Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive • Hacker News Board

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#151

Post by Eridrus » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:46 PM UTC

del82 wrote: post #19

reaperducer wrote: post #3

This is something that certain cities have understood for many years. Chicago, for example, mandates that all new development from a simple three-story building to a 100-story skyscraper has retail at its base to improve the walkability of its streets and make its business corridors vibrant. This also helps push down retail rents even in the CBD, allowing local upstart businesses a shot at reaching the masses. Chicag…

Interestingly, Strong Towns published an article a bit more than a week ago about why mandating ground-floor retail is also not the best way to go: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/8/mixed-up-priori...

I also found this article really interesting: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/27/the-paradox-o...

I'd heard this argument before that places are kept vacant to justify loans, but no-one had mentioned the key point that these buildings are financed with 3-5 year loans that need to be constantly refreshed, which makes the charade make more sense.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#152

Post by wonder_er » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:47 PM UTC

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…

If you advocate for this kind of city to be built, despite not actually wanting to live there yourself, then all the people in your city who want this kind of city will move there, leaving more space for you.

The US has a shocking amount of uniformity in it's building styles, because most people don't want to live in the dense environment that is advocated in the article.

I wish the people that didn't want to live in this kind of environment wouldn't simultaneously oppose it. Let it be built, let people move there who want to move there.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#153

Post by rsynnott » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:49 PM UTC

itaris wrote: post #6

_m8fo wrote: post #5

I've often wondered why somone moderately wealthy doesn't just start a super dense town, e.g. everything within 100 acres, and be within 10 miles of a major city. Create tons of these at a 50K people/sqmi density and implement some sort of hub spoke transportation with the major city being the hub and it could work!

Interesting, what would incentivize people to live there, as opposed to the city?

Presumably it would be cheaper.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#154

Post by rsynnott » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:50 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #57

_m8fo wrote: post #5

I've often wondered why somone moderately wealthy doesn't just start a super dense town, e.g. everything within 100 acres, and be within 10 miles of a major city. Create tons of these at a 50K people/sqmi density and implement some sort of hub spoke transportation with the major city being the hub and it could work!

> 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?

The largest concentrations of wealthy people in the world are in large high density "world cities" (New York etc).

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#155

Post by singron » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:50 PM UTC

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…

Self-driving cars can significantly reduce the need for parking space, which in itself is not great for the environment and causes many transit distances to be longer.

I think it's possible that self driving cars could increase total driving like you explain, but i think it's also possible that they will drive down car ownership. Once you pay primarily based on usage (parking, insurance, depreciation are mostly fixed costs), you are more likely to drive sparingly.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#156

Post by ForRealsies » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:51 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #103

jdavis703 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the cities citizens. Northern European cities such as Copenhagen are pretty quiet, despite their high density.

The problem is the cities citizens. Northern European cities such as Copenhagen are pretty quiet, despite their high density. A lot of the character of a city does come from how its citizens imagine it's supposed to be. In the nicer parts of Stuttgart in 2000: Never once even the smell of garbage.

Bingo, it is all about culture and identity (Japan). Often used argument arguing against immigration.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#157

Post by criddell » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:51 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #3

This is something that certain cities have understood for many years. Chicago, for example, mandates that all new development from a simple three-story building to a 100-story skyscraper has retail at its base to improve the walkability of its streets and make its business corridors vibrant. This also helps push down retail rents even in the CBD, allowing local upstart businesses a shot at reaching the masses. Chicag…

A developer friend told me that one of his biggest problems are accounting related. I probably have this wrong, but I think he was saying that if he has commercial tenants, everything can be depreciated over 20 years. If the building is residential, then the depreciation schedule is 30 years. When you have a building that contains a mix of the two, it gets complicated.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#158

Post by thousandautumns » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:53 PM UTC

oftenwrong wrote: post #8

jnordwick wrote: post #2

> Streetscape enhancements add value to an area and are associated with higher rents and the attraction of new businesses. In addition there is good evidence to show that improving walking and cycling environments raises private property values by significant amounts. Nobody doubts this. Actually everybody sees this as the problem. I love NYC, but i also hate it. There is a price for density: crime, trash, prices, ov…

Density doesn't necessarily lead to those things. For example, Tokyo is very dense, but has a low level of crime, and is quite clean. Poverty is found in urban, suburban and rural areas. This same site has a good series of articles on suburban poverty: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/12/6/best-of-2016-s...

Japan as a country is a bit of an outlier when it comes to crime compared to much of the rest of the world, and not just in cities but in towns and rural areas. I think using Tokyo as an example but ignoring the increased levels of crime in urban areas just about everywhere else in the world doesn't make much sense.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#159

Post by maxxxxx » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:53 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #88

weisser wrote: post #83

I live in Boulder and attribute much of the quality of life here to walkable (and bikeable) streets. We have hundreds of miles of multi-use paths that are used extensively for getting around and for recreation. Our main road downtown has a pedestrian mall for a number of blocks that keeps traffic away and lends itself to street performers, community events, and a generally calming atmosphere. Downtown parking lots ar…

Boulder's a great place in many ways, but it's also what got me really interested in urbanism, and getting involved at a local level, because it is an abject failure in terms of being affordable to even middle-class people who didn't buy in 30 years ago, with average house prices somewhere around 700K or north of that. This is, in part, because they refuse to add denser areas like the downtown in more parts of the ci…

The prices would level out if other towns would also work on becoming more attractive. It seems Americans are conditioned to build towns that are mainly used to drive through and not live there.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#160

Post by jimmaswell » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:54 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #129

jimmaswell wrote: post #37

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…

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…

You're oversimplifying the economics, elevating one aspect of it above all other considerations. Cost of living doesn't prove that people "want" to live in these areas. What about taxes? Different strictness of regulations? Parking fees? Some may want to, but how many are a captive audience due to their field of work? How many simply have family ties? How many can't afford to take the steps to move out because they're living paycheck to paycheck?