a city to exist. You could potentially utilize rail for this but then you face the last mile problem. Additionally considering things like emergency services, rail seems like it would be entirely inefficient for getting someone immediate medical attention.

Re: New Cities

#13

Post by BinaryIdiot »

> We now have major technologies such as smart grids, autonomous vehicles, etc

Not really. Autonomous vehicles are still coming. We don't know what infrastructure we'll need to support them just yet. Will there be a standardized way of powering / recharging them? What non-autonomous needs will they have and how to we handle them (because there will be some e.g. mechanical repair, rescue, etc)? Sure we can "guess" based on trends but we won't know for sure for probably another 10+ years what a brand new city will really need in this regards.

Same with smart grids especially with solar power becoming more efficient they may almost be unnecessary in 10-20 years (unlikely maybe but it's theoretically possible).

> There are many high-level questions we want to think through[...]And there are tactical questions we want to dig into

So there is a bit of reason to why most cities come up sorta "organically". Like NYC there was planning, sure, but that planning came from trends or requirements from the populous which happened over time. Engineering a full city from the group up sounds good but the majority of the people using the city are, well, people. People change. Technology changes. Political opinion changes.

Maybe you'll succeed in having a solid plan agreed upon by a majority but by the time the plan is taken and put into action and built a large amount of time will pass and I do not believe that original plan will still be as optimal or valid by the time it is completed. Then you'll have to do what every city does: improve, change laws, build stuff here and there that you originally thought you wouldn't do.

Ultimately it seems like a very interesting exercise but I do not believe in its practicality.

> - Adora Cheung, Sam Altman

Wait, Adora is part of YC? I thought after all of the drama around HomeJoy and the people it may or may not have sold to she had just basically disappeared. I had no idea she was part of YC.

Edit: just to clarify (because I'm not sure it came off correctly) I just didn't know Adora was part of YC and am curious as to her role, etc not to bring up any drama or other bs. I had just assumed she went on to found another company as that seems to be the norm for many founders.

Re: New Cities

#14

Post by Swizec »

BorgHunter wrote: post #8
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

If you're going to have a dense, intercity area, I suppose I'd argue that the question isn't about "human-driven cars", which brings up the largely unrealistic consideration of self-driving cars on ordinary roads, but simply: Build the city center entirely around public transit. Rail is incredibly efficient, and in a system where you are designing the city first, I'd forgo roads entirely. Why bother with buses if you…

> Light rail is incredibly efficient, and in a system where you are designing the city first, I'd forgo roads entirely. While I'm a firm believer that private cars (at least at a scale seen in the U.S.) and dense cities are fundamentally incompatible, I'm not quite onboard with getting rid of roads altogether. What about bicycles? Emergency vehicles? Construction equipment? Furniture deliveries? Deliveries of merchan…

You can build things that can function as roads but aren't roads. Look at most European cities' inner pedestrian zones.

There are roads of old, but closed to traffic and heavily modified. In case of emergency, fire engines can get in. Bicycles and pedestrians can comingle happily on a normal day.

My hometown's (Ljubljana) pedestrian zone is more than a kilometer across. It's quite awesome.

Re: New Cities

#16

Post by forrestthewoods »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

If you're going to have a dense, intercity area, I suppose I'd argue that the question isn't about "human-driven cars", which brings up the largely unrealistic consideration of self-driving cars on ordinary roads, but simply: Build the city center entirely around public transit. Rail is incredibly efficient, and in a system where you are designing the city first, I'd forgo roads entirely. Why bother with buses if you…

I think light rail is awful. Heavy rail even worse.

I just spent a week in Paris. Do you know much faster it's transportation is than walking? It's about a 2x multiplier. That's it. I can take multiple subway connections and get there in 30 minutes or walk the streets in 60.

Several hundred billion in subway is no faster than a moving sidewalk in an airport.

We can do better. We must do better.

Re: New Cities

#17

Post by davidw »

I think "old cities" are pretty good too: the kind where they were built for people, rather than cars, and where you could build things without a dense thicket of regulations almost entirely unrelated to safety. Another thing that seems to work well is limiting the amount of up-front large scale projects and growing incrementally. No one can plan for everything ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem ) .

Recommended reading:

http://www.strongtowns.org/

http://marketurbanism.com/

The Rent Is Too Damn High: What To Do About It, And Why It Matters More Than You Think: http://amzn.to/28W6et9

Edit - I'll add that I think it's great that YC is spending some money to look into this, as it's a huge issue for many desirable, productive cities these days. Huge as in billions of dollars:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-07/here-s-how...

Re: New Cities

#18

Post by gioele »

I hope the winner of this call get all sent to live for 2 years in small (and not so small) unknown towns in Europe that have been growing organically for thousands of years and offer a great quality of life.

Places where rich and poor, kids, young adults, adults and elderly all live happily together (modulo the usual father-and-son generational problems).

Seriously, planners in "new" countries should be forced to spend some time in "old" countries, if not to learn the good things, at least to learn their mistakes.

And another compulsory thing should be listening to James Howard Kunstler talking about Suburbia: https://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_sub...

Re: New Cities

#19

Post by Bromskloss »

I want an old-fashioned city, with cobblestone and stuff, thank you. I'm sure it's not the most efficient according to one measure or another, but it's for living in, not for being a machine in. Actually, it might be the most efficient at making me happy.

Re: New Cities

#20

Post by BorgHunter »

Swizec wrote: post #14
BorgHunter wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Light rail is incredibly efficient, and in a system where you are designing the city first, I'd forgo roads entirely. While I'm a firm believer that private cars (at least at a scale seen in the U.S.) and dense cities are fundamentally incompatible, I'm not quite onboard with getting rid of roads altogether. What about bicycles? Emergency vehicles? Construction equipment? Furniture deliveries? Deliveries of merchan…

You can build things that can function as roads but aren't roads. Look at most European cities' inner pedestrian zones. There are roads of old, but closed to traffic and heavily modified. In case of emergency, fire engines can get in. Bicycles and pedestrians can comingle happily on a normal day. My hometown's (Ljubljana) pedestrian zone is more than a kilometer across. It's quite awesome.

This is the exact kind of thing I'd love to see more of. I would still call it a road, though, if it can support limited vehicular traffic. "Pedestrian road", maybe. It's a good point, though, that you can support the use cases I mentioned without resorting to the more typical "road-for-cars, sidewalk-for-people" paradigm.
Post reply on HN