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

Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

governing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 370 posts

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#111

Post by epistasis »

taeric wrote: post #105
epistasis wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite understand the contradiction. If you're talking about small rural areas, sure, but that's a tiny fraction of our population. And rural areas don't typically vigorously block apartment and walkable development. And I haven't seen every rural town, but all of the ones that I know of have plenty of housing near a walkable core too. I know lots of rural people that have no trouble getting in 20,000 steps da…

But... talking about the rural areas is enough to destroy the "if you build walkable areas, folks will live there." Right?

Well this is also combined with a shift away from rural areas in terms of job opportunities, as farming has either become hugely automated, or staffed by skilled labor that is severely underpaid.

Where there is economic opportunity, density and walk ability are forbidden by law, not by market preferences or by natural choices.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#112

Post by verall »

notJim wrote: post #21
yellow_lead wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where have you been that has both? From my reading, it seems like cities need to prioritize walkable / bikable OR cars, but I've never seen example of a city doing both well.

IMO Portland is actually kind of like this (for now). I've heard Berkeley, CA sort of, too. In Portland (where I live), I have a driveway and convenient street parking right outside my house, but I can also walk to many shops and restaurants, and have a pretty good busline nearby. I usually take the bus if I'm going downtown, so I don't have to worry about parking. But in my part of town, which is less dense, I can c…

This might not be news for you, but you're in a really desireable location. The land you're on is probably really expensive right now.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#113

Post by dionidium »

cletus wrote: post #17

No, they don’t. This is a classic example of listening to what people say vs observing what they do. And it’s a good lesson in product development. Ask your users “do you want X?” And the answer is inevitably “yes”. Ask them “do you want A or B?” And you’ll start to get a better approximation of user behavior. Better yet is observing actual behavior. In this case Americans have chosen the suburbs in droves. Americans…

Suburban character isn’t the result of consumer choice. In most suburbs, alternative kinds of development are literally illegal to build. Cities regulate the number of units, the heights of buildings, how far they must be setback from the street, how many parking spaces they require, and so on and so on.

Landowners lobby for and enact these regulations precisely because they know that if people were allowed to vote with their wallets they’d choose to live in denser developments.

You can’t make cheeseburgers illegal and then argue that nobody orders cheeseburgers in restaurants because they’re unpopular.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#114

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

foxpurple wrote: post #62
lotsofpulp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Condos have their own problems. See the collapsed building in Miami.

I’m not sure why a freak accident should be used as an example of anything. If anything it stands to show how insanely problem free modern buildings are if one building falling down is shocking news globally and known as one of the worst non malicious building issues in the developed world.

> I’m not sure why a freak accident should be used as an example of anything.

Maybe follow the news a little more. Several MSM outlets over the last month have done in-depth stories about the fundamental problems with the condo model of ownership and maintainance. It has nothing inherently to do with construction methods; the evidence is that what happened in FL is a risk in an awful lot of condos all over the US.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#115

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #83
foxpurple wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure why a freak accident should be used as an example of anything. If anything it stands to show how insanely problem free modern buildings are if one building falling down is shocking news globally and known as one of the worst non malicious building issues in the developed world.

The incentives do not line up since condo owners who will be out before problems affect them will vote to kick the can down the road. Even if other buildings do not collapse, it is common to hear of excessive repair bills because of it being delayed until the last minute. This happens with cities too, but the tax base is greater to spread the cost over and there is a higher likelihood of more qualified people working…

I wonder if anyone knows how this works in countries with widespread apartment ownership. Same model, but done right? Different model?

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#116

Post by Karrot_Kream »

notJim wrote: post #35
harryh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some truth in this post, but it's also important to understand that in most of the places with very large lots, it is illegal to subdivide the lots and build denser housing. If greater density was legalized, it would almost certainly be built and inhabited in a great many places.

People have this all-or-nothing thinking about this, but realistically most cities ought to have a mix. A single person in their 20s doesn't necessarily need or want a house with a yard, but they might want one later on. Right now, in most places that means allowing more options for apartments to be built, and more medium-density for people who are somewhere in between.

