The myth of revealed preference for suburbs • Hacker News Board

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#111

Post by exelius » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #61

so33 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The aerial picture of downtown Houston with all its parking lots is a favorite to show the deleterious effects of mandatory parking minimums: http://www.cdandrews.com/2014/09/surface-parking-lot-design-...

In the same blog I linked (different article I think) they actually noted that the downtown has no mandatory minimums, but it needs lots of lots because there are mandatory minimums elsewhere and everyone has cars as a result.

Part of my point is that I think the cause-effect relationship may be reversed anyway. Texas is also so hot in the summer that people will not be walking outside for any appreciable period of time; it becomes a health risk after a certain point when temperatures can be above 100F / 90% humidity for months on end.

It’s not an accident that Texas looked more like Montana in 1900 than California. The mass adoption of automobiles and air conditioning made large cities in Texas possible; and the low population density made land cheap.

The centers of most big southern cities were never walkable. Most of those cities would never have existed without cars. I don’t know how you introduce density into a situation like that, and I don’t think zoning rules would be able to undo the damage of the last century. These cities were built around cars, and you can’t just roll that back without remaking the whole city and displacing many, many people.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#112

Post by exelius » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 4:13 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #62

smcameron wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, nobody wants to walk in Houston. AC is required to survive there.

I've been to Cuba. There are old cities in the Spanish style, and new ones (1950s) in the american style. In the spanish cities you can walk comfortably. The buildings are tall enough and near enough to the sidewalk that you can always find shade. And everyone walks on the shaded side of the street. In the american cities the buildings are set back, and there is no shade. People still walk (they're poor), but there a…

Walking has never been feasible in the South US. It works in Cuba because Cuba is a small island with a lot of people. Density is forced, so you don’t need a car to get to everything — thus your walking trips are 10-20 minutes long.

Living in the south, it would take me 15 minutes walking just to leave my neighborhood. And most neighborhoods remotely outside the cities do not have sidewalks. So it’s a chicken-and-egg problem.

Just bear in mind most cities in the south (especially Texas) were very small prior to the mass adoption of automobiles and air conditioning. My hypothesis is that the car was required for large Texas cities to exist, and as a result the city has always been a sprawled mess.

So the real question is whether we should build cities this way in the first place? But it’s kind of an irrelevant question — we do and will continue to build cities this way regardless of it being a good idea or not.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#113

Post by kraigie » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 4:52 PM UTC

smcameron wrote: post #53

graeme wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I commented just before you, so you probably didn't see it. But Houston mandates parking minumum, setbacks of houses, very wide roads, and long blocks. Those are all pro-sprawl. My dense, walkable neighbourhood in Montreal would be illegal in Houston. https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-...

Also, nobody wants to walk in Houston. AC is required to survive there.

There are underground and above ground non auto networks. See Canada, las Vegas, Portland transit mall

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#114

Post by kraigie » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 4:58 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #103

brailsafe wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps if buildings were a bit taller with people and businesses closer, you'd require less walking and it would be spent more in the shade.

There's also the radical European idea of planting (gasp) trees in the streets to provide shade when the sun is out. (And, while we're dreaming, putting benches in the streets so that tired walkers could have some rest, and maybe even putting little plazas at street intersections to provide spaces for people to socialize and thus making the whole process of walking around the city more enjoyable ).

Also gasp mass transit. A dozen small compact cites with trams (streetcars) modern ones get up to 40mph can serve to create a good cbd at the hub, fit well with walking and cycling while providing critical mass for there to be enough things and places nearby. If service is 24/7 and stops are spaced close enough you can even park most cars outside the city.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#115

Post by kraigie » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #73

imaoreo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

care to explain what those drawbacks are?

