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

If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

streets.mn

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 713 posts

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#121

Post by voisin »

ericmay wrote: post #55
voisin wrote: post #9

If we want a shift to walking, we need cities to plant around 100x the number of trees they have. Ever walk through an old, mature neighbourhood? Usually there are tons of people on the sidewalks, and a primary reason is that there are mature trees providing plenty of shade. Then try walking in a new neighbourhood with barely any shade. It is awful.

> Then try walking in a new neighbourhood with barely any shade. It is awful. Neighborhoods you’d typically want to walk in do have shade because they were all built a long time ago and there is somewhere for you to walk to. Suburban neighborhoods aren’t designed that way which is why even if there was shade there’s still nowhere to walk to. I do agree we need more trees planted and more shade. Unfortunately a lot of…

> Neighborhoods you’d typically want to walk in do have shade because they were all built a long time ago and there is somewhere for you to walk to. Suburban neighborhoods aren’t designed that way which is why even if there was shade there’s still nowhere to walk to.

I agree with what you are saying generally but my point stands even for urban cores, which tend to have little to no trees (or many trees but not mature enough for any real shade) and tons of concrete. Awful walking experience despite lots of things to do and see.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#122

Post by throwawaywu »

robertlagrant wrote: post #89
thereare5lights wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird thing for her to say given that Asian Americans use public transit in great numbers. Then again, I've noticed that the ones with money are utterly alien to those of us that don't have it or grew up without it.

If you take the ethnicity out of this and stick to economics does it have the same outcome?

You can't do that! Without keeping differing ethnicities at war with each other, how can we maintain power?

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#123

Post by danny_codes »

psunavy03 wrote: post #35
jrockway wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone else who is not normal, I have to say I'm a little tired of having my taxes subsidize the roads and sewers for someone who lives in the middle of nowhere and commutes 40 miles each way by car. "But my kids NEED a backyard!" Fair enough, but afford it on your own without a handout from the government.

Too bad. You got outvoted in a democracy. Because most people do not hold this view.

Tyranny of the majority eh.

Also this isn't accurate. Car-dependency in urban environments was fought by the majority of people who lived there. In the beginning, cars were toys for the rich, and they (the rich) pushed for car-friendly design. Since they had influence as elites, they were able to crush the protesting masses and destroy the pre-existing urban fabric.

Then the feds misunderstood the German highway system and thought you were supposed to highway through cities, instead of between them. At this point, the momentum seems to have carried itself forward, spawning the urban design disaster in most US cities.

So I would say it's more that some groups of wealthy industrialists managed to coop urban planning at a critical time, and propaganda their way through the opposition to fuck over the urban masses. They did make a lot of money though, some some would argue it was worth it.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#124

Post by OfSanguineFire »

ta1243 wrote: post #117
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like idiocracy where they say something like "you drink water? like water, that you use to flush the toilet?". People are easily manipulated because they want to signal that they're valuable and/or rich; "walking is for poor people" ... well yes, also people who want to stay fit, or who care about the environment, or want to be closer to their community, or ...

If you're walking there are fewer opportunities to advertise to you

> If you're walking there are fewer opportunities to advertise to you

How so? I’m reminded of that sequence of shots in Zabriskie Point where Mark Frechette walks around Los Angeles and is assailed by billboards everywhere around him.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#125

Post by swexbe »

vorpalhex wrote: post #47
moomoo11 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that be safer? I would rather the drunk driver hit the tree and deal with his/her consequences, than hit my house or my neighbors during our sleep.

You've discovered a core disagreement point in safety, "good for everyone" versus "good for the individual". Yes if I live near a road I want trees/big fence/whatever so drunks don't take out my house. Yet if everyone does that, the number of traffic fatalities increases. Of course it's a much harder stat to deliver who died and why versus just optimizing a single fatality count. This problem ruins a lot of really ni…

No sympathy for drunk drivers. A non-intoxicated driver would slow down in a more risky driving environment.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#126

Post by _8j50 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #94
_8j50 wrote: post #85

Just throwing it out there but it would be nice if there were a lot more pesestrian and bike only roads built separate from car roads. Big cities already have recreational walking trails that typically follow some sort of a drainage or sewage "river". Another thing I wondered is how under most city streets there is already wiring and tunnels and some infra. Is the cost that unreasonable to convert roads one by one so…

> Big cities already have recreational walking trails Those are a great example of the problem. Often those recreational walking trails are very nice, but they don't go anywhere functional.