I think it's largely because we're still at the point in American politics where the folks against densification are still strongly tied to a certain pastoral vision of America: large lot sizes, single family homes, easy parking, and heavily manicured neighborhoods. It's more than just density, it's a legally codified way of life. Folks understand that the moment restrictions are eased that this pastoral view of urban development will necessarily change. It takes a lot of restrictions to have a built environment like America's and the only way to maintain that built environment is to resist any change to the restrictions.

But I agree. A vision of sustainable development would be a dense urban core with decreasing density away from the core, instead of endless SFH large-lot sprawl. Families or other individuals that want/need more space can live on the outskirts and take a train in to the urban core for work. Younger people or those who don't need the space can stay in the core, and folks in between can live anywhere in the spectrum of density.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#117

Post by notJim »

nomel wrote: post #103
notJim wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I only recently learned is that zoning rules generally require housing developments to include a certain amount of parking. This drives up the cost of housing, because of the space required (either up or out.) Many cities are reducing or eliminating these requirements in an effort to make housing more affordable. However, it does mean that parking will become harder, as there will be more competition for st…

> However, it does mean that parking will become harder In the city I'm near, using public parking lots means a 20 minute walk to your destination, with a $10 fee from all the time walking (or uber), with private parking costing around $15, and no meters in sight. This creates an isolated area that people never go to for a bite to eat, coffee, window shopping, or anything really, since it's a > $10 fee just to step o…

That sounds strange, it sounds like an area that should’ve been served by foot and public transit traffic.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#118

Post by yazaddaruvala »

I’d love to see mega blocks:

Specifically, make a mega mall underground (with parking under that), with a single 10 story building above for office space (open offices already don’t really have windows). You can build the building to have gaps where the roads should be, but more like tunnels. Then another 10-15 huge 50-80 story towers above the office space. Between the towers on the “roof” of the office space, a giant park with bike lanes and scooters.

It’s a mall (with everything you need), an office, parking spots, a park and “a neighborhood”.

I also think North America needs more apartments that are 3000-4000 sqft (4 bedroom 6 bathroom multi-story condos).

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#119

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

542458 wrote: post #98
graeme wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your thesis is flawed. It is illegal to build new dense walkable neighborhoods in almost all of north america. But existing neighbourhoods of that style tend to be both highly priced to live in and also popular tourist destinations, implying high desirability. The older east coat cities built walkable neighbourhoods before they became illegal.

They’re illegal because people vote for representatives who makes them illegal and show up to city council meetings to petition for them to be illegal. Existing areas in that style tend to be expensive, but are often (at least where I’ve lived) some of the most NYMBY areas in a city. They like the benefits their density has brought, but won’t tolerate the lot next to them getting one iota more dense.

> They’re illegal because people vote for representatives who makes them illegal

Yes, but that's not because nobody wants to live in them. It's because a loud subsection of the people that already own single-family homes there don't want them built.

You seem to recognize this. That's different from saying "Americans don't want to live in this sort of housing".

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#120

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

jppope wrote: post #65
cletus wrote: post #17

No, they don’t. This is a classic example of listening to what people say vs observing what they do. And it’s a good lesson in product development. Ask your users “do you want X?” And the answer is inevitably “yes”. Ask them “do you want A or B?” And you’ll start to get a better approximation of user behavior. Better yet is observing actual behavior. In this case Americans have chosen the suburbs in droves. Americans…

> "In this case Americans have chosen the suburbs in droves." "chosen the suburbs" implies that there was a choice. The limited walkable cities that have been built since 1950 (like Seaside, FL) are some of the most coveted real estate in the United States. The plain fact is that walkable cities are illegal to build now because of zoning laws and building codes.

> The limited walkable cities that have been built since 1950 (like Seaside, FL)

I think you should check the population of Seaside (or Celebration). Oh that's right, it's never had a census scan. Suffice it to say that calling either of them "cities" is quite a stretch.

Post reply on HN