Let's see: Drunks/junkies/mentally ill people shitting, pissing, and vomiting everywhere, while verbally (and sometimes physically) abusing the passers-by. Noise. Breathing the stench of exhaust fumes, week-old garbage, and someone else's idea of cooking. Having no place for your children to sit on the grass without worrying about them finding someone's discarded needle or excrement. Having no space for gardens, hobb…

2-6 are addressed in europe through public transit (often electric) good quality buildings (rather than the cheapest possible materials to profit the developers) and the wide avalibilty of public open spaces like parks, forests, sports courts, allotments, cycle roads wandering lanes (away from the traffic and development) and good funding for schools. The rest is tricker and requires a strong police force.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#116

Post by kraigie » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 5:11 PM UTC

tokyodude wrote: post #99

jacobolus wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in a suburb and I am sure glad my kid will be growing up in the city with access to transit and a wide range of amenities within walking distance, and streets/neighborhoods actually designed for walking around. American suburbs are awful for anyone under the age of 16 or anyone without a car. Kids can't do anything without being babied around by a parent.

I grew up in the suburbs. I guess I don't know what I was missing. There were parks, hobby stores, shopping centers, open lots where people made bike ramps and burms, we launched model rockets, went to arcades, raced slot cars, flew RC planes. Would also semi regularly ride bikes 2-4 miles away from home and sometimes 6 or 7. My impression of most high density cities would be that my options would be more limited as…

Berlin has all of those,(albeit it is one of the highest open space cites there are) hell London has over 20 skateparks that is just for skating that is before you consider a lot of the Thames bank serves as open parkside. With the only traffic pedestrians and boats on the water. High density doesn't have to mean no space, it does have to mean no space for autos though, they simply take up too much space. If you have mass transit that reduces carparks and roads to say 10% space opens up a lot more. Playing in the streets or cafes using sidewalk for tables is a lot more compatible with trams running on fixed rails and electric overhead than with massive auto traffic.

High density doesn't me

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#117

Post by kraigie » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

neilwilson wrote: post #87

Interesting to note that there is only two choices - city or commuter suburb with cars. The third choice is villages and towns where people live with their own front door onto the street and still walk to work. Move the work where the people are. Decentralise

Or commute via rail. Google metroland bit dated. However railroad to the front door isn't a bad idea.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#118

Post by kraigie » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

rhapsodic wrote: post #47

For entertainment, I like cities better than suburbs. Hands down. At home, I like parking in a driveway better than parking on the street. At home, I like parking in a garage better than parking in a driveway or alley. At home, I like parking in an attached garage better than parking in a detached one. I like living in my own house better than an apartment. I like living in a free-standing house better than a duplex…

Urban vs suburbs vs rural have differing land use requirements and viable transport options and resource requirements. So the moral and ethical standards are really proxies for resource use. Compare that to white and black tennis shoes, if one dye used 4x the resources of the other you'd have a point bit otherwise they are not quite the same. Though some of that can be achieved through long and narrow yards (still the same size) and allows higher density

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#119

Post by mrep » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #63

VLM wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Massive demographic and socioeconomic class differences. I worked in a city where only the very richest people could live in the very expensive high-density areas. A tiny condo being perhaps four times the cost of my very large luxurious suburban house, maybe ten times the cost of a cheap suburban house. They had experimented generations ago with high-density poor people housing; that was not exactly paradise for any…

Housing projects are another question altogether, since people who live in subsidized housing don't really have the same choice and don't participate in the market the same way. Let me ask you this--why don't the very richest people in your city live in very expensive suburbs instead of very expensive high-density areas?

> why don't the very richest people in your city live in very expensive suburbs instead of very expensive high-density areas?

Don't they? The only rich person that I know that lives in a penthouse is the dropbox CEO. Bill gates, Jeff Bezos, Andy Jassy, Mark Zuckerburg, Larry and Sergey all live in suburbs as far as I know.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#120

Post by ausvisaissues » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

jakecopp wrote: post #78

ausvisaissues wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also culture that plays a big part. I've lived in very high density housing in Japan (20 floor manshion type apartment) and medium density in US (2 level apartment). Higher density in Japan is much more pleasant due to the culture of being considerate of others. If I have to live in the US, I will choose suburbia for that reason.

How more considerate? Noise wise?

With noise, with garbage sorting, etc...

Japanese people tend to follow all rules, written and unwritten. I guess Americans follow only rules that can be enforced (cf. Uber, Airbnb, etc...)

Probably from a culture of rebellion against Britain colonial government... In some cases it is good and in some bad.

In Japan there is also no tolerance for the 1% that ruins public spaces for everyone (compare Tokyo subways against San Francisco subways). This allows true public spaces that can be shared by everyone.