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

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

#131

Post by jppope » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 12:59 AM UTC

xibalba wrote: post #129

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.

This may or may not be true, and it doesn't matter because single use zoning in most American cities makes it illegal to build walkable cities. It's pretty hard to establish what Americans prefer when the alternative what they have isn't allowed.

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

#132

Post by mc32 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 1:01 AM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #118

mc32 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To me a place like hidden glen north is odd. It's a tract surrounded by soundwalls and has few exits from the development, whereas in normal developments you have intersections with all streets. This kind of development follows the thoroughfare model where smaller streets feed larger streets which feed boulevards/expressways which feed freeways. They are built in such a way the actual city neighborhood is disconnected from its surroundings and makes transit by anything other than car difficult -buses don't go in, and biking is fraught -all relatively close to the downtown area. Suburbs are better designed than that.

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

#133

Post by randycupertino » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 1:02 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #74

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 like some suburbs. However, not far from downtown San Jose, within the city limits, there is some interesting tract housing developments: they have soundwall like structures surrounding these neighborhoods that are built like a maze. Once in it can be hard to find your way out without GPS to one of the few entrances/exits. So that’s in a city, not even the maligned suburbs!

I think some of the walls like that might even be for "traffic dampening" ie- so people don't cut through the neighborhoods to get somewhere else.

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

#134

Post by ryandrake » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 1:02 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…

> 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.

On the other hand, you can go overboard with rooflines and end up with McMansion monstrosities: [1].

1: https://mcmansionhell.com/post/149948821221/mcmansions-101-r...

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

#135

Post by tptacek » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 1:03 AM UTC

jppope wrote: post #131

xibalba wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This may or may not be true, and it doesn't matter because single use zoning in most American cities makes it illegal to build walkable cities. It's pretty hard to establish what Americans prefer when the alternative what they have isn't allowed.

Single family zoning isn't simply a car thing. I live in a small, walkable, transit-friendly neighborhood full of crunch eco-liberals, and it is entirely hostile to upzoning for reasons having nothing at all to do with cars; it's a central tool of NIMBYism.

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

#136

Post by 0x0nyandesu » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 1:04 AM UTC

scelerat wrote: post #126

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 suburb…

The thing with Tokyo is that the cops do their jobs. A homeless person asking for money on a Tokyo subway is unheard of. I'd love something like Tokyo in the USA but it will never work because crime on American public transport is rampant. Hell just last week a women was raped on a Philly subway and no one did a thing.

Adult hood in America is coming to terms with the fact that I'll never live to see this cleaned up version of the USA everyone is dreaming about so instead I'm scooping my single family home and getting the hell out of dodge.

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

#137

Post by hosh » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 1:04 AM UTC

Christopher Alexander had developed this idea of pattern languages and living architecture. Although the idea of pattern languages turned into cookie-cutter design elements selected by the developer and enforced by the HOA, they were originally meant to allow residents to have functional, aesthetic, and cohesive architecture. That is, in all the possible pattern languages, there are pattern languages that, no matter what combination is chosen, you have functional and cohesive architecture.

Residents and communities then, can then choose something that work for their family and for their communities. Architecture comes alive, and lives and grows with the residents.

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

#138

Post by OJFord » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 1:05 AM UTC

arp242 wrote: post #116

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.

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 s…

I think we've over-corrected on that front. Indeed, one place in which I lived (a modern build) had (on paper) five bedrooms and four bathrooms (three en suite). But there were four of us, so two of those 'bedrooms' weren't used as such; leaving too many bathrooms. Mad really, I agree. Downstairs WC in addition to those.

(And it's not like there were a plethora of reception rooms to go with them - surely a family that was going to actually use five bedrooms as five bedrooms would want space to spread out a bit, even if a couple of them had to share a bathroom as a result?!)

(Before that a three-bedroom Victorian build - one nice large bathroom and a small WC+shower room, I suspect the latter was a later division. Neither en suite. Point is it is (was?) a modern fetish, and I think (hope?) it's waning slightly.)

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

#139

Post by 0x0nyandesu » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 1:06 AM UTC

yeetaccount wrote: post #79

jedberg wrote: post #3

> That is why the increasing cost of craftsmanship, while real, cannot account for the decline of neighborhood beauty. It's not the cost, it's the availability. I'm currently in the process of a home renovation. If you want a master craftsman to build you say, kitchen cabinets, you may have to wait years for them to be available. Or you can go to the store and buy custom built cabinets from a factory and have them in…

Same reason we don’t have stone masons in every town nowadays. Too much time, too much material, not enough customer volume. Can’t operate with today’s (lack of) disposable income and material availability being diluted by an increasing population. The standard of living has gone up IMHO bc of increased efficiency in the face of dwindling resources. We don’t all live in stone mansions with servants, but a nice apartm…

There's actually way more disposable income today than even 100 years ago. We just spend it on things that didn't exist before like car insurance and iPhones.

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

#140

Post by randycupertino » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 1:07 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…

> 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 people who cling to their cars.

We recently moved from city center to a blue-collar suburb and it is notable to me how much of a car aficionado culture there is here! A lot of my neighbors are into repairing and working on old (and new!) cars. They LOVE their cars and go to car meetups.

It amuses me sometimes on here when people talk about how every car on the road is going to be self-driving soon and I think of my neighbors... they will ride around in a self-driving car when hell freezes over. One of my more redneck neighbors actually told me he enjoys brake-checking and cutting off the self-driving test vehicles he sees on the road. Which... I was kind of horrified but maybe that's good for the car's AI to learn. :-/