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

171–180 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#171

Post by baby »

wonder_er wrote: post #141
xvedejas wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

The only city I've been in the US that made me think "wow, that's kind of walkable" was Boston. Are there any other dense cities I should visit?

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#172

Post by vinceguidry »

powvans wrote: post #125
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Still, you can't put a price on having a grocery store, train station, liquor store, neighborhood bar, and cheap Mediterranean restaurant all within a 5 minute walk. Whoever you're paying money to did just that.

And they should think about a hefty rent hike when it's time to sign the next lease. From the GP's comment it sounds like they left money on the table.

With all the new construction going on in this part of the city, I'd be really surprised if rents stay at this level over the near run.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#173

Post by [deleted] »

maxxxxx wrote: post #159
davidw wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#174

Post by ghaff »

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?

In many cases, it's because they don't want to have to commute in from Westchester every day although certainly some like to live in the city for the cultural opportunities and other aspects of a major urban lifestyle. Of course, no small number of the wealthiest also have a weekend place out in the Hamptons or wherever so they can escape the city. (Which I can certainly empathize with based on the summer I lived in Manhattan.)

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#175

Post by CPLX »

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…

New York City is the archetypal example of this kind of policy.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#176

Post by samsolomon »

baby wrote: post #169
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…

> This is something that certain cities have understood for many years. Chicago There is a big contradiction here, I haven't really seen walkable streets in Chicago (lived there for a year and a half). When I think of an American city with walkable streets I think of Boston for example.

I'd be curious to hear why you say that. What makes Boston more walkable than Chicago?

I lived there for about six months, that was the first time I realized it was possible—even preferable—to live in a city without a car.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#177

Post by wonder_er »

baby wrote: post #171
wonder_er wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mo…

The only city I've been in the US that made me think "wow, that's kind of walkable" was Boston. Are there any other dense cities I should visit?

There's lots of old, walkable downtowns in the midwest that have a feeling of appropriate density.

Most of them are part of old cities that are past their prime in economic vitality, so those areas don't have the same liveliness as what you might get in downtown Boston. (I used to work for a company based there, and would spend hours walking around at night.)

I'd recommend Pittsburgh for walkability, too. It's one of the most delightful cities I've wandered around recently.

Unfortunately, even Boston, Pittsburgh, NYC, and the lesser-known but walkable/dense areas are pretty unappealing when compared to some cities in south/central america and Europe, that were built before cars took over everything.

I suspect once a few large cities go bankrupt and cannot enforce their zoning regulations, new construction will move in the direction of rational density again.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#178

Post by jimmywanger »

emodendroket wrote: post #39
jimmywanger wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a price for density: crime, trash, prices, overcrowding, urban decay, poverty and homelessness, etc. Density without strict oversight, perhaps. Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore seem to be counterexamples.

Wow, so all we have to do is accept totalitarian rule? Where do I sign?

Would you rather live in Singapore or El Salvador? Especially if you have a family that depends on you.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#179

Post by jimmaswell »

matwood wrote: post #111
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…

> cars are a better experience than transit/walking in every facet I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. There are plusses and minuses to both. IMO, the big plus with a car is freedom, but then there are many negatives like parking, traffic, and speed to destination. If I ever move again, it will be to a location where I do not have to own a car. I hate everything about driving, and realized it's a huge sourc…

Parking, traffic, and speed to destination depend on where you live and your specific situation, but for a lot of people, speed to destination is always faster in a car, including parking. My commute is only 5 minutes by car and it would take a lot longer on transit.

Subjectively, I prefer being in my own space with personal temperature controls and music, and a bit of traffic would be worth it. Compared to transit, where it's often crowded, you have to look out for your stop coming up, the seats aren't generally as good, the ambient temperature is liable to be uncomfortable, etc. I've also found that I just like driving lately.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#180

Post by rayiner »

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…

Chicago was built densely, and it's flat Illinois land as far as the eye can see for 180 degrees. Zoning codes force people to build more densely than they otherwise would. The average lot size in my neighborhood (laid out before zoning codes) is 2,800 square feet. The minimum lot size in the county today is 15,000 square feet (five times less dense).
Post reply on HN