Live data from Hacker News

Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

strongtowns.org

121–130 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#121
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

More density allows more establishments and offices to exist, and of more different kinds. In a city with 10x the people, you can have 10x more shops, restaurants, etc, and you’ll as result also get 10x more variation.

...and a [shop, street, park, restaurant, school, etc] will have 10x as many people that are living within walking distance.

This point is made well in this article:

http://newworldeconomics.com/how-to-make-a-pile-of-dough-wit...

>Our basic goal, in all this, is to deliver roughly triple the density as this “New Urbanist” model, while still preserving what looks very much like a “traditional Small Town America single family house,” including a nice backyard and lush, tree-lined streets. This is what gets us from 8,000 people per square mile, for a typical Los Angeles suburb (with 5000sf plots), to maybe 10,000 for the New Urbanist example and more like 25,000-30,000 for our example. We have already seen how our basic house plot shrinks from 4000sf to 2000sf, which doubles the density right there. We even have some smaller house plots of 1,250sf and 625sf. Then, we have a huge amount of land now being consumed by vastly excessive roadways and associated Green Space, that we can replace with Really Narrow Streets, thus freeing up more land for houses. For example, if the house plot/total land area ratio rises from 50% to 75%, that is a 50% increase in density right there. The combination of half the lot size plus a 50% increase in density due to reduction in land used for streets/Green Space/parking lots gives us our triple density bogey. Triple the density means that every store or restaurant now has 30,000 people who are within an easy walk of 15 minutes or so, which means that they can have a viable business without a parking lot. It means that every school now has three times as many students that are within an easy walk. No more chauffering your kids to school. No more school buses. At 30,000 people per square mile, and if 15% of the people are school age (6-17), that means 4500 kids are within walking distance of the school. It means that the four-year high school would have about 1500 students, all within a half-mile walk of the school. It means that, if a train station is introduced later, three times as many people will be able to walk there as well. In short, everything becomes a lot more “walkable.” By making it walkable, we thus eliminate the need for cars unless travelling outside the immediate neighborhood, which eliminates auto traffic and also makes the neighborhood much more peaceful, quiet, and suitable for kids, families, and seniors.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Malls are nice and cars are a better experience than transit/walking in every facet This isn't even remotely true. You are forgetting the time spent finding a parking spot, the opportunity cost of having a parking lot instead of more housing or commercial space, transit/walking also provides exercise, which matters in an epidemically obese society. This doesn't even get into the pollution aspect of driving or the co…

Not to mention how many people cars kill each year.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#123
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hmm. So people would live inside some sort of "sub-urban" environment, which wasn't quite rural, but not exactly urban either.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Malls are nice and cars are a better experience than transit/walking in every facet This isn't even remotely true. You are forgetting the time spent finding a parking spot, the opportunity cost of having a parking lot instead of more housing or commercial space, transit/walking also provides exercise, which matters in an epidemically obese society. This doesn't even get into the pollution aspect of driving or the co…

>time spent finding a parking spot

Not a lot of time at all in my experience, certainly less than waiting for public transit or an uber to arrive.

>opportunity cost

To me it's worth it.

>exercise

You walk inside the mall. And what about people with certain disabilities? Do they get left out of this walking-only city?

>pollution

Emissions are improving all the time, and electric cars are on the rise.

>depreciating asset

So? Along with almost everything? Buy a used car if you're so concerned about your "asset" depreciating. You get value from it when you use it.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#125

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…

>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. Whoever you're paying money to did just that.

And they should think about a hefty rent hike when it's time to sign the next lease. From the GP's comment it sounds like they left money on the table.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#126
It's always a tradeoff...

- super dense cities like Tokyo or New York can feel suffocating. A lot of people can't bear it. The lack of green space, and the overcrowding of people and cars increases the stress levels by a lot. Yet, being able to walk around the city is excellent for exercising and mindfulness, it's easier to meet with people, etc.

- super sparse cities (like LA or Brasilia) on the other end tend to isolate people, and to mediate the experience of daily life. Life is constantly split by episodes of driving / parking. Yet, these cities offer a lot of space, greenery and privacy.

The fact that both very dense cities and sparse cities exist and are successful only shows that different people enjoy different kinds of cities, so it would be a bit preposterous to claim that one style is better over another.

That said, electric cars and self driving car fleets will most likely help reduce pollution (both noise and air) by a lot and make living in dense city much easier.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#127
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to ban cars. You just need to design around people instead of cars. Remove parking minimums. Don't put on-street parking but rather leave it to the free market to handle parking solutions (Yes, that means people pay to park.) Subsidize public transit but road maintenance must be paid by automobile-based taxes. Don't require density, but always zone for the next bigger thing. (The neighborhood is single…

How is that designing around people? First you are going to make all the people in the cars nuts because they can't find parking, so they won't come. Next all the people who find public transport tedious and slow won't come. (Yes, even the best public transport is not anywhere near as a good as a car that goes direct, and where you can actually leave your stuff in the car.) Next all the people who hate living in dens…

The person you're replying to assumes that transportation and demand to live/work/spend money in the city has such a high baseline volume that the city will always be relatively prosperous and the experience of walking in the city is the bottleneck when it comes to making the city better. This is fine if your world view doesn't extend beyond existing large cities. It's like being rich and complaining about having to maintain your vacation homes. Most smaller cities can't take that high baseline amount of economic activity and prosperity for granted so they need to balance luxury stuff like walk-ability, nice parks, etc. with making it easy and cheap to engage in commerce. Luxuries like walk-ability and parks are second to building up a baseline amount of (hopefully diverse) economic activity that won't go away at the next downturn.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#128
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people enjoy their quiet suburban neighborhoods and don't have any particular desire to live in a dense city so to convince them these guys need to start talking about dire economic consequences.

> A lot of people enjoy their quiet suburban neighborhoods and don't have any particular desire to live in a dense city I don't think there is any limited supply for suburban neighborhoods. But there is a supply problem for dense urban living with lots of services within a short walk, and public transport to work. Demand is higher than supply, which has made prices high.

A trend I expect to continue is apartment complexes and little developments set up around them that are near commuter rail. But realistically a lot of people still want houses.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#129

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…

If quality of life is so bad, then why are prices high?

If it sucks to live somewhere, you would expect it to be CHEAPER than living in the surrounding area.

But thats not what we see. What we see is that prices in urban areas are pretty much universally higher than living in the surrounding, less dense area?

Do you know what that means? That means that the market has spoken, and it proves that people want to live in these areas, as proven by the fact that they are willing to pay a lot more money to do so.

When it is just as cheap to live in the city as it is to live in low density areas, THEN we can talk about relative demand and the benefits of low density.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#130
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hmm. So people would live inside some sort of "sub-urban" environment, which wasn't quite rural, but not exactly urban either.

Some people would, sure. You'd expect that in a free market, right? Part of the point of all this is that the market we have now is very, very far from free: vast areas of our cities are zoned exclusively for single family homes.

https://bendyimby.com/2016/10/04/what-to-build-where/

Post reply on HN