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

Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 308 posts

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

#181

Post by kspacewalk2 »

short12 wrote: post #168
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Healthy enough not to use cars" - man, that's a good one. I'll remember it next time my half-senile father in law has no other choice but to drive somewhere because there's no way around his car dependent neighbourhood - oh wait, that's every day.

If he is senile he should not be driving anywhere

The city around him is only built for driving, doubly so his completely car-dependent neighbourhood. He'll be doing this until he either cannot possibly pull it off, or gets in a serious accident. This is a fact of life for millions of seniors in North America, and saying "oh no they shouldn't" won't change squat.

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

#182

Post by dymk »

BrianHenryIE wrote: post #150
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.

Wrong. I tried to find the tweet, but it was succinctly put ~"it's said people in Los Angeles love their cars, but people in LA have no choice but to own a car, it's not love, it is necessity". In every city that has made a concerted effort to accommodate all modes of transport, driving as a percentage has gone down. "build it and they will come" is better suited to transport than it ever was to SaaS. It is easy to c…

“It’s said that” is not the same as “polls show” and then linking to a source

LA is also cherry picked to be one of the worst places for cars. It’s legendary for its traffic.

Writing in from the PNW where I wouldn’t trade my car, and the freedom it gives me and my friends and my dogs to travel, for anything.

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

#183

Post by JadeNB »

ironmagma wrote: post #96
theamk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, the article specifically addresses your point: > consider college campuses and their central quads, which typically do not have automobiles even today. The ones people admire are the older ones, not the newer campuses, which tend to be functional but aesthetically mediocre

Not just with campuses, but cities too. We generally need to import good aesthetics from the past, which should be a sign that the current system is broken. Good things should be possible to create in the present.

> Not just with campuses, but cities too. We generally need to import good aesthetics from the past, which should be a sign that the current system is broken. Good things should be possible to create in the present.

I suspect that there is considerable survivor bias going into that. There were plenty of bad aesthetic choices in the past, too; we just recognise and remember the good ones.

Similarly, there surely are good aesthetic choices being made today—it's just that, as in any age, there are many more bad ones, and those are the ones that are easier to call to mind. A lot of good modern aesthetic choices borrow from the past, but that, too, is true of any age; the choices of the past we admire were not born ab novo, but were themselves inspired by still older design.

This is not to make the ridiculous claim that nothing is changing, only that "we look to the past for cues to good design" is not in and of itself an indictment of some fallen modern age.

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

#184

Post by elynde »

Ensorceled wrote: post #98

I live in a wonderful neighbourhood that was developed in the early 1900s in an old factory converted to lofts. The workers lived around the area, the GM home was across the street. Similar factories, all lofts now, randomly dot the neighbourhood. Our "main" street is half a kilometre away and has shopping, bookstores, restaurants. All small businesses. Several transit routes run by the edges of the neighbourhood. Ev…

Wow sounds nice. Where is this?

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

#185

Post by jltsiren »

throwawaysea wrote: post #110
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 often see urbanists and young people fantasize about life in car free mega cities. Having lived that life for years I can’t imagine why. A lot of cities that are beautiful and attractive also have room for cars. I would even argue it is a big part of what makes those cities attractive. There’s no substitute for the point to point on demand fast transportation that cars offer. In cities that aren’t overbuilt, it mak…

Most of the complaints against density are really against medium-density cities. Those combine the worst of both worlds. They don't have enough room for cars if most people drive, but far too many people have to drive because there are not enough people to support decent public transport on most routes. Once population density starts approaching something like 10k / square km (25k / square mile) over large enough areas, urban life becomes much more attractive.

I've never been to Seattle, but it looks like a medium-density city on the map.

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

#186

Post by advael »

0x0nyandesu wrote: post #139
yeetaccount wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you consider "disposable income"?

Car insurance is legally mandatory if you drive a car. If your income is predicated on being able to commute by car (as it is for many Americans, though hopefully a trend toward remote work will ameliorate this somewhat) then your insurance is no more optional than your gas.

People also talk about smartphones as though they're a luxury item, but for most intents and purposes owning one can be viewed as required. Tons of services, including your bank, require a cell phone for authentication, if not to use their services at all. Everyone from your boss to your spouse has an expectation that you can be reached most if not all of the time. I try to avoid being reachable at all times, but this is a luxury I can afford because I'm relatively well-off and technologically adept, and I still can't get around 2FA requirements for everything.

So like, if that stuff is bought with "disposable income", is rent?

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

#187

Post by r_klancer »

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/ .

It's interesting to note that Hacker News really loves Strong Towns.

I chatted with Chuck Marohn (founder and face of Strong Towns) once at an event a couple years ago, and they're quite aware that they get a lot of traffic from HN.

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

#188

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#189

Post by beowulfey »

Seems a lot of these comments are thinking “nice” refers to the livable sense, but the article is specifically referencing aesthetics. And then makes the argument that modern neighborhoods don’t look pleasing because there is no consistency between neighboring houses.

I don’t buy this at all. There are many tracts of suburban (USA) houses where every house looks consistent and similar, with subtle differences in coloration being the main changes. And they do NOT look aesthetically pleasing.

I have a different theory. Go look at an old building and note the intricate details on trim, along windowsills, above doors, under roofs. Look at old bridges, lampposts, street signs or skyscrapers.

Humans used to build things with passion, and the builder’s pride shows in the result. Even low cost buildings like brownstones in the cities have these details; they give the buildings personality.

My theory is modern construction, since it is often prefab or cookie cutter parts, lacks these human touches, and we subconsciously sense it when we think they don’t look “nice”.

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

#190

Post by ninjin »

0x0nyandesu wrote: post #136
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…

I am not an expert on the subject, but I do not think that the explanation for most of what you see in Japan is explained by “good policing”. There was an excellent article on policing in Japan a few years back that I sadly can not remember the outlet of, but I very much remember a sentence that resonated with my experience in Japan which was along the lines of: “It is not because of the quality of its policing, but rather despite its quality of policing that Japan’s low level of crime is notable”.

Do not get me wrong here, I do think the many police boxes and the fact that you can greet and recognise the face of your local officers on your way home after work at night helps to form a sense of community. But my suspicion is that the truth lies more in the fact that Japan has a culture where people “police” themselves to an almost ridiculous degree in terms of all forms of behaviour. There are of course massive downsides to this kind of social pressure (especially on the level of individuals), but that would be a subject deserving an article in its own right.

Post reply on HN