Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive • Hacker News Board

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#111

Post by matwood » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:14 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #37

crispyambulance wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That concept has already been implemented. Urban planners who practice it call it "new urbanism". It has been a mixed bag, but is better than the "malls-connected-by-highways" approach of many suburban development s.

Too much density decreases the quality of life. Overcrowdedness, very long waiting times at every establishment or government office, increased ease of pickpockets etc. to "disappear into the crowd", higher prices. You already see all this in many existing cities; you want that, but worse? I'll take malls connected by highways over that any day. Malls are nice and cars are a better experience than transit/walking in…

> cars are a better experience than transit/walking in every facet

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. There are plusses and minuses to both. IMO, the big plus with a car is freedom, but then there are many negatives like parking, traffic, and speed to destination.

If I ever move again, it will be to a location where I do not have to own a car. I hate everything about driving, and realized it's a huge source of general stress for me personally.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#112

Post by harrumph » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

donatj wrote: post #28

roymckenzie wrote: post #26

Lol America. Where walkable streets are justified by economics and not humanities.

Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities.

>Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities.

Not even this pithy, wrong, six-word statement avoids its grounding in the humanities. Consider the baseless gender assignment you made: pure humanities.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#113

Post by Balgair » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #88

weisser wrote: post #83

I live in Boulder and attribute much of the quality of life here to walkable (and bikeable) streets. We have hundreds of miles of multi-use paths that are used extensively for getting around and for recreation. Our main road downtown has a pedestrian mall for a number of blocks that keeps traffic away and lends itself to street performers, community events, and a generally calming atmosphere. Downtown parking lots ar…

Boulder's a great place in many ways, but it's also what got me really interested in urbanism, and getting involved at a local level, because it is an abject failure in terms of being affordable to even middle-class people who didn't buy in 30 years ago, with average house prices somewhere around 700K or north of that. This is, in part, because they refuse to add denser areas like the downtown in more parts of the ci…

Oh no, Boulder housing and land use is a mess of issues. For instance, imagine the 2011 flood with 10x the population density or the craziness of the Hill with even 2x more students. Let's not get started on Maple Hill's snootiness.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#114

Post by oftenwrong » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #91

crispyambulance wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Too much density decreases the quality of life. Too much of anything decreases quality of life. Everyone has their own taste, but generally speaking, if every journey out of your home has to begin and end with a parking space because you live in a pedestrian-hostile environment, that will certainly damage quality of life and the social fabric of that place as a "town".

The strength of the social fabric / level of community engagement in suburbs is way higher. Not even close.

There is some debate on that point:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Xk06al1sAmUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA...

Passage begins on page 171 but I can't link to it via Google Books.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#115

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:18 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #79

scythe wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The median house in Lafayette costs roughly $150,000. A family living in this house would currently pay about $1,500 per year in taxes to the local government of which 10%, approximately $150, goes to maintenance of infrastructure (more is paid to the schools and regional government). A fraction of that $150 – it varies by year – is spent on actual pavement. >To maintain just the roads and drainage systems that have…

> he obviously wants to destroy our way of life. Uh huh... "our way of life" that really only came into existence after WWII. Strong Towns focuses a lot on how cities used to be in the US, and points to that as a pretty good model. They grew incrementally, both up, in, and out. They mostly grew thanks to local, smaller efforts rather than mega projects.

Well one could just as easily respond that even into the 1920s half of Americans lived in rural areas if recency makes a way of life somehow made-up.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#116

Post by rayiner » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:19 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #105

The US has too much retail space. About 2x too much. There's a fan club for cutesy little hipster stores that sell overpriced hipster stuff bought by hipster people with their hipster little dogs. Look at the pictures in the article.[1] See any stores selling necessities? A hardware store? A real grocery store? Nah. Retail is happening at the strip mall or online. It's hard to fill those little shops at the base of c…

Hah. This is right by my office in DC. The only people who live around there are GWU students and profs. It’s been around forever, but it exists to support the bauinsss and tourist lunch crowd.

That said, in DC, where lots of people don’t drive, you can support grocery stores and hardware stores. There was a Safeway and an Ace Hardware in the building over when I lived in China Town. You don’t need one in every block though.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#117

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #84

emodendroket wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, so all we have to do is accept totalitarian rule? Where do I sign?

Can you help me understand how Singapore is totalitarian?

Do you have another description for a society where you can't buy chewing gum, caning is a punishment meted out by courts, and making a video criticizing Lee Kwan Yew can land you in jail? Where there is no freedom of association and the press freedom ratings are consistently poor? I don't think the idea that Singapore is an authoritarian state is even controversial.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#118

Post by _qbxp » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #87

I pay a pretty hefty premium to live in the only walkable neighborhood in Atlanta, Midtown, and even then I'd only call it "barely walkable." There's still not nearly enough density for me to spend a whole lot of time walking around. Still, you can't put a price on having a grocery store, train station, liquor store, neighborhood bar, and cheap Mediterranean restaurant all within a 5 minute walk. As much as I'm payin…

I've started my search to buy a place in Midtown, precisely because of the walkability. The prices really do reflect it..

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#119

Post by davidw » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #115

davidw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he obviously wants to destroy our way of life. Uh huh... "our way of life" that really only came into existence after WWII. Strong Towns focuses a lot on how cities used to be in the US, and points to that as a pretty good model. They grew incrementally, both up, in, and out. They mostly grew thanks to local, smaller efforts rather than mega projects.

Well one could just as easily respond that even into the 1920s half of Americans lived in rural areas if recency makes a way of life somehow made-up.

No one is against people living in rural areas; people who want that are welcome to it.

The focus is more on suburbs, which are more of a recent invention, especially the US-style ones where no one can live without a car and all the subsidies that accompany them.

Realistically, not everyone is going to live in some dense urban core, and there'd be a gradation from that to rural, like there always has been. The point is that should probably be a bit more natural curve, rather than having tons of burbs that don't really pay for themselves, long term.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#120

Post by vkou » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #105

The US has too much retail space. About 2x too much. There's a fan club for cutesy little hipster stores that sell overpriced hipster stuff bought by hipster people with their hipster little dogs. Look at the pictures in the article.[1] See any stores selling necessities? A hardware store? A real grocery store? Nah. Retail is happening at the strip mall or online. It's hard to fill those little shops at the base of c…

> Most apartment buildings can't even support an on-premises convenience store. SF tried.

Then they aren't building high enough.

My Vancouver apartment, in a 30 story building was floored by retail. So were some of the other neighboring buildings.

Thanks to mixed-use building, Vancouver has a vibrant downtown - one used by people after 6pm. Seattle, where I currently live... Has large stretches of it that are largely dead in the evening - because it's all office/professional space. Vancouver downtown feels far safer after hours.