Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore? • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by tortarga » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 12:40 AM UTC

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

These are most likely two separate problems. Car based urban planning which requires large wide roads, giant carparks and 'boxey houses' due to garages can overwhelm any other aesthetically pleasing design (notably green space).

Admiring the old brick styles of the ivy leagues is simple confirmation bias due to their academic prestige. There are plenty of beautiful Modernist buildings, it comes down to if the college is willingly to pay for it.

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

#122

Post by OJFord » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 12:43 AM UTC

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

Bricks vs. timber, perhaps?

I do realise the general answer is about availability of materials and both work. But ceteris paribus, talking about noise, the prospect of a timber terrace does seem.. unappealing?

IME (in the UK) noise comes through windows, not (external, including to an attached neighbour) walls.

Modern 'partition' (those between rooms within a dwelling) walls aren't brick, but typically between semis or in a terrace the dividing walls are. You might hear the neighbours in the garden through the windows, but not through the wall between your adjoining rooms.

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

#123

Post by Sebb767 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 12:43 AM UTC

Gigachad wrote: post #102

jedberg wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already charge a significant amount. But that doesn't increase the supply of master craftsmen. You can't just make more masters. :) Also, there is still a price ceiling. If they charge too much, people will choose the cheaper alternatives even if they aren't as good.

> You can't just make more masters. You can given enough time. Your second point is more likely the real reason. These jobs might seem to pay lots from the outside but if you dedicated the same time to a more boring job like management you very quickly make a lot more money with almost unlimited room to bump your prices.

> These jobs might seem to pay lots from the outside but if you dedicated the same time to a more boring job like management you very quickly make a lot more money with almost unlimited room to bump your prices.

This is from a German perspective, but here this is absolutely untrue. Masters earn a hell of a lot of money and business is basically limitless, even for masters. Being charged 120€-150€ per hour plus drive for a master and an apprentice is not unusual.

Add to that that they start earning 5-9 years earlier. Sure, they start lower, but they have a lot of time to catch up as well as save money. In my circles, these guys drove awesome cars while us students survived still survived on ramen (or parents).

Lastly, you can absolutely scale your business. If you go on to be a freelancer or even make your own company and hire people, you can get very far, if you intend to do so.

Sure, the absolute top of white collar workers might earn more; eight digits is probably not going to happen. That being said, that's the 1% of the 1%. Here in Germany, 100k€ per year is already a really high salary and to get there in white collar work, you'll need to make quite some career jumps. For masters, on the other hand, this is absolutely doable if you don't suck at your job.

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

#124

Post by betaby » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 12:47 AM UTC

rendall wrote: post #42

diordiderot wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need for cars + greenery and public parks? Weren't there LeCorbusier style.

I dunno. East Berlin is pretty soul-crushing, with its block upon block upon block of blocky blocks. Warehouses for humans.

Less soul-crushing than most of the Montreal for me, which looks mostly like that outside of the fancy neighborhoods https://goo.gl/maps/vH7SwbRXdZndQszt5

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

#125

Post by dehrmann » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 12:47 AM UTC

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…

You're describing a lot of US residential neighborhoods built between 1900 and 1940.

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

#126

Post by scelerat » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 12:55 AM UTC

I may be romanticizing it as a mere occasional visitor, but my impression of Tokyo is as a place which has managed to manage a balance of (incredible) density with livable neighborhoods. Lots of public transit, commercial districts, residential zones with small shops and groceries. Very walkable, bikeable, and even driveable if that's what you need. But within the city you seldom need to drive.

I grew up in LA suburbs. We had to drive to do anything: shop, go to the movies, visit friends. When I finally moved out of the home I grew up in, I moved to Hollywood, the neighborhood, which is very walkable and has lots of good public transit. Later I moved to San Francisco, and at this juncture I'm in a neighborhood in Oakland built up mostly in the 1910s-1930s. Not nearly as walk friendly as my old SF and LA neighborhoods, but there are still good groceries, restaurants, and bars within a 5-15 minute walk. And it's an aesthetically beautiful mix of victorian, craftsman, and spanish-style architecture for the most part, in gently rolling hills surrounding a beautiful tidal estuary which reflects the downtown high-rises.

When I visit my family in the suburbs, it feels really weird and isolating.

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

#127

Post by jppope » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 12:55 AM UTC

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…

> "There’s no substitute for the point to point on demand fast transportation that cars offer."

Very few American cities actually offers FAST point to point transit via automobiles. 50 years ago, it was probably realistic, but now automobile traffic in most American cities makes quick transportation anywhere unrealistic.

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

#128

Post by 0x0nyandesu » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 12:55 AM UTC

cletus wrote: post #106

Two reasons: 1. People (in the US at least) overall consistently choose more land over living somewhere walkable. In a lot of places, the marginal cost of more land is near zero; and 2. The dirty secret of car dependency is that most people (in the US) like being car dependent. In all but the densest largest cities, private vehicles are so much more convenient. Even in Manhattan there are a nontrivial number of peopl…

Pretty much this. I bought a house with half an acre to get away from the walkable city where I'd have constant harassment from homeless and drug addicts. Yea when I have a kid this house might be boring for them but to me... At the moment ... It's like a paradise of peace and tranquility. I can actually work on my woodworking hobby or blast my music and it's a non issue.

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

#129

Post by xibalba » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 12:56 AM UTC

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/ .

There is not faster to way to discredit oneself than to offer a pat, single variable explanation.

As others point out, Americans like and want to transport themselves by car. Let's accept this, work with it, and build around it instead of lusting after a minority defined Utopia.

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

#130

Post by chmod775 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 12:57 AM UTC

hn8788 wrote: post #80

chmod775 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From the pov where people actually exist You think if the outside would actually offer something instead of depressing scenery: stores and cafes within walking distance, parks and playgrounds, would people prefer to exist outside a lot more? I could not exist at all in those suburbs. A cafe, various stores, and a supermarket within a 5 minute walking distance is as integral to my lifestyle as owning a fridge. Also…

Every suburb I've lived in in the USA has had everything you've mentioned, except maybe a supermarket, and that's normally only been ~15 minutes by bike at the most. The only ones I've seen that didn't have parks and nearby shops were wealthy neighborhoods, and its because they didn't want poor people to have a reason to walk through the neighborhood. Even a local neighborhood that was off-limits to military personne…

I pretty much zoomed on a place in the US at random, and this is easily repeatable: https://i.imgur.com/rCTqZU4.png

I plotted a route across that for a sense of scale.

There is no public transportation. For most people there's hardly anything within a 15 minute walking distance, except more suburb. Most children in that area will have to walk over 30 minutes to get to an elementary school, or the one playground. If you want to go shopping (not pictured: there's a mall to the northwest) or have a coffee, you won't fare much better.

At least it got some lakes, some green, and isn't laid out in straight lines. I could've easily found worse places, but that was the first one I landed on. Most of it even has a sidewalk! It's almost liveable.