Perhaps they could be extended to do so? Because houses near them already list them as a feature to have near you.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#127

Post by dasudasu »

b112 wrote: post #104
voisin wrote: post #9

If we want a shift to walking, we need cities to plant around 100x the number of trees they have. Ever walk through an old, mature neighbourhood? Usually there are tons of people on the sidewalks, and a primary reason is that there are mature trees providing plenty of shade. Then try walking in a new neighbourhood with barely any shade. It is awful.

Then try walking in a new neighbourhood with barely any shade. It is awful. Love how south-centric this statement is. In Northern countries, that's true for a month typically, otherwise "oh god please I hope the sun will shine on me". In December, I see 4 hours of sun, where the light gets above tree tops. And that's in Southern Canada! Not a hatred of trees, but a dislike of shade trees. edit: until I visited Texas,…

Southern Canada is at the same latitude as Spain. Sunlight isn’t that bad even in December.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#128

Post by gota »

User23 wrote: post #77
JDEW wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? I’ve lived there for years, and although it’s not perfect, I think it’s very easy to get around both walking and cycling.

Maastricht, to give one example, is considerably nicer for walking and cycling. Remember GP isn't saying it's absolutely bad for walking and cycling, just that Amsterdam isn't great by NL standards. And it's not.

Amsterdam may not be the best existing public transit (+cycling friendly), but it is the most visited city in the NL - and it is good enough at it - that it is understandable how it becomes the standard for how a (large) city can be decent to non-drivers

I myself have never been to any other places in the NL and use Amsterdam as an anecdotal example of how things can be good

(Also of how bikes with peda- instead of handgrip-breakes designed for tall people are tricky for us shorter folk)

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#129

Post by lolpython »

RealityVoid wrote: post #116
Macha wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I had a similar experience as a European travelling to the US. My coworkers were horrified at the idea that I'd take a bus.

The one time I had visited and hadto travel longer distance in the US I took a greyhound and boy, it was a interesting experience. Back home, going by bus was the norm but in the US it's... Really different.

Greyhound is a really bad bus operator, and they are the only option for a lot of routes. But on more competitive routes like NYC to Maine or NYC to upstate cities you get much better operators. I’ve had very positive experiences riding on those corridors with OurBus and Concorde Coach Lines. Clean seats, quiet passengers and on time departure. So it’s not bad everywhere in the US.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#130

Post by danny_codes »

pdonis wrote: post #101
bluGill wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people in the US live in an urban area, where urban solutions work. Only a small minority live in a rural area, though many living in suburbs like to pretend they are in a rural area.

> many living in suburbs like to pretend they are in a rural area Suburbs are not rural, but they're not urban either. The population density in most suburbs is too low to support the kind of walk-everywhere infrastructure that a true high density urban area can (and should) provide. The real issue is that many people fail to realize that there is no problem with that . Having different areas for people to live with…

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growt...

There is a huge problem with that. It turns out that offering urban-level services at suburban density isn't sustainable. It turns out urban areas are subsidizing suburbs quite extensively.

Now, if suburbanite were willing to pay their own way, perhaps we could discuss that. But another issue is that car-dependent suburbanites demand access to urban areas. For example, people living in Palo Alto want vehicle access to San Francisco. This degrades the city significantly, far outweighing any benefit from having suburban influx.

Now, non-car-dependent suburbs do seem to work. Street-car suburbs, for example, seem to work reasonably well. They seem to be more dense than car-hell suburbs, but not urban like a city. So I think there is a way forward for people wanting suburban life.

Post reply on HN