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

Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#141

Post by wonder_er »

xvedejas wrote: post #134
d--b wrote: post #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 is…

Even from the perspective of personal preference, I think it's fair to say that, at least in the US, there is a wide variety of sparse cities for people to choose from, and only a few actually dense cities. This leaves those preferring density at a relative disadvantage. Unrelated: it's unclear to me how self-driving cars can help pollution. They're a solution to the problem of the high cost of labor, and not much el…

> This leaves those preferring density at a relative disadvantage.

100% agree. I much prefer to live in a dense, urban, walkable area, but most built environments that satisfy these criteria violate modern zoning regulations.

So, the USA's supply of pleasant, dense environments is dwindling because every time an olde/walkable area revitalizes enough to attract new development, that new development must comply with modern zoning, and kills the thing that that makes the area attractive.

It's thoroughly frustrating.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#142

Post by davidw »

emodendroket wrote: post #137
davidw wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Who says the market is the best way to zone areas? How would you feel if you owned a house and someone opened a pig farm next door?

I don't think that's very realistic in many cases - they could sell the land for a lot more money for housing.

But in any event: a few hard-core libertarians would like to completely throw out zoning, but most people just want to bring it back in line with things that are actual nuisances - or bring back actual nuisance laws in some cases.

We've gone from legit things like trying to keep factories away from houses and schools to people losing their marbles about a duplex being built in their neighborhood. It's gone way too far.

As to why markets are generally a good way of solving complex problems with lots of moving parts, I did mention that in the article.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#143

Post by bostonpete »

xvedejas wrote: post #134
d--b wrote: post #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 is…

Even from the perspective of personal preference, I think it's fair to say that, at least in the US, there is a wide variety of sparse cities for people to choose from, and only a few actually dense cities. This leaves those preferring density at a relative disadvantage. Unrelated: it's unclear to me how self-driving cars can help pollution. They're a solution to the problem of the high cost of labor, and not much el…

> Unrelated: it's unclear to me how self-driving cars can help pollution.

Well, d--b said "both noise and air". Drivers can contribute a fair amount of noise in busy cities when they get irate and lay on the horn...

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#144

Post by d--b »

xvedejas wrote: post #134
d--b wrote: post #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 is…

Even from the perspective of personal preference, I think it's fair to say that, at least in the US, there is a wide variety of sparse cities for people to choose from, and only a few actually dense cities. This leaves those preferring density at a relative disadvantage. Unrelated: it's unclear to me how self-driving cars can help pollution. They're a solution to the problem of the high cost of labor, and not much el…

Maybe I'm wrong on that one, but I'm thinking that when cars and bus drive themselves, there will probably a lot more cheap options to go from one place to another than using one's own car.

Dense cities will most likely restrict access to personal cars by a lot (using congestion fees or whatever), that's why I think that self driving cars will bring down the number of cars in the city.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#145

Post by jstanley »

cortesoft wrote: post #135
d--b wrote: post #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 is…

I don't think it is some decision or planning that leads to this. New York is so dense because it is geographically constrained, and as the city grew it had no where to expand out to, so it had to become more dense to grow. Los Angeles, on the other hand, was created as smaller cities grew outward and connected to each other. They are both successful in growth for different reasons, but their density was determined b…

> their density was determined by geography, not by 'what people enjoy'.

But whether people choose to live in them is determined by what people enjoy.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#146

Post by _m8fo »

stale2002 wrote: post #133
ars wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a super dense town Sounds like a nightmare. Ugh, just thinking about it makes me shudder. Why would someone wealthy want to live that way?

Wealthy people do that all the time. It is called "Living in downtown New York". The high prices of living in the city prove that people actually prefer to live in high density places. Why else would they be willing to pay so much money to live there if they didn't like it?

To be fair it's possible that they just want to maximize time, which is done by living as close as possible to where they work.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#147

Post by donatj »

harrumph wrote: post #112
donatj wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities.

>Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities. Not even this pithy, wrong, six-word statement avoids its grounding in the humanities. Consider the baseless gender assignment you made: pure humanities.

> Consider the baseless gender assignment you made: pure humanities

That was absolutely economics on my part.

Not the most PC, but I took a chance.

A disproportionately high number of HN users identify as male. I also noted the users name was Roy, which I'd gander is also disproportionately highly male identifying.

The two combine to create a likelihood I'd bet the house on.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#148

Post by ebiester »

ars wrote: post #53
ebiester wrote: post #31

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…

* Consider Manhattan. Large portions of it are built around people instead of cars. Many people live there, and others take alternative means of transportation to get there. I was there a few weeks ago, and Lyft often was comparable in time to the subway.

* When public transport is relied on by enough people, it becomes reliable. When it is a first class citizen, it becomes reliable. Consider Istanbul, a city whose core cannot accomodate as many cars as people would like to drive. However, busses are a first class citizen and come regularly. In rush hour, they have a dedicated bus lane for the most important route on the European side and there is literally no wait. In off-peak times like 2am, the max wait is 10 minutes.

* That's fine, you don't prefer living in density. As such, you should pay for the privilege. You should pay for the extra infrastructure needed to maintain your lifestyle.

Anything less is fiscally irresponsible. In some places, that's fine. However, we are seeing towns and cities drowning under the debt of infrastructure maintenance. Ever heard your city's citizens complain about potholes? Almost every city has the problem because the city is maintaining too many large roads.

Now, we certainly need to maintain rural areas for many reasons, and perhaps that's the right living area for you. However, when you come to town, it won't be custom fit for your vehicle.

I should also clarify that removing off-street parking isn't the first step - it's much closer to the last step. First is open on-street parking. Then resident + metered parking. Then as density increases, adding more permanent transit on the right streets at the expense of those parking spots. Off-street parking is the last to go, but it goes strategically.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#149

Post by supplied_demand »

jimmaswell wrote: post #124
supplied_demand wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ass…

>Certainly less than waiting for public transit or an uber to arrive.

I can track train, bus or Uber/Lyft arrival on my phone.

>To me it's worth it.

You made that clear. For the rest of society, higher rents, heat capture and poor rainwater drainage make parking lots a net negative.

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

I see plenty of disabled people on public transit and using sidewalks in my city. I'm not sure what cities your experience comes from, but my experience is different. I also don't see many obese people on public transit, but I do when walking around suburban malls.

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

Transportation (cars and trucks) is the biggest contributor to CO2 emissions in the US as of the past two years. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/11/1687469...

>Along with almost everything? Buy a used car if you're so concerned about your "asset" depreciating.

Except education, real estate, stocks and other large purchases people make. I actually can't think of something other than cars that people routinely pay over $10k (in December, the average new car in US sold for $36,495) for and expect it to decline in value immediately. Used cars are as much a depreciating asset as new ones. Typically the more used a car is, the more you will pay for upkeep.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#150

Post by rsynnott »

jimmaswell wrote: post #37
crispyambulance wrote: post #15

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…

> Malls are nice and cars are a better experience than transit/walking in every facet besides the fact of not being able to web browse on a phone while doing it.

This seems extremely subjective. I don't like malls very much, and won't set foot in one without good reason. I enjoy walking, and have no problem with public transport. I'd really have no interest in living somewhere where I couldn't either walk to work or take a short train/tram. Different people like different things.

Post reply on HN