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

Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 308 posts

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#111

Post by robbrown451 »

quesera wrote: post #30
throw8383833jj wrote: post #21

For some reason the vast majority of houses are ugly for the following reasons: the proportions are off. I mean, I understand the need to have smaller lots. But, if you're going to have a small 3K sq ft lot then you need to limit the width of the house to allow at least 20' on each side and raise the height of the house to two stories, if it's more than 800 sq ft. Another big reason for ugliness is the extremely shal…

> Another big reason for ugliness is the extremely shallow and underdefined rooflines typical of ranch house style. You need to have steep well defined rooflines that give the house shape. These are clearly conservative preferences, not objective truths. Like social conservatism, there are valuable learnings embodied (steep roofs shed water -- more important in some climates than others), but there is also a lot of f…

"I would never want to live in a structure that pretends to be a castle. Or, more generously, one that is a vague echo of a style that once served a purpose."

That's a valid aesthetic choice, but I personally enjoy such callbacks to the past. Based on aesthetics alone, I'd love to live in a place like this: https://i.pinimg.com/564x/6a/9f/3e/6a9f3e7d4304c5f463ddf8c2b... (but only if they were rare, it wouldn't be nearly as fun if everyone had houses like that)

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#112

Post by deathanatos »

throw8383833jj wrote: post #21

For some reason the vast majority of houses are ugly for the following reasons: the proportions are off. I mean, I understand the need to have smaller lots. But, if you're going to have a small 3K sq ft lot then you need to limit the width of the house to allow at least 20' on each side and raise the height of the house to two stories, if it's more than 800 sq ft. Another big reason for ugliness is the extremely shal…

> I mean, I understand the need to have smaller lots. But, if you're going to have a small 3K sq ft lot then you need to limit the width of the house to allow at least 20' on each side

A 3,000 sq ft lot is 54' on a side, if square. Your suggested 20' wide perimeter would leave a 14'×14' postage stamp, or 196 sq ft. That was about the size of my freshman dorm.

> and raise the height of the house to two stories, if it's more than 800 sq ft.

There's no second story — you've got no room for the stairwell!

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#113

Post by quadrangle »

theamk wrote: post #70
tortarga wrote: post #63

As the article hinted at the simple answer is Car Dependency. Suburbs are regulated and built to accommodate cars now and not people. The topic is explored thouroughly on the 'Not Just Bikes' youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes which uses information from urban planning group 'Strong Towns' https://www.strongtowns.org/ .

Nope, the article specifically addresses your point: > consider college campuses and their central quads, which typically do not have automobiles even today. The ones people admire are the older ones, not the newer campuses, which tend to be functional but aesthetically mediocre

NotJustBikes and StrongTowns have addressed all of this. For just one of zillions of examples: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/6/3/cognitive-comfo...

Neither source just simplistically says "it's the fault of cars", both are deeply thought-out perspectives on what is really going on. It's not just cars, it's certain engineering and bureaucratic decisions that were made around cars. It's also the scale of development, i.e. governments that are set up to work with large-scale developers and are too hard for small-scale developers to deal with, and the general trend toward all-at-once top-down development, and I could go on and on. StrongTowns has successfully diagnosed the entire systemic pattern. It's not just blame-the-cars.

Check out the actual resources, don't just assume they are only the simple thing the poster had to say to make any point at all.

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#115

Post by rory »

deathanatos wrote: post #112
throw8383833jj wrote: post #21

For some reason the vast majority of houses are ugly for the following reasons: the proportions are off. I mean, I understand the need to have smaller lots. But, if you're going to have a small 3K sq ft lot then you need to limit the width of the house to allow at least 20' on each side and raise the height of the house to two stories, if it's more than 800 sq ft. Another big reason for ugliness is the extremely shal…

> I mean, I understand the need to have smaller lots. But, if you're going to have a small 3K sq ft lot then you need to limit the width of the house to allow at least 20' on each side A 3,000 sq ft lot is 54' on a side, if square. Your suggested 20' wide perimeter would leave a 14'×14' postage stamp, or 196 sq ft. That was about the size of my freshman dorm. > and raise the height of the house to two stories, if it'…

Stairwell? Just hang a climbing rope! Better home and personal aesthetic.

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#116

Post by arp242 »

OJFord wrote: post #61
throw8383833jj wrote: post #21

For some reason the vast majority of houses are ugly for the following reasons: the proportions are off. I mean, I understand the need to have smaller lots. But, if you're going to have a small 3K sq ft lot then you need to limit the width of the house to allow at least 20' on each side and raise the height of the house to two stories, if it's more than 800 sq ft. Another big reason for ugliness is the extremely shal…

North American houses from my UK perspective: - Detached no matter the cost - so close they may as well be terraced, but they'll be detached 'gah-damnit'! - Garage in front. I.. ok. Practical I suppose. Bloody ugly. - Fake shutters!! I'm mentioning it last but it bugs me the most. At least have them wide enough that they look like they might be usable. But no, inch-wide 'shutters' on a six-foot window, why not.

One of the thing that struck me about British houses and apartments is that they tend to have en-suites "no-matter-what". I don't think I've ever seen a single house or apartment with an en-suite before I moved to England (also: carpets in the bathroom, wtf?! And the weird thing with two taps.)

I find it rather curious waste of space, especially in ~50/60m2 apartments. Why do you need more than toilet and shower? I suppose that parallelized pooping and/or showering can be useful in rare occasions, but usually doing it serially works well enough and overall seems like an exceedingly poor trade-off. But the Brits seem to love 'em shrug.

Crossing borders can also be fun; with some crossings you can see an immediate and marked difference in building style; the Dutch/Belgian border is like that for example.

New Zealand houses are just horrible, full stop. Don't know how they managed to get so far behind on the rest of the Western world with that.

Not sure what I'm trying to say with this comment; don't really have a specific point as such. I just find it interesting that different countries have such different approaches to building and arranging houses, even though they're relatively similar in culture, climate, etc.

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#117

Post by throwawaysea »

cwdegidio wrote: post #46

One thing that drives me insane about modern neighborhoods is the instance in tearing down every damn tree... so you are left with endless unshaded lawn. You would think with this modern movement towards reconnecting with nature, etc we would build neighborhoods that work with the surrounding environment instead of tearing it all down and flattening everything.

Seattle has very stringent tree protection codes that have prevented the worst of such impacts. However the urbanist push for a high pace of concentrated development and population growth has led to many trees being cut down as exemptions were carved out for big apartment developers. With the additional population, it feels like the per capita tree count/green area has fallen behind. Now small neighborhood pocket parks feel like they’re always crowded rather than like a welcome escape, and driving through arterials feels less “organic” and more like driving through a concrete jungle. The thing is you can’t protect the environment and maintain a localized sense of balance if unchecked development is allowed. The aesthetic aspects of it, which I feel are important for mental health, simply don’t carry over. If you think about it, the promise of a high density core with everything within a 15 minute walk means that something else has to give and get pushed out.

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#118

Post by bombcar »

mc32 wrote: post #82
VHRanger wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are those single family zoned? Because if so they're also responsible for housing prices being insane in the area

Pretty sure they are. Look at a map of San Jose and check out the areas around Quimby or Tully Roads in east(ern) San Jose.

I just see standard developments - anything more specific?

Heh found a trailer park.

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#119

Post by structural »

rdtwo wrote: post #68
OJFord wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

North American houses from my UK perspective: - Detached no matter the cost - so close they may as well be terraced, but they'll be detached 'gah-damnit'! - Garage in front. I.. ok. Practical I suppose. Bloody ugly. - Fake shutters!! I'm mentioning it last but it bugs me the most. At least have them wide enough that they look like they might be usable. But no, inch-wide 'shutters' on a six-foot window, why not.

Detached makes sense, you need to airgap for noise

I live in an apartment building built in the mid 1800's. I can play music, yell at the top of my lungs and my neighbors can only hear anything if they put their ear against the wall, and even that only faintly. We tested this when we moved in so that we knew we were being good neighbors!

The culprit is cheap, stick-built construction that has a useful lifetime measured in a couple decades, not a couple centuries. [And if we, as a society, say with a straight face that we can't afford to build that anymore... isn't that a sign of how much poorer we all are collectively?]

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#120

Post by bombcar »

throwawaysea wrote: post #110
tortarga wrote: post #63

As the article hinted at the simple answer is Car Dependency. Suburbs are regulated and built to accommodate cars now and not people. The topic is explored thouroughly on the 'Not Just Bikes' youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes which uses information from urban planning group 'Strong Towns' https://www.strongtowns.org/ .

I often see urbanists and young people fantasize about life in car free mega cities. Having lived that life for years I can’t imagine why. A lot of cities that are beautiful and attractive also have room for cars. I would even argue it is a big part of what makes those cities attractive. There’s no substitute for the point to point on demand fast transportation that cars offer. In cities that aren’t overbuilt, it mak…

Even famously “mass transit unfriendly” cities can be fit for a car-free lifestyle if you work at it.

But I suspect a huge part of it is visiting Europe or Asia as a tourist and enjoying being without a car.

But they didn’t actually live there.

Post reply on HN