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

181–190 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#181

Post by harrumph »

donatj wrote: post #147
harrumph wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>That was absolutely economics on my part.

The content of your explanation after the fact does use quantification, but the personalization you originally wrote is pure humanities.

Further, the story you've told about what care went into your six-word comment: also pure humanities.

And let's not overlook the other humanities-based flaw in your six allegedly deeply considered words: if "everything is economics" then why is economics the study of the world using models? By their definition, models fail at being "everything" they model.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#182

Post by jimmaswell »

crispyambulance wrote: post #74
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…

> Too much density decreases the quality of life. Too much of anything decreases quality of life. Everyone has their own taste, but generally speaking, if every journey out of your home has to begin and end with a parking space because you live in a pedestrian-hostile environment, that will certainly damage quality of life and the social fabric of that place as a "town".

What do you mean by the social fabric of the town? It doesn't sound like something I'd care much about. I just go to work and sometimes the grocery store, maybe a restaurant once in a while.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#183

Post by bhewes »

lakechfoma wrote: post #86
bhewes wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Woodlands, TX is the closest thing in the US. 2,500 people/sqmi 100k town outside of Houston. Started in 1974. At least as far as large scale current corporate city developments.

I was there recently, I don't think it hits the mark. Way too corporate, too expensive, something about it is fake or trying too hard or something. It's also just a few islands of walkable spots interspersed with 4 lane divided roads. I felt like it was Exxon trying to impress business travelers, not something we can really replicate everywhere.

I agree. Exxon came late to the game think more Chevron and Anadarko. And the city is straight out of the 1970's Texas developer thought process. And yeah it is a new money striver town. I know one person who built a 14k sqft house only to build later the largest house in the Woodlands at something like 30k sqft. Then the weird lake front new urbanism project. Where you can live in a high rise.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#184

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #139
rayiner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economics is to urban planning like structural mechanics is to architecture. It's a way of describing a justification ("we need a beam to hold up the floor, and the math shows why") not a justification in and of itself. It's also a way of bridging differences in subjective preferences "whether we have a post or a cantilever, we need to hold up this awning, and the math shows why"). Most Americans don't live in cities…

When you say "don't live in cities", you mean "live outside of city centers", right? Because the overwhelming majority of Americans live in major metro areas.

Not just outside the city center, but outside the legal limits of the cities at the center of those metro areas.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#185

Post by crispyambulance »

jimmaswell wrote: post #182
crispyambulance wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Too much density decreases the quality of life. Too much of anything decreases quality of life. Everyone has their own taste, but generally speaking, if every journey out of your home has to begin and end with a parking space because you live in a pedestrian-hostile environment, that will certainly damage quality of life and the social fabric of that place as a "town".

What do you mean by the social fabric of the town? It doesn't sound like something I'd care much about. I just go to work and sometimes the grocery store, maybe a restaurant once in a while.

    > It doesn't sound like something I'd care much about.
That's OK. It's a free country you can live where and how you want.

But recognize that many, especially increasing numbers of millennials, feel differently and this is now reshaping the demographics of cities.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#186

Post by ecshafer »

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…

Los Angeles has extremely strict parking requirements, and green space requirements. People often have no choice but to build out due to expense. There was a fantastic write up on Reddit by an architect on the issue here https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/com...

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#187

Post by ryanianian »

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 are a couple pictures from the article that are in Hoboken, NJ. (My home-town although the article doesn't call it out.). The city is consistently rated among the most walkable cities in the US. It's right across the river from NYC but feels even more walkable than NYC.

This said, the only reason why Hoboken and many other walkable cities can get public-support for being so walkable (and encouraging city planning as such) is the ample public-transit options.

This leads to no need for having a car which leads to most people not having one which leads to most people preferring walkable versus drivable. It's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#188

Post by ams6110 »

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…

> multi-use paths that are used extensively

Is that really true?

I live in a smaller version of Boulder. University town, we have a walkable downtown, trails and paths, and yes you see people using them. But the reality is that it's a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who live here. Same with buses. There are a few routes that service big apartment complexes and go too and from campus. Those get used. The others drive around empty, or with a few people on them.

There is a ton of money being spent on this kind of feel-good-ism, for the benefit of (relatively) very few people.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#189

Post by zpallin »

CPLX wrote: post #175
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.

Even better, look at Hong Kong. Almost every single high rise has a mall at the bottom with a dim sum restaurant.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#190

Post by cortesoft »

jstanley wrote: post #145
cortesoft wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People don't make decisions in a vacuum. I don't get to choose where I want to live based solely on what I enjoy. A big part of what keeps people in a city is the network effect; cities are where the jobs are, so the people have to live there, which makes companies want to move to where the employees are, which makes people live there.....

Plus, you have families, cost of moving, home ownership, etc, that keeps you in a place even if you might enjoy living somehwere else more.

Post reply on